A.M. Links: Jeb Not Running For Prez, Nobel-Winning Obama Has Drone-Murdered Thousands of Pakistani Peasants, Experts: Payroll Tax Holiday Won't Work

• Jeb Bush: "I am not push-polling, or polling, and I am not running."

• Obama has drone-murdered between 1,350 and 2,250 people in Pakistan. No one knows how many were actually terrorists. 
• The National Payroll Reporting Consortium says much-lauded payroll tax holiday can't be implemented properly. 
• Egyptian soldiers violently beat, molest, drag an unarmed woman through Tahrir Square. Arab Spring FTW!  
• Conservatives find something else to hate about Romney: his tax reform plan. 
• Cartels penetrate Washington, D.C. 

Do you want hot links and other Reason goodies delivered to your inbox twice a day? Sign up here for Reason's morning and afternoon news updates.

New at Reason.tv:"Christopher Hitchens: Bah, Humbug on Christmas"

Comments

[Fluffy]

ABC has a poll out showing Paul getting 21% if he ran third party.

Everyone in the GOP keeps saying, "If Paul goes third party Obama will win, wah!" but at motherfucking 21% they should be worried that Paul himself would find a way to scrape off enough extra votes to win the thing outright.

[Rich]

The plot thickens.

2012 will be a great year for, um, spiritual practice. 8-(

[The Mayans]

Yes it will!

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Paul/Johnson, the 2012 ticket for The Spending is Too Damn High Party.

[T]

Whose growing the muttonchope? Muttonchops are an essential part of The Too Damn High appeal. Polls show a decided drop off in support when the muttonchops are eliminated.

[pmp]

Johnson has proven that he is not a skilled national politician.

[Citizen Nothing]

Johnson grows the muttonchops, Paul turns himself blue. (He'd look good as a Smurf.)

[Zeb]

As much as I like both of those guys, neither has the style to pull it off.

[Devil's Advocate]

I think it would be a mistake for him to do so. Not because he'd split the Republican vote, but because unfortunately a good proportion of the electorate is unable to move on from the Democrat/ Republican dichotomy.

[Bee Tagger]

If he's out of the Republican running at that point, I think he should definitely try third party. It would at least ensure his message is being discussed, on some level, up through the election.

[PS]

I'm sort of on the fence about this, but he would have nothing to lose, and it would mean his appearing in the D/R debates unless they decide to freeze him out. That seems unlikely though since he would be sucking votes (mostly) away from the Rs.

[Lost_In_Translation]

no reason to try third party this election, but 4 more years of ruinous policies should help him build the argument for a 3rd party in 2016, with possibly Rand as the candidate.

[stephen]

No it wouldn't. He wouldn't be invited to much debates as they'd stipulate that they only invite candidates from the 2 parties represented in congress - or something to that effect. He'd have a hard time getting crossover votes because independents and Democrats will only vote for him as a viable candidate in the national election. Independents especially will throw their lot in with the GOP candidate, not someone they believe has no hope.

All his drive should be on the GOP candidacy.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I think that a third party run would do a lot of damage to the rising libertarian subculture in the Republican party.

They would be able to point to it and say "See, I told you he wasn't a real Republican!"

[Citizen Nothing]

"...the rising libertarian subculture in the Republican party."
Heh heh. That's a good one.

[Quetzalcoatl]

I'd say that Paul's poll numbers are a fairly good indicator of its existence.

[SugarFree]

Yes, but how much of Paul's support is based on the sheer weakness of the field? Compared to Mormon-bot, The Smiler, Allusionmanic shitbag, Psychoeye McDumbshit, and the Miscarriage cuddler, Paul looks like fantastic port to weather the crazy storm.

[Bones]

Google doesn't match those terms with a candidate. Help me out, SF.

Is Allusionmaniac shitbag Gingrich?

[RoboCain]

Actually, I think there has been an increasing libertarian influence within the the Republican party. Let's face it, neocons are hardly conservative.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Still waiting for the electorate to see that the neocons have well overplayed their hand.

[stephen]

Why so mocking? Surely Rand Paul's election proves that someone who's not a neo-con can win in the Republican party?

[JW]

the rising libertarian subculture in the Republican party.

It's very yeasty.

[SugarFree]

Metaphors

I'm a riddle in nine syllables,
An elephant, a ponderous house,
A melon strolling on two tendrils.
O red fruit, ivory, fine timbers!
This loaf's big with its yeasty rising.
Money's new-minted in this fat purse.
I'm a means, a stage, a cow in calf.
I've eaten a bag of green apples,
Boarded the train there's no getting off.

[Coincidence?]

Plath was born during the Great Depression on October 27, 1932. Following a long struggle with depression, Plath committed suicide in 1963.

[SugarFree]

How can
I accuse
Ted Hughes
of what the entire British and American
literary and critical establishment
has been at great lengths to deny
without ever saying it in so many words, of course
the murder of Sylvia Plath?

[Punk]

I gots to know!!

[Live Free or Diet]

So the GOP's giving birth? I think that was originally the plan, but mommy keeps downing doses of RU-486.

[SugarFree]

So the GOP's giving birth?

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

[Trespassers W]

Wait, is this about Christ or the anti-Christ? I just can't decide.

[Devil's Advocate]

I... I think I love you. /swoon

[Teenage Girl]

Eewww!!

[Ice Nine]

And because a good proportion of the electorate thinks he is an unmitigated wingnut. And because before the campaign is over and the press and his opponents are finished with him, millions more of it would.

[Rich]

a good proportion of the electorate thinks he is an unmitigated wingnut.

Recently I had a conversation with a liberal friend (yes, it is possible). She said Ron Paul "scares" her, primarily due to his proposed sweeping radical changes. I think his campaign *must* address this fear by at least sketching out a transition path that most people will find feasible.

[Rich]

P.S. By "sketching out", I mean debate sound bites assuring people that, say, abolishing the Dept of Ed does not instantly lead to (more) massive unemployment, ignorance, and chaos.

[Devil's Advocate]

primarily due to his proposed sweeping radical changes.

But Obama's sweeping radical changes didn't faze her a bit, I imagine.

[Lost_In_Translation]

yeah, universal healthcare was just soooo incremental.

[Drake]

It's a mistake fro 3 reasons:

1. Paul (and Johnson) are pulling the Republican Party toward Libertarianism. Run third party and that will turn to hate as Obama wins.

2. It poisons the well for Rand Paul and all future Libertarian Republicans.

3. No shit Obama wins easy. All the votes Paul scrapes off would be Republican or Independents - not Democrats.

[Citizen Nothing]

I don't think you Team Red goofs understand. To most Paul supporters(and to me)it doesn't matter if it's Barry or Mitt pulling the levers.
And, in fact, the potential destruction of the GOP is just icing on the cake.
I've long maintained that George W. did more damage to the limited government "brand" than anyone in recent history. I believe Mitt would do more of the same. Better four more years of Obama.

[#]

my worry is less having O vs Mitt but rather that a landslide win for O means he will have a dem congress again. If O is going to win, the GOP better win the Senate and hold the house. In fact that might be the ideal right now.

[PS]

I can't imagine a landslide win for O, but I actually think an O win would be preferable as it would really shake up the reps and perhaps pave the way for a serious libertarian candidate in 2016.

[John]

Only if Obama wins in a one on one fight. If he wins because Paul or Gulliani was a spoiler, the Right will destroy itself in recriminations.

[PS]

And from the ashes, may there rise the phoenix of actual free market, small government thinking.

[John]

Yeah PS and they will be lead by a natural gas farthing unicorn. You people are delusional.

[John]

Sometimes the parasites win. Look at Argentina. A majority of Argentines never wanted the leftist hell hole they have. But the left was always tight and always loyal to the cause. And eventually they bought off enough people and turned enough people into parasites to take over and run the country into the ground. They will do the same thing here.

I am sorry guys but liberals are just not that into you. They don't give a shit about civil liberties or free markets or anything other than winning. They are not voting for Paul.

[Citizen Nothing]

I am sorry guys but liberals are just not that into you. They don't give a shit about civil liberties or free markets or anything other than winning. They are not voting for Paul.

Funny. I think we could probably say the exact same thing about "conservatives."

[John]

CN,

They don't like you either. So yeah, it pretty much sucks.

[Citizen Nothing]

Right. So fuck 'em all. And if, in the process, we can break one of their toys, (in this case, the GOP) so much the better.

[John]

Here is the thing CN, if Mittens wins the nomination, just stay home. Enjoy your Tuesday morning. That way if he loses to Obama it will be because he didn't appeal to enough people. If Paul runs as a third party, it would allow the loser Republican nominee to claim he was betrayed, stabbed in the back rather than legitimately beaten.

[Eduard van Haalen]

If a third party influences the Pres election, precedent suggests that one party will try to recover the voters who went for that 3rd party. Wallace (the one from Ala), Perot, etc.

[PS]

If the lesser of two evils is Obama and Romney or Gingrich then I think the slightly worse evil of Obama is better in the long run. Let the pendulum swing all the way into the toilet with the chance of a Rand Paul in 2016.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Go Team!!

[Lost_In_Translation]

Let Trump help destroy the GOP. The schadenfreude would be delishous.

[Lost_In_Translation]

why would a dem congress be elected. If anything, republican sympathetic libertarians would pull the lever for the republican congressmen and leave more republicans in the house and senate, while getting BO re-elected. The sweet gridlock that would ensue would be wonderful.

But, I don't think republicans deserve that result. RP should stay home and watch Obama get elected without any help and Mitt prove the weakness of the technocratic/neo-con BASE.

[#]

"why would a dem congress be elected."

Because if it looks like the GOP wont win pres, the turnout will be lower (peopel dont get excited knwoing theyw ill lose) and they will lsoe down ticket races.

This is why Buck and didnt win in CO and the GOP lost two close house races. The Gov race imploded and turnout dropped hurting the whole rest of the ticket.

Romney splitting with Paul means the electorate will be more dem leaning.

[John]

If that happens Rand Paul is done on the national level. No one would ever forgive his association with his father.

If Paul ran as a third party and got Obama re-elected, it would ensure Democratic leadership for a decade or more. The Democrats would stay tight and loyal. And the right would be irrevocably split. When the Libertarians came around in 2016 and tried to play nice, the Republicans would tell them to fuck off and vice versa. The two sides would never work together again. And Democrats would win every national election with 40%.

[Apatheist]

I'm not voting team red whether he runs 3rs party or not. I doubt im the only one. If republicans dont want to be a minority party they can stop nominating shitheads.

[John]

Have fun. As I said above, liberals usually win these things because they are fanatics and care only about winning and politics. Chances are we are headed to being a third world country in the next few decades.

[smz]

john - I'm in dc too, working the hill. "liberals usually win these things because they are fanatics and care only about winning and politics" is a bullshit statement. it's equally true for Rs as well as Ds.

[John]

I would say it wasn't. The Rs stayed home in 2008 and let Obama win and the Dems to take 59 votes in the Senate.

George HW Bush got 37% in 1992. People stayed home or voted for Perot because they were mad at Bush for raising taxes. The Democrat always gets at least 40% of the vote because 40% will vote Dem no matter what. That percentage is smaller with Republicans.

[robc]

Nader wonders what the fuck you are talking about?

[John]

Nader got less than 5%. He only made a difference because the election was so close. Paul will get a heck of a lot more votes than Nader.

[robc]

That isnt the point, the point is you said liberals stick together. Nader's run was more futile than Paul's would be, in that he really had no chance at all. And yet he still syphoned votes from someone (Im not entirely convinced all his votes came from Gore).

[Eduard van Haalen]

Which is supposed to be a bad thing?

[Eduard van Haalen]

"Nader got less than 5%. He only made a difference because the election was so close. Paul will get a heck of a lot more votes than Nader."

So this is an argument *against* a principled third-party candidate running?

I believe in a system of two major parties - two, not one party with two interchangeable wings who disagree only on who will have the privilege of administering discredited policies.

An electoral disaster administered at the hands of a third party is the best way to concentrate the minds of one of the major parties and persuade them to reach out to that third-party constituency, as happened with George Wallace ("southern strategy"), and Perot ("we better pretend balancing the budget is important until the public forgets about this guy").

Or people can follow John's advice and be Tina Turner - "if we don't let the Republicans abuse us, the Republicans will be mad at us!" That's not how politics works. If you let people beat up on you, you don't inspire respect, you inspire contempt as the major parties write you off.

A substantial third-party bloc, on the contrary, will be courted by at least one of the major parties, leading to attempted co-optation, which would of course increase Rand Paul's chances if his dad gets a lot of third-party votes.

[Lost_In_Translation]

The left blames Nader for Bush 2000.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Chances are we are headed to being a third world country in the next few decades.

That seems inevitable regardless of which team wins for the most part. Moody's is probably going to downgrade our credit as soon as the elections over.

[R C Dean]

We're not going to go third world.

I read somewhere that deleveraging our economy (which is what will happen via fisapocalypse) will take us back to around a 1970s-era GDP. Essentially, nearly all the growth since then is attributable to increases in debt at all levels.

[Drake]

What if they nominate Paul?

This 3rd party shit isn't going to help those chances.

[Kristal Ball]

Yeah, but who will win the Super Bowl?

[JEP]

Yeah, but who will win the Super Bowl?

I think it's going to be the final best out of three of LSU vs. Bama...

[Maxxx]

To most Paul supporters(and to me)it doesn't matter if it's Barry or Mitt pulling the levers.
And, in fact, the potential destruction of the GOP is just icing on the cake.
I've long maintained that George W. did more damage to the limited government "brand" than anyone in recent history. I believe Mitt would do more of the same. Better four more years of Obama.

I completely agree and also recognize the reality that the system is structured to freeze out third parties. It's a lot easier to take over one of the two parties as the socialists did with the Ds and the neocons did with the Rs.

[stephen]

The GOP won't go away. Otherwise McCain's embarassing results and the landslide in Congress would've forced the change. It is still the same part that put forward McCain that is putting forward Romney and Gingrich. They just have to hold out for the proverbial pendulum swing - they don't have to change their platform.

The risk of "4 more years of Obama" is that while they are not small government, the GOP runs on that platform. That is that in the eye of the electorate, small government was defeated in an election by big government.

The nuances between Paul's republicanism and Romney's are lost on the vast majority of voters. Even though they are hardly nuances but entirely different political ideals.

[Pips]

I disagree, a lot of dems see social liberties as their #1 motivator. Obama has not done too much on that front. The removal of DADT is about the only thing he can really wave around.

He can draw a lot of lefties by simply saying he will end the drug war, hold firm on women's choice to do what she wants with her body, and shut down the wars.

[Fluffy]

Sorry forgot a link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

[John]

How would 21% win? That would leave 79% among the other two candidates. Even if he took evenly from each of the major candidates, he would still need to go up another 14% to even have a chance.

With the black and minority and hard core union and liberal vote, Obama is never getting less than 40%. Than means Paul would have to double his percentage. And the Republican nominee would get only 20%. Sorry, that would never happen. There are too many SOCONs and national security conservatives who would never vote for Paul for that to happen. It is inconceivable that the Republican nominee would get less than 30 or 35 % of the vote. Hell, even Bush got 37% of the vote when Ross Perot ran a serious campaign.

Put down the crack pipe. Paul cannot win as a third party.

[John]

^ lol spooforrhea fail old malox ^

[Name Nomad]

Mr. Fluffles MacLeod was referring to the GOP nomination with regards to "winning outright."

[John]

He could win if he were the Republican nominee. Absolutely. That is provided the GOP establishment didn't stab him in the back by running a third party candidate, something I wouldn't put past them.

[Proprietist]

Trump will run if Paul is the nominee, mark my words.

[Lost_In_Translation]

The neo-con/so-con alliance and libertarians will probably never again come together for a candidate. The only way this will end is with one group in the woods completely and the other taking the indpendents with them.

[Sparky]

Here's what I see happening if he's the nominee:

In order to ensure our security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the First American Empire...for a safe and secure society!

[Fluffy]

Bill Clinton got 42% in 1992.

You're telling me Obama isn't significantly less popular in 2012 than Bill Clinton was in 1992?

And popular vote totals don't count. The electoral college counts. Obama could keep his urban majorities and have it not help him win the college.

I'm not saying it's likely by a long shot. I'm just saying that when a named, non-generic potential third party candidate is at 21% this far out, we're a little bit out of "Wah! Spoiler!" territory and moving into "OK, how do we keep this guy from adding a few percent and making it competitive if he decides to do this crazy thing?" territory.

[John]

Yes Obama is. But I still say there is a hard core 35 to 40% of the country who will vote for Obama no matter what. That means Paul has to take a whole lot of Republican votes. And given the number of Republicans who won't vote for him out of national security concerns, I can't see that happening.

[Joe M]

21% is a starting point, not an election day total. I am willing to bet Paul could substantially increase that amount and peel support off both candidates, taking people who are just sick of the government in general.

He only needs to take 6% percent from the GOP candidate before we can start telling Republicans they're throwing away their votes.

[John]

But Republicans won't care. They are not going to abandon their party for Paul anymore than liberals are going to abandon Obama for Paul.

If Paul could pull from the Dems he would have a shot. But he won't. Liberals are not voting for Paul. They don't care about civil liberties and the war. It was all just a partisan ruse. They are totally fine with Obama continuing Bush's policies. It would be nice if they were not because we need someone to stand up for civil liberties and such. But sadly, there is no one right now.

[Joe M]

Did you look at the breakdown? In a two-way vote, Obama takes 51 and Gingrich takes 43. In a three-way vote, Obama takes 43, Gingrich 32, and Paul 21. That means Paul is taking votes from both candidates. I know you love to Team Red it up all day, but I could see Paul taking enough more from both. Like Fluffy said, it's all about the college. I could see Paul winning states like Texas if the choice were a big government phony-conservative, a socialist, and him.

[John]

Paul running gives Obama a nine point lead. And you are doing a two way against the weakest Republican who is not winning the nomination

You guys are living in a fantasy land. Liberals are not going leave Obama for Paul. Do you really think someone like Tony is going to vote for Paul? You people are not living in reality.

[Joe M]

I have a number of liberal friends who feel betrayed by Obama's stances on war, civil liberties, and drugs. They are definitely open to the possibility. I know you hate the fuck out of some liberals, but they're not all worthless pieces of shit.

[John]

Do you think they will say that after the media trots out the "Ron Paul is a racist" line for the next year? I don't.

[Neu Mejican]

Do you think they will say that after the media trots out the "Ron Paul is a racist" line for the next year? I don't.

Like most tactics of this type, they only rally the folks that would never vote for him anyway. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers type attacks don't matter to folks that don't already hate the candidate. Few folks would be swung by the racist newsletters one way or the other. And if he just comes clean on how they got published under his name...they become a non-issue.

[John]

I agree NM that they won't get anyone who wouldn't have voted for him anyway. But I have a hard time believing many liberals will vote for Paul. One, the racist newsletters do confirm the liberal belief that everyone who is for smaller government is so because they are racist. And Paul is against everything liberals believe in regarding government and economics. Are they really so angry about civil liberties that they will sell out everything else they believe in and give Ron Paul the Presidency with a Republican Party? Doubtful.

Sure, they might vote for him if they knew Obama was going to win anyway. But I have a hard time believing they would do it if they thought their vote made any difference at all.

[Neu Mejican]

Are they really so angry about civil liberties that they will sell out everything else they believe in and give Ron Paul the Presidency with a Republican Party?

Yeah, some are. I am sure some also recognize that Paul's small government agenda wouldn't get anywhere given that the only party that grows government more than the Democrats is the Republicans. I think many would see it as thumbing their nose at the Republicans while teaching their party a lesson.

[Neu Mejican]

the racist newsletters do confirm the liberal belief that everyone who is for smaller government is so because they are racist.

This nugget is priceless. I don't know anyone who thinks this...and I live in Seattle...the liberals you carry around in your head are similar to some very, very rare real-world individuals, but using them as the prototype erodes your ability to think about issues clearly...imho.

[John]

NM,

I live in Washington. Nearly all of my friends and acquaintances are liberals. And all of them think that to one degree or another. For God's sake read the media sometime. Your friends are lying to you .

[Gray Ghost]

[T]he racist newsletters do confirm the liberal belief that everyone who is for smaller government is so because they are racist.

I correspond on another message board with a high proportion of self-identified liberals, and I have to agree with John's point, NM. The tone is that anyone agreeing with Ayn Rand or other libertarian philosophy must be racist-leaning. Hell, I got accused of being ignorant of P.J. O'Rourke's 'hate speech', when I mentioned how funny and accurate Parliament of Whores and Holidays in Hell were..

These are all just anecdotes, and I don't live in D.C.; just saying that IME, John's not off-base when it comes to describing some liberals' perception of libertarians. It's cosmic irony, that many liberals' anger towards smaller government proponents betrays a belief that minorities couldn't make it without a handout, that therefore minorities must somehow be inferior.

[Neu Mejican]

These are all just anecdotes, and I don't live in D.C.; just saying that IME, John's not off-base when it comes to describing some liberals' perception of libertarians.

1) Some liberals, ok (rare, but some).
2) Much different than "the liberal belief that..."

The tone is that anyone agreeing with Ayn Rand or other libertarian philosophy must be racist-leaning....It's cosmic irony, that many liberals' anger towards smaller government proponents betrays a belief that minorities couldn't make it without a handout, that therefore minorities must somehow be inferior.

The tone? Betrays?

Through the tone of your statement I sense that you are inferring positions that no one states. It betrays a lack of confidence in your position.

;^)

[Neu Mejican]

Nearly all of my friends and acquaintances are liberals. And all of them think that to one degree or another.

Bullshit. You just assume they think that...not one has ever explicitly stated this position in your presence.

For God's sake read the media sometime.

Most liberals can keep these issues separate. The xenophobia of the Republican party is one thing liberals disagree with...positions on the role of government is another. You need to broaden your exposure to media.

Your friends are lying to you.

Whereas yours are open an honest with you since you display such an open mind on these issues?

[Drake]

Your liberal friends won't vote for Paul - they will wake up and realize he would REALLY cut the size of government - not just dick around with the rate of future growth.

[Maxxx]

I have a number of liberal friends who feel betrayed by Obama's stances on war, civil liberties, and drugs.

Right, but they keep voting for a-holes that support the policies that they hate. Even in a one party dem state like CA there are no politicians calling for legalization. None - no dem primary challengers at all.

The left doesn't give a shit about civil liberties. Look at their energy in calling for smoking, trans fat, lighbulb, insert cause of the week, bans.

Your friends that say they care about those things will be saying some version of "I like Paul on National Security but he's crazy on domestic policy. He want to get rid of roads and let the KKKorpurashuns enslave us. Think of the Chillen"

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I have a number of liberal friends who feel betrayed by Obama's stances on war, civil liberties, and drugs. They are definitely open to the possibility. I know you hate the fuck out of some liberals, but they're not all worthless pieces of shit.

Perhaps your friends are the exception. I have liberal buddies who are disappointed by him, too, but no way in hell are they going to risk someone like Ron Paul coming in and fundamentally reforming the entire bureaucratic structure that they and their fellow managerialists have depended upon to survive the last 30-40 years.

He could cut the military budget in half, and the entire Department of Education, and what do you think the press will focus on? All the TTT clerks in the Dept of Ed that are now unemployed, not on him pulling every single troop out of the Middle East, for example. That's what liberals are so afraid of, and that's why they probably won't go for Paul in the numbers he would need to win.

[Pips]

Hperbole.

[stephen]

Precisely. The college is where victory lies. Look at Perot. 19% of the popular vote = 0 electoral college votes.

A cleverly won 3 party election would be to focus on particular states and ignoring states that you have no hope of winning. California comes to mind as a possible win for Paul. Couple that with Texas and you have a massive haul.

[Neu Mejican]

They are not going to abandon their party for Paul anymore than liberals are going to abandon Obama for Paul.

The most hardcore liberal among my friends has vowed to vote for Paul if Obama signs the NDAA with the unlimited detention provision intact.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/.....Q:e548990:

Paul would peel votes from both sides.

[John]

We will see. But I will believe it when I see it. A few principled dissenters won't flip the election. They would have to flip in huge numbers to a guy the media is going to tell them is a racist. I seriously doubt it.

[Two-Thirds of America]

the NDAA

Huh?

[Joe M]

Hey, we only need one third plus one, in theory.

[Drake]

Bull - one debate question about welfare, medicaid, etc... and the liberals will realize the Paul is a Fiscal Conservative and not their candidate.

[John]

NM,

Liberals convinced themselves that George W. Bush was an evil small government fanatic. What kind of kittens do you think they will have when they are faced with someone who actually means to cut the size of government?

[Citizen Nothing]

If Paul goes third party he definitely needs a two-pronged approach, attacking Obama from the "left" and Mitt from the "right."

[John]

Which will ensure both sides have a reason to dislike him.

[Eduard van Haalen]

The voters deserve a choice between a welfare/warfare state candidate(s) and a candidate(s) opposing it. Then it's for the voters to decide what direction they want to take.

If the voters want bad policies, they'll get them. That's no reason not to offer them a choice.

If the voters want big unsustainable government, they will get it - voting for it yourself won't prevent it, quite the contrary.

[Neu Mejican]

John|12.20.11 @ 10:14AM|#

NM,

Liberals convinced themselves that George W. Bush was an evil small government fanatic. What kind of kittens do you think they will have when they are faced with someone who actually means to cut the size of government?

They did?

I think most liberals convinced themselves GWB was evil because he expanded the power of the military industrial complex and the police state and recklessly busted shit up internationally without recognizing the long-term consequences.

Now...of course...there is the "deregulation" kerfluffle at the end of his presidency, but that was not at the core of the "evil" judgments for most liberals I would guess. I think the "giving handouts to wall street" anger ain't about "small government" either.

[twenty-something]

As a former liberal I would say you are spot-on with your assessment of how most liberals felt about GWB.

Once I realized the Obama was just as bad as GWB, I became interested in the libertarian party.

[Citizen Nothing]

Here, I think, is the best we can hope for:
After making many establishment types shit their pants this year, Ron Paul falls short (either GOP nomination or as a third-party), and never actually leads us to the promised land.
But his devoted minions -- Paultards, Paulbots, Paulites, liberpaulians, fellow travelers -- who will never accept the status quo in the GOP, form the core of a continuing movement which is led by someone (Rand Paul?) to new heights.

I didn't think Ron Paul had created something enduring during the 2008 election, but I now have the faint hope that I was wrong.

[Drake]

Yes - I hope he can be our Barry Goldwater. Clear out the big spenders like Bush, Frist, and the rest who rolled into DC ten years ago and made a joke of the GOP small government brand.

A next generation of fiscally conservative, federalist, Constitution-reading Republicans would be most excellent.

[#]

the problemw ith goldwater though its that his crushing defeat gave the dems a super majority in cognress and we got the great society.

A 3rd party paul movement that does pretty well may have the effect of helping down the road, but it likely means dems in charge again for the next 2-4 years where they can finish off what they started.

[Joe M]

Well, Paul running as a third party candidate might give the presidency to Obama, but it's got nothing to do with congress. It could actually be our best hope for divided government.

[Drake]

We have divided government right now and it fucking sucks. The Democrats have managed to make the stimulus the baseline budget by using continuing resolutions instead of a budget. The Republicans are playing along because they are water-hearted morons.

[Lost_In_Translation]

If Paul was the world's greatest orator, I'd buy your argument. He's not, so sadly I think a third party Paul would fall flat unless there was provable GOP hijinks that cost him the nomination.

[stephen]

He is a great orator, just not a great debater. That's what swings independents with no idea of policy. How you react to zingers in 30 seconds.

[Shorter John]

Just hold your nose and vote for whoever the GOP neo-cons trot out there. My favored flavor of statism is better than the other guy's favored flavor of statism.

[Shorter fuckwad]

I have a lot of unresolved sexual feelings and frustrations towards John. And work out of them by wasting everyone's time spoofing him.

[Crackpots Anonymous]

We at CA simply adore John.

[Shorter John]

Is it really a spoof when the reality is more ridiculous?

[Shorter Fuckwad]

I love you John. Sniff Sniff.

[Appalachian Australian]

The only candidate that's not a Democratic I've heard people I know who are black, union, or liberal Democratic voters talk about voting for is Ron Paul.

I'm not interested in chasing the vote of war-mongering right wingers (who all happen to be lily white). But, hey, you tell me those people should all be attracted to the Newsletters[tm].

[Double D]

Then I guess you don't every black person, huh?

[Double D]

"Know." I guess you don't "know" every black person.
Dammit!

[robc]

And he can get 50+ percent running GOP.

He isnt going to run 3rd party.

[rac3rx]

I don't see RP running third party. I think he has a real chance of being a power player in the Republican Party this year. Why would you leave that for a 3rd party? I see a real chance that he could walk into a brokered convention with not enough delegates to win the whole thing outright, but more delegates than anyone else. This year, he cannot be ignored.

There are too many signs that the establishment and the self proclaimed conservative anti-establishment are genuinely scared of the guy this year. It is delicious.

[Arduin Grimoire]

For your last minute shopping needs:

Amazon.com: Chicks with Guns [Hardcover]

[RoboCain]

Sexy!

[JW]

That particular scenario usually doesn't end well for me.

[Joe M]

You can't change a chromosome! That should be guns with boobs.

[Devil's Advocate]

I have wondered how that Egyptian woman was doing. There didn't seem to be much followup on her.

[?]

She's hosting a Sunday morning news show now: Meet The Boot

[Terry DeHole]

authorities are to ask 30,000 women who received potentially defective silicone breast implants to have them removed

Will they ask them nice?

[Barack Obama]

Obama has drone-murdered between 1,350 and 2,250 people in Pakistan. No one knows how many were actually terrorists.

Better to be safe than sorry

[Ice Nine]

There goes his Nobel Peace Prize. Wait...

[RoboCain]

Seriously.

[invisible furry hand]

It's because he got the Nobel Peace Prize for doing fuck all that he now can murder random people. It's a blank cheque for shitty behaviour because the winner's bona fides can't be questioned - hey they're super peaceful! I'm just surprised more winners don't start robbing banks for kicks.

[Citizen Nothing]

Kind of like with Krugman and the prize in economics.

[RoboCain]

Which was another joke.

[Nobel]

Took you guys long enough to get it.

[stephen]

Nice. That cracked me up.

[Barrack Obama]

Let me be clear:
We will never be safe
I will never be sorry.

Thank you, and God Bless America.

[Jerry]

Obama just needs one campaign poster to clinch his reelection: "This nigger can kill."

[Koan]

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

[John]

He didn't "murder" them. It is a war. I don't like Obama but that is stupid phrasing. Maybe if the damn Pashtuns would stop supporting the Taliban and waging war on Afghanistan, they wouldn't have so many drone strikes. It is not as if he just picked out a country and started conducting drone strikes.

[Sparky]

I must have missed it, can you point me to where it was the US declared war on Pakistan?

[John]

Pakistan has effectively declared war on us. And we have a right to defend ourselves. The Pakistanis don't want to get bombed, stop attacking the Afghans and the US.

[Fluffy]

That would mean that if Pakistanis start blowing up weddings in the US, they can say the same thing.

As long as they can claim they thought a government employee of any level of the US government was at the wedding.

Right?

[John]

If they had the ability, sure. We are essentially at war with Pakistan. They would have the right to bomb us just like we bomb them. That is how war works. Just because we have the ability to win and they don't have the ability actually bomb us, doesn't change that fact.

[Brian D]

I forget, where does the Constitution allow for the perpetual use of military force in cases of one guy deciding we're 'essentially at war with' other nations?

[John]

It is called self defense. When someone attacks you, you don't have to go to Congress for permission to defend yourself.

[Arcaster]

When someone attacks you, you don't have to go to Congress for permission to defend yourself.

So when did the Pakistani civilians attack us?

[John]

And last I looked we are in what is essentially a declared war in Afghanistan and against the Taliban. So, yeah, it is totally Constitutional to kill the Taliban wherever we find them.

[Fluffy]

You can claim that the AUMF was secretly the same as a DoW if you want, but please spare me the "self-defense" bit.

If you found Pakistanis in Afghanistan and shot at them, I'd let you claim self-defense.

Sending up killer robots to fly over Pashtun areas, pick out houses, and bomb them really isn't "self-defense".

Are the people in those houses shooting at US soldiers at that moment? Nope. Are they in an area where US soldiers are even deployed? Nope.

You may as well bomb some place in the Phillipines and claim you're defending US soldiers in Afghanistan.

[John]

They don't have to be shooting at them at the moment. Are they enemy forces that are actively waging war against us in Afghanistan? Yup.

In a war, there is something called a "lawful target". When someone is a lawful target you don't have to wait until he actually shoots at you to kill him.

You guys are just wrong on this one. Our strikes in Pakistan, assuming they are targeting hostile forces, are perfectly legal.

[Proprietist]

Um, I think the point of the article is that we don't know and can never be sure if the people Obama is murdering are actually Taliban/terrorists. We get a hint that someone of interest might be somewhere and we send in the hellfire, whether they are or not.

Living in Texas, I'm more afraid of (and endangered by) Los Zetas that actually live in my city than I am of some religious whackadoodles out in the Pakistani wilderness.

How can conservatives like you be such idiots when it comes to prioritizations of risk, not to mention return on investment? The war on terrorism is about as effective as a war on bathtubs or a war on lightning.

[Arcaster]

The war on terrorism is about as effective as a war on bathtubs or a war on lightning.

Don't give them any ideas.

[Fly]

I guess we can now nominate George W[AR] Bush for a Peace Prize. If B[W]ARack can receive one, so should George. Peace through drone death.

[Gray Ghost]

1350-2250. Figure 10 KIA per Hellfire launch, and that's probably extremely generous---what with misses, the bad guys inconveniently not standing right next to each other, etc... The warhead on them just isn't that big, and I don't believe that current drones are able to carry large LGBs (250 lb+). So, we're looking at a minimum of 135 separate drone attacks over how long of a time period? Are they counting from 10/2001, or did the drone campaign start a lot later? Any way you slice it, that's one fuck-ton of attacks.

And no way you can tell me that even most of the casualties were enemy combatants. There are always other people standing around when the damned things go off, and you've got the usual collection of camp followers to contend with. This of course, assumes you've targeted the right house or convoy to begin with. Cause the military never makes mistakes in target identification...

This sounds a lot like the phony war we were conducting over Iraq 1992-2003, when the US was bombing Iraqi installations on average once every three days. Hopefully, it won't end the same way.

One of these days, we're going to pick on someone who will have the capability and motivation to strike back here. I was surprised it didn't happen with Serbia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or what we are doing in Pakistan or Yemen. Again, not like it's that hard to do; ask John Allen Muhammad (you'll need a seance, of course). When it does happen, the usual suspects will bleat that it's because they hate us for our freedom and profess complete surprise that it happened.

But Ron Paul's the crazy naive one.

[John]

Here is the thing Grey Ghost, if they want to put on a uniform and invade, have at it. But if they want to hide as civilians and target civilians here making no effort to target military targets, then they are criminal scumbag terrorists.

The reason why civilians are being killed in Pakistan is because the Taliban are not wearing uniforms and hiding amongst them. There is a reason why doing that is a war crime. It is because doing that puts civilians at risk. The fault for those civilian deaths lays at the feat of the Taliban for using them as human shields.

This is why I hate talking about the subject with you people. You know nothing about war and even less about international law. The ignorance on these threads is just profound.

[Arcaster]

This is why I hate talking about the subject with you people. You know nothing about war and even less about international law. The ignorance on these threads is just profound.

Yeah, you're a fucking genius. We get it.

There is a reason why doing that is a war crime. It is because doing that puts civilians at risk. The fault for those civilian deaths lays at the feat of the Taliban for using them as human shields.

Are you so fucking scared that the little brown people are going to get you that you think it's ok to murder civilians? WTF, John?

[Gray Ghost]

God, but you're a pretentious blowhard. Simply because we disagree with you does not therefore mean that we know nothing about war or international law. My observation that eventually we're going to pick an opponent who's going to carry the fight here has nothing to do with whether that conduct is fine under international law. I agree with you that terrorists running around the U.S. probably won't be in accord with the laws of war, and I'm saying that's irrelevant. Why do you assume that an enemy who has no chance of standing against the U.S. military force on force, will nonetheless be suicidal enough to do so? Go ahead and call them criminal scumbag terrorists if it makes you feel better; I'd rather we didn't antagonize yet another group of people enough to start taking effective swings at us.

(I don't think that will happen until our actions in SW and Central Asia start to overthrow the established order. As it is, this jihad is the perfect safety valve for bastions of light and democracy like KSA and the assorted Gulf states to send their disaffected, poorly educated 2nd+ sons, who otherwise would be stirring up shit at home. And kicking the shit out of the local hillmen is an activity with no global repercussions since the time of Disraeli, and probably before.)

Currently, we have committed over 150 separate acts of war, primarily in the Northwest Tribal Areas (NWTA), which is under the sovereignty of Pakistan. Sort of. And not like Pakistan's that irritated about it---they have a hate/hate relationship with the Pashtun too---or they'd make an attempt to shoot down the missile carrying drones. It's just the 21st century version of the punitive raids described by Churchill during his early military service. Or of the 7th Cav riding out against, e.g, the Oglala Sioux. I agree with Rhywun and robc: if we're committing acts of war, how about we get a declaration of war already, and stop taffy-pulling the AUMF?

My problem with it is this. Our beef is with Al Qaeda. It shouldn't be with the Taliban or with the Pashtun tribes within the Northwest Tribal Areas. Why? Because we don't live there, aren't going to live there, and---despite your wishes to the contrary---shouldn't spend the next 20 years playing "chase the wild hillmen around the Hindu Kush." It's expensive in lives and men---ask Team Six---and it's going to be futile. Get it through your thick head: NATO and the ISAF are not going to be able to unify Afghanistan or suppress the Pashtun. Nor should they try to. The Soviets couldn't do it, the Brits couldn't do it, hell, Alexander the Great couldn't do it.

All you can do is identify the guys we have a problem with---AQ members who have committed acts of terrorism, or are conspiring to do same (and their enablers around the Persian Gulf)---and grab or kill them if they resist. Which sounds a lot like a law enforcement tasking, and not a military one. No nation-state to declare war on, for one thing.

Doubt there's 1500+ active AQ members, as distinct from jihadists who want to fight against the infidel occupiers. Which probably means that most of the people we're blowing up are local jihadists, not AQ members able to commit worldwide terror.

But our enemy isn't the Taliban, benighted disgusting shitheads that they are. (Or the Iraqi Baath Party, for that matter.) There's just too damned many of them, and we don't have the desire to kill/pacify all of them. Moreover, the Taliban isn't going to fight you over here or commit acts of terror here, which is what pissed us off in the first place.

Sorry for the wall of text.

[John]

Grey,

We cannot apprehend those people without without violating Pakistan's sovereignty. To do that would require a full scale invasion. I would say drone strikes are the lesser of those two evils.

[Double D]

I know something about war, having fought in every one of them since the 90s.
And I think you are wrong.
Note that I said "think." I like you and respect some of what you say, but your constant assertions of certainty have gotten you into trouble on this board more than once.
Civilians die in war, no matter how retarded we make the ROE. However, when they die away from the battlefield, through stealth attacks, on the off chance we might hit some unimportant drone? That's wrong. If we DO hit the target, and he happens to just be someone who runs his mouth off, but is not actually under arms? Also wrong. Otherwise, we can kill ANYONE who says something our overlords don't like.

[Francisco d Anconia]

"he warhead on them just isn't that big, and I don't believe that current drones are able to carry large LGBs (250 lb+)"

The MQ-9 can carry the 500 lb JDAM.

[Gray Ghost]

That indeed is quite a bit bigger, Francisco. Didn't realize they had that kind of payload now. Given that you don't want to be within 500m of that bomb when it goes off, I hope they're only using it on isolated targets.

Don't get me wrong. The U.S. is not deliberately trying to kill civilians. It's just that when people start throwing explosives around, mistakes get made. Particularly, as John pointed out, when your enemy doesn't camp out in the field, but instead surrounds themselves with noncombatants. Per an Iron Law, foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

I was surprised by the sheer number of drone strikes; thinking beforehand that it was going to be used only against very high-value AQ targets that we just couldn't capture any other way. Guess nothing is immune to mission creep, I suppose. Which again is why I was so pissed off by the Al-Awalki strike.

[Arcaster]

Pakistan has effectively declared war on us.

You have to be joking, right?

[John]

When you harbor forces on your territory and allow them to attack someone else, that is an act of war. I don't write international law. I just read it.

[Rhywun]

I will vote for the 1st candidate who stops pussyfooting around and declares once and for who the fuck we're at war with. Somehow I think the vow I made 4 years ago to never vote again is safe.

[robc]

If they have "effectively" declared war on us then there should be no problem getting an actual declaration thru the house and senate.

See December 1941 for further examples.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Then why haven't we declared war on them?

[stephen]

Too black and white. Pakistan is not like the US and does not have control of certain regions. There is a military agreement in place (pakistan government gets someone with a common enemy to do the dirty work for them) and eventually when public opinion in Pakistan reaches a boiling point (which is about 3 seconds from now) they'll disavow any knowledge of US military agreements and say that it is tantamount to invasion to buy back public confidence. Queue international grand standing and faux outrage in the UN and America will pledge to stop and will take it on the chin diplomatically.

I most definitely disagree with the idea we should be doing this, but to make it as if we're doing this completely without nuclear Pakistani approval is silly.

[T]

No, that was Yemen.

[H. Reardon]

You're right. It's more like we randomly picked a side to support then started targeting their enemies.

[Tim]

Have we won in Libya yet?

[H. Reardon]

Mission accomplished. Wait...what did I win?

[smz]

"waging war on Afghanistan" - which means the US bombs them?!

[John]

Yes. When you harbor forces on your territory and allow those forces to attack someone else, that someone else has a right to come to your territory and go after those forces.

[Fluffy]

Actually, that's not true.

Not even Nixon ever claimed that invading Cambodia was legal, John.

That's why he did it in secret, except for one bombing campaign - a campaign whose legality they didn't even bother to defend.

[John]

Nixon had every right to bomb Cambodia. Now, what he didn't have a right to do was invade Cambodia and use those forces to prop up the Cambodian government. But Nixon was absolutely legally right to strike at the North Vietnamese forces who were being sheltered in Cambodia.

[Surly Chef]

By this rational it's perfectly legal and moral to irradiate any country with codified due process laws. Sorry "essentially" and "actually" are not the same thing.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Jesus christ you are such a neo-con water carrier.

we piss off the world by doing whatever the fuck we like whenever, justify it post-facto and then are SHOCKED, just SHOCKED when people around the world act pissed off at us.

[John]

LIT,

I am just telling you what international law is. If you don't like the action, fine. Don't like it. But throw around words like "illegal" and "murder" when they don't apply.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Semantics, but ok. If it helps you sleep at night to tell yourself that wedding parties aren't murdered, they're merely collateral damage for harboring possible Taliban fighters and that there can be no actual consequences to casually bombing vast parts of a nation you are not "officially" at war with (I mean, for awhile, there was tacit agreement with the military government), then fine, this is a perfectly legal and moral and justifiable way to conduct ourselves abroad.

American Exceptionalism, YAY!!!

[Proprietist]

Ah, so when China and Canada go to war with each other, you'll agree that China is justified wiping out Minneapolis, Seattle and Buffalo to catch all the Canuck fugitives, right?

[John]

If Canada and China were at war and the US harbored Canadian forces that were attacking Chinese forces in Canada, the Chinese would have every legal right to bomb those forces. That is how it works.

[Lost_In_Translation]

John,

Somehow I don't think you'd see it that way if it ever came about the way Props proposes it. You, and every other American would be calling for a massive retaliation against China with our full force and any government that did not do so would be flogged through the streets.

American Exceptionalism, yay!!!

[John]

Bullshit LIT. If we harbored Canadian forces, we would be at war with China already. I would either support or not support that war. But I couldn't claim the Chinese were acting illegally for bombing those forces.

[Trespassers W]

I don't like Obama but that is stupid phrasing damn I love some good war!

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Authorities in Washington say a yearlong undercover gun and drug trafficking operation has led to 70 arrests and the seizure of $7.1 million worth of drugs and firearms.

Glad to see someone is finally doing something about Fast and Furious.

[The Government]

Glad to see someone is finally doing something about Fast and Furious.

Thanks. We called this operation "Slow and Steady".

[Bee Tagger]

Obama has drone-murdered between 1,350 and 2,250 people in Pakistan. No one knows how many were actually terrorists.

Wasn't there recently a law passed that allows Obama to definitively say they were all terrorists?

[T]

There were muslim. And foreign. Therefore, terrorists. QED, bitches. You can't argue with logic, can you?

[War Sucks!]

So...FDR and Churchill "murdered" hundreds of thousands of German "people". How many were soldiers? And don't even get me started on Truman.

[T]

Yes, FDR, Churchill, and Truman ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. They got away with it because we won.

You do realize that the 4th Geneva Conevntion was largely a response to the excesses of World War II, right?

[Mao]

How did that work out? Good?

[Heh]

They got away with it because we won.

I see. So FDR was a war criminal, but he got away with his "crimes" because the Allies were victorious against the other war criminals. Every participant in WWII was a war criminal. War is a crime, regardless of which side you're on or who started it.

[T]

What would you call the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo? If that ain't a war crime, I'm not sure what qualifies.

[o3]

payback

[Restoras]

We firebombed every city in Japan, except two, because we were at war with Japan and the end was not in sight. Dresden was probably excessive.

[T]

Unless you're going to advocate for Total War as a doctrine, there are rules governing the conduct of war. In World War II, everybody violated them to a greater or lesser degree. To claim otherwise is bullshit.

[Anonypussy]

Making an omelette.

[War Sucks!]

I call it "war." And war sucks!

[wow]

War Sucks!|12.20.11 @ 10:54AM|#

I call it "war." And war sucks!

With sarcasm jujitsu like that, your IQ must be in the zillions.

[Double D]

There is no way to win a war against a determined foe without massive civilian deaths. Any other kind of war will be unsuccessful or will simply set the stage for the next conflict. I think the past few decades bear this out, but no one wants to acknowledge that fact. Of course, no war should fought with any objective other than destroying or forcing the surrender of the enemy. "Freedom" or "democracy" or "eternal friendship and lollipops should never be a declared objective.

[James T. Kirk]

"Death. Destruction. Disease. Horror. That's what war is all about. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."

[wef]

The noble House of Bush - sure, right, whatever.

Didn't some gang of cranks wage a revolution about two hundred years ago to rid the neighbor of these pests?

[CDC]

Egyptian soldiers violently beat, molest, drag an unarmed woman through Tahrir Square.

That's just as bad as hooking up at a frat party!

[Fly]

Will the hard-line Islamists try to punish that woman (if she is released) for exposing her midriff?

[sloopyinca]

No means yes!
Yes means sharia!

[RoboCain]

"The operation netted 161 firearms, including 29 assault weapons, along with methamphetamine, cocaine, PCP, marijuana, heroin and ecstasy"

These guys really know how to party.

[sloopyinca]

... including 29 assault weapons,... of the same manufacture as the semiautomatic weapons the raiding police used.

[Fist of Etiquette]

And Romney? He would keep the Bush tax cuts, eliminate investment taxes ? but only for those making under $200,000, kill the death tax, and cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Solid but kinda "meh."

The best we can hope for is to be able to describe the inevitable Romney presidency as "meh".

[John]

Well a meh is better than a Oh my fucking God he is destroying the country. But I am not sure the meh would do enough good to keep the Dems from coming back in 2016 and finishing the job.

[Arcaster]

We're pretty much fucked with either Obama or Mitt/Newt. I'd rather Obama win and step on the gas. Let's get this shit over with and start rebuilding.

[MattJ]

What is with libertarians and this idea? Everything goes to hell, and afterwards, there's a new birth of freedom?

How about an alternative, that seems to be more likely: Everything goes to hell, and the masses embrace the authoritarian populism of a charismatic demagogue? While you're rooting for the end to come sooner, keep in mind that, by the time the end gets here, you may be hoping that the guy to lead us 'out' of the bottomless pit of recession, inflation, and unemployment is only as bad for liberty as another FDR, rather than someone even worse.

As is often said around here: Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.

If everything crashes and burns and we have to rebuild, it would be great if libertarianism is the ideology towards which the nation (world?) turns. It just isn't likely.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Libertarians would rather things not go to hell, but if the world is determined to do itself in, why waste all our energy shouting from the rooftops. At some point, you just have to prepare yourself against the collapse and survive. The world's not there yet, but the US and EU are certainly driving towards that cliff at breakneck speeds.

[MattJ]

That's not what Arcaster is saying. He's saying that the world is going to hell, and he wants it to get there faster.

He's not just preparing for the end... he's rooting for it.

Of course, lots of really bad things can happen on the way to the end. Other country's economies are going to hell, too. Maybe we'll hit the jackpot and have a land war with a nuclear-capable Asian country that doesn't have to import all of its weapons.

I'm sure that's just the sort of environment in which the libertarian message will catch on.

[Arcaster]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth, asshole. I'm not cheering on the end, but if it's going to happen, let's get the shit over with. Some of us would rather put up with the worst of it while we're still young.

[MattJ]

I'm sorry I misunderstood your meaning.

[Arcaster]

No worries. 🙂

[T]

If everything crashes and burns and we have to rebuild, it would be great if libertarianism is the ideology towards which the nation (world?) turns. It just isn't likely.

Bah. We will rule the Wasteland that is to come. We even have the heir apparent here in our midst.

[MattJ]

The economy has collapsed, hundreds of millions are dead, the old ideas of socialism and capitalism have been revealed as failures...

Gentlemen: Now is the time to gambol!

[Bones]

At least for a while there will be a healthy black free market.

[Lord Humungus]

*ahem*

[MattJ]

My point exactly

Lord Humungus (the character) = Amin Husain

"We need more; you have more"

The last time we had a Great Depression, my grandparents, the freedom-loving "Greatest Generation" elected FDR not once, not twice, but over and over until he died. For their trouble, they got a massive expansion of government, internment camps, and global war.

It would be, in my estimation, a deep mistake to think that my generation would do better.

[rac3rx]

Mitt/Newt...can't we just shorten that to "Mitties"?

[SugarFree]

I had no idea she lived in New Jersey...

[Ice Nine]

Sarcasmic just had a stroke.

[RoboCain]

The goggles do nothing!

[Bottom Feeder]

she allowed subscribers to watch her eat on a webcam

Just eat?

[Name Nomad]

Why pay for that when you can get it for free?

[Warty]

Where did you expect her to be from? It was obviously either Jersey or Arkansas.

[sage]

The long knives are already being wielded by Rich Lowry over at NRO. He's got the newsletters and conspiracy boxes checked in his opening paragraph.

[Jerry]

It's a good thing that no one reads NRO.

[Mike M.]

Too bad that Reason is in no position at all to hammer anyone for harping on one sentence in those stupid ancient newsletters, eh?

[rac3rx]

Hannity already did it 2 weeks ago...

[P Brooks]

And Romney? He would keep the Bush tax cuts, eliminate investment taxes ? but only for those making under $200,000, kill the death tax, and cut the corporate tax rate to 25 percent. Solid but kinda "meh." The Tax Foundation just graded the tax plans of the various Republican candidates, giving Romney an uninspiring "C-." It said Romney's plan "really takes no steps toward fundamental reform ? [and] would do practically nothing to incent investment."

"No steps toward fundamental reform." What a surprise.

Rent-seekers of the world, unite!

[Quetzalcoatl]

Why would he try to change anything?
It's all worked out pretty well for him so far...

[mad libertarian guy]

The New York Times: "We just wanted you all to know that a Conservative opines out loud (again) that Ron Paul is racist for newsletters that are 2 decades old and that he didn't write. You know, as a public service all."

The latest issue of The Weekly Standard, a leading conservative publication, reprised reports of incendiary language in Mr. Paul's newsletters that were published about 20 years ago.

A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." A passage in another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva"; in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called "Hate Whitey Day."

The magazine article largely matched a similar report in The New Republic in 2008, and it was written by the same author, James Kirchick. The passages were plucked from a variety of newsletters that Mr. Paul's consulting business published during his years out of Congress, all of them featuring his name: Ron Paul Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Survival Report and Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Because if a conservative calls you racist (again), that means you must be double racist.

[Quetzalcoatl]

inb4 a thread-killingly long argument about whether the racist newsletters are still or should still be relevant.

[Citizen Nothing]

Nah. I'm just gonna wait and say "I told you so."

[Citizen Nothing]

Or, "I was wrong."
That would be fantastic!

[robc]

The newsletter stuff was all over talk radio last week...result, bump in polls for Paul.

Your was wrong.

[Double D]

Jury's still out.

[Fluffy]

It's too late.

They needed to do this last week.

And I've read at least three or four major paper (or site) online pieces this week that say, "Yeah, the newsletters...but I just don't really believe the guy is a racist."

The waters are already muddied.

And I had been wondering why none of the candidates were directly using this stuff. And now I think it's the third party BS. They need to crush Paul, but they need to do it in a way that doesn't piss him off too much. I didn't understand that dynamic before, but I think looking at it from their perspective and thinking of it in game theory terms there's no upside to any one candidate in going nuclear on Paul. Not even Bachmann, who certainly had to at least consider it over the weekend.

[Joe M]

On the flip side of that, I kind wish Paul hadn't made the statement that she hates Muslims, because I thought there was an outside chance of her endorsing him when she dropped out. Not anymore.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Not after the "dangerous" comment.

The only person Paul could have possibly worked with is Romney (the play-doh candidate). The rest were just different flavors of populism, neo-conism, antithetical to Paul. Romney wants to be all things to all people and could work with Paul, as weird as that sounds.

[Apatheist]

Actually Perry has been the most respectful of Paul in my opinion. Romney has basically ignored him.

[Jerry]

Good point, I wonder how far they can go before Paul basically does a "screw you guys, I'm going 3rd party."

[Montani Semper Liberi]

Hey, 20 years to admit that something was published under your name that shouldn't have been is pretty good compared to the NYT. It took them like 70 years to finally disavow Duranty's bullshit about the USSR.

[T]

It took them 50 to regret their error when they slandered Goddard. The correction process at the times is a wee bit slow.

[tarran]

Actually, he took "moral responsibility" in 1997.

It's his supporters deranged full denial mode that feeds the impression that he is denying involvement.

I remember an interview where he expressed sadness that he'd allowed statements that smeared another congressman he liked to go out under his name.

[Juice]

I like this comment:

Nelson Alexander, New York City

With Libertas and Inequality for All

The word libertarian relates to "libertas," the credo of the old south, those who wished to see the American republic established on Roman lines, with absolute, patriarchal property rights, including slave property and the plantation or "latifundia" system.

For many libertarians "freedom" of contract still means the right to dominate others, such as workers, and maximize social inequality. For libertarians, the more "natural" a society is, the more it will reflect the "natural" inequality of human beings.

Though libertarianism since the 1970s has take on a consumerist, nonconformist guise, its true lineage traces back to the Old Dominion and the "liberty" of the absolute property holder to make his own laws on his own domain.

It's impressive how he pulled all of this straight from deep within his ass, but makes it sound so authoritative. Six people recommend it because of this.

[Zeb]

The word "liberty" relates to "libertas" the credo of the old south. Therefore the Statue of Liberty is pro-confederate and racist and should be torn down.

[PS]

Or buried in sand up to its head. That's the true message of Planet of the Apes, the PC socialists won.

[PS]

You are a frickin' masochist, Juice. That stupid really burns.

[Sparky]

So White Indian doesn't just troll this site?

[Trespassers W]

Personally, not a day goes by that I don't think about what I can do to maximize social inequality.

Step 1: Maximize social inequality.
Step 2: ...
Step 3: Monocle!

[Mr. FIFY]

Not the first time some fucktard equated libertarianism with "gosh, wouldn't it be swell to sip on mint juleps and whip the nigras?", and it won't be the last.

Stupid fucktards. How do they work?

[mad libertarian guy]

Should I assume, then, that Zucotti Park, renamed Liberty Park by the Occutards, is a haven of neo-confederates hell bent on re-instituting slavery?

[Allah]

No one knows how many were actually terrorists.

Ahem.

[Fly]

Doesn't seem to matter anymore, just look under your bed, there are probably a few hiding there. Look out your window, the DHS TerrorSwat team is ready to bust down your door. The terrorists are literally everywhere under our New Order.

[Fly]

Like cockroaches that must be crushed. Crush now, figure out if they were really terrorists later.

[db]

Braziiiil!

[John]

Your government at work.

Michael E. McLaughlin, who abruptly resigned as Chelsea housing director last month after his $360,000 salary was revealed, put in only 15 full workdays in Chelsea all year to earn his extraordinary paycheck, according to a Globe review of his work cellphone records.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc.....ob/?page=1

[Brian D]

Yet McLaughlin still portrayed himself as a workhorse, claiming to take so little vacation that he was eligible to sell back unused time to the authority. On the day he resigned, McLaughlin cosigned a check to himself for $81,578 for unused vacation time, a payment that would be legitimate under the terms of his contract only if he had limited himself to four vacation days annually since 2003.

McLaughlin also claimed that he almost never got sick - he reported 3.5 hours of sick time in almost 12 years - an iron constitution that led him to write a check to himself for another $114,237 on his last day as payment for years of unused sick time.

That guy was dedicated to his work.

[Quetzalcoatl]

So, uhh... does that mean they're hiring?

[JW]

The records show he didn't go to Chelsea at all on almost half the working days in 2011, spending 47 weekdays in Maine and Florida with his top assistant and close personal friend, Linda Thibodeau. He spent another 21 work days at out-of-state conferences from Phoenix to Miami, usually with Thibodeau.

I wish I could get paid 360 large a year to fuck *my* close, personal friend.

[Sparky]

Corrupt politicians in MA??!!??!!?!? I've never heard of such a thing...

[Fly]

Like ex-Mayor Rizzo of Bell, California, McLaughlin did nothing wrong. This is how modern government works.

[Krampus Kristen]

I really, really need to know how to get into this racket. I don't want to have to move to MA or NY, though.

[NotSure]

So how many people are you allowed to kill until you are asked to return the Nobel peace prize ?

[Quetzalcoatl]

I'm pretty sure Arafat is still in the lead.

[Timon19]

Arafat never had the resources to 1) kill tons of people like Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/etc. and 2) expand his killin' pool to even a 10th of what is available to a US president.

[rac3rx]

"Never had the resources?" Are you freaking kidding me? The guy was worth over $1B, had about 10 times that amount at his disposal, and wielded unprecedented influence over an unending supply of brainwashed idiots ready to die for the cause.

[Timon19]

And the US president has access to the US military, which has managed to bomb the living fuck out of several countries for quite a while and is capable of much, much more.

You're not really this stupid, are you?

[rac3rx]

I'm really not stupid at all, but you apparently lack any reading comprehension skills. My post made no mention whatsoever of anything having to do with the United States, only your allegation of Arafat's lack of resources; a statement which is provably false.

Now...go back, read the actual post, and then fuck right along...

[Timon19]

Maybe you ought to read my post, which was a reply to the "Arafat is still in the lead" post by Quetzalcoatl.

In it, I clearly say that Arafat didn't have the same resources to be able to kill like a US president, i.e. a crapload of innocents/civilians, nor that he could leverage said resources to be able to kill anywhere near where a US president (through the military he commands) could. Thus, Arafat's "lead" is quite dubious in comparison to fellow Nobel Laureate Obama.

[Timon19]

And I'm relatively certain that Obama by himself has actually killed many more innocents and civilians through his proxy the military than Arafat has actually killed through his proxies, the suicide bomber and other small-scale means.

[PS]

Ah-one, ah-two, *boom*, I guess the world will never find out.

[Neu Mejican]

A tootsie pop reference...unexpected.

[Lord Humungus]

When It Comes to Taxes on the Poor, the Supply Siders Are Right
http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....ht/250099/

She had moved from a $25,000 a year job to a $35,000 a year job, and suddenly she couldn't make ends meet any more. I told her I didn't know what I could do for her, but agreed to meet with her. She showed me all her pay stubs etc. She really did come out behind by several hundred dollars a month. She lost free health insurance and instead had to pay $230 a month for her employer-provided health insurance. Her rent associated with her section 8 voucher went up by 30% of the income gain (which is the rule). She lost the ($280 a month) subsidized child care voucher she had for after-school care for her child. She lost around $1600 a year of the EITC.

[Fluffy]

Yup.

And you know what?

The paperwork associated with changing her benefit level at the myriad of "targeted" programs she was participating in provided job security for a lot of leeching bureaucrats whose job it is to torment this woman.

That's why we have to cancel all these programs and (to buy off the soft-hearted and make them go for it) provide ONE, SINGLE, cash benefit via the EITC. No bureaucrats, no complexity, no thresholds that cut off interlocking benefits - just cash. On a simple sliding scale we can print on an index card and have the computers at the IRS administer.

[John]

But these programs have become a jobs program for liberal women. And they are not going to like losing their jobs. And my God, if we just gave people money, they might do the wrong thing with it. And we can't have that.

[Fluffy]

Exactly.

But since all of those women are Democrats (or Greens) I have never been quite sure why the GOP hasn't tried to come up with a strategy to force the Democrats to choose between the poor and the bureaucracy.

[John]

Because the Democrats have owned the language on the issue. They have made it to where anyone who attacks the bureaucracy is perceived as attacking the poor. Given the grip this language has on popular culture and the media, I can't even begin to imagine the kind of politician it would take to change that.

[Arcaster]

Sad but true. It's hard to run against "Why do you hate the poor?" when most people get information in the form of sound bites and have no fucking clue about basic economics.

[SFC B]

Exactly. Three years after we go to a single cash EITC benefit there will be stories in every major news outlet about how some child starved to death because it could eat the iPad its mother bought with the EITC. Then we're back to the EITC and food stamps.

But it will be a nice three years.

[Zeb]

There is nothing to stop EITC money from being spent that way now.

[Matrix]

So, why even bother trying to succeed @ making more $$ if government handouts and lower taxes make it easier to have a small income?

[Fluffy]

You can just set up the EITC so that the marginal value of any additional dollar earned is never negative.

That solves the incentive problem pretty forcefully.

[robc]

Negative income tax basically.

Works great with a flat tax, assuming we are gonna keep the incomes tax and EITC around.

[robc]

An example of how it would work.

Poverty level for a single individual in 2011 is $10,890. Lets say a 20% flat tax.

10890 is 20% of $54450.

So, take your gross income subtract 54450 and multiply the result by .2.

That is your tax/benefits for the year.

A single guy making $0 gets $10890 (split over 12 monthly checks). A single guy making $50k gets $890 (split over, who knows, make minimum check size $250 or something, so he would get 3).

Tax dosesnt start until middle class, obviously, but all other benefits and deductions are gone.

[Mike M.]

Yep, ever since the old programs like AFDC got killed off, the liberals have cleverly managed to turn things like unemployment into the new welfare programs that have taken their place.

[Lord Humungus]

Why Mandated Health Insurance Is Unfair
There's an easier way to solve the 'free-rider' problem.
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....n_newsreel

[Lord Humungus]

DSK: No 'Firewall' Exists, Europe Has 'Only Weeks'
http://www.businessinsider.com.....ks-2011-12

The stability pact that was agreed at the summit "may be good news for German domestic politics, but it is bad news for the European population."

...Strauss-Kahn said the firewall to staunch the spread of the crisis "doesn't really exist". The ?500bn European Stability Mechanism would only be operational in months when "the question is a question of weeks. The question is not a question of months."

[T]

We can't take the word of an accused rapist. You need a more credible source that's less rapey and doesn't male gaze as much.

[Lord Humungus]

Interesting data in the latest Allstate-National Journal poll, both on the country's political mood and on the focus of this latest installment in the series: retirement. The financial anxieties of "near-retirees" come through loud and clear.
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....te/250077/

[John]

But this would never happen at the federal level. You can always believe those statistics.

RALEIGH ? Since as early as January 2011, and perhaps before then, Gov. Bev Perdue's press office has received access to confidential employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics hours if not days before its scheduled release, quite likely in violation of federal law. The governor's staff used its early access to massage the monthly employment press release that reported jobs data to the public.

http://www.carolinajournal.com.....ml?id=8578

[P Brooks]

Police Chief Cathy Lanier says the people arrested were "extremely dangerous." The team uncovered connections to a Mexican drug cartel and gun traders from outside the region.

Gun traders from outside the region. America's terror subculture runs rampant. When will the federal government act?

[Matrix]

http://gizmodo.com/5869639/fed.....ree-online

Feds don't like you giving away your sperm for free.

[Joe M]

Jeb Bush: "I am not push-polling, or polling, and I am not running."

Bill Kristol put on suicide watch.

[P Brooks]

Dear squirrels-

What have you done now?

Is this some sort of Intro to Psychology experiment to see how fucked up you can make your website before nobody will visit?

[P Brooks]

ps- fuck you, and the widget you rode in on.

[AuH20]

Has the feminist movement hurt poor women?

Actually an interesting question is posed in the featured topic about why companies should have to give maternity leave. That, of course, if followed by a whole mess of dumb.

[RoboCain]

Got posted yesterday...

[AuH20]

Well fine, be that way.

[AuH20]

Also, I refuse to recognize the authority of Evening links.

[P.M. Links]

You will respect my authoritah!!

[AuH20]

Also, I feel so sorry for people like Smartgirl from that link who try to offer a libertarian perspective on Gawker or Jezebel. Because everyone will say shit like, "Well, that's a system that puts profits above compassion". Actually, my favorite thing is how many branches of feminist theory hate the shit out of capitalism, even though capitalism combined with industrialization has done more to improve the lot of women than any force in history.

[RoboCain]

Yes, but that was mostly done by men.

[AuH20]

How to get your kids out of the kiss from the creepy Aunt.

Apparently, if you don't, it will lead to rape.

[RoboCain]

Apparently, everything leads to rape.

[Rich]

when a child sets a boundary with Grandma, she can feel that she's part of a positive practice rather than left out.

Right. Maybe if Grandma is under 40 years old or a shrink.

[Tommy Darmody]

I ceratainly need to set boundaries with Grandma!

[Joe M]

Nonsense. It's only takes a moment. Kids just roll their eyes and forget about it two seconds later.

[Devil's Advocate]

Apparently, if you don't, it will lead to rape.

I don't know about rape, but I think kids should have control over who gets to hug/ kiss them or not. I don't think most adults would enjoy someone grabbing them against their will and forcing an embrace on them.

It helps a lot if you have relatives sensitive enough to read a kid's body language. If the kid is standing behind their parents and looking out at everyone, that means that DON'T want to be grabbed and hugged/ kissed. I have been fortunate enough that there's only one grabby person in my family.

[Juice]

The video from Egypt is just mindblowing. How many cops with helmets and sticks are there? It's a fucking army of them attacking a couple of dozen random unarmed people for no apparent reason. I'd like to know what these cops are getting out of this, what they hope to accomplish by beating these people and burning their tents. What do they think will happen if they leave those people alone? I don't get it.

[Chat Room]

Why are you asking me?

[Restoras]

They are training to be cops in the US.

[P Brooks]

Pakistan has effectively declared war on us.

Jesus Mass Murdering Christ on an Atlas rocket.

Let me know when they "take" Portland.

[John]

Last I looked killing the other side's soldiers counts as "declaring war". Maybe we could just take a few bombers and kill a few hundred Chinese or Russian soldiers. I am sure they won't mind. I mean as long as we don't occupy St. Petersburg or Shanghi, it is not like we are at war with them. Right?

[U.S. Constitution]

killing the other side's soldiers counts as "declaring war"

Um, no.

[John]

We are in a declared war in Afghanistan. Sorry but a Congressional authorization for the use of force is a declaration of war. Once there, we have a right to fight the war and the Taliban. If Sweden had started sheltering Nazi troops who were attacking us, we could have bombed those troops in Sweden. We wouldn't have needed another declaration on Sweden.

[robc]

a Congressional authorization for the use of force is a declaration of war

No it isnt. Hastert said so at the fucking time, he refused to add in a declaration of war because that clause in the constitution is an "anachronism".

They specifically chose NOT to put declaration of war language in the bill because they werent declaring war. They were merely authorizing force.

[John]

Bullshit. It is a declaration of war. They lying bastards in Congress won't call it that because they don't like the powers such a declaration gives the President. But it is a declaration. We had a public debate and the Congress voted and the President approved. That is a declaration.

[robc]

Bullshit.

A declaration of war declares war on a foreign power. Congress did no such thing. Possibly for the reason you stated, but thats the point, they never declared war.

[robc]

John, here is what a declaration of war looks like (bolding mine):

JOINT RESOLUTION Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.

[robc]

They could have search/replaced "Imperial Government of Japan" with "Taliban Government of Afghanistan" and everyone would have been cool with it.

[War Sucks!]

John is right. The world is wrong. End of discussion.

[Shake]

John is right. You can acknowledge that a state of war exists even if you oppose the war itself.

[sloopyinca]

Hey John, if we declared war, why do we refuse to treat prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Convention?

No, we made sure not to declare war so we could torture information out of prisoners and face no consequences.

[John]

Because those prisoners are not wearing uniforms or abiding by the laws of war. Thus, they are not accorded the protections of them.

[sloopyinca]

Oh, so they are fighting us but since they can't afford uniforms, they are not accorded the protections prisoners of war enjoy.

Or are you referring to the people not on a battlefield that we kill? Like the children in their homes that are considered collateral damage?

You're a chickenhawk fuck, John.

[John's Excuse]

But it's a different kind of war. Or something.

[FlyoverCountry]

I...DECLARE...BANKRUPTCY!!

[AuH20]

Also, it always amazes me how few people work in anime voices. Each show is a big game of... OH THAT GUY!!!

[Devil's Advocate]

Hehe. That is true, there have been a few moments of true cognitive dissonance for me in watching some Japanese anime, because the characters the VA worked on were so different.

[AuH20]

Yeah, it's always weird to go, "Hey, wait, is that Jet from Cowboy Bebop.?"

[Sparky]

It's pretty much the same with video game voice actors as well.

[P Brooks]

The financial anxieties of "near-retirees" come through loud and clear.

I saved my money for retirement for decades, and all I got was a check for $11.38!

[John]

I figure I will never retire. Even if I save, the government will just steal it when it is time to use the money. All these people that are saving so much and think they are going to do so well on retirement are suckers. You watch, the government is going to rob every one of them in the name of "fairness". They will take over the health care system and means test everything and make sure the rich can't buy any kind of insurance but instead have to go to the government system which will steal every dime they have to pay for "health care". And they will means test social security and tax the shit out of retirement plans to make sure everyone is equally poor and dependent.

[T]

Buy hard assets, then, and sell them for cash when the time comes. Hard to tax or trace that.

[sarcasmic]

I'm waiting for them to take everyone's 401Ks and replace them with government bonds.

It's only a matter of time.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I'm waiting for them to take everyone's 401Ks and replace them with government bonds.

That's why I cashed mine out a couple years ago--I didn't mind taking the initial tax hit because at least Uncle Sugar won't be using the remainder to fund his meth habit.

[Lord Humungus]

this is what I call 'The Russian Way' - don't put your trust in money, stocks, bonds, etc - but tangible goods (inc. gold) like jewelry, luxury items, certain artwork, etc. Certain things will always have value and can be traded/sold as needed. It is also harder for the tax man to track.

[Tuesday]

Does anyone else think that John is extra crackpotty today?

[Fluffy]

No.

Here's one thing you can guarantee:

The Baby Boomers have the numbers to make sure the state employs any and all measures to make sure that past promises concerning their retirement and medical care are kept.

The money will be found.

If you have money anywhere the state can see it, there is a non-0 chance your money will be the money that is found.

I also believe that outright militarization of health care professionals won't be off the table. Because the demographics of democracy says that EVERYTHING is on the table as the boomers retire.

[sarcasmic]

I also believe that outright militarization of health care professionals won't be off the table.

I think what will happen is it will become a felony to disobey your doctor's orders.

This way all preventable disease will be cured.

[War Sucks!]

Blaming everything on the "boomers" again? How trite.

[Arcaster]

Blaming everything on the "boomers" again? How trite.

Is there another generation that has fucked things up as bad as the boomers?

[sarcasmic]

Yeah. The one that elected FDR.

[Arcaster]

Well played.

[Fluffy]

Dude, I don't have anything in particular against the boomers.

I just recognize that demographically because of their numbers our democracy will serve their interests. There are no firewalls between their appetites and the treasury. None.

And they have been promised a whole lot. SS. Medicare. They know what they've been promised.

Do you think they are going to accept "Sorry, we don't actually have that money" as an excuse when the time comes? While there are still assets around that can be put to work to keep the entitlements system going another year, or week, or day?

I don't.

Not because boomers are bad, but because human beings are.

[Restoras]

Nope. Eventually, the government will either take our money or make it worthless.

[Auric Demonocles]

This morning I changed my retirement contribution from 6% to 10%...

[Rhywun]

I'm thinking of going from 15% to zero.

[Auric Demonocles]

Company match?

[Mike M.]

Say, how come there are never any photoshopped images of Obama in a clown suit or where his face is screwed up all weird so that he looks like an idiot?

[RoboCain]

XOMG RACIST!!!111!!ONE!!!!

[Restoras]

Well, there was one witch doctor one that I thought was pretty funny but lots of others got thier knickers in a twist about it.

[Arcaster]

There is this*:

http://blogs.laweekly.com/info.....poster.php

*As a big Batman fan, I especially like it.

[Auric Demonocles]

Complete with insinuations of racism!

[RoboCain]

Kate Middleton gives up her gun for Boxing Day

While she's been practicing and called a "dead eye" with a shot gun, the decision to have Kate leave her gun at home is about protecting her image and that of the royal family.

The royals are worried about the backlash from animal rights activist groups if pictures of Kate with a gun or shooting at a pheasant are published.

http://www.examiner.com/pop-cu.....boxing-day

[John]

Bastards. I kind of like Kate. She seems like a normal woman. It is really too bad she let the court bully her out of doing this. If she would have shown up and blasted a few birds, I could have almost become a Royalist.

[sarcasmic]

Yeah yeah yeah. You, like everyone else, just want to fuck her sister.

[AuH20]

The true player bangs them both. At the same time.

[sarcasmic]

Have you seen prince Harry's on-again-off-again?

It's good to be prince.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....riend.html

[RoboCain]

meh

[John]

Great body. But what about the face? She is kind of fugly looking.

[sarcasmic]

She has a face? I didn't notice.

[Sparky]

It's always best to verify whenever John says someone is ugly.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

You talking about Florence or Chelsy? Because the former is actually pretty cute. I'd agree with John that Chelsy's a bit of a butterface, at least when she's not smiling. But I've certainly seen a lot uglier, that's for sure.

[robc]

Florence, a descendant of the seventh Earl of Cardigan who led the Charge of the Light Brigade

No commoners for him.

[T]

Best to stick with descendants of legendary incompetence and hope it doesn't run in the family.

[John]

I would like to fuck them both. Actually I think William chose the right one. I bet Pippa is a rich bitch extraordinaire. Kate seems more genuine.

[sarcasmic]

Pippa's a ho.

[Ed.]

Boys, boys! We at Reason.com are trying to run a serious, reputable libertarian [don't laugh] news and entertainment site! Please keep it clean, or at least come up with better material. Thx.

[sarcasmic]

My balls itch. Will you scratch them for me?

[Neu Mejican]

John really needs to start his own gossip/relationship advice column. It is where he shines.

[War Sucks!]

Fresh vomit also shines. But we digress.

[P Brooks]

why even bother trying to succeed @ making more $$ if government handouts and lower taxes make it easier to have a small income?

"By George, I think he's got it!"

[sarcasmic]

Newsflash! Kate Moss is still hot!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem.....llers.html

[Pip]

Sarah's prettier.

[P Brooks]

Keep in mind Kidpower's founding principle: A child's safety and healthy self-esteem are more important than ANYONE's embarrassment, inconvenience, or offense. Or, more simply stated: Put Safety First ME ME MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

[Zeb]

How is kissing grandma unsafe?

[T]

You don't know where she's been in the pawst 80 years?

[RoboCain]

Video: Michael Moore Says Gun Ownership Is Racist

http://www.thehotjoints.com/20.....is-racist/

[2ndClassProle]

He says Tuscon has low crime rates, and everybody is packing. I wonder why he cannot figure it out.

[Matrix]

Can't view. Blocked by filters for "sex". Actually, gun bans are racist. They don't like those black folks having guns and defending themselves against the righteous enforcers of the law. Hitler didn't like my fellow Jews having guns to protect themselves from being rounded up and exterminated like vermin, which he and many Germans at the time believed us to be.

Anyway, I'm not surprised by what Michael Moore says. I will only be surprised if he comes out and claims that everything he's been spouting for the last 20 years has been complete and utter BS.

[benji]

The end result of mindless libertarian deregulation and anti-democratic government:
http://i.imgur.com/PVpFY.jpg

With proper detailed and exacting regulation on companies like GE and Goldman Sachs this type of libertarian Somalian style cronyism would be a thing of the past.

[RoboCain]

Libertarian? That word isn't what you think it means.

[uhh]

How would libertarians prevent crony-capitalism without any regulations?

QED

[RoboCain]

Holy shit, you're an idiot.

[idiot?]

Says the willful tool of the looting of the working class.

[It's not worth the time.]

They think that not having any penalties for doing this kind of thing somehow will stop people from doing it.

If a libertarian was being mugged they'd let it happen because calling the cops would be "infringing on the freedom" of the mugger to steal from them. And then they'd demand that laws against mugging be repealed for the same reason.

They're nutjobs who don't realize that sensible extensive regulation is needed to prevent this cronyism from taking over every industry and agency.

Instead they just want to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend their being looted by the elite is justified by "freedom" or some other drivel.

[The Ingenious Hidalgo]

Calling spoof on this.

[sarcasmic]

I don't think you know what crony-capitalism means.

[Matrix]

sarcasmic, I don't even think he knows what "what" means...

[As anyone sensible knows...]

It's the result of a deregulated market allowed to run free and purchase politics with profits.

[sarcasmic]

Thank you for confirming that you do not know what crony-capitalism means.

[And thank you...]

For confirming that libertarians don't understand the real world and can't actually debate solutions to any of the issues facing our society.

[Joe M]

Wow, you guys are hook line and sinker on this trolling. Hilarious.

[Bones]

What are the two most fucked up industries in America? If you said Finance/Banking and Health Care you'd be right. Guess which two industries are most heavily and fucktardedly regulated in America. Same two. Guess why? Because people like you are, you guessed it, fucktarded. I love that word. It describes you so well.

[twenty-something]

Crony capitalism happens when the government gains control over some segment of the economy. It becomes in the best interest of the businesses involved to curry favor with government officials.

Adding regulations just means you increase the number of people that have to be paid off. It would be much more effective for the government to stop regulating the economy.

If the government no longer controls the economy, there is no one to buy off. Companies thrive or fail based on their ability to provide a product or service consumers want. As it is now, success is determined by how best a business lobby the government.

[AT]

Obi-wan has taught you well.

[AuH20]

The point you made... I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Warty]

Is it serious, or did you all just miss its obvious sarcasm? Now I'm very confused.

[benji]

Mine was sarcasm, I thought the Somalian reference was enough.

Can't speak for the latch-ons.

[Surly Chef]

You have to add "ROADZ!?!?!" for a proper Somalia reference. I realize that would have killed the subtlety.

[Matrix]

I don't think he even knows what "means" means.

[RoboCain]

Amber Heards girlfriend took topless pictures of her

http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/12/a.....es-of-her/

[AuH20]

Too artsy.

[Pip]

Barney's Breasts:

http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....floor.html

[sarcasmic]

I hate you, you hate me,
let's go on a killing spree
take a twelve gauge, point it at his head
pull the trigger, Barney's dead.

[SugarFree]

So. many. jokes. overload overload
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
[reboot]

That was close. What were we talking about again? Oh...

ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR
ERROR

[Fist of Etiquette]

Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer in the new Bosom Buddies, coming Fridays this Fall to ABC Family Channel.

[Warty]

Did you guys know that Barney Frank lactates? It's hard to separate the pus from his milk, but once you figure out how, you can make some amazing Casu Marzu with it.

[T]

Thanks. In one fell swoop you just topped SugarFree's vilest moments.

[Mike M.]

Winter hits middle America with a vengeance, as the Great Plains gets pounded with a massive blizzard. Portions of Kansas are receiving 10-20 inches of snow, four foot snow drifts in some areas, at least six to ten deaths so far blamed on the storm.

Remember how a few years ago the warming fraudsters were telling us that we'd never see snow again? Hoooo, that was a good one!

[RoboCain]

Weather is climate only if the weather gets warmer.

[sarcasmic]

Forecast calls for temperatures to be above normal tomorrow, and below average the next day.

[Citizen Nothing]

Great Polar Vortex for the climate-change win, bitches!

[Zeb]

The great plains could warm up quite a bit in the winter and still be plenty cold and snowy. I don't think that this is at all relevant to a discussion of the climate.

[Bones]

But it is a fine retort to those that did say we'll never see snow again.

[Dustin Whitedeen]

Sounds like a very good plan to me dude. Wow.

http://www.Complete-Anon.tk

[JEP]

I saw someone post an article talking about a Ron Paul/Condi Rice ticket, but I didn't get to read all of it.

As we start narrowing down the candidates for the GOP, adding Condi Rice as VP would be a really strong move for Paul for securing the nomination. He takes a lot of shit for his foreign policy views and Rice would help mitigate a lot of that.

She's also well respected, well spoken, and has few skeletons in the closet.

[sarcasmic]

If only she'd come out of the closet.

[JEP]

Maybe R. Kelly can help...

[Bones]

I'd rather have Walter Williams and that has to be more of a possibility, doesn't it?

[Bradley]

She's also well respected, well spoken, and has few skeletons in the closet.

Only Iraqi skeletons, but hey: fuck those guys, right?

[Live Free or Diet]

Authorities in DC Seize $7 Million in Guns, Drugs

Oh, so now they decide to start the tracking part of Fast and Furious!

[alexdroog]

John Walsh predicts doom and gloom. Don't cut government or crime will spike and houses will burn. And something something evil corporations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dEFVrzeAj8

[John]

Is that the guy who does America's most wanted? I am really sorry about his daughter. But isn't some point doesn't building your whole public persona and career around your dead daughter a bit morbid and exploitative?

[Warty]

HEY GUISE MY KIDS GOT RAPED AND MURDERED PAY ATTENTION TO ME PAY ATTENTION TO ME

I had this sleazy fuck figured out when I was 13. I can't believe there are people who haven't.

[Matrix]

I think it was his son, but yeah...

[Pip]

Cindy Sheehan tells me no.

[alexdroog]

I did a little "research" via Google and found that Cleveland cut 100 cops because the FOP refused a 4% pay reduction. Flint cut 2/3 because their union refused a pay cut as well (couldn't find a number).

As far as the crime stats he states, I couldn't find anything to support his assertions, other than that Paterson and Flint were kind of shit holes to start with.

[Matrix]

ESPN analyst and major tool Craig James is running for Senate in Texas as a Repug. He has a lot of experience running his mouth and abusing his position to get what he wants, so he thinks a seat in the Senate would be a good move.

[John]

He certainly has relevant experience for the job.

[alexdroog]

Now he'll be able to write legislation to get his kid more playing time, rather than merely ruining a coach's career.

[T]

I love it. He hates any school from the old Southwest Conference that's not SMU, and makes no bones about it. He'll have to quit the ESPN gig to run, so he'll be off the air for a while before he gets beat like a redheaded stepchild's rented mule.

The TX GOP Senate primary is between Dewhurst and Cruz. Everybody else is pissing in the wind.

And Dewhurst may actually get it, because he is a weasel of the first order.

[John]

I love how he claims that he never got any money from SMU. This at a time when SMU was paying everyone and James was one of the top recruits in Texas. He just chose SMU out of love for the school.

[T]

Yeah, he was there back when SMU had the best team money could buy. But he was pure as the driven snow! Either he's lying or he's a chump. I'll bank on the first one.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Worked for Ted Poe.

[Apatheist]

Mike Leach we a breath of fresh air and he ran him out of town. Fuck Craig James. I'm still deciding whether to vote for Cruz or not but I just might. Dewhurst is a tool.

[T]

I'll vote for Dewhurst right after he sets himself on fire on the Capitol steps.

Until then, fuck him.

[Brett L]

This was my thought, but I left TX in 2004. Glad to see things haven't changed.

[CaptainSmartass]

Pensacola man arrested at city council meeting after council president decides he doesn't like what man is saying:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MApjMm-I9_E

[sloopyinca]

The cops were just following orders in denying that man his constitutional rights. They are not to blame for being the fist of the state. After all, they have their pensions to think about.

[Joe M]

New national poll: Gingrich 30% Romney 30% Paul 15%

[Old Mexican]

Of likely Republican voters.

[Auric Demonocles]

Why do national polls matter?

[Joe M]

Don't you know about the Big Mo?

[mad libertarian guy]

Because this one shows Paul in 3rd place?

[Warty]

Havel's anti-communist critique contained little if any acknowledgement of the positive achievements of the regimes of eastern Europe in the fields of employment, welfare provision, education and women's rights. Or the fact that communism, for all its faults, was still a system which put the economic needs of the majority first.

Don't forget that these people still exist.

[Rhywun]

"it's time we stopped eulogising people simply because they were anti-communist dissidents"

and instead drag their name through the mud because they didn't live up to our Progressive fantasies. Oh wait, we never stop doing that.

What a puke.

[John]

Yes they do. And no we shouldn't ever forget that. Useless swine.

[Don't Understand]

The hand wringing over next year's election. Voting is putting your faith in the human race, and that's a bet your going to lose if you expect both decency and intelligence to converge in any collective manner.

[Don't Understand]

and that's a bet your going to lose

Grammar errors though do get weeded out.

[Cytotoxic]

Collateral drone damage is not murder.