Freedom of Speech

The Solution to Bad Speech Is More Speech

|

Two protesters at Occupy Wall Street:

Susannah Black

[Via Susannah Black.]

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.

404 responses to “The Solution to Bad Speech Is More Speech

  1. skinhead at fascist rally with straight-line “SS” and half-a-swastika twisted “L” in “ASSHOLE” sign = grammar Nazi mad about a colon

    1. Are libertarians for or against the State?

      A non-contradictory answer may help educate people.

      1. Do libertarians have any answers?
        No.

        Do libertarians have a chance?
        No.

        What is libertarianism?
        No telling.

        LOL

      2. Chad, you may be pithier now, but you are still a major retard.

        1. It’s a simple question. Why are you being so obtuse, chris?

          1. Still waiting on you to cite your claims liar.

          2. You remind me of mold.

          3. We are for the anti-staters!
            Also deep-dish pizza. And microbrews!
            Whooooo!

      3. Are libertarians for or against the State?
        —————–
        talk about an epic straw man alert. This is not an either/or question.

      4. Nice try, White Indian, but we’re not buyin’ your bullshit.

      5. What do you mean “we”, white man?

    2. I would assume he’s upset by the anti-semetic sign and you might be the asshole upset by the colon.

    3. ??? You are a moron.

  2. The marriage of the extreme left and extreme right is a boring story. I explored it in North Idaho in the 1990s. What’s interesting with these protests is the marriage of rational anger on both sides, i.e. Ron Paulians and thinking liberals, who have a lot in common in the maelstrom of horrific economic policy perpetrated by Obama.

    1. What do we want? Free Shit! When do we get it? At our earliest convenience between 11AM and 3PM!

      HELL NO, WE WONT GO (TO WORK)!

      1. http://www.whywork.org/

        No one should ever work.

        Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.

        The Abolition of Work
        by Bob Black
        http://www.whywork.org/rethink…..ition.html

        1. My minimum definition of work is forced labor, that is, compulsory production. Both elements are essential. Work is production enforced by economic or political means, by the carrot or the stick.

          Work is the application of a force through a distance, as in pushing your fragile fingers onto the lettered buttons on your keyboard.

          1. Or raising them in the air and wiggling them.

        2. Funny that you blather about principles after being proven a liar.

          You never posted the conversation where you were told what you claimed.

          Because you know it never happened and you are a liar.

        3. This site is primarily about ideas and encouragement, so our focus is more philosophical than practical.

          As it must be, since not working is incredibly impractical.

        4. Re: White Imbecile,

          No one should ever work.

          Sure – digging for the few roots to eat… trying to catch slippery fish…. That ain’t “work” in your beloved “original affluent society.”

          But you would still cry like a little wussy girl that you are, fat-ass, at the sight of your fingernails breaking, White Imbecile.

          1. OLD MEXICAN WRONG. STEVE SMITH NOT NEED WORK. STEVE SMITH JUST NEED ACORNS, SQUIRRELS, AND RAPE.

        5. You know there is a word for your philosophy: Apathy.

        6. “No one should ever work.

          Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.”

          I have never disagreed with something so much.

          Should read:

          Everyone should work.

          Work is the source of nearly all the joy/prosperity in the world. Almost any benefit you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to encourage work.

      2. *wiggles fingers*

  3. You got that all wrong. The solution to bad speech is either no speech or only the right kind (“just”) of speech.

    Silly libertarians. Will they never learn?

  4. Ha ha.

    Zionists DO control Wall Street. Why do you free-market fundamentalists have such an aversion to the truth?

    Ha ha.

    1. Retard troll is retarded and racist. Big surprise.

      1. The racists never seem to figure out that even if somebody DOES control Wall Street – they can only do so with succor from the government.

        1. The Jews are like any other successful minority–disproportionately represented in certain fields. That’s where the “successful” in “successful minority” comes in. They’re still a minority.

          I had a Jewish roommate in law school who used to say that if Jews were running the world, how come he was never invited to any of the meetings?

          1. That’s what we say at my Masonic Lodge, too.

            WEIRD!

            1. My grandfather was a Mason. I’m pretty sure he was involved in running the world.

              1. My father was both a Freemason and a Jew.

                And it never got him anywhere.

                1. Is that even possible?

                  I thought you had to be a true Scotsmen or something.

            2. just don’t piss of the Italians… or the Irish… or the Poles… or the Germans… or the Dutch…

              the Spanish? Bah!

          2. Maybe he was just a schmendrick, and they didn’t want him there?

            1. More of a schlameel. Nobody likes them.

            2. I told him it was because he was a Sephardic Jew. Everybody knows that the Ashkenazis call the shots.

              Successful world-running groups generally don’t get slaughtered, rounded up into ghettos, or otherwise on the verge of suffering quite as often. Don’t see that crap happen to Masons, now do you?

              1. Everybody knows that the Ashkenazis call the shots.

                It’s because of the genetic syndrome associated with that heredity. It can be a ticking time bomb and they have to get as much done as possible in shortest amount of time.

                1. No. It’s all about the Neanderthal. Jews who are just pure Semites don’t have much Neanderthal. Those with German blood have more Neanderthal. Therefore, German and Eastern European Jews are superior to those with mere Cro Mag ancestry.

                  1. Speciesist.

                    1. I’m just proud of my Homo sapiens neanderthalensis heritage and enjoying my newly found oppressed-minority status.

                    2. PL: if I’m not mistaken, you’re free to build a casino… as long as it’s in a cave

                  2. No, it is the skin. Light skinned Jews are smarter than dark skinned Jews. It is in the scriptures.

                2. Everybody knows that the Ashkenazis call the shots.

                  from wikipedia

                  Although in the 11th century, they composed only three percent of the world’s Jewish population, at their peak in 1931, Ashkenazi Jews accounted for 92 percent of the world’s Jews. Today they make up approximately 80 percent of Jews worldwide.

                  So the majority of that minority then?

          3. I get monthly checks from the Elders of Zion.

          4. And, if the Jews are running the world, they’ve been doing a pretty bad job for the last 100 years or so.

            On a related thread, there’s some good scholarship out there that argues one of the reasons Jews came to dominate commerce & banking is because anti-Semitism precluded them from many other occupations.

            1. What about the entertainment industry?

              1. Don’t have an answer for that, sorry. It’s a more recent development & my knowledge is more pre-1850 stuff.

              2. I have no son!

              3. You’ve seen the Transformers films?

            2. That’s absolutely true, as was the fact that Christians couldn’t be involved in usury.

              1. Too bad Gentiles couldn’t come up with compounded interest, or else they would’ve. Meh.

                1. Given the importance of credit to markets, the prohibitions on usury were insane. We still have some remnants of that kind of thinking in state usury laws, too.

                  Of course, lending for interest had been around a long time in the West before the Church decided to kill it.

                  1. Yet, the art of pawn, the oldest form of banking, still lives on.

              2. I had always heard that was the main reason.

            3. Until a century ago, 90% of people were farmers. Until a century and a half ago, almost all countries prohibited Jews from farming. So, Jews are disproportionally represented in the non-agricultural sector. Jews were also excluded from most guilds. Even in Israel today, the vast majority of farms are owned by Muslims and Christians, and most of the Jews stay in the urbanized central region.

            4. Another factor is college. Half of military age American Jewish men fought in WWII at the time. After that, colleges opened up to Jews and the GI bill funded college degrees. That jump started a trend towards more college education with each generation of Jews.

              According to the 2000-01 NJPS, 80 percent of 18-29-year-olds who
              are not currently in high school have attended college. The percentage of Jews who have received a four-year college degree has increased from nearly 40 percent to 60 percent over the past three decades.

              http://www.jewishdatabank.org/….._Today.pdf

            5. That would be Steven Pinker. He’s on on Youtube!

            6. they’ve been doing a pretty bad job for the last 100 years or so.

              Really?

              In 1146 they had better iPhones…and you know even less black plague and small pox?

          5. One would also think that if they are running the world they wouldn’t give up 1000 Palestinian nutbag prisoners for one of their captured IDF soldiers.

            I still don’t get that one.

            1. Maybe the soldier was one of these
              http://plancksconstant.org/blo…..babe-7.jpg

              1. 2nd from right had to go and make duck lips. It’s a worldwide disease.

                1. 2nd from right had to go and make duck lips

                  I don’t think she’s making duck lips, I think she has very full natural lips.

              2. Front and Center!

                1. Front and Center!

                  Yep. Far right is very nice too.

              3. Okay. I’ll “jump on the grenade” for the rest of the H&R commentors. I’ll take the big gal, second from the left. But the rest of you guys better get laid!

            2. Why is 1 Israeli soldier worth 1,000 Gazan terrorists? Ask Hamas, they calculated the exchange rate.

            3. I’d tell ’em “Fuck, no… ONE prisoner for ONE prisoner”.

              Why the fuck does the Israeli government not get the concept of ratios?

        2. Are you saying AIPAC doesn’t control the foreign policy of the US?

          1. Are you saying the British government doesn’t?

            Hell and the lymes don’t even have a donating lobby.

    2. Orel Hazard|10.12.11 @ 6:48PM|#
      “Zionists DO control Wall Street.”

      Hey, Oral Horseshit, tell us about the “Protocols…”
      Ha ha.

      1. I’d read The Safety Protocols of the Elders of Zionist Metal-Shop Management”, if I could find a copy.

    3. It’s those damned Ashkenazi Jews and their high IQs. Spread the wealth and spread the IQs. Spread the sexy women around, spread the janitor tasks around. Spread it all around with a big fat butter knife.

      1. Please say “spread” again.

      2. Spread the sexy women around
        I think that’s how monogamy became the law. Leaders included wives as wealth that had to be equally distributed.

        1. I understand that monogamy had more to with a father’s desire to pass his genes onward. If the father had some certainty regarding which child was his, he would put more effort and take more risks into going out and killing something for the baby and mother to eat.

          1. That doesn’t rule out polygyny.

          2. yogi,

            Yes, that’s the evolutionary reason for monogamy.

            I was commenting on the historical reason for monogamy in Western society. If I recall my history correctly, Western society outlawed polygyny, because leaders thought it was unfair for one man to have many wives while most men had only one wife.

          3. I understand that monogamy had more to with a father’s desire to pass his genes onward.

            I think it had to do with the mother’s desire to have ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE FATHER’S ENTIRE FUCKING LIFE!!!

    4. The only good minority is a poor, unsuccessful and dependent minority.

      Where the hell else will libtards get their reason to live, if not minorities that need help from the almighty and morally superior libtard.

      So fuck Jews for being successful.

      1. and that, friends and neighbors, is what makes Herman Cain anathema to the left, particularly warlords like Cornel West.

      2. and that, friends and neighbors, is what makes Herman Cain anathema to the left, particularly warlords like Cornel West.

        1. Fucker ain’t black! I’M black!

    5. Chart 1 reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.

      http://www.save-a-patriot.org/…..hofed.html

      1. Squeeze this Whipple…

    6. I’d like to join the Zionists, but I can’t find any contact info. Do they have a secret initiation ceremony? Cuz I’ve seen that bit where Kevin Bacon yells “THANK YOU, SIR! MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?”, like, a thousand times…

        1. That’s just the storefront version. I want to join the inner Zionist sanctum.

          You know, where the hot Jewish chicks are.

    7. Love your new email address, Orel 😉

      1. You would you fucking cunt.

  5. I’m more of the opinion that the solution to bad speech is to just fucking ignore them.

    All this could soon be over with some decent rain. Wet hippies smell REALLY REALLY bad.

    The stench alone should clear out the protests.

    1. Dry hippies don’t exactly smell fresh as daisies either. That’s a big part of why I stopped playing ultimate frisbee.

      1. You just have to get on the right Ultimate team. For instance, a team named “Die, Hippies, Die” is the type of team to try and get on.

    2. I’ve always been more of a point-and-laugh kind of a guy.

      1. This. I’ve always said that the proper response to Klan rallies is to go down and loudly mock their heritage and question their parents’ family tree.

        1. Are you able to certify the purity of YOUR blood, Steve? I only ask because your nose is kind of…wide.

  6. That guy must get a lot of mileage out of a sign like that at OWS.

    1. Just about anywhere you go, it’s got a >50% chance of being correct.

  7. I thought the goal of OWS was for these fine young college bucks to get laid? That seems to be the only consistent thread I see among their demands.

    Sir–yeah you, in the black sweatshirt, with the Zionists sign–I don’t think that sign’s going to get you a whole lot of action. Here, take this “End War, Hunger, and Corporate Greed” sign instead.

    1. Well, that, and they thought they would get free cake.

      1. Sweet.

        The cake, I mean.

        1. The cake is a lie.

          1. YOU BASTARDS!

          2. The free part is true though. They get free nothing.

        2. The cake is also cursed.

          1. What kind of icing goes with cursed cake? Cream cheese?

            1. Fat free cheese, the most accursed cheese of all.

              1. Worse than even Velveeta, the Cheese that Cannot Die?

                1. The Voice: It is the Broodwich. Forged in darkness from wheat harvested in Hell’s half-acre. Baked by Beelzebub. Slathered with mayonnaise from the evil eggs of dark chicken forces, beaten into sauce by the hands of a one-eyed madman. Cheese boiled from the rancid teat of a fanged cow. Layered with 666 separate meats from an animal, which has maggots for blood!

                  Frylock: See? Told ya.

                  Master Shake: [pause] I tasted mustard.

                  The Voice: …Yeah, Dijon mustard.

                  Master Shake: How come no bacon?

                  The Voice: Bacon is extra!

                  Master Shake: You call this a sandwich and you don’t even have bacon on it!

                  The Voice: There are no swine evil enough to be sacrificed upon a bed of evil! …And lettuce. Bed of evil and lettuce!

                  1. I was quoting from Doon: “So you know of The Cheese That Cannot Die.”

                    1. Is that like Harvard Lampoon’s Bored of the Rings? That was funny shit, yo.

                    2. Same thing, but with Dune.

                    3. Coolness. I gotta find a copy.

                      Paperback, by the way. I don’t do Kindle or other electronic book bullshit.

            2. Frogurt. But the frogurt is also cursed.

              1. Frogurt. But the frogurt is also cursed.

                But it comes with your choice of toppings.

      2. This is a comment snipped from http://www.straightdope.com/co…..m-eat-cake .

        I have no idea whether it’s valid or not, but I’ll go with it ’cause it makes the most sense.

        At the time that whoever-she-was uttered the infamous quotation “let them eat cake,” the word “cake” did not refer to the familiar dessert item that the modern-day French call le gateau. The operative term was brioche, a flour-and-water paste that was “caked” onto the interiors of the ovens and baking pans of the professional boulangers of the era. (The modern equivalent is the oil-and-flour mixture applied to non-Teflon cake pans.) At the end of the day, the baker would scrape the leavings from his pans and ovens and set them outside the door for the benefit of beggars and scavengers. Thus, the lady in question was simply giving practical, if somewhat flippant, advice to her poor subjects: If one cannot afford the bourgeois bread, he can avail himself of the poor man’s “cake.”

        I want your oven scrapings!

        1. In more recent news, Austrian bakers are disposing of bread at the end of the day, because they bake so much. The majority of left over bread is recycled into animal feed with those goods containing bacon and sausage being burnt in accordance with The Animals Materials Act.

          http://www.austriantimes.at/ne…..o_increase

          I wonder why they don’t just sell it as day old bread the next day.

      3. I like cake.

        1. mmm — ‘specially from the Easy-Bake Oven.

  8. It’s hard to blame Wall Street for what our politicians did–and then turn around expect people not to turn to such historically persistent stupidity.

    I think what bugs me most about the Occupy Wall Street is that it’s basically a hand-waving exercise from where I’m standing…

    If a guy robs me of my wallet at gunpoint, I don’t go after the store where he spent my money!

    I go after the guy who actually stole my money.

    Nobody on Wall Street has the power to help themselves to our future paychecks. Our elected politicians in both Congress and the White House–of their own free will–squandered our future paychecks. I just don’t blame Wall Street for what our politicians did.

    I blame our politicians for what our politicians did.

    1. Why…why….that’s just CRAZY talk, Ken!

      1. Ha ha.

        Go back to Mexico.

        Ha ha ha.

    2. They are even more backwards. What the OWS groups are saying is that government gave Wall St money because Wall St controls the government. They want to be the ones to control government and steal from Wall St.
      They want the free shit.

      1. “They want to be the ones to control government and steal from Wall St.”

        That’s the point. They’re not griping about crony capitalism; they’re griping that *they* aren’t the cronies.

        1. They’re not big enough to be too big to fail. Losers.

        2. Libertarians want to be the ones to control government. Right?

          1. Less govt = less control, capiche?

      2. “What the OWS groups are saying is that government gave Wall St money because Wall St controls the government.”

        I’m not saying the people behind that statement are objectively, forcefully, willfully being antisemitic.

        But that message is like a half a step away from every antisemitic conspiracy theory there’s ever been–goin’ back to the Middle Ages.

        I want to tell those people–it’s just banking guys! Politicians squandering our future paychecks on Wall Street doesn’t make Wall Street the problem.

        Politicians squandering our future paychecks on Wall Street makes politicians the problem.

        What we’re suffering from is failed public policy–starting with the Obama Administration’s reactions to the crisis. He’s been wrong every step of the way.

        Bailing the banks out didn’t stop the bank failures. Banks were still taken over by the FDIC by the boatload even after TARP. Taking over Freddie and Fannie and whatever they’re doing at the FHA these days? Didn’t do anything to stabilize the housing market. Heaping tons of regulation on the banking industry through Dodd Frank just made the banking industry even more sluggish, reluctant to lend. Persecuting the banking industry over executive compensation did absolutely nothing. Now they want to bring in the Volker rule–to stop the banks from taking more risks?

        Our economy is starving for the lack of risk taking on Wall Street! You don’t want to discourage banks from taking risks when we’re coming out of a recession!

        Risk taking behavior is an important part of economic growth…

        Anyway, yeah, the banks are controlling the government?! If that were the case, why do they keep getting run over by Congress?

        The problems we’re facing now because of Wall Street isn’t because Wall Street is running the government–it’s because the government is running Wall Street!

        Anybody who doesn’t understand why government overseers running Wall Street is a bad idea–should look at the Obama Administration’s recent success as lead investor in solar energy start ups!

        If they can’t do a good job with that? Why the hell would they be any good at deciding which risks are okay for Wall Street to get involved in? This is the same government that was going after Wall Street for not making enough loans to subprime borrowers before–just because they’re smarter about that one thing than they used to be doesn’t mean they aren’t still dumb.

        1. What we’re suffering from is failed public policy–starting with the Obama Administration’s reactions to the crisis.

          Because things were great until then.

          1. There’s no policy in the world that will stop fluctuations in the business cycle. The money supply, the fed, etc. can make things bigger or worse sometimes, but it isn’t just about U.S. fed policy either.

            The economic cycle isn’t avoidable–but you can make it a lot worse than it would be otherwise, and that’s what the Obama Administration’s policies have done.

            Regulating Wall Street certainly doesn’t do anything to encourage investment. If the price of homes needed to fall because of oversupply–squandering hundreds of billions of our future earnings? Hundreds of billions in what would have been consumer discretionary income? That didn’t do anything to keep prices from falling. That didn’t do anything good for the economy.

            That hurt the economy. Business owners look at all the deficit piling up and wonder how much DC is going to raise their taxes to cover it all. Meanwhile the risk takers on Wall Street are under assault for making loans?

            The Obama Administration drops bags of regulation on Wall Street–and then wonders why the economy hasn’t come back? Wall Street is the fuel in the engine that makes creative destruction go–not a problem for Barack Obama to put a stop to.

            Nobody can make the business cycle go away when it turns down. But he made it a whole lot worse than it needed to be. The Obama Administration doesn’t know the first thing about what makes economies grow. If you told him that encouraging investment (rather than discouraging risk taking) was part of the solution, he wouldn’t believe you.

            I remember when he went around telling people that ObamaCare was gonna make America more competitive and the economy better!

            He’s a moron.

            1. Ken Shultz|10.12.11 @ 8:09PM|#
              “There’s no policy in the world that will stop fluctuations in the business cycle.

              A little ammo for you:
              In one of Ambrose’ WWII histories, he writes of those who lived through “the false prosperity of the ’20s”.
              It was no more “false” than the ‘false privation of the ’30s’. It was a bubble, largely caused by the Fed, as much of the depression was caused by the Fed and others, but it wasn’t “false”.
              People got wealthy then as people got hungry later. The presumption that it’s “false” is based on the mistaken hope that we can once and for all ‘solve’ the economy.
              We can’t (who ever “we” might be), but as individuals, you can take steps to make sure you don’t get hammered when thing turn the other way.

    3. Yeah, but the guy who robbed you has a gun and promises to give you half of his take if you help him rob the store.

      1. Wall Street is always innocent, no matter the evidence, jtuf.

        This is libertarian lala land, dotcha know?

        1. Nobody said Wall Street was innocent.

          They make their bad bets with their own damn money–and they and their investors should lose their money.

          There’s no problem with that.

          When the economy tanks, a lot of investments go bad. There was no reason to squander the future discretionary income of working Americans on Wall Street. It wasn’t Wall Street that did that.

          It was Washington D.C.

          Here, take a look at the Right Wing Huffington Post–and see who they blamed gave the credit at the time for half of the $700 billion in TARP…

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..58292.html

          Get your head around this fact. The very first thing Barack Obama did when he got in office–according to the Huffington Post? Was take $350 billion out of working Americans’ future paychecks–and squander it on Wall Street.

          It wasn’t Wall Street that approved TARP. It was George W. Bush who spent half of it, and it was Barack Obama who spent the other half. It was our politicians–in both parties–in both parties.

          If unlike libertarians–you think politicians are the solution to our problems? Then did you punish your representatives in Washington by voting against them in the last congressional election?

          Or did you point your finger at the Tea Party and call them names like you were told to?

          1. you think politicians are the solution

            Negative, ghostrider.

            Ken, are you for or against the agricultural city-STATE (civilization?)

            Because I bet you think you think just the right politicians are the solution.

            So how’s that working for ya?

            1. Remember vermin + food = vermin shit

            2. “Because I bet you think you think just the right politicians are the solution.”

              I’ve gone on the record here many times as saying that I don’t think politicians are the solution to my or our problems.

              I think that if there’s any justification for the state at all? It’s there to protect our rights.

              Using the government to violate our rights is therefore the opposite of what government is for.

              I think that when the president squanders money out of our future paychecks on Wall Street. That’s a disgraceful use of government.

              I also prefer free markets to politicians because it means we get to represent ourselves.

              I want to make choices for myself rather than have my choices made for me by someone in Washington DC. I prefer personal autonomy and the protection of my individual rights to abdicating my freedom by way of representative democracy.

              So, no, I don’t think any politician is the solution to my problems–not even a libertarian politician.

              But for anybody out there who thinks the problem with America is that we don’t have the right politicians making our choices for us? My question is–did you vote against your representative when he or she voted to squander your future paychecks on Wall Street?

              Because if you didn’t? Then abandon all hope in your representatives. If you didn’t hold them accountable after they bent you over and screwed you, then how can the Democrats or the Republicans be the solution to our problems?

              1. “Because if you didn’t? Then abandon all hope in your representatives. If you didn’t hold them accountable after they bent you over and screwed you, then how can the Democrats or the Republicans be the solution to our problems?”

                As I’ve said here before, the real solution to our problems is something I don’t think any winning politician has ever said.

                The real cause of our problems is the American people. The way we think. The way we look to politicians to solve our problems for us. We’re the cause of most of our own problems, and we’re the solution too. Every politician who claims voting for them is the solution to our problems should not be trusted–and that’s pretty much all of them.

                1. Jesus Christ, stop talking to rectal, you idiots.

                  1. Fuck you Warty. Seriously, you don’t run the fucking site, so go fuck yourself.

                    Or get reasonable and ignore everyone who doesn’t do want you want, but stop pretending you get to run your dicksucker and call other people idiots for blowing off steam at a troll.

                    SERIOUSLY, fuck off and die.

                    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      Delicious.

                  2. No.

                    Any other tyrannical stupidity I can laugh at you about?

                    In the future, keep in mind no one cares what you think.

            3. “Because I bet you think you think just the right politicians are the solution.”

              And now you’ve lost that bet.

              1. Hmm… who else uses terms like “dicksucker”?

                I smell a White Indian.

    4. You blame the politicians but not those who bankroll them?

      As with everything, blame is only a small part of it. Capitalists can only be expected to try to maximize returns… so the question is what policies are necessary to prevent nontransparent (i.e., uncapitalistic) paper shuffling that hugely concentrates wealth and collapses the global economy.

  9. Reality is HARD! Send money! LOL!

    1. “The free market means that those without money to buy what they need do not have the right to live.”
      – John McMurtry

      1. “The free market means that individuals get to represent themselves and their interests–even when their interests conflict with the interests of politicians or their donors.”

        -Ken Shultz

        1. I’ve heard the priestcraft’s catechism of your religio-economic faith before, Ken.

          The members of the American economics profession, as [Thurman] Arnold contended, performed a vital practical role in maintaining this unique system of corporate socialism American style. It was their role to prevent the American public from achieving a correct understanding of the actual workings of the American economic system. Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of “laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals.” However false as a description of the actual U.S. economy, this vision in the mind of the American public was in practice “transferred automatically to industrial organizations with nation-wide power and dictatorial forms of government.” Even though the arguments of economists were misleading and largely fictional, the practical ? and beneficial ? result of their deception was to throw a “mantle of protection ? over corporate government” from various forms of outside interference. Admittedly, as the economic “symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.” But as long as this arrangement worked and there could be maintained “the little pictures in the back of the head of the ordinary man,” the effect was salutary ? “the great [corporate] organization was secure in its freedom and independence.” It was this very freedom and independence of business professionals to pursue the correct scientific answer ? the efficient answer ? on which the economic progress of the United States depended.

          ? Robert H. Nelson, REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH

          Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.

          ? Robert H. Nelson, ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

          1. “Double truncated…”

            Which just proves you know your previous claim where you note the following “The quotes on reason go thus: “WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect property rights.” was a lie.

            You’ll notice your ORIGINAL claim was not truncated and not taken out of context. And you said “quotes” plural.

            So, you lied, got caught, and found the first quote which kinda looked like what you claimed, then forgot you said quotes plural which means you’re still lying even if the quote you took out of context and truncated wasn’t out of context and truncated.

            So, basically, your still a liar, and you only served to reinforce that.

      2. derp

  10. this is way better than friday funnies.

  11. Oh, the other thing we should keep in mind with this?

    If this really is a delayed leftist reaction to what happened on Wall Street–three years ago? We should remember that if it goes the way the Tea Party did? It’s not much of threat to Republicans on the right.

    Despite all the moaning and bellyaching and name-calling from the left directed at the Tea Party? The Tea Party wasn’t anywhere near as big a threat to the Democrats and the left as it was to the Bush Era Republicans on the right.

    Tea Party candidate after Tea Party candidate kept defeating Bush Era TARP Republicans in the primaries. The Tea Party is still a thorn in Boehner’s side. If these people are a threat to anybody–it isn’t Cain or Paul or Perry or that Mormon guy.

    It’s a threat to establishment Democrats and Obama. If they’re made up of legitimately dissatisfied people who lean Democrat, then that’s probably good news if we want to get rid of Obama.

    1. If you aren’t dissatisfied with the statist quo (stole that gem from an earlier thread), you aren’t paying attention.

      The problem with these idiots is that they don’t even remotely understand why the current situation is a problem.

      1. Yeah, pretty sure they’re oblivious to what exactly the status quo is.

        1. I find it particularly surprising given the fact that out-of-control government spending as the central problem with our economy right now was highlighted with an X-ray laser not very long ago.

        2. Adbusters aren’t the quickest gang on the uptake.

      2. The problem with these idiot libertarians is that they don’t even remotely understand why the current situation is a problem.

      3. the statist quo

        Are libertarians for or against the agricultural city-STATE (civilization?)

        1. Oh no, Pale Heathen. We are ALL FOR subsisting on tree bark and roots.

          1. statist

    2. “It’s a threat to establishment Democrats and Obama.”

      I don’t see it. Not one of the OWS gripes has been directed at Obama; it’s “Bush’s Fault”, or “Wall Street’s Fault”.
      Not a one seems to have a gripe about the government, besides the fact that others got the baksheesh.

      1. Oh, there’s some open dissatisfaction with Obama on the left.

        They think he’s a sell out–believe it or not.

        And the Tea Party’s greatest victories were in the primaries. This movement is still in its infancy. If it comes out as a leftist version of the Tea Party, these people will be voting against establishment Democrats for selling them out.

        They have a year to get some momentum going. They already have some organization structure to borrow courtesy of the unions. They’re just getting started.

        This may all peter out next week and come to nothing. But if it’s real grass roots stuff, and it’s momentum is on the left? Then it’s a bigger threat to establishment Democrats–just like the Tea Party was a bigger threat to establishment Bush Era Republicans.

        1. Ken Shultz|10.12.11 @ 7:38PM|#
          “Oh, there’s some open dissatisfaction with Obama on the left.
          They think he’s a sell out–believe it or not.”

          Ken, I live in SF; that gripe is on sandwich boards on many street corners.
          I guess it could spell trouble for Obama, but who in hell could run to the left of him?
          (outside of SF, Berkeley and, oh, Boston)

          1. Well, I guess this is just my bias, but it isn’t always about who they’ll vote for. If they’re dissatisfied with Obama, they don’t have to vote for his opponent.

            They can just stay home.

            And that’s just as good–per my bias. Obama supporters aren’t about to vote for a Republican. But if they’re really dissatisfied, they will stay home.

            They might turn out for Congressional races. Democrats might start jockeying for Occupy Wall Street support just like various Republicans did.

            It certainly makes more sense than the Democratic National Committee harnessing all this dissatisfaction–to support the sitting president?!

            I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. But that seems counter-intuitive to me.

            1. They might turn out for Congressional races. Democrats might start jockeying for Occupy Wall Street support just like various Republicans did [with the Tea Party].

              Fixed.

        2. Well, the issue there is that the dissatisfaction with Obama and establishment Dems wouldn’t be so profound as for them to consider a R a viable alternative (the one exception being Ron Paul, seriously, rank-and-file Republicans need to wake up and realize that Ron Paul actually could garner a significant chunk of this dissatisfied electorate, even if much of his philosophy regards these occupiers as idiots not victims, they’re too stupid to realize that). They’d almost undoubtedly vote for Obama vs. Cain/Romney/Perry/et. al. because they consider Obama the lesser evil.

          And it can be become problematic insofar as, to be perfectly honest, Obama as the statist quo is probably preferable to the idealized #OccupyEverythingThatsNotAPlaceOfWork crowd. The status quo, even if highly undesirable, is preferable to Bolshevik revolution.

          1. “The status quo, even if highly undesirable, is preferable to Bolshevik revolution.”

            I think Obama’s put the ixne on the Olshevik evolutionre–at least until after the next election.

            I think he started seeing the handwriting on the wall after the last congressional election. I think that was a decent read on his part–if he’d kept going the way he was going, he wouldn’t have had a chance to get reelected.

            1. But the point is, that if the #OccupyYourCollegeCampus crowd is anywhere near as successful in mobilizing at the ballot box during the primaries the way that the tea party was, we’ll end up with a congressional delegation that is considerably skewed to the Bernie Sanders worldview. I know it’s a devil’s dilemma, but if you have to chose between 200 Nancy Pelosis in Congress and 200 Bernie Sanders, would you prefer the 200 Bernie Sanders? Although I generally prefer him stylistically as a more honest and straightforward guy as opposed to the scummy, say-anything-to-get-elected type, I think I’d vastly prefer Pelosi governance to Sanders’ on most issues.

              1. I’m not sure that’s realistically worse than the entrenched establishment Democrats as they are now.

                I see the Democratic base right now as being even more of a credible threat for claiming to represent middle class Americans.

                The Democratic base is really government workers (state and federal), and unions. There’s a sprinkling of minorities in there, but I don’t see them as a problem. Let the left contend with a leftist version of Michelle Bachman.

                If Occupy Wall Street became a force and whittled away at that facade the unions and government employees have built for themselves, I’m not sure that would be such a bad thing.

                Regardless, I’m kinda tryin’ to talk about what’s really gonna happen whether it’s good or bad. And I think that IF Occupy Wall Street blew up big like the Tea Party did, it would be a bigger threat to establishment Democrats than it would be to Republicans. …whether that’s a good thing or not.

                1. Fair enough, although you’re admittedly more sanguine than I about #OccupyYourLocalFoodCo-op’s dissatisfaction with or potentially adverse consequences for organized labor and public employees. I rather think most of this crowd is screaming for taxation of WallSt, top 1%ers etc. in an effort to offer more Diversity Coordinator positions at the local community college for which a Ph.D. in Ethnic Womyn’s Studies would presumably be considered a qualification. And I think they largely regard unions as a means for fighting the entrenched bourgouise 1%ers than they realize that public employee unions weild significant and perverse power over the political process.

                  Ultimately, they’ll be co-opted as useful idiots for the organized left.

                  1. Honestly, I think one of the biggest things to keep in mind is that the Tea Party was, as a majority, older/retired people, and OWS is primarily younger folks.

                    There is a huge difference is the voting patterns of these two age groups, and I simply don’t see a protest as being a big enough motivator for these kids to go the polls. Voting is boring, camping in public spaces is, apparantly, fun.

                    The fogies will win at the polls.

        3. They’re only dissatisfied because Obama is too “right” for them.

      2. gripe about the government

        Are libertarians for or against the agricultural city-STATE (civilization?)

        1. “Are libertarians for or against the agricultural city-STATE (civilization?)”

          Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit.

          1. Remember, vermin ask simple questions too difficult for libertarians.

            LOL SEVO STATIST!

            1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit.

            2. That question is not only simple, its also meaningless to boot!

              1. its also meaningless

                To STATISTS.

        2. A query: Have you eaten anything today that you either hunted/killed/butchered yourself or gathered from the forest?

          1. Yep. Got a problem with that?

            1. I don’t believe you. Give us more details about your hunted and/or gathered meal today.

              1. Be sure to tell him that “hunting and gathering” at 7-Eleven doesn’t count.

                1. “Hunting an gathering” at the supermarket doesn’t count either.

            2. “Yep. Got a problem with that?”

              You’re a lair.

          2. I’m guessing he swallowed a tug-and-chug in the park earlier today. Does that count?

            1. Technically, yes.

            2. There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure…[It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate.

              ~Ayn Rand
              Argument from Intimidation
              http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexi…..ation.html

              1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit.

              2. Considering that the response was to a question as to whether libertarians opposed civilization itself by postulating that civilization arose from the city-state, and implying that without a state there can be no civilization, I think my response rather reasonable. I respond to idiocy with idiocy.

                If I must, even assuming that the institution of the city-state was a necessity for the development of civilization (a point with which I might disagree, but would be far too debatable to bother challenging for this purpose). It does not necessarily follow that removal of the State and the emergence of a stateless society would bring about the end of civilization. It merely shows that perhaps the State was a necessary precondition for civilization to develop, not that the State is a necessary precondition for the continued existence of an already developed civilization.

                If I must take down strawmen with logic, I shall. But I rather prefer to simply insult one’s sexual habits when they engage in fallacious and loaded debate.

                1. without a state there can be no civilization

                  The very definition of civilization is “agricultural city-State.”

                  Show me a civilization without a State. Ever.

                  1. “The very definition of civilization is ‘
                    agricultural city-State.'”

                    “Definition of CIVILIZATION
                    1
                    a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
                    2
                    : the process of becoming civilized
                    3
                    a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort
                    ? civ?i?li?za?tion?al adjective ”

                    So, were you lying or just ignorant?

                    1. The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or CITY-STATE.
                      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Civilization

                      Anthropologists define civilization primarily by 5 criteria:

                      ? Settlement of CITIES of 5,000 or more people.
                      ? Full-time labor specialization.
                      ? Concentration of surplus.
                      ? Class structure.
                      ? STATE-level political organization.

                      Q.E.D.

                    2. “Anthropologists define civilization ”

                      Interestingly, that has fuckall to do with me, which just proved you were lying.

                      “meaning city or CITY-STATE.”

                      LIE. CITY, not CITY-STATE.

                      Caught lying again.

                  2. If the google search is so easy, why are you lazily expecting ME TO DO IT FOR YOU?

                    Is that the kind of laziness your lifestyle engenders?

                    You made a claim, and have failed to support it. Primarily because you know you were lying.

                    Any chance you’re going to cite that made up quote that starts “we need government” that you’re pretending someone actually said by disingenuously putting quotation marks there?

                    If its orthodoxy you should have no problem CITING YOUR SOURCE AND QUOTING ACTUAL CONVERSATIONS.

                    So, care to try again to prove you’re not a liar? No out of context stupidity, the whole conversation please.

                    1. The quotes on reason go thus:

                      “WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect property rights.”

                    2. The quotes on reason go thus:

                      “WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect property rights.”

                      Prove it by posting them then liar.

                2. “Bypass Debate with Strawmen”

                  Says the imbecile who makes up quotes out of thin air and then pretends they were said by the people he’s getting shot down by.

                  1. makes up quotes out of thin air

                    Never, LIBERTARIAN LIAR.

                    “White Trash, nobody with a brain wants zero government. Just minimum government. There is no contradiction. We need government to protect private property,…”

                    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2562045

                    1. “We need government to protect private property, not seize and redistribute it.”

                      “WE NEED GOVERNMENT |10.12.11 @ 10:38PM|#

                      makes up quotes out of thin air

                      Never, LIBERTARIAN LIAR.”

                      Another lie, you truncate yet another quote and take it out of context, then pretend it means you’re not lying.

                      NO one here ever said we need government. A truncated quote proves you know you’re lying.

                    2. So what you’re saying is, you cannot produce a quote that is not chopped up, and is not taken out of context and misrepresented.

                      You’re worse than a liar.

                3. White Injun – your question has been answered several times. And I bet I grow more of my own food than you do. You are a total fake.

                  1. BigT, you’re wasting your time.
                    WI has been shot down logically more times that either of us can count.
                    Doesn’t matter; WI responds with more references to profs you’re glad you never read, silly ‘insults’ or some strawman claim.
                    Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit. That’s all.

                  2. WI can’t hack it living out in the wild. That’s why he’s here and not out there running away from bears.

  12. By the way, Jesse, you missed an opportunity for an offensive joke: The Final Solution to Bad Speech Is More Speech

      1. I don’t know whether to be righteously indignant or wet my pants from laughter.

        1. Let’s compromise: Wet your pants indignantly.

          1. Compromise is a foul and profane word, knave. I demand satisfaction. (glove slap)

          2. Wet your pants with righteous incontinence?

    1. Big. Win.

    2. At last I know the power of the Dark Side.

      1. I couldn’t help it–my fingers just typed it out. I’ll send money to the ADL in penance.

    1. I happened to drive by a ‘teachers/students’ demonstration in SF a year or so ago.
      First, it pisses me off that kids who have no understanding of the issues are used as props by the despicable teachers’ unions, but disregarding that, there were, oh, maybe 25-30 people, total.
      On the TV news that evening, you’d have sworn there were hundreds.

      1. It’s all about ‘narrative,’ right?

  13. “the bourgeois shits and he is hungry. That is all. The worker’s ideal is to have twice as many bourgeois pleasures all to himself.”
    Louis Ferdinand celine

  14. What’s the solution to unimpressive little eyebrows? Bushy fake eyebrows! But ones that don’t tend to fall off–ask Ron Paul.

    1. HELL NO, WE WONT GO (TO WORK)!

      1. Creating Livable Alternatives to Wage Slavery
        http://www.whywork.org/

        1. Creating Palatable Alternatives to Credible Information Dissemination

          http://www.whyspam.org

          1. Wow… Max makes a Ron Paul post and doesn’t mention the racist newsletters Paul didn’t write.

            There may be a God after all.

  15. Gee, Max, are your sexual fantasies being disturbed?
    BTW, I’m pretty sure that if you were drowning, RP would be willing to piss in your mouth.

  16. MATT TAIBBI gives us his list of demands for Occupy Wall Street and gives me a headache

    http://www.rollingstone.com/po…..s-20111012

    1. 1. Break up the monopolies.
      OK, but the only monopolies are government-protected monopolies. Want to ‘break up’ PG&E? into private firms? Fine by me, but lefties will scream.

      2. Pay for your own bailouts.
      Nope. All that does is establish a new cabinet position: Secretary of Bailouts. Real solution ? no bailouts.

      3. No public money for private lobbying.
      I hope this applies to eviro-whackos who use public money to sue the EPA for ‘not doing enough’.

      4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers.
      They are taxed. This is a class-envy gripe for more taxes.

      5. Change the way bankers get paid.
      Change the way writers get paid!

      1. Libertarian-approved monopolies are government-protected.

        Such as regulating the surface of the earth with lines and demarcations, to prevent the free movement of people across the Land.

        They monopolize resources with the big-government program called Land enTitlement.

        Libertarianism is government for me, but not for thee.

        Officer, am I free to gambol about forest and plain?

        1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit.

        2. sevo, are you for or against the State?

          1. Do libertarians have any answers?
            No.

            Do libertarians have a chance?
            No.

            What is libertarianism?
            No telling.

            LOL

            1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit.

        3. Give us more details about your hunted and/or gathered meal today.

          1. Common lambsquarters grew in Britain in the late-glacial and post-glacial periods. Neolithic, Bronze Age, and early Iron Age people ate it, and the Romans and Europeans used it extensively. People once regarded lambsquarters as one of the most delicious of wild vegetables. In spring they gathered the young plants, boiled them until tender, and served them with butter, salt and pepper.

            Seeds of common lambsquarters were dried and were ground into flour for bread, cakes, or gruel. Flour made of lambsquarters seed is dark colored from the blackish seed coats. The pioneers added lambs-quarter seeds to breads, pancakes, muffins, and cookies.

            Harvesting Lambsquarter Seeds #123
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU11l4b0gBA

            http://www.sacredearth.com/eth…..arters.php

            1. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

              You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

              1. Remember, vermin + food + vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

              2. And nobody believes you.

                1. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

                  You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

            2. Fair enough. I’m very sympathetic to Guerrilla gardening and urban/suburban foraging. I’m pretty much a supporter of anything that increases the average person’s self-reliance, and with it, their liberty.

              Point is, if you’re talking the talk as much as you do…you better be walking the walk.

              1. The premises of libertarian socio-economic theory are easily debunkable with empirical data from modern anthropology, ethnology, archeology, and evolutionary biology.

                It doesn’t matter if I’m sitting on a 400′ yacht stroking a kitty’s ears while I evilly run the whole global government system. Facts are facts, regardless of the messenger.

                1. So what you’re saying is, you cannot produce a quote that is not chopped up, and is not taken out of context and misrepresented.

                  You’re worse than a liar.

                2. Shut up, you silly old bat.

    2. Are we following through on MATT DAMON meme or did you just cut-and-paste that?

      Who wanted suggestions on what to name his kid yesterday?

      MATT.

      1. oops, for Pantsfan up there.

  17. AND here in Canada both sides are fucking retarded.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..le2198544/

    The union representing Air Canada (AC.B-T1.390.010.72%) flight attendants cancelled a strike planned for Thursday after Ottawa intervened, triggering criticisms about political meddling to quash workers’ rights.

    Federal Labour Minister Lisa Raitt asked the Canada Industrial Relations Board to review stalled contract talks at the airline. In so doing, she effectively rendered the strike illegal, so “there will be no right to strike or lock out,” the Canadian Union of Public Employees said in a memo to 6,800 Air Canada flight attendants.

    1. “”This outrageous interference by the Harper government is truly disappointing to the union, and the union is currently reviewing its next steps,” said CUPE’s bargaining committee.”

      OK, I couldn’t find reference.
      Is the airline required by law to negotiate with that union?
      If so, live by the sword….
      If not, I’d agree.

      1. No, It’s stupid.
        http://www.winnipegfreepress.c…..90328.html

        OTTAWA – Canada Post workers threw the future of Canada’s labour movement into the hands of the courts Wednesday, launching a case that could test the Conservative government’s aggressive stance on the rights of unionized labour.
        The Canadian Union of Postal Workers’ constitutional challenge to back-to-work legislation came as Air Canada flight attendants saw their right to strike abruptly stalled by the government’s use of what experts suggest is an obscure legal loophole.
        “This is government which appears to be addicted to back-to-work legislation,” said Paul Cavalluzzo, the lawyer representing postal workers.
        “And if workers rights are going to be trampled on so cavalierly, then I think workers have to stand up and the only avenue left for them is to fight for their constitutional rights in the courts.”

        1. I’m still missing who is griping about what (sorta like the OWS groups).
          If an employer is required by law to negotiate with Union A, then Union A has sort of transferred their “authority” to the government. So they would have thin gruel to now gripe that the government (holding their “authority” by their transference) requires them to ‘get a job’.
          Is that what’s going on? Are those who claimed the government had the authority over their employment now griping that, well, the government has authority over their employment?

          1. Interesting take. SO it’s almost double true since Canada Post is a government organization.

            1. Still not sure I have a handle on it, but it sounds like one rent-seeker taking another rent-seeker to court over who gets the spoils, the taxpayer and consumer be damned.
              Any chance the CDN court could tell ’em both to take a hike?

              1. I can only hope.
                The only argument I can think of for the madness is that the Government may have set the law, but they’ve historically taken a hands-off approach to these strikes.
                Add to this the hostility of the last election, the labor movement HATES the Conservative government and PM Stephen Harper.

                1. “…the Government may have set the law, but they’ve historically taken a hands-off approach to these strikes.”

                  World’s worst internal contradiction.
                  You can’t “set the law” and then “take a hands-off approach”. That’s sorta like outlawing murder and then telling the victim’s family to take care of it yourself.

                  1. Canada Post locked out workers, the federal government then issued back to work legislation that also included a wage decrease that was greater than anything being negotiated as a punishment to employees who were locked out by their employer.

  18. Is that Ron Paul holding up the white sign?

    1. “Is that Ron Paul holding up the white sign?”
      Don’t think so. Did you paint it?

  19. Why are people giving the Wallbangers? credence again?

    1. Buzz off cowboy, ‘wallbanger’ is mine.

  20. Testing

    1. Not enough passion.

  21. Conservatives hate Libertarians

    1. Of course. Conservatives are the consistent agricultural city-statists.

      Nobody likes a a mealy-mouth, confused SOB who can’t answer a simple question straight: are you for or against the State?

      1. QUIT CHANGING YOUR HANDLE

      2. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

        You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

        1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

        2. Nobody believes you.

          1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

          2. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

            You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

        1. Depends.

          1. I heard Ace Hole died

          2. So long as I get credit for Cons, as I coined it many years ago…

      3. There was no public property when my slaves built the city, so the modern designation city-state is a misnomer. It was all private, and it was all mine.

  22. Cons, why do you hate freedom?

    1. Cons, why do you hate freedom?

      ‘droid or iPhone?

    2. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

    3. Conservatives understand the simple game theory under which the ag-city-State operates:

      The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do?and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation.

      http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..ways-grow/

      You don’t have to be a conservative to understand this. Attorney Jeff Vail understands it too:

      Chapter 1. Problem of Growth. A capstone formulation of why our societal structure is unsustainable, how rhizome presents a solution, and how to implement it.

      ~Jeff Vail
      What is Rhizome
      http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/0…..izome.html

      1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

      2. What is Rhizome

        A metaphor.

      3. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

        You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

        1. Hey, Your Bitch… did YOU hunt and/or gather today?

          1. Don’t feed the troll.

      4. “We need government to protect private property, not seize and redistribute it.”

        “WE NEED GOVERNMENT |10.12.11 @ 10:38PM|#

        makes up quotes out of thin air

        Never, LIBERTARIAN LIAR.”

        Another lie, you truncate yet another quote and take it out of context, then pretend it means you’re not lying.

        NO one here ever said we need government. A truncated quote proves you know you’re lying.

        1. If libertarians only had the truth on their side,they’d be as boss as WI.

          “…nobody with a brain wants zero government. Just minimum government. There is no contradiction. We need government to protect private property…”

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2562045

          Double truncated with ellipses for your enjoyment.

          1. Shut up, you silly old bat.

          2. “Double truncated…”

            Which just proves you know your previous claim where you note the following “The quotes on reason go thus: “WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect property rights.” was a lie.

            You’ll notice your ORIGINAL claim was not truncated and not taken out of context. And you said “quotes” plural.

            So, you lied, got caught, and found the first quote which kinda looked like what you claimed, then forgot you said quotes plural which means you’re still lying even if the quote you took out of context and truncated wasn’t out of context and truncated.

            So, basically, your still a liar, and you only served to reinforce that.

  23. I say cons suck big time, and they know it…

    1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

      1. Im new here, just kicking the tires

        1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

        2. sevo is our political commissar, a supervisory political officer responsible for the political education (ideology), and loyalty to the credo of the libertarian Statists.

          Because we need government good and hard to protect privation property, that big-government Land enTitlement program.

          1. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

            You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

          2. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

        3. It’s Chad. He’s a real Jared Laughner type. Careful how much you say to him, one day dudes in sharply pressed dark uniforms may want to ask you some questions.

        4. So you want to know who should make the kicking tires?

          1. How you can tell it’s Chad, you wonder? He has had his head buried in a copy of Metamagical Themas (carrying it around makes him look smart!) for the past thirty years. That is why I said he reminds me of mold. Stale game theory bs and all of that.

          2. By the way, Chad, you never told us why your wife left you. Care to elaborate?

            1. I think it was when he started wearing nothing but furs and bringing home neighborhood pets for dinner.

        5. I hope you’re prepared to pay for those tires if you damage them. If so, welcome.

  24. and now the trolls are arguing with themselves again.

    1. For someone who has posted steaming pile after steaming pile, you look pretty fucking dumb calling anyone else a troll.

      Is that like the reason version of “Rethugnican”? You’re so fucking stupid that you default to calling anyone you dislike a troll?

      HINTYPOO: you’re using the word incorrectly, and it really makes you look like an asshole

    2. Their arguing is miles above the best thing you ever posted.

      1. *sloppy wet kisses*

        1. Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating how little you have to say.

    3. To be fair, the brave bald guy with the sign that said “Asshole” would have been more accurate writing “Huh?”. “Asshole” gets the attention though.

      1. “To be fair, the brave bald guy with the sign that said “Asshole” would have been more accurate writing “Huh?””

        Both are accurate, neither moreso that the other.

  25. Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast heaven to hell so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labours of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per caput since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per caput approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and than the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold an sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (m?l?e, final vociferations) tennis… the stones… so calm… Cunard… unfinished…

    1. You didn’t hunt or gather anything today, and you can’t prove otherwise, just like you couldn’t prove that anyone claimed “we NEED government”.

      You were already caught openly lying, no one gives a shit about anything else you claim as true.

    2. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

    3. This is a spoof since it’s Lucky’s monologue from Beckett’s Waiting for Godot.

      Of course it’s more insightful and coherent than anything Whitey the Injun posts.

    4. that in the light the light the light of the labours…

      I was right there with ya. Until “Labours”. Fucking French Canadians desecrating the American language.

      1. Please don’t disrepect Her Majesty’s Spelling. We frown on that in the Commonwealth.

        1. .

    5. White Imbecile here would cry like a little girl at the sight of his food running away from his lazy-fat ass, if having to live in his beloved “original affluent society.”

      Really sad. Sad tale the one about White Imbecile, how he swallowed a tall-tale told by a college 3rd rate sociology professor hook, line and sinker. Sad indeed.

  26. There was no such thing as public property when my slaves built the city, so the modern designation city-state is a misnomer. It was all private, and it was all mine.

  27. I can’t stand conservatives
    Let me count the ways

    (Only trying the waters, with different lures)

    1. Remember, vermin + food = vermin shit. WI is vermin shit.

  28. So Whitey the Injun has returned to grace us with his schizoid ramblings?

    1. It’s all one troll. She has no social or professional obligations and can devote massive amounts of free time to shitting all over this site. I can’t even fathom how pathetic one’s life must be to undertake such a task for entertainment.

      1. That’s what happens when you have all the personality and manners of a slime mould, thus consigning yourself to forever live in your parents’ basement, dreaming of one day living the modern stone-age lifestyle.

    2. White Indian is rectal is anonopussy. Ignore all her personalities, please.

  29. I say fk, can I swear (?), all these indents are tiresome

    1. NO you can’t fucking swear.

  30. So Whitey the Injun has returned to grace us with his schizoid ramblings?

    What was his name?

    1. Chad. He was a newlywed last Spring so we were not graced with his presence for a while. Now, she is obviously gone.

    2. You should have seen him back then. Just out, cocky stride. He was really proud of himself for getting a little stink on his finger.

      1. Just out, cocky stride

        Chest jutting out, cocky stride.

  31. Im asking, what truth does it take to get banned here?

    Curious…

    Still kicking the tires…

    1. Virtually limitless. But speculating on the possible romantic attachment to certain ungulates by a certain barrister will get you censored.

    2. Producer: I want some new ideas. Something we have never done before.

      Writer: What about something we haven’t done since, say, Birth of a Nation.

      Producer: Pitch it to me.

      Writer: A movie that is pro-lynching.

      Producer: How are we suppose to get away with that?

      Writer: The lynched party is actually guilty . . .

      Producer: Okay. Go on.

      Writer: He’s about to be lynched when the sheriff, a real liberal Atticus Finch type, saves his hide from the mob.

      Producer: Don’t see that as being pro-lynching. The mob would come across as cowardly!

      Writer: There’s a twist.

      Producer: Go on. I’m listening.

      Writer: The guilty man cons the sheriff into trusting him. He hits the sheriff over the head and ties him up. Rapes his wife and forces him to watch.

      Producer: This is getting good.

      Writer: The mob shows up just as the guilty man is commencing to burn the sheriff’s house down, and they save the sheriff and his wife. Apprehend the guilty guy, and then lynch him.

      Producer: That it? A denouement, maybe?

      Writer: The sheriff writes a suicide note stating he was wrong about everything, throws a rope over the rafters, cut’s away, the wife has been watching him in the shadows but remains silent — fades out.

      Producer: Let’s get started on that treatment!

  32. Now, she is obviously gone.

    Deflated.

    1. My money was on that she just woke up from a coma and discovered she was married to her stalker.

  33. One step for troll, one giant leap for trollkind. Thank Amakudari for Reasonable.

    1. Sadly it doesn’t work on my mobile so I still have to slog through the mentall vomit that is what you consider worth posting

      1. That doesn’t explain why you converse with trolls

      2. You really are an asshole, and here I thought you just played one on TV.

  34. Nipple, what is the formula for truth?

    1. Shut up, you silly old bat.

    2. 2+2=5

  35. Dharama & Greg, Two and a Half Men, The Big Bang Theory, and now 2 Broke Girls all have had solid ratings, but at the same time have been savaged by professional and amateur critics as being uninsipired in its repetitive characters and puerile humor. But if the shows are so terrible then why do they continue to win Emmys and people allow them to remain on the air? Could it be that these critics really rely on such shows for some modest form of entertainment?

    1. Shut up, you silly old bat.

  36. 2 Broke Girls — buxom brunette though pudgy is still pretty easy on the eyes. Though to be honest, I haven’t watched any episodes to have an opinion beyond that.

    1. Shut up, you silly old bat.

      1. Shut up shutting up, you dried up smelly cunt. The rest of us are down wind to you. Mercy, already!

        1. Britcoms are funnier

  37. “Dharama & Greg,”
    Mara and Dann
    Doris Lessing (Nobel Prize Winner)

    1. Shut up, you silly old bat.

  38. Girls
    I say you guys are easy
    Lets go

  39. “…nobody with a brain wants zero government. Just minimum government. There is no contradiction. We need government to protect private property,…”

    https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_2562045

    1. Said the libertarian statist.

      1. Actually, said you. The quote you’re claiming exists is just you lying again

    2. “Double truncated…”

      Which just proves you know your previous claim where you note the following “The quotes on reason go thus: “WE NEED GOVERNMENT to protect property rights.” was a lie.

      You’ll notice your ORIGINAL claim was not truncated and not taken out of context. And you said “quotes” plural.

      So, you lied, got caught, and found the first quote which kinda looked like what you claimed, then forgot you said quotes plural which means you’re still lying even if the quote you took out of context and truncated wasn’t out of context and truncated.

      So, basically, your still a liar, and you only served to reinforce that.

  40. The City State is bad!!!0000!!

    OHH, I die.

  41. I’m curious what the limit on ignored users is for the Reasonable Chrome plugin because I’ve probably doubled my list today.

    1. And no one cares.

      Seriously, what kind of idiot asshole talks about how many people he’s ignored?

      “HEY EVERYONE I KNOW HOW TO INSTALL CHROME AND USE A PLUG IN, PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!”

      Kill yourself.

      1. You’re on the ignore, btw

        1. And still no one cares.

          Cry more.

        2. Two more, thanks! Maybe Amakudarai should make it a whitelist filter instead.

          1. And no one cares.

            Seriously, what kind of idiot asshole talks about how many people he’s ignored?

            “HEY EVERYONE I KNOW HOW TO INSTALL CHROME AND USE A PLUG IN, PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!”

            Kill yourself.

            1. There is life outside of the internet, try it sometime.

              1. Says the asshole who is so proud of installing chrome and reasonable that he’s crowing about it.

                1. On the internet…

                1. Try getting a gym membership, reading some books, joining a club. You know, make some friends and stop being a pathetic twat desperately craving attention.

                  In before some magnificent psychological projection and an unfounded Tu Quoque attack from someone that spends every waking hour from sun up to sun down making white-noise troll posts.

    2. You know what’s really fun? Talking about them while you are ignoring them. It pisses them off like nothing else.

      1. And no one cares.

        Seriously, what kind of idiot asshole talks about how many people he’s ignored?

        “HEY EVERYONE I KNOW HOW TO INSTALL CHROME AND USE A PLUG IN, PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!”

        Kill yourself.

      2. Yeah, pretty funny. Also, I love that she is now spoofing me. Wasn’t expecting that!

        1. I have never met someone so desperate for attention like this. It almost makes me take pity on them.

          1. And this is why all guys need to be good fathers to their daughters, because we need to keep them off the pole, keep them from being fat internet trolls with no life craving attention from anonymous people on the internet.

            Some damn decent girls on those poles, nothing wrong with that.

    3. I’m curious what the limit on ignored users is for the Reasonable Chrome plugin

      5 megabytes of plain-text, so several hundred thousand. There would be awful performance issues long before that.

  42. “The agricultural city-state… is … the only possible choice.”

    1. “…Libertarians…know…how to manage and improve… everything…”

      1. Come on White Racist, you said this crap, defend it.

      2. White Imbecile would cry like the little girly-man he really is at the sight of his first scratch trying to get a few roots out of the ground to eat, if being in the “original affluent society” he so masturbates about in his mind.

        1. Poison ivy roots even? :3

    2. So defend the City State!

  43. Sad on so many levels.

  44. What. The. Fuck people. This is full retard.

    1. minge did it

    2. And THIS is why you don’t feed the fucking trolls.

    3. Talking OWS or the awesome commentary?

      1. The awesome commentary. OWS is more “full asshole” in my book, at least after they totally dicked my business trip last week.

        1. How the hell do a bunch of confused, self-hating trust fund kids with liberal arts degrees manage dick a business trip?

          Apparently they got a lot more sway in things than I’d thought.

          1. Well, I do blame the cops of course, but the financial district was significantly more of a mess than usual with all sorts of extra blockades quite far from Zucotti Park. And the night of their big march I was actually unable to get back to my hotel for several hours. Got stuck drinking at Delmonico’s for ages until I could finally get around. Also subway station closings, etc. It was all the security of course, not the protesters themselves.

  45. we need to know the truth.

  46. I have only one thing to say:

    GOOGLE: ZIONISTS CONTROL WALL ST.

    *wiggles fingers*

  47. Well, this thread took a turn for the goddamn worst. Back in my day trolling meant something. These new reason trolls are pathetic. At least the old trolls had he ecency to try and argue a coherent point about the subject at hand.

    1. Motion to begin no-troll Thursdays at 00:01

      1. Wait — sorry I fucked that up.

        I just
        III JJJUUUSSSTTT
        want to take
        WWWAAANNNTTT TTTOOO TTTAAAKKKEEE
        a temperature
        AAA TTTEEEMMMPPPEEERRRAAATTTUUURRREEE
        This isn’t
        TTTHHHIIISSS IIISSSNNN’TTT
        a vote
        AAA VVVOOOTTTEEE
        this is just
        TTTHHHIIISSS IIISSS JJJUUUSSSTTT
        how you feel.
        HHHOOOWWW YYYOOOUUU FFFEEEEEEEEELLL.
        There is
        TTTHHHEEERRREEE IIISSS
        a motion
        AAA MMMOOOTTTIIIOOONNN
        to begin
        TTTOOO BBBEEEGGGIIINNN
        no-troll
        NNNOOO-TTTRRROOOLLL
        Thursdays at
        TTTHHHUUURRRSSSDDDAAAYYYSSS AAATTT
        00:01
        000000:000111…..

        1. *wiggles fingers*

    2. I think some of them think that disrupting libertarians talking to each other is an end in itself.

      Because in their heads, the evil in the world is all due to the libertarianism. So we have to be stopped!

      Otherwise, people may come to believe that making choices for themselves is the answer. …and that belief, in their minds, is the cause of all our problems, I guess?

      This troll is like a bible-thumping Baptist in a way–he needs to convert us, and he seems to think libertarians are all Moonies.

      I’ll usually talk to anybody, but if he’d engaged in those personal attacks before, I just would have ignored him. Some of those personal attacks of his are epic pathetic.

    3. You get the trolls you deserve, cowboy.

  48. This is a denial of service attack

    1. Me scroll button brokeded…

  49. It’s official: There is now more documented proof of racist/bigoted speech at the Occupy protests than there ever has been at any Tea Party rally. Yet who was it that was labelled as “racist” and “bigoted?”

    Need you ask?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.