Economics

What's the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

The MSNBC host champions bureaucratic power at the expense of regular people and their rights.

|

Progressives today say people should come before profits. Now in a privilege-ridden corporate state, that's a worthy goal, though progressives have no clue how to achieve it. How nice it would be if they were equally committed to putting people before bureaucracy. Here they fall down rather badly because their signature ideas would subordinate regular people to the dictates of the power structure.

Take MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Maddow is intelligent, serious, and well-meaning—which makes her vision all the more unsettling: It has ominous implications not only for individual liberty, but also for its concomitant: authentic spontaneous social cooperation.

Maddow might say that if she had her way, the bureaucracy would reflect the people's interests, perhaps even consult them from time to time. But the naiveté of that vision is apparent from even a brief reading of political-economic history. When has bureaucracy actually represented—or cared about—plain people rather than being a tool of the power elite she claims to abhor (at least when Republicans hold some branch of government)?

Small Things

Her commercials on MSNBC (said to be shot by Spike Lee) well articulate her bureaucracy-first vision. I've taken the liberty of transcribing her words:

When people tell us, "No, no, no. We're not going to build it. No, No, No. America doesn't have any greatness in its future. America has small things in its future. Other countries have great things in their future. China can afford it. We can't"—you're wrong! And it doesn't feel right and it doesn't sound right to us because that's not what America is.

Note the nationalistic "we" and the equation of national greatness with big government projects. (Neoconservative empire-builders have no monopoly on this.) The things unencumbered people would build in a freed market are too small and insignificant for Maddow. The state bureaucracy knows better. (Why are progressives enamored with China?)

She amplifies the point in another spot:

Not every idea that's good for the country is a profit-making idea for some company somewhere. It's never going to be a profitable venture for some company to come up with this idea [pointing to a railroad bridge] and build it on spec. That's not gonna happen! It needs some government leadership frankly to get something done in common that's gonna benefit the country as a whole.

The Social Problem

In disparaging profit as impotent to produce big things for the general good (with no evidence proffered), she moves bureaucracy—by nature self-serving, inflexible, conservative—center stage. She shows her unfamiliarity with how competition and entrepreneurship would function in a freed market (as opposed to the corporatist economy she conflates it with). Entrepreneurial profit, as both a motive and a reward, helps human beings cope with pervasive ignorance about how best to use scarce resources in addressing our endless wants. Rhapsodizing about the wisdom and efficiency of bureaucracy shows an obliviousness to the most basic social problem: How can a multitude of people with different values, preferences, and tastes, as well as diverse and incomplete information about the world around them, coordinate their activities for maximum mutual benefit?

Two basic approaches to the problem are available: 1) Let individuals, guided by the price system, strive for what they want by cooperating freely (no privileges, no restraints on peaceful action) under rules that respect all persons as equals, or 2) let bureaucracy—that is, the coercive state—decide for them, perhaps periodically administering the opium of democracy to lessen the pain of their essential powerlessness. Big things must crowd out small things. The latter approach assumes (or pretends) that politicians and bureaucrats possess the knowledge and commitment to the public weal to make the optimal tradeoffs. The freed market would provide a check on waste while respecting free choice. Bureaucracy does neither.

Maddow doesn't simply favor stopgap Keynesian spending to restore economic vitality. She disturbingly equates pervasive bureaucracy with national greatness:

This . . . whole fight about whether or not the government should be doing anything right now . . . that's a fundamental fight about what kind of country we're going to be and whether or not we take recovery from this economic disaster seriously. You have to build your way out of it. You have to be a stronger country when you come out the other side of this recession than when you went in. You have to or you will be left behind.

"You" equals bureaucracy. If the state does great things, the country will be great. The people must be shown the way.

Sound Familiar?

That has an eerily familiar ring.

[Our] conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State. . . . It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; [we reassert] the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then [our conception] stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. . . .

The State . . . is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit.

That's Benito Mussolini.

I was reluctant to invoke the F-word because some will take it as mere sensationalism. I do so only to make an analytical point. Despite their many differences, Maddow and friends want one thing that Mussolini wanted: national glory and prosperity through state-chosen and state-coordinated grand projects. Bureaucracy first. Individual freedom is to be tolerated only so long as private preferences don't interfere. (Let's not forget that before World War II, respectable world leaders saw fascism as a promising third way between the extremes of Marxism and liberalism.)

Of course Maddow thinks liberal values—such as free speech and dissent—can be preserved. Mussolini knew better. What would happen to an Occupy Wall Street-style protest against some big state project initiated by Barack Obama?

Bureaucratic dominance does not merely lower material living standards or reduce profit opportunities. It crushes lives and dreams. Government's grand projects—the interstate highway system and urban renewal, for instance—steal homes, shops, and communities through eminent domain and other interventions, while well-connected corporate interests reap benefits. They also harm people by damaging the environment and fostering big "private" firms over those of human-scale.

Maddow might say that in her vision, bureaucracy would be different. It would not. Exploitation by a ruling elite is inherent in its nature.

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, where this article originally appeared.

NEXT: "Prop 8's backers deserve their day in court"

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. What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

    Bastard never remembers to put the seat back down, in the bathroom.

    1. Borrow Chico’s soap and never give it back… on second thought, Chico don’t want it back

      1. The KOCH whores champion corporate bureaucratic power at the expense of regular people and their rights.

        1. Troll harder.

        2. Whatever, idiot. The Kochs ACTUALLY PROVIDE A PRODUCT THE PUBLIC WANTS. That is how it works, money doesn’t fall from the sky like your playmates say at your cute little play time Occupy Wall Street protests.

    2. Well alright, it’s time to clear some things up.

      First off, I have genital warts. Not just on my junk, but also around the anus, which is distressing.

      Here’s a list of people I hate and hope die, in no particular order:

      John
      MNG
      Tulpa
      Episiarch
      Rather
      Warty
      SugarFree
      ProLiberte (not sure on that spelling)
      Dunphy
      Cynical
      Sarcasmic
      Old Mexican
      Tony
      Fluffy

      Once I was thinking about another dude who I found attractive, and I briefly pushed my finger into my anus and tried to masturbate. It didn’t work. So I guess I’m not gay after all. Comes as a relief to my wife.

      That’s all for now.

      1. Thanks for sharing, bro.

      2. Am I the only one who was a little aroused by that?

        1. I’ll be in my bunk.

        1. Ha ha, heller, he doesn’t hate you enough.

          WE ARE THE 1%

      3. Top of the list!

        1. Hey asshole, he said in no particular order.

          That’s my sour grapes for not even being included >: (

          1. Shit! I am such a loser….

      4. What the fuck is this shit? I’m twice as abrasive and obnoxious as Pro Libertaint.

        I’m taking my game to 11 from now on.

        1. I’m twice as abrasive and obnoxious as Pro Libertaint

          Who the fuck are you, again?

        2. Santa Claus is twice as abrasive and obnoxious as ProL.

          1. Although ProL does have way more kids sitting on his lap throughout the year.

            1. “Santa, Santa… why is your lap all moist, where I’ve been sitting?”

              “Heh-heh-heh! Because Christmas came early this year, Billy…!”

              1. Sick mind. Funny, but sick.

                1. I thought I was coming here to read some insights into Rachael Maddow. How foolish of me.

            2. Sorry, that’s MY shtick.

      5. Dear Confession,

        For the sake of world peace, and ‘why can’t we all get along’ brothersisterreasonhood, I’m listing mine: 

        John: just naiive 🙁
        MNG: Mr. Nice Guy ain’t always but he’s entitled to his POV
        Tulpa: Hmm… a man who struggles with the right thing
        Episiarch: please, everyone hates him
        Rather: what is there not to love!
        Warty: the #1 reasonite I’d invite to a fantasy dinner party…you don’t mind if I put you on the plate, do you?
        SugarFree: I think you are a bastard but I’ll still cry when you drop dead
        ProLiberte (not sure on that spelling): a lawyer?  LOL
        Dunphy: a cop? I like your videos 😉
        Cynical:  Who the fuck are you again#1
        Sarcasmic: Who the fuck are you again#2
        Old Mexican: you disappoint me 🙁
        Tony:  I adore you
        Fluffy:  You make me think Of Santa Claus
        Helle: someday I’ll take you for a drink, and then smack the shit out of you

        1. +1 all of us?

          1. “+1 all of us, each and every one!”

              1. Really don’t give a shit if I’m on this list.

                1. My list:
                  Tony.
                  That is all.

                  1. I dare you to summon…..The [Gamboler]!!!!!

        2. OH HI MISS RECTAL DOES THIS MEAN YOU LOVE ME?

          1. YOU STAY AWAY FROM MISS RECTAL OR I’LL KICK YOU WITH MY ONE GOOD FOOT!

      6. i kind of resent not being on that list, even one that has Tony in it.

    3. Because lesbians are all men! LOLZ!!!

  2. Why is anyone paying any attention to anything that shrieking harpy has to say?

    No need for a full-length article. You could just have a headline that reads: Proto-Fascist Rachel Maddow Full of Shit and be done with it.

    1. “Why is anyone paying any attention to anything that shrieking harpy has to say?”

      Her ratings indicate they aren’t.

    2. I would have gone with:
      Ugly Commie Lezbo.
      But that’s jsut me.

      1. No fair reading directly from my resume!

  3. What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

    Love of identity politics? Lack of situational awareness? Belief that central planning can overcome human nature?

  4. What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

    Nothing. Collaborators with the regime always do well… at first.

    1. She – and her brothers & sisters in spirit – will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes…

      1. Wishful thinking. Odds are they’d still be cheering as we were lined up.

        1. Speak for yourself. I plan on being whisked away to an offshore ?migr? community where we will plan our triumphal return once the statist bastards starve themselves.

      2. No, she and her ilk will be second against the wall.
        Like Robespierre she will be celebrating as her enemies are beheaded, and then will be utterly shocked when she finds out she’s next in line…

    2. She got famous deriding the Bush administration… at first.

  5. Anyone else see the verbal pun in that picture? NTTAWWT.

    1. Okay…its Friday afternoon…and I’m tired. Pun? What is this pun of which you speak?

      1. it’s a large dam, which Libertarian2 is tortuously trying to conclude is a “dike”

        1. Lipstick or diesel?

        2. Sorry I couldn’t have made the leap today.

      2. And it’s a visual pun, not a verbal one. Verbal is what most of them are and is implied in the term.

    2. You mean a “God Dam”?

  6. What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

    Cripes, talk about having bandwidth to fucking burn

  7. Her show would be greatly improved if she didn’t have to take such an apophenic approach to political analysis, exposing seemingly mundane facts about the GOP which she uses to build a narrative that invariably paints Republicans as anti-intellectual bigots and which leads her to giggle with smarmy joy at her perceived insight…You know what? She keep all of the rest so long as she drops the annoying giggle.

    1. Oh yeah? My giggle is reallyreallyreallyreally endearing!

      1. “… and only occasionally drives farm animals mad, or causes weeping genital lesions in laboratory rats!”

  8. Progressives are enamored with China for a simple reason. Their goverment model would allow them to remake the country in their image regardless of whatever opposition would come up. Sure progressive despise the rampant corruption, they don’t see eco-cronyism as corruption, and civil rights abuses, they don’t see the supression of speech they consider hateful wrong, but they see the power the central goverment holds and they imagine the great things that could be done if only truly enlighted individuals possessed said power. Every progressive leader is a benjamin franklin or a thomas jefferson in their eyes, individuals of extreme intelligence and skill. One of the loudest progressive laments I hear is why can’t our leaders be competent like the chinese. Meaning why couldn’t there be more progressive leaders. The utter lunacy in assuming that the chinese leadres are somehow more capable than ours amazes me. China is on the fast track to a very very painful correction but progressives can’t understand this. The only data they can digest is data that supports their feelings. Anything that contradicts their feelings is thrown out as irrelevant at best, propoganda at worst. Every argument against the free market I’ve come up against boils down to having them say there’s a homeless person on the street, or look how run down this neighborhood looks. It is a very childish and immature reaction as they don’t take a few minutes to look at the cold hard data. That’s why they get all bubbly about trains or super projects. They seem them going up and it makes them feel good, never mind that the cost overruns caused it to come in at double the budget. Never mind that the money could possibly be used elsewere. It’s all god dammed rainbows and butterflies with those assholes./end rant

    1. I will give the Chinese this: They like paragraph breaks.

      1. But they’re vertical.

      2. I will give the Chinese this: They like paragraph breaks.

        Despite lack of formatting, the content is spot on.

    2. Why shouldn’t we have more convenience executions of useful idiots?

    3. You’re against HSR, but for highways, which are a product of cronyism? I think you should do a little research on Robert Moses, and what he did for GM.

    4. The truth is that there is a lot of protest and pushback from the “common” Chinese about many of the mega-projects. Of course the protest leaders often go to jail.

  9. I don’t think Maddow-style progressives really think through what enacting their preferred policies would actually entail. Maddow would be flabbergasted at the Mussolini comparison, and would likely find nothing similar in her positions. They don’t think about the massive bureaucracy or the far-reaching State power needed to enact their fantasies. ‘I never once mentioned an all-encompassing, liberty-destroying state!’ a progressive might exclaim. And they wouldn’t be lying. They just didn’t (and won’t) think it through.

    They simply like saying, once more, with feeling, how things should be. Their “we” is less ominous (at least less intentionally ominous) and more a goofy imagining of “we’re all in this together,” because that’s how they feel.

    1. A friend of mine and his wife are MSNBC loving progs…what you said about not thinking things through is SOOOO right. I just listen to them – gave up trying long ago!

    2. “we’re all in this together,”

      youuuuuuuuuu and me
      we’re in this together nowwwwwwww
      we will make it through somehowwwww

      1. ONE MORE TIME! Everyone sing!!

        1. “IT’S FRIIIIIIIIIIIIDAY! IT’S FRIIIIIIIIIIIIDAY — !!!”

          [::ducks sudden volley of beer bottles, old shoes, etc.::]

          1. I watched her latest video. I think the song is about her falling in love with a serial killer. Maybe I misinterpreted the lyrics.

    3. FAWK, Mussolini might be flabbergasted at Maddow’s ideas too, because he probably would think them thru and see horrible consequences.

    4. “I don’t think Maddow-style progressives really think through what enacting their preferred policies would actually entail.”

      I think this comment nails it. In my not so humble opinion, the biggest problem with the rainbow and butterfly libs is their complete inability to grasp second/third… order consequences. I don’t know if it’s laziness, inability to reason, or if there is truly something in their physiological makeup that causes their brains to be incapable of this process.

      Conservatives have similar hangups, in that once they come to a conclusion on a certain issue, no matter how they arrived at it (often a result of religion), they are incapable of questioning it.

      We libertarians have issues too. We are avid thinkers, but don’t do well organizing and spreading our message. Could be because pushing anything on somebody else is contrary to our principles. Could be we just like to bitch and revel in the fact we are different (better) than the rest of the world. Or it could be, we are to busy playing D&D or watching BSG.

      My .02

  10. She, like most other progressives, is an economic illiterate and politically naive. And I don’t know if there’s a way to reason those things out of them since most of their arguments are emotionally based anyway. Or, maybe there’s more cynicism at work. If you politically connected or financially well-off (and she is certainly the latter, this 1 percenter) and you make your money selling this vision, then how you gonna give up that gig? I’m not saying she started out being motivated by the money (that would be naive cynicism to suggest it), but I do wonder if once some of these progressives get to be very comfortable if it just becomes that much harder to do any sort of honest examination of political-economic realities.

    1. Perhaps, too, any sort of re-examination of the issues could result in a loss of reputation, friends, and associates; perhaps that’s a greater threat to honesty.

    2. Ha. Jinx, owe me a Coke.

      1. Coke? What the fuck? Wanna make your kids fat and sick and putrid and dead by 30? Cola contains [insert components of choice]! IT’S POISON! BAN IT!

        WE ARE ALL CORPORATE DRINK-PEDDLER VICTIMS NOW!

        1. There was an article on Jezebel today about some retarded new potential smoking ban in the UK, and you wouldn’t believe the number of people genuinely suggesting cigarettes be outlawed entirely. In post-reductio, can Coke be far behind?

          1. Well the war on drugs has gone so swimmingly, it’s only natural to want to keep the successes coming.

            1. They want their pot legal and my cigarettes illegal. Still not figuring that one out.

              1. Still not figuring that one out.

                Why not? You stated it in your first sentence.

              2. once they learn that legal pot would be manufactured and sold by cigarette companies, they will have a changce of heart.

  11. Rachel: “YOU have to BUILD your way out.”

    Bricklayer: “OK, Rachel, I’ll let you lay down the first tier of bricks.”

    Rachel: “Ick, I meant YOU have to build YOUR way out!”

  12. What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

    Hasn’t made a decent album since Field Day.

    1. I see what you did there!

    2. Crenshaw’s Field Day is a good record. Also, Dag Nasty made an album called Field Day. It’s a crazy world.

      1. Speaking of Dag Nasty influenced bands

  13. Can we have an article about the Chris Matthews TV-spots? Don’t get me wrong; the Maddow spots were pretty asinine. But Matthew’s were far more ingratiating.

    1. But Matthew’s were far more ingratiating.

      Dare we say….fellatial……..

      1. Beautiful…I hadn’t heard this. Chrissy hangs in there until the 10 min mark and then breaks out the “your voice level is hatred” card! What a tool.

      2. The most interesting part of that interview is that Chrissy Matthews says that he voted for Booosh in 2000.

  14. Maddow is intelligent, serious, and well-meaning

    Uh…no, no, and debatable. All the talking head pundit morons on the news channels are attack dog retards for their TEAM of varying shrillness and aggressiveness. That’s it.

    1. Maddow doesn’t even deserve classification in those three categories because she’s so full of shit.

    2. Remember her interview with Rand Paul re. the stupid mini-freak out over his comments on the CRA? I think it just made her feel good to loudly assert that she thinks it is really, really mean if you don’t let blacks or gays eat at your lunch counter. No further thought was put in, just repeating the fact that “mean people are mean, and that sucks!” So, your no, no, and maybe assessment is pretty much spot on.

      1. That shit was pretty unforgivable in my opinion. Thankfully, that mini-smear campaign didn’t derail Rand Paul’s campaign. Anyone remember what Maddow was doing back in May when Paul was giving the most forceful and eloquent defense of civil liberties delivered from the Senate floor since (at least) 9/11?…Anyone remember?

      2. I put that shit out of my mind. There is nothing to be gained, ever, by going on one of the talking heads’ shows. Whether it’s O’Reilly, Maddow, or anyone else, if they want to misrepresent you they’ll just lie, talk over you, and fuck you good.

        Cable news is trash TV for people who don’t think they’re trash. It’s ESPN for people who don’t follow sports but want a tribal TEAM association anyway.

        1. So, what you’re saying is that Rachel Maddow is the Skip Bayless of politics?

          1. Worse: she’s the Steve-O of politics.

            1. that’s an insult to Steve-O who is actually a genius. I mean, it takes brains to get a tattoo of yourself on yourself.

              1. butthead once said he was going to get a tattoo of a butt on his butt. or maybe it was beavis. either way, neither is a genius

              2. Agreed. I mean, has Maddow ever stapled her scrotum to her leg?

                Wait, no, don’t answer that question…

                1. [Replying to Yonemoto…]

          2. Maddow is Bayless. Obama is Tebow.

        2. There is nothing to be gained, ever, by going on one of the talking heads’ shows.

          Sure there is, you vomitous insect. Remember the lulz when Jacob went on O’Reilly?

          1. I like that song “Nothing But Flowers”.

        3. ESPN isn’t for people who follow sports, either.

          1. It used to be, before ABC over-integrated with ESPN and made it a network for people who don’t follow sports, I agree.

      3. Actually, there’s an earlier interview she did with Rand Paul where she was quite sympathetic. It was on foreign policy and he had suggested that cuts to the military absolutely should be considered and that foreign adventurism was a bad idea.

        It was one of those moments where I thought that there might be some kind of synthesis possible.

        In the end, of course the prejudices of “the progressives” will out. I mean to say, really, how dare anyone suggest reservations about the intrusiveness of the CRA?

    3. _Maddow is intelligent, serious, and well-meaning_

      Thumbody thinkth he might thtill get a blowjob!

  15. Why is she championing bureaucratic power at the expense of regular people and their rights?

    Because she couldn’t actually give a fuck less about “the little guy” except as a prop in her neverending political melodrama.

  16. Gee, you know who else created a massive corporatist bureaucracy, built roads, made sure the trains ran on time, and had a large amount of pride in the nation and its people?

    The great irony of our time is that American liberals are completely oblivious as to how similar they are to fascists.

    1. New Left Progressives are fascists, with a good number of them displaying a Stalinist bent. This doesn’t mean that replacing Obama with the Republican top runner-of-the-day (excluding Paul) would be an improvement, but let’s be honest with the terminology.

      1. Saying it in a chat room isn’t exactly “out loud.”

        1. Good thing this isn’t a “chat room”!

  17. Not every idea that’s good for the country is a profit-making idea for some company somewhere.

    This, at core, is one of Maddow’s main problems. Profit, unless derived through government power, is a result of people providing their fellows with something that they desire. If something can’t produce a profit, the people probably do not want it.

    He obviously thinks that he knows what is best, rather than the combined actions of individuals in that icky market.

    1. The problem with most liberals’ economic thinking is that they cling to the labor theory of value idea that profit must come due to exploitation and that wealth is static.

      Behold, the exploiter and the exploited:
      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-s8GA…..ckwell.jpg

      1. The problem with progressives is that they are actually Marxists, even if unwittingly.

        1. The problem with progressives is that they are actually Marxists, even if unwittingly.

          There was a point (before he went crazy) that Marx would have been offended.

      2. It goes beyond that. Even if everyone were self-employed, they’d be against their getting paid. They’re against self interest, period.

        1. There’s a whole lot of self interest involved in statism.

          They’re actually against unilateral free choice, because it allows everyone to practice self interest, instead of only the elite.

  18. In answer to the question raised in the title: she’s a technocratic authoritarian. The End.

  19. http://tinyurl.com/73dcx2r

    Totally worth bringing out in any discussion about Maddow.

    1. Hey! She was my prom date in 1984!!

      1. Yeah? Well did the carpet match the drapes then?

    2. More importantly, if she had to gey a nose job, why the hell did she go with “The Tim Tebow?”

      1. gey a nose job

        “There are no accidents.”

    3. As she once told PEOPLE, while girlfriend Susan Mikula is definitely a girlie-girl, “I look like a dude.”

      Which basically confirms my theory that most lesbians really just want a man with a vagina.

    4. Hard to tell, but are the eyes the same color in the two pics?

      Skeptical.

      1. i think she must be a shape-shifting reptilian

  20. When people tell us, “No, no, no. We’re not going to build it. No, No, No. America doesn’t have any greatness in its future. America has small things in its future. Other countries have great things in their future. China can afford it. We can’t”?you’re wrong! And it doesn’t feel right and it doesn’t sound right to us because that’s not what America is.

    I am unable to process this obscure space-alien dialect.

    If there is a point to this, what in the fuck is it?

    1. Freedom is worship word. Yang worship. You will not speak it!

      1. Eeb pleb meesta…or something

      2. The Omega Glory

    2. You know what that kind of garbled speech reminds me of? Obama, when he’s talking off the prompter, plus or minus a few ‘folks’es.

      1. And a metric assload of “um”s.

    3. on fracking……

    4. What is especially jarring is that ‘the progressives’ have been banning large scale projects all over the country in the name of Mother Gaia. The EPA would prevent the Hoover Dam from being built today, and Maddow would be cheering on the EPA.
      XL pipeline, fracking for recoverable oil and natural gas, the freaking smelt out in CA are just a few of the recent ‘big things’ that come to mind.

    5. Stop penny pinching the country into second-rate status?

      1. How about “stop spending far more than your country can produce.”

      2. Yeah, Tony doesn’t care how much a project loses. We’ll make it up with volume!!!!

  21. Rachel is a strange name for a boy.

    1. … and “Chris Matthews” isn’t. Yet, contrast and compare.

    2. Oh, stop it with the transgender and gay slurs. Aren’t we more englightened than this? I don’t like Maddow either, but how she looks or what her sexual preferences are don’t matter a shit to me.

      1. There’s no crying on message boards.

        1. But there’s taking a dump?

          1. There’s freedom.

            Some can handle it.

          2. If the mods aren’t sweating it, than neither should you.

            Online chit-chat is a rough-and-tumble sport. Think about wearing a cup, if you’re bruising this easily.

            1. No bruises here. And you’re free to behave like bigoted nine year old frat boys and I’m free to tell you to grow up and evaluate people by what they say and not what they look like. If you don’t want to take my advice, then that’s up to you.

              1. No bruises here.

                So you’re all done, then. Excellent.

              2. If you don’t want to take my advice

                “Hello, Sears? I never asked for this gift, and would like to exchange it for something more useful.”

                1. Most unwelcome “gift” since that fateful night I first gave Ana Marie Cox a Whitman’s Chocolates Sampler.

                  And the clap.

                  1. “Daddy — ?!?”

              3. So you’re into nine year old frat boys?

                1. “PRESENT!!!”

                2. Take it easy on him. It’s just horesplay.

              4. “bigoted”

                Point it out.

            2. Think about wearing a cup

              Goddess knows, I do!

          3. Apparently you have never met Sandi.

      2. Aren’t we more englightened than this?

        “Yessss… yessssssssssssss… NOW you’re doing it properly…”

      3. Aren’t we more [enlightened] than this?

        Not really, no.

        1. Co-signed. On a thread where there are already mentions of genital warts; Santa Claus Child Molestation jokes; genital lesions; and Larry Elder’s ass (among other things)… we’re all supposed to get our collective knickers twisted over what, now…?

          Pfui!

        2. We are Rachel.

      4. I’ll stop calling Maddow an Ugly Commie Lezbo when she stops crusading for more ways in which the government can interfere in my life.

        1. “Aren’t we more enlightened than this?”

          Nope. Libertarians show their true colors here. Bunch of bigots underneath, or at least when they can hide it on the internet. All that stuff about civil liberties and tolerance for all is just b.s.

          1. Actually we libertarians support free speech, including bigotted hateful speech. In case you aren’t aware, free speech is a civil liberty. Furthermore, tolerance for all is a meme of the the left.

            1. Wrong, and I can prove it

              1. +1 Dos Equis whore

              2. Hey no fair trotting out two (or more) of your personalities within three posts. Why don’t you hold your mental tea parties on rctlfy?

            2. Free speech is a self evident, natural, common law right, endowed by our Creator. Civil Rights are endowed by the gov’t.

          2. Suck a limp dick you square.

            1. How much for yours?
              I used to find libertarianism intriguing. That is until I wandered into this place the other day and realized it’s a not-so-thinly veiled hang-out for bigots like you guys. Thanks, but no thanks. Enjoy the circle-jerk.

              1. Please, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

              2. I used to find libertarianism intriguing. That is until I wandered into this place the other day and realized it’s a not-so-thinly veiled hang-out for bigots like you guys.

                With equal rights comes the caveat of being open to equal ridicule.

                1. With equal rights comes the caveat of being open to equal ridicule.

                  +1,000,000,000

              3. I used to find your political philosophy intriguing until I saw that people acting in a way in which I don’t approve.

              4. Strap on a set, J.S. If the worst thing gays and lesbians have in the world to worry about is “Rachel Maddow is an ugly lesbian” jokes on the Reason comment thread, then they’ve pretty much achieved full equality.

          3. This is completely false, at least from personal experience. I have met many more libertarians than you in my life, as a result of working for major libertarian organizations. Almost uniformly they’re some of the best people I’ve met in my life. And considering two of the most prominent and respected libertarians are gay, your statement holds little water.

            1. Speaking of prominent gay libertarians, lots of props to Tom Palmer of Cato. Super-smart, great public speaker, genuinely good dude.

              1. uh, huh, huh, huh, huh. you said, ‘gay.’

          4. I wouldn’t overgeneralize from the online jugheads here; they’re still working out getting pushed up against lockers in high school…or not being able to push people up against lockers anymore or something. Some of us, maybe most, really don’t give a shit about the color of a person’s skin or what kind of holes they look to put stuff in, or whether they wear boots or fishnet stockings. I only get annoyed with statists for building bridges to nowhere, and for consistently resisting trying to understand economic thinking.

            1. I wouldn’t overgeneralize from the online jugheads here; they’re still working out getting pushed up against lockers in high school…or not being able to push people up against lockers anymore or something.

              You misspelled “DERP.”

          5. Nice try retard. Yeah we should be like you and just tell anybody who disagrees with us and/or hurts our feelings to “Shut up” or “we’ll shut you up”. Pretty tolerant “Real Time”. Its called “freedom of speech” butt munch, now go crawl back into your semen stained bean bag in your mom’s basement and look more gay porn.

        2. seconded on that!

      5. Bull!! Look at the picture comparison CalebT shows. Maddow is so over-the-top dyke that it’s pretty certain she wants her lesbianism noted.

      6. OK. Let’s make bad comments about her heterosexual preferences then.

  22. Accepting the fact that Maddow accepts the fact that China is an oppressive dictatorship, our best hope for the collapse of this argument will be the actual collapse of the China house of cards. The high speed railroads that everybody goes gaga about were crumbling before they finished and the same lack of quality is festering in all the many public projects.

    I made a visit to northern china a couple of years ago. We stayed in a new, empty hotel in a new, empty city. The new empty restaurant was never opened because there was nobody there to eat. So we visited a local souvenir shop but didn’t buy anything because everything was covered with a thick layer of dust that reflected both the time it had spent on the shelves and the lack of motivation to keep things nice for the customers.

    On our drive to Beijing we found ourselves stuck for about 4 hours in a traffic jam. This in the middle of nowhere. So we climbed up the newly constructed concrete embankment (we’d seen this being built everywhere) only to find it crumbling beneath our feet. They are slapping up shoddy projects that have no real purpose other than giving an impression of progress. The country is a modern Potemkin village.

    I’m sure that when the inevitable does happen, Maddow and her ilk will conveniently forget their past praise for the Chinese miracle and claim to have recognized it’s failures from the beginning.

    1. By the time China collapses there will be some other model state for them. They held the Soviet Union out as a model for development for a long time — for a while, its GDP growth surpassed our own — and it’s long since collapsed into a corporatist police state, in large part because of its prior socialist structure. The Western Left didn’t reevaluate its ideas; it moved on.

      I mean, hell, they even awarded Pulitzers to journalists covering up forced starvations at the time. They loved Duranty. You can file them all under evil or stupid, and incapable of honest reflection.

      In any case, the entire point of the 20th century’s experiments to any thinking person should be the horror of granting to government a monopoly on violence, exchange and speech. If the Holocaust, Cultural Revolution, Killing Fields and Gulag aren’t enough to convince someone that grand designs are drawn in the suffering of millions, a speed bump in China’s economic growth won’t disway them either.

    2. They are slapping up shoddy projects that have no real purpose other than giving an impression of progress. The country is a modern Potemkin village.

      So basically, it’s like the Great Leap Forward all over again?

    3. I think you’re being too generous. They’ll not only forget their past praise, but hold out the collapse as an example of the failure of capitalism.

  23. Odd that she points to a railroad bridge and declares it to be unprofitable. Most railroad bridges in this country are privately owned by freight railroads who built them with private capital. The railroad I work for is immensely profitable, with $13.5 billion in 2010 profits.

    1. “Odd that she points to a railroad bridge and declares it to be unprofitable.”

      It’s not odd, it’s stupidity. She simply has no understanding of finance.
      My office chair is ‘unprofitable’, but if had to sit on the floor, the company would be less profitable.
      Such nuance is far beyond her ken.

    1. Which one has the bigger clit?

  24. I came for the alt text. I am disappoint.

    1. I know, right? How is there no alt text?

      1. “This big thing behind me powers my vibrator!”

  25. “What would happen to an Occupy Wall Street-style protest against some big state project initiated by Barack Obama?”

    Um, Keystone Pipeline?

  26. “Progressive” conformism is about as ding dong dull as other kinds of conformism. I know a number of otherwise imaginative, intelligent, curious people who just become boring, incurious, unimaginative dunderheads when it comes to political economics. So, I can’t believe they are idiots because I know what they can do on other topics. I just think there’s this poltical identity group bandwagon that they find impossible to get off of, for fear of leaving their loved ones behind. So, I agree that people like Maddow are smart. I just think most progressives, in the arena of political economics lack intellectual courage which leads to cognitive dissonance, dishonesty, and a lack of curiousity and imagination. Mention a political economic topic to them and their cerebral cortex shuts down or becomes the slave to their repitilian or mammalian part of their brain.

  27. That’s actually a big problem today – people are afraid to point out that the progresivism that the left wants today was already tried out in the thirties – as fascism and as national socialism. Instead, all they want to compare it to is the New Deal, which was essentially a light version of either.

    Why capitalists are such wimps are beyond me.

    1. People aren’t afraid. Hell I do it all the time. Progressives simply put their fingers in their ears and yell “la la la”, or call me a racist, poor hating, privileged white kid with no empathy.

      The irony is that it’s usually a much more privileged white kid telling me that.

  28. maddow is one of those people i can disagree with on almost everything, but i can enjoy watching her, and i can have great respect for her. she’s smart, knowledgeable, and she generally is fair and doesn’t take cheap shots.

    1. You’re fucking with me, right?

    2. Ten minutes of her show and I need a brain enema. Other than that, it’s great.

      1. Not gonna work — you’ll need a transplant, and it hurts like a bitch

        1. This reminds me of the quip: brain transplant is the only kind where it is better to be the donor than the recipient.

          1. I’d rather be a kidney donor than recipient. You have to be on great health to donate a kidney and terrible health to receive one.

            1. Yeah, but after the (successful) transplant, both donor & recipient have one good kidney.

              Actually, I agree with you because the recipient has to take immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of his/her life AFAIK.

    3. Now I understand how you can stand on the line at a protest and let those vermin insult and degrade you and everything you stand for. You practice by getting handcuffed to a chair in front of Raging Madcow.

  29. Worst chat room ever.

    1. Paging Mean Girl

  30. “When people tell us, ‘No, no, no. We’re not going to build it. No, No, No. America doesn’t have any greatness in its future.'” Who says this? Who makes that argument? No one, that’s who.

    “It’s never going to be a profitable venture for some company to come up with this idea [pointing to a railroad bridge] and build it on spec. That’s not gonna happen!” Why not? Don’t companies need to transport goods?

    “It needs some government leadership frankly to get something done in common that’s gonna benefit the country as a whole.” Why? We got the iPod without government leadership.

    “This . . . whole fight about whether or not the government should be doing anything right now . . . that’s a fundamental fight about what kind of country we’re going to be and whether or not we take recovery from this economic disaster seriously.” That much is true, just not in the way Maddow means it. The fight is about whether the U.S. is going to continue to find the intestinal fortitude to address the root of the problem or simply ignore it and continue doing the same things that got us here. Unfortunately, Maddow apparently has no interest in taking recovery from the economic crisis seriously. She wants to keep doing the same things that got us into this mess in the first place.

    1. You don’t know the root of the problem. The only way you can promise you’re not actually in favor of America declining is by invoking magic.

      The ipod would not exist for government investment in science and technology. It’s a partnership and always has been. And she’s not talking about gadgets, but the several large projects that societies have always done via government action, and that markets have never produced, ever.

      1. America is not declining, other countries are simply rising, they are rising because of globalisation, not because they got improved bureaucrats. You think some fat and lazy bums on government created jobs are going to lead to greatness ?

        It really is stupid, using the IPodm of all things, as the example of government investment . I can use your logic and very honestly claim that if it were not for the Nazis, rockets would not exist, and if it were not for the Soviets spaceships would not exist. Get a clue buffoon, I owe as much to them as I owe to government a-holes like you, NOTHING !

      2. “You don’t know the root of the problem.” I do, actually. It’s people demanding government do things they don’t want to face themselves. Like OWS folks demanding higher taxes, when all they need to do is voluntarily send more of their money to the U.S. government’s Gifts to the United States account. http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

        “The only way you can promise you’re not actually in favor of America declining is by invoking magic.” What the crap does that even mean?

        “The ipod would not exist for government investment in science and technology.” Perhaps, but it certainly would not exist if we waited for government to make it.

        “And she’s not talking about gadgets, but the several large projects that societies have always done via government action, and that markets have never produced, ever.” You mean like the Chrysler Building? Wait, no, that wasn’t financed by the government. Large projects you say. What does that mean? The iPod and its successors the iPhone and the iPad, and their competitors, have changed the way we share and collect information. That is a pretty big project that the government did not produce. This whole “big and great things only come from government spending” is a crock.

        1. He’s talking about the hydrogen bomb, stuff like that. You know, symbols of national greatness.

      3. And she’s not talking about gadgets, but the several large projects that societies have always done via government action, and that markets have never produced, ever.

        Yeah, Tony, and it keeps getting pointed out to you, plain as day, that thanks to the the massive, bloated bureaucracy that gives you a woody, those big projects are no longer financially feasible.

        For every Teton Dam, there’s dozens of others that have stood for nearly a century or longer, and it wasn’t because the EPA and the enviro-fags gave them their stamp of approval.

        1. For every Teton Dam, there’s dozens of others that have stood for nearly a century or longer, and it wasn’t because the EPA and the enviro-fags gave them their stamp of approval.

          How much was lost from the opportunity cost?

        2. Do you have a point or are you just gonna keep ranting about types of people you think are icky?

          1. The point is that your comments are asinine.

            Got it?

          2. HA HA Great come back Tony. NOT! Is that all you got, “quit ranting”? Why not argue the points of this so called “rant” oh because you can’t. Tony: FAIL.

  31. And has been pointed out repeatedly, her stupid little spot in front of Hoover Dam shows a remarkable lack of awareness, even for a progressive media pundit.

    1) It’s Hoover Dam–authorized by that so-called laissez-faire monster, Herbert Hoover.
    2) If Hoover Dam was going to be built today, it would cost about 300 times what it did back then on an inflation-adjusted basis–not just due to the ridiculous lawsuits by the environmental lobby, but the mountain of regulations and red tape that would be bigger than the dam itself.

  32. Sorry, but if you still believe in the progressive big government will take care of me and corporashuns! are evil mantra at the age of 25, you’re an idiot.

    And/or you’re a pussy who can’t stand up for your ideas, even though they may not always be popular.

    And the people that say: “I don’t get it. My friends are smart in other areas, but when it comes to politics…” Well, guess what? They ain’t smart, okay? Dig deeper and you’ll find a whole host of other areas where there are equally vapid.

    WTF is so hard to figure out by walking into any DMV or taking a public bus: GOVT. DOES NOT WORK!

  33. The first time I ever heard her speak was when she was being interviewed by Bill Maher. When she said that she thought it was hypocritical for people to ask to be voted in office so they can reduce the size of government, I changed the channel.

    1. When she said that she thought it was hypocritical for people to ask to be voted in office so they can reduce the size of government, I changed the channel.

      Wow. That *is* stupid. People who are elected are presumably supposed to advance what’s best for the people who elected them, not advance the power of the state despite that. Apparently, Maddow believes that “what’s best” for anyone is a more powerful and more active government. Also, she must believe that government by virtue of its existence will necessarily do only that which is “best” for the population, whether they want it or not. I suppose that’s progressivism.

  34. God… your whole argument is “bureaucracy ahhh!” Bureaucracy, to you, not being the very method by which people do things freely in common, but “that icky thing.”

    I do so only to make an analytical point.

    What was that you did again? Oh yeah, invoke a childish comparison of belief in the propriety of the existence of the state with fascism.

    If you don’t get Maddow’s point then you’re too dumb to live. YOU have to prove how the market will produce every possible thing society needs, otherwise you concede her point. Saying the government should build bridges is not the radical position. Saying government shouldn’t do anything is.

    1. People who say things like “YOU have to prove how the market will produce every possible thing society needs, otherwise you concede her point,” have no room to be also saying “If you don’t get Maddow’s point then you’re too dumb to live.” No one has to prove how the market will produce every possible thing society needs. First, no one actually knows enough to be able to do that. Second, it’s not necessary. That is part of the beauty of the market. No one has to master all of it or explain all of it. It is an order that arises naturally, from the bottom up. If you cannot grasp that, then I submit again that you have no business calling someone else dumb.

    2. If you don’t get Maddow’s point then you’re too dumb to live.

      And if you think Maddow’s point has any connection to the current reality, then you’re an ignorant twink.

      YOU have to prove how the market will produce every possible thing society needs, otherwise you concede her point.

      No, SHE has to prove that the government can produce every possible thing society needs in perpetuity, without ANY forms of economic or social dysfunction resulting.

      Saying the government should build bridges is not the radical position. Saying government shouldn’t do anything is.

      Saying the government should build bridges if they can be produced without navigating an ocean of red tape is not a radical philosophy. Saying the government should do something for the sake of doing something, irrespective of reality, is.

      1. She doesn’t claim government can or should produce everything a society needs, just that the market won’t do it all.

        1. She doesn’t claim government can or should produce everything a society needs, just that the market won’t do it all.

          But she never actually stops to define where that line should be, Tony. So the end result of her line of argument is always the same.

          1. There shouldn’t be a strict line. That would be putting dogma ahead of practicality. Society’s needs evolve with time. If we were smartly governed we would be able to optimize government and the market to produce the best results. You want the outcomes of the market to rule and be even more powerful than democratic government.

            1. If we were smartly governed we would be able to optimize government and the market to produce the best results.

              And if I could shit gold, I would be rich. Talk about “invoking magic”. Your argument boils down to a “perfect government”; the antithetical fantasy model of the “perfect market”. Neither exist.

              You want the outcomes of the market to rule and be even more powerful than democratic government.

              Yep.

            2. There shouldn’t be a strict line. That would be putting dogma ahead of practicality.

              Which is just a fancy way of saying that anything the government does is justified, as long as they say it’s “for our own good.” Yep, no slippery slopes are going to come into play there. :/

              If we were smartly governed we would be able to optimize government and the market to produce the best results.

              In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. If the government has become run by a bunch of incompetent, obtuse, mouth-breathing, double-dealing, lying, corrupt boobs, its because that’s EXACTLY what the people wanted.

              Democracy isn’t so much fun when it fucks you, is it?

              You want the outcomes of the market to rule and be even more powerful than democratic government.

              Well, YEAH–just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it’s conducive to a functional society.

            3. “If we were smartly governed …”

              This is the core of libertarian thought. We have never been smartly governed, we are not now smartly governed and we will never be smartly governed. Ergo best we do away with government planning because we will all be enslaved while we all wait and hope for a smart government.

              Government is not smart enough to govern us. That’s the key point you miss, Tony.

        2. That’s a good argument when you’re the one who gets to decide what it is “society needs”. What does that even mean? “Society” doesn’t need anything. Individuals need things.

          1. Individuals need things done in common too, that’s why they set up governments, and when they’re democratic, individuals get an equal say in that enterprise. Just like what happens when a group of people of any number gets together to accomplish anything. You guys want to restrict a hugely important freedom, the freedom to do big things in common. As for bitching about how democracy works, nobody ever said you get everything you want in life, so if that’s what you think then you need to get off your mommy’s tit.

            1. Individuals need things done in common too

              Yep, which is why we see this very interaction occur regardless of government involvement.

              that’s why they set up governments and when they’re democratic, individuals get an equal say in that enterprise.

              They don’t get anything equivalent to what the private market allows. In democratic government, I am bound by the rules of the majority. In the private market, I am free to partake or refrain from a certain enterprise. It is notable that you are only concerned with the individual’s “say” in a government enterprise. The idea that they should be allowed to opt out of such enterprise is never considered.

              Just like what happens when a group of people of any number gets together to accomplish anything. You guys want to restrict a hugely important freedom, the freedom to do big things in common.

              Yeah, this is just fantasy. When you say, “the freedom to do big things in common”, what you really mean is force all to pay for the ends that SOME desire. It is a fiction that “all” are partaking in these projects you envision.

              As for bitching about how democracy works, nobody ever said you get everything you want in life, so if that’s what you think then you need to get off your mommy’s tit.

              Then this contradicts your argument against the free market. If you concede that one is not entitled to everything they want, then your argument that the market doesn’t provide “everything” that society wants falls apart.

            2. As for bitching about how democracy works, nobody ever said you get everything you want in life, so if that’s what you think then you need to get off your mommy’s tit.

              You don’t support OWS, Tony?

            3. You guys want to restrict a hugely important freedom, the freedom to do big things in common.

              No, if you want to act in common with any number of other consenting individuals, I have no objection whatsoever. But, that’s not what you mean, is it? When you say “act in common” you mean “put a gun to the base of someone else’s skull and make them cooperate”.

            4. Tony,

              Libertarians, at least the realists, know that we need some government and that the best of the worst governments is the democratic type. Libertarians are not against any and all governments. They are against governments that overstep their bounds, enslave us and spend all of our hard earned money for stupid things.

    3. YOU have to prove how the market will produce every possible thing society needs, otherwise you concede her point.

      This is such a ridiculous argument. One can’t “prove” that the market system will create “every possible thing society needs”. One can only claim that through the market, “society” creates the things it needs. To the Left, the lack of something is “proof” of market failure, but the reality is that it only demonstrates that it is NOT highly demanded by society. Contrary to their logic, if government HAS to enter the market, then it shows a lack of demand by “society”.

  35. If you don’t like bureaucracy then you should volunteer to do every single job at the CDC or something.

    Oh, you’re a lazy bastard who’d prefer to pay a small fee so that other people do the complex work of protecting you from pandemic disease? What if we gave it a different name? ‘Bureaucracy’ seems to trigger something in your reptile brain, since there is fuck all of an argument for why people shouldn’t be allowed to have a government that does things (necessitating a bureaucracy).

    1. ever worked in a bureaucracy Tony?

    2. The lifecycle of every bureaucracy, Tony–squealing like a stuck pig that it isn’t always this way doesn’t change the facts.

      http://www.oftwominds.com/blog…..e5-11.html

      1. Fucking awesome!

  36. If you don’t like bureaucracy then you should volunteer to do every single job at the CDC or something.

  37. If you don’t like bureaucracy then you should volunteer to do every single job at the CDC or something.
    Nike Air Max 87 runnning shoes

  38. The first time I ever heard her speak was when she was being interviewed by Bill Maher. When she said that she thought it was hypocritical for people to ask to be voted in office so they can reduce the size of government, I changed the channel.

    Nike Air Max 90 running shoes

  39. Not every idea that’s good for the country is a profit-making idea for some company somewhere.

    If that handsome gentleman Rachel is arguing that the Hoover Dam is good, but good ideas do not equate to profit, how does she explain the Betchel Corporation and its rise to prominence thanks to its involvement in the Hoover Dam project?

    More importantly, why didn’t the government just build the dam itself rather than taking bids?

    1. Fuck you. It’s the goddamned fucking gaybashing- even subtle and with “humor”- that turns ears off you fucking pig bastard.

      1. If you’re this angry maybe you should try pitching instead of catching for a while.

        1. not gay, just hate that people think it’s funny to call lesbians “handsome men” and then wonder why they would listen to anything that is said after that opening.

          1. not gay

            You just enjoy a good pegging every once in awhile? Preferrably from a handsome young pundit like Rachel?

          2. We’re free to insult statists at every opportunity. They have quite a lot of blood on their hands. Fuck them in every conceivable way.

            1. But to consider calling them gay an insult belies the problem at hand.

              1. True, it isn’t the intellectual high road, but again, fuck them.

          3. hate that people think it’s funny to call lesbians “handsome men”

            Ok, have it your way: I’ll refer to that smug, condescending, obnoxious, and pig-ignorant state propagandist as an ugly dude from now on.

            -jcr

            1. She’s hot for a lesbian, what’s wrong with you people? It’s like you’ve never seen one before.

              1. She’s hot for a lesbian

                Tony has just demonstrated — albeit both unwillingly and unintentionally — the fundamental truth behind the conservative axiom: “The soft bigotry of low expectations.

                That just made my afternoon, frankly. 😉

              2. She’s hot for a lesbian,

                Dude, you really need to get out more. Not all Lesbians are competing in the Rosie O’Donnel look-alike contest anymore. There are some lesbians out there who’d make any straight dude wish he were a chick.

                1. Some, yes, but Maddow is definitely on the hot end of the spectrum. From my rather vast experience in gay social circles, lesbians who would be sexually appealing to straight men are the exception.

                  1. No she isn’t. If she were straight…even her high school photo, she’d be a meh to a meh-and-a-half, and now with her horrible hair and that awful smug half-grin she always wears she’s pretty ugly. About 40% of the lesbians I’ve met have been attractive to hot even by my straight-guy standards, and that includes a couple who took on the more masculine role.

                    Apparently, your circle of gay friends are the D-list.

          4. Again, look at the picture comparison posted by CalebT. Maddow chose this look for herself. And, yes, she. looks. like. a. man!

          5. Spencer,
            You’re in a libertarian crowd. If you can take the heat, then keep your woodie out of the fire.

      2. The dangers of allowing sand to enter one’s vagina.

      3. “Fuck you. It’s the goddamned fucking gaybashing- even subtle and with “humor”- that turns ears off you fucking pig bastard.”

        1. Get over it. It’s humor.

        2. Political Correctness is oppression. The first Amendment, what does it mean?

        3. Probably not one person here who actually dislikes gays.

        4. No one will ever be free unless we can all learn to take a joke.

        5. How many Polacks does it take to screw in a light bulb… (See? I’m Polish and I think it’s hilarious.)

        6. Is there some right to “not be offended” that I missed in the Constitution?

        1. 5. How many Polacks does it take to screw in a light bulb… (See? I’m Polish and I think it’s hilarious.)

          [BASTARD]

          I kid….I kid.

        2. You have a right to be as crass as you want, but your crassness only deserves to be taken as something other than stupidity and bigotry if it’s funny. Calling Maddow a dude isn’t funny, unless you’re 12.

          1. Calling Maddow a dude isn’t funny

            Certainly can be; just as it can be funny to (oh, say) call Bush a chimp, under [x] circumstances.

            Thankfully, you’re in no position to stamp your widdle feetsies and impose your own highly arbitrary “standards” on anyone else here… chafe your authoritarian little hindquarters however that might.

          2. Just like a liberal. I believe in freedom of speech…just as long as it’s speech I BELIEVE IN!

            God, what a fucking hypocrite!

            1. Nobody’s advocating for government to lock you up. But you don’t get to demand that no one respond to bigoted comments.

          3. I reminded of that classic tale of the little boy who cried “bigot.”

          4. I’m in my 40s, and it makes me chuckle. Why are you jackboot-lickers all so humorless?

            -jcr

            1. It could be that our sense of humor is not tied to laughing at people for how they look.
              But other than that, down with Sparta!

              1. So, you admit being a jackboot-licker.

                That at least makes up for your lack of a sense of humor.

              2. Ummm….she chose the look! It’s a manly look! What’s funny is how completely she’s stereotyped herself!

          5. So Tony, I am to assume you are offended by Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Andrew Dice Clay and just about every other stand-up comedian that’s ever taken the stage? I am to assume you are offended by every shock-jock in the nation? You disapprove of any humor that pokes fun at ANY group of people? You can’t poke fun at any sexual orientation, race, religion or creed? Is it okay to joke about white people? How about terrorists? Nazis?

            Do you know what offends ME Tony? YOU DO! You offend me right down to the bottom of my heart, and not in a humorous way. Nearly every time you type a line on this comment board I want to vomit. You and your ilk who have, for the past 80 years, been destroying the liberty this nation once stood for, with your creeping Socialistic agenda of steeling from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. You and those like you are DIRECTLY responsible for the downfall of society, and yes, you offend me.

            You are offended by a punchline. I am offended by pure unadulterated evil.

            1. Did I say I was offended? I find humor at the expense of minorities funny, often, provided it actually is funny.

              I don’t believe in policing speech by law, but you don’t get to say bigoted things and not have anyone respond, then cry about how I hate freedom if I do. Speech is a right, stupidity is not.

      4. Spencer is right. We lesbians are blameless, holy creatures — like cows, wandering placidly through the streets of India.

        We were never meant to endure brute sarcasm or ridicule, like all the rest of you poor, luckless bastards.

      5. AC didn’t actually reference her sexuality.

      6. I’ll have to admit, I had to read the OP 3 times before I could even find the gay-related insult. Calling Maddow a dude shouldn’t even count.

  40. …and on the way down she hit every branch.

    ta-doosh. I’ll be here all week.

  41. What’s Rachel address? I want to send her this T-Shirt:

    http://www.zazzle.com/slavery_…..7138507928

  42. I don’t understand how “progressives” can champion the interstate highway system on one hand but then advocate an expanded EPA on the other. It’s the most two-faced position ever.

    The interstate highway system has led to a massive amount of pollution, fossil fuel release, and demand for gas-guzzling cars. But even “enviromentally friendly” progressives champion it because it was a government project. Apparently the government isn’t capable of polluting.

    And also what about the “carbon footprint” of all the wars and “humanitarian” interventions that have occurred over the years in far corners of the planet?

    1. The interstate highways are a defense system. Eisenhower saw how the Nazis moved troops around on the Autobahn, while he had to use the mud roads of France. Every few miles there must be a straight 1 mile stretch, in case it’s needed as a military runway. Now let’s see the liberals defend it. Oh, and cars at highway speeds us less gas, and produce less polution. So there’s that.

    2. It’s the same way they can fight to all but ban cigarettes but still support agricultural subsidies to tobacco farmers.

      There is NO unknown disconnect to them. There is opportunity to win votes without losing any.

      1. Which liberals believe that?

        1. Democratic politicians in tobacco growing states? Al Gore?

  43. When a bunch of people want to do a massive project that involves the environment, the lives of millions of people and big bucks, a national public decision is called for.

    I dislike big gov as much as anyone. But only a government can make these decisions.

    As long as it does not go too far, she is correct.

    1. “as long as it does not go too far”

      Now that’s funny…or sad…but definitely not a governing principle that has ever shown itself to be true.

    2. What type of massive project are you talking about? Examples of this type of project would be greatly appreciated.

      Until then, I’ll assume you’re talking about Hoover Dam.

      1. And in the case of Hoover Dam, the impact to the environment was never even seriously considered. It was “This will provide water for farms, electricity for homes, and jobs for the poor.” Not “Should we dramatically alter this wild and scenic river for the benefit of a small segment of the population?”

        Environmentalism has probably killed more jobs over the last 40 years than any other national policy combined.

        1. So you’re for public works then?

          1. Sure, if they’re economically feasible, fiscally sustainable, and will actually provide a empirical benefit to society.

    3. “But only a government can make these decisions.” Why? A government is only people. Why should I assume that people in government are smarter than everyone else?

      1. The XL pipeline for instance could not be built without some eminent domain being exercised. I am speaking of only mega projects that are intrinsically political because so many people and so many interests are involved.

        1. “The XL pipeline for instance could not be built without some eminent domain being exercised.” It probably could, but even if I accept that it could not, that in no way means only government could decide to build it.

          1. To which private interests do you want to give eminent domain authority?

            1. To which private interests do you want to give eminent domain authority?

              That’s a question for Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

            2. You wouldn’t. They would have to buy the property or in case of a pipeline, negotiate payments for the pipe to go under people’s land, or they would have to put a few more zigs in the pipe to avoid property which they could not voluntarily get permission to use.

            3. You wouldn’t. They would have to buy the property or in case of a pipeline, negotiate payments for the pipe to go under people’s land, or they would have to put a few more zigs in the pipe to avoid property which they could not voluntarily get permission to use.

            4. Who said I wanted to give eminent domain authority to any private interest? There is no reason to conflate a possible need for eminent domain with the issue of who would decide to build a pipeline. I know it seems rare these days, but private companies do sometimes build things without using eminent domain.

              1. I know from first hand experience that pipeline companies in Texas have legal eminent domain powers. I do not necessarily approve, but thats a fact.

              2. When all you have is a wisker, everything looks like an ommlette that needs makin.

      2. Because they have TOP. MEN.

  44. Here’s my theory on what’s the matter with her:

    Economically conservative points are all too often, and historically, linked with homophobic points or simply anti-gay rhetoric. A homosexual then looks around and sees who appears to champion their cause (term used relatively) and sees the LEFT.

    The left accepts them and seems right about the number one issue in their life at the time, so they find themselves supporting the other policies under the left’s umbrella- regardless of how incongruent they are with the policy that they agreed with in the first place.

    “More clearly, these people believe the government should give me equal rights. That’s awesome. Those other people think I’m mentall ill and should be shunned. That’s NOT awesome. I’m going to agree with the awesome people on just about anything because they’re awesome.”

    By this point, they can’t separate fiscal minimism from social conservatism because they have for too long been drinking the kool-aid.

    1. Correct. They don’t think.

      1. Yes, but more importantly they are forced to choose between a group that hates them for no reason and a group that is wrong about a lot, but pretends to accept them.

        1. I would characterize it as a group they imagine hates them.

          1. That is fair. They equate that group with the loud church people who tell them they are going to hell. Then they come to check it out and get people calling lesbians handsome men, thinking it’s funny. Then they tune out.

            Might be irrational, but it’s a bit to expect anything else from most people.

            1. Let’s not forget, while gayness is being discussed, how AIDS was spread and became the only comunicable, fatal disease that had it’s own civil rights. Doctors and nurses were forbidden from asking a patient if they were gay so that they could take precautions. Not to mention the promiscuity that caused the disease to spread like wildfire. They should be thankful that they weren’t herded into FDR’s concentration camps.

              1. I don’t think restricting doctors from asking the sexual preference of the patients equates to giving HIV civil rights. It was dumb policy that probably helped spread the disease.

                However, we must also consider that the fact that they were forced to hide their sexual preferences for ages arguably led to their underground promiscuity. When their life is forced into the shadows, they take what they can get where they can get it.

                1. WTF? The gays were afraid they would be denied treatment if their gayness was exposed. They didn’t give a flying fuck if doctors or nurses caught their disease. I’ve read where gay men have hundreds of partners in their lifetimes. Name any other disease where doctors were not allowed to ask certain questions.

              2. “They should be thankful that they weren’t herded into FDR’s concentration camps.”

                Yes, this is most excellent!!!

            2. Church people who hate gays vote, and they vote Republican. Bigotry certainly doesn’t help sell economics, but right-thinking people realize that anyone stupid enough to hate people for being gay isn’t to be trusted on any more complicated subject.

              1. Right-thinking people recognize a non sequitur when they see one.

              2. For Tony’s assertions that church people who hate gays vote Republican, Fred Phelps (yes, the one from that “church”) ran for state governor three times and once for US Senate, all as a Democrat. He apparently also sued Ronald Reagan for appointing an ambassador to the Vatican, claiming a violation of separation of church and state. He also seems to have claimed that members of his “church” helped run Gore’s presidential campaign (1988 primary) in the state. He had also endorsed Clinton in ’92, only to oppose him in ’96 after Clinton’s stance on homosexuality became clear. (He apparently never liked Hillary though, having criticized her during his ’92 speech endorsing Bill.) It also sounds like he praised Saddam Hussein (in 1997) and members of his “church” traveled to Baghdad to protest the U.S. (with Hussein’s permission of course.)

                Doesn’t a homosexual-hating minister (the most notorious one I might add) who has voted Democrat (and behaved in other ways contrary to what one would expect from a Republican) kinda hurt your premise there Tony? It is possible that he has voted for Republicans since 1992, but I get the impression he hates them too. And not just because it was a Republican president that signed a bill that bans protests within 300 feet of national cemetaries (whether or not that law is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech is irrelevant to the current discussion, but might be worth thinking about) and since that was mid-2006, wasn’t it a Republican led Congress at the time too? I think I’ve heard that he is actually still registered as a Democrat, but that’s just hearsay anyway as I don’t think that information is public record and I’m not about to ask Fred himself.

                Maybe this will get you to take a look at your biases Tony. (Or maybe not, I won’t claim to understand how other people think, sometimes I don’t even understand how I think.) As for me, I say all political parties have idiots and bad apples in them (both leaders and followers), as well as ideas I don’t find appealing. But since my plans to take over the world have suffered setbacks (never hire a sidekick named Pinky, especially if it is easy to misspell your name as Brain), I’ll take what I can get while trying to work for improvements.

                Of course, it sounds like Fred also did some decent work as a civil rights activist, but he got disbarred for behavior that makes it sound as though he went off the deep end.

                Admittedly, all the info I listed here came from Wikipedia (you know, that ever-trustworthy site that never has incorrect or biased information), but it actually seems to match what I’ve heard here in Topeka.

                1. No, one lunatic voting Democrat in the past doesn’t alter my premise, which is that if you’re a homophobe you’re more likely to vote Republican. The only demographic that party captures is older white men. What do you expect?

              3. Church people who hate gays vote, and they vote Republican

                They voted to elect Obama last time. That’s how Prop 8 passed. Or did you forget that there’s a core Dem constituency that’s REALLY not into the whole ‘gay’ thing?

    2. Or maybe conservatives are wrong about both things.

  45. What’s the Matter with Rachel Maddow?

    She has a TV show with an audience. Next question?

  46. You missed the whole point of the commercial. What she’s trying to say is that some vital things that are of the common good for the people of society don’t provide free-market incentives for private enterprises. This is the reason why John Smith wrote that infrastructure should not be in the hands of private enterprise. This has nothing to do with Keynes.

    1. But it doesn’t mean that profit-seeking private enterprise can’t be the delivery method for that common good.

      1. Really?what is profitable about buidling a dam?

        1. selling motherfucking electricity.

          1. Don’t forget water.

          2. Bingo

          3. Eloquently states, Spencer!

            1. sheesh…stated

          4. But if the private sector could choose how to sell electricity, they’d probably find some stupid, unobtrusive way of generating it. How would we create massive monuments to government then?

            But wait, artificial dams are bad, because of the environment. So government projects are bad.

            But wait, government is perfect. If only we had the right people in charge, like FDR and Obama. Wait. None of my political beliefs make sense!

            1. All evidence indicates that the private sector by itself tends to lag behind innovation in energy production, and massively lobbies the government to maintain the status quo, since it’s so profitable to the relevant companies.

              But no liberal says government is perfect or that it’s all or nothing with respect to public works and environmental concern. There may not be a more consistent mistake libertarians make than when they assume everyone else is as dogmatic and lacking in nuance as they.

              1. All evidence indicates that the private sector by itself tends to lag behind innovation in energy production, and massively lobbies the government to maintain the status quo, since it’s so profitable to the relevant companies.
                ———————————
                that sounds like a belief rather than a fact, especially since the drive for alternatives has been going on for some time now, with almost NO MARKET RESPONSE. So, blame energy companies for wanting to make money from providing products people will actually buy. But regardless, it is not govt’s role to dictate how quickly or slowly the private sector innovates.

    2. “What she’s trying to say is that some vital things that are of the common good for the people of society don’t provide free-market incentives for private enterprises.” But that makes no sense. Am I supposed to believe that absent the actions of government, no one would ever consider selling electricity or using a dam for hydroelectric power creation?

      1. Ben Franklin used a gov’t kite to discover electricity.

    3. You missed the whole point of the commercial. What she’s trying to say is that some vital things that are of the common good for the people of society don’t provide free-market incentives for private enterprises.

      So why is she using Hoover Dam as a backdrop when many of her fellow travelers would never stand for it being built today?

      1. Forget her fellow travelers, SHE wouldn’t stand for it. We would hear howling about crony capitalism and damage done to the environment of some turd-eating slug.

        1. Liberals are calling for major infrastructure works. Being more sophisticated on environmental harm than we were half a century ago isn’t a bad thing.

          1. Liberals are calling for major infrastructure works. Being more sophisticated on environmental harm than we were half a century ago isn’t a bad thing.

            It’s not. But the two demands definitely conflict. The “public works” projects are political moves to reduce unemployment and can’t risk the multi-year postponing that would be inevitable for “environmental impact” studies and legal impediments by advocacy groups.

          2. Liberals are calling for major infrastructure works.

            Bullshit. They’re calling for high speed rail. That’s about it.

            Everything else is maintenance, and the only reason that it’s so fucking expensive to keep up now is because of the crony capitalism and bureaucratic bullshit that passes for governance these days.

        2. And joining her in chorus are the turd-eating slugs themselves;Tony.

    4. You missed the whole point of the commercial. What she’s trying to say is that some vital things that are of the common good for the people of society don’t provide free-market incentives for private enterprises. This is the reason why John Smith wrote that infrastructure should not be in the hands of private enterprise. This has nothing to do with Keynes.

      First, I must assume you meant “Adam” Smith. Assuming this, are we supposed to believe that Smith is infallible? Numerous economists have disagreed with his ideas, so quoting his name isn’t compelling.

      Second, the welfare economics logic is seriously strained. If something is so highly desired by society (i.e. millions of individuals) then there must be incentive for the free market to invest in such.

      1. Name a single thing meant to be shared by all members of a society that provides a market incentive for a private company. Even in theory.

        1. Name a single thing meant to be shared by all members of a society that provides a market incentive for a private company. Even in theory.

          From your question, I presume you are thinking of something that “all members of a society” are “sharing” and this service/good is being provided by “one” provider. I would agree that there are VERY few examples of this. Mainly because it doesn’t exist in the private nor public market. The majority of “public” services are local/state and are contracted out to private companies. Outside of national defense, I am not sure what examples you would have in defense of your argument.

        2. All members of society is a pretty tall order.

          Since most libertarians of the classical liberal persuasion as opposed to anarcho-capitalists see the need for a military to be gov’t run this one is not an issue.

          Things like roads and railroads have a market incentive and there are private examples of both.

          Nor sure why you think there has to be something to be shared by 300 million people that can’t be provided locally by many companies.

          The internet is private although the gov’t had some role to play in its development and it is shared by millions.

          Insurance is private and some companies insure people in all 50 states (I assume).

        3. shoes

  47. I like Rachel Maddow.

  48. What’s not the matter with Rachel Maddow?

  49. Hmm, and the first bridges as part of the trans-continental railroad were built by which branch of the gov’t?

    1. let’s ask Obama – he keeps pointing to the Intercontinental Railroad as this great achievement. But he may have speaking Austrian, a language that I don’t know. (Probably because it does not exist, but that’s another story.)

  50. Maddow is intelligent, serious, and well-meaning.

    Bullshit.

    -jcr

    1. Thanks for your valuable contribution.

  51. In spite of viscerally disagreeing with her politics, attacking her sexuality is cheap.

    1. I completely agree with MCab. I don’t care what sexuality Maddow is, quite frankly. It’s her private business, and it’s of no worry or concern to me.

      It’s her politics that annoy me.

      I’d hasten to remind those making homophobic or bigoted statements in this comments section that Justin Raimondo — one of the most committed antiwar libertarians — is gay. If you attack Maddow’s sexuality, you’re also attacking his. And further even if there were no gay libertarians, attacking a political opponent’s sexuality would still be way out of bounds. The tactic is barbaric and I will not stand for it.

      1. i think it is pretty clear that all the homophobic and bigoted stuff is purely designed to get a rise out of certain people.
        not that i like it, but it is just baiting others in these threads.

        tony, whose asininity often annoys me, seems to get when he is being baited. he doesn’t get upset about that, he just gets upset when his statist talking points don’t win anyone over.

        a good portion of libertarians here think being offended is a sign of weakness, and will goad those who they think can be offended.

        1. The slurs started long before anyone commented on them. PCism, especially the extremes it has gone to, is annoying, but when you read comments like some of those above, especially the one about wistfully wishing gays had been locked in concentration camps, you’re reminded why it arose in the first place.
          I’m hardly lacking in a sense of humor. Big fan of South Park and the Simpsons. I’m also a libertarian and you may know me from such films as…

          1. Your sentiments are noble, but this gay dude didn’t find much to be offended by.

            Plus, most of the “slurs” seemed to be referencing her appearance rather than her actual gayness. Making fun of someone’s appearance is always cool in my book, unless they’re a burns victim or something.

            One of the many reasons I abandoned the progressive hive-mind is because I got annoyed at straight lefties always feigning great offense on my behalf. I also noticed that certain people (usually female) decided they liked me better after finding out that I was gay, which I think is itself a kind of bigotry.

            I don’t really think what’s keeping us from ditching the left is perceived bigotry from libertarians. The problem is that gays are just as vapid and idiotic as any other segment of the population, so most of us only think in “team red vs. team blue” terms. Your average gay person, being as stupid as any other American, probably has no idea that libertarians are down with gay rights. It also doesn’t help that the democrats treat you like a race traitor for supporting Ron Paul, even though Obama can’t even muster up the courage to take a stand on gay marriage.

            But given that gay men have the highest income of any US demographic, I think we’re bound to get more fiscally conservative over time.

            1. +1

              You are my new hero. I fully support your right to live your life as you see fit. As do the vast majority of libertarians.

            2. Re: her looks. I tell you what, the way she looks in that picture is dorkier than Dukakis’ “helmet” pic.

          2. …especially the one about wistfully wishing gays had been locked in concentration camps, you’re reminded why it arose in the first place.

            You obviously have a reading comprehension issue. The motivation of locking gays in concentration camps was ascribed to liberal icon FDR, who followed a roughly similar policy with the Japanese in WWII.

      2. Humorless faggot

        1. Now that IS funny. How did you come up with that? Genius!

          Look, if you’re going to be bigotted, at least think of something witty to say about your bigotry. Or just keep going “Derp” as though you thought of it.

  52. Ha ha.

    The streets continue to fill with leftists, getting shit done, kicking over the financial industry rock, exposing the grubs squirming underneath.

    Meanwhile at this pet website of the heavily subsidized oil billionaires, today’s target is…the unbearable, freedom-killing bureaucracy that is The Hoover Dam.

    In other words, in society’s retirement community, you have parked your wheelchairs and embarked on a program of yelling at walls.

    If it was anybody else but you anti-social, anti-democracy creeps, that would be kind of sad.

    But it’s you, so…

    Ha ha.

    1. Re: Orel Hazard,

      The streets continue to fill with leftists, getting shit done[…]

      Truer words could not be uttered – leftists are shit and get shit done everywhere….

  53. Madcow claims that “It’s never going to be a profitable venture for some company to come up with this idea [pointing to a railroad bridge] and build it on spec. That’s not gonna happen!”

    The problem is that it DID happen. That bridge that she pointed at was built on spec by a railroad company, which had decided that it would be more profitable to have a bridge than to have a railroad on each side but not let them meet.

  54. “The MSNBC host champions bureaucratic power at the expense of regular people and their rights.”

    Shorter title: Maddow is a Liberal.

  55. Can someone explain to me exactly what the obsession by liberals (and “national greatness” conservatives) is with big projects? I can’t quite say I see where big is necessarily a value. A big project that works out has big returns. But, a big project that is a loser is a humongous loser. But, really, that’s just a call for an increase in the riskiness of infrastructure through reduced diversification per dollar spent. Moreover, as an empirical matter, big projects almost certainly have a higher likelihood of exceeding cost feasibility in terms of economic return. There may have been some economies of scale in the early 20th century, but technology trends have about uniformly favored reductions in scale.

  56. in society’s retirement community, you have parked your wheelchairs and embarked on a program of yelling at walls.

  57. May there are no matter with it.

  58. Here’s a quote from the Hoover Dam Bypass website on why the new bridge was necessary:

    “Q.WHY IS THIS ROUTE SO IMPORTANT TO THE U.S. ECONOMY?
    A.U.S. 93 is on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) route between Mexico and Canada, and it is also the major commercial route between the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. With delays and potential closures (from accidents) on this section of highway, industry around the country suffers from loss of time and money in transporting goods and services.”

    There you have it folks. Rachel Maddow supports NAFTA! I love it when liberals contradict themselves. I’d be very surprised if Rachel would admit she supports free trade, but there she is, pointing at the bridge and telling us that Big Government made the right decision, not some greedy capitalist.

  59. Not every idea that’s good for the country is a profit-making idea for some company somewhere. It’s never going to be a profitable venture for some company to come up with this idea [pointing to a railroad bridge] and build it on spec. That’s not gonna happen! It needs some government leadership frankly to get something done in common that’s gonna benefit the country as a whole.

    True.

  60. Thank you for every one of your hard work on this site. Kim enjoys managing investigation and it’s obvious why. Most of us know all regarding the dynamic manner you make helpful tactics through this web site and in addition welcome participation from visitors about this article then our own simple princess is really discovering so much. Take advantage of the remaining portion of the new year. Your conducting a really good job.

  61. Who watches MSLSD anyways?

  62. This article is well written ,give a person very deep impression, I really have no language to describe it, I hope the authors make persistent efforts, come on!.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.