History

The Left-Wing Origins of Newt Gingrich's Attack on the Courts

|

Writing in The Washington Post, Harvard Law School's Thomas Donnelly points out that Newt Gingrich's recent attacks on the judiciary "hark back to a time when progressives were committed to curbing court power." As Donnelly writes:

A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt spoke to a convention assembled to revise Ohio's constitution. Spurred by recent court decisions striking down various labor laws, Roosevelt called for reforms that would ensure that the American people had the final say over important constitutional questions. In so doing, Roosevelt attacked judicial supremacy, believing it "both absurd and degrading to make a fetish of a judge or of anyone else."

At the center of Roosevelt's reform agenda was a simple, albeit controversial, proposal: the recall of judicial decisions. Roosevelt summarized this by saying that, when judges decide a constitutional question, "the people should have the right to recall that decision if they think it wrong."

Progressive era activists favored judicial restraint because they saw the courts as a bulwark against their various regulatory schemes. You can't fashion a bold new tomorrow with a pesky judge striking down your transformative agenda, after all. So why not try to hogtie the judge? Theodore's distant cousin Franklin Roosevelt ran into the same problem a few decades later when the Supreme Court began striking down portions of his New Deal, which is why he wanted to pack the Court with a bunch of new justices willing to vote yea. Thankfully, even some of FDR's most liberal supporters refused to go along with that authoritarian plan.

Yet Donnelly's big takeaway point is that today's progressives should not be so quick to entirely reject Gingrich's war on the courts, especially given his plan's left-wing pedigree. According to Donnelly, maybe it's even time to resurrect Teddy Roosevelt's "People's Veto." As he writes:

For instance, such a veto could be reserved for 5 to 4 decisions of the Supreme Court on constitutional issues — in other words, decisions in which the majority is often attempting to push constitutional doctrine in a new direction. A People's Veto would permit the public to weigh in, perhaps following a national petition drive or congressional authorization.

I suppose there are some liberals out there who would like the chance to vote down the Court's campaign finance ruling in Citizens United or its Second Amendment decision in D.C. v. Heller. But how many of those same liberals would also like to subject the Court's abortion decisions to the People's Veto? How about the Court's decisions limiting presidential power in the war on terror? The whole point of an independent judiciary is that it can sometimes act as a check on the tyranny of the majority, which is precisely why Gingrich—like the Roosevelts before him—wants to do away with it.

NEXT: Nick Gillespie Talks at BU on The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America

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

  1. TR – as wrong back then as he is dead today!

    1. Let that be a lesson to all of them!

      1. In the long run we are all dead.

        1. Hippies of the Right…Unite!

    2. The Constitution has always contained a “People’s Veto” in Article V.

  2. This issue may long pre-date Teddy Roosevelt:

    “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”

    Attributed to Andrew Jackson

    1. More like Thomas Jefferson.

      1. Uh, no. Exactly “like” Andrew Jackson.

        1. Well everyone likes to think Jackson said it.

  3. onetime I started counting numbers and I fell asleep and when I woke up my finger was in my butthole.

    1. What the hell is wrong with you, spoofer?
      Get a friggin’ life.

  4. “I suppose there are some liberals out there who would like the chance to vote down the Court’s campaign finance ruling in Citizens United or its Second Amendment decision in D.C. v. Heller. But how many of those same liberals would also like to subject the Court’s abortion decisions to the People’s Veto?”

    That requires the ability to think abstractly.

    1. Liberal Progressives, just like Conservative Progressives, would be all for this measure until it challenged laws they like.

      There are very few people who are at all interested in liberty in any meaningful way beyond having the liberty to tell others how they may or may not live. Flawed though the wise 9 may be, it is the ONLY hope we have against outright authoritarianism taking hold any quicker than it already is.

      1. Flawed though the wise 9 may be, it is the ONLY hope we have against outright authoritarianism taking best hope authoritarians have to take hold any quicker than it already is.

        It is far easier to corrupt a body of nine appointeds than to consistently win elections countrywide for 536 officials willing to impose tyranny. Curbing the Constitutional excesses of the other branches is one thing, establishing policy and writing law is another and it is the latter which has made the judiciary unpopular over the last 40 years.

        1. It is far easier to corrupt a body of nine appointeds than to consistently win elections countrywide for 536 officials willing to impose tyranny.

          Is that why there is a higher re-election rate in America than there was in the Soviet Union?

          1. Only the central committee held any real power in the USSR. What did the committee care if the supreme soviet got shuffled around a bit?

        2. “It is far easier to corrupt a body of nine appointeds than to consistently win elections countrywide for 536 officials willing to impose tyranny.”

          You’ve heard of reality right? Why don’t you compare it to your little theory and see how it stacks up.

          The worst that can be said of SCOTUS is that they place their biases over the law. They aren’t bought off, because there isn’t usually a buyer for the things they deal with.

        3. Ah ha ha NO. SCOC is all that’s standing in the way of the TOTAL STATE yelling ‘you shall not pass!’.

        4. “It is far easier to corrupt a body of nine appointeds than to consistently win elections countrywide for 536 officials willing to impose tyranny.”

          First of all, you only need to win a majority of the House to push a bill through, not every seat. Second, reality shows that it is perfectly feasible to corrupt pretty much every single member of the House.

          “Curbing the Constitutional excesses of the other branches is one thing, establishing policy and writing law is another and it is the latter which has made the judiciary unpopular over the last 40 years.”

          “Curbing the Constitutional excesses of the other branches is one thing, establishing policy and writing law is another and it is the latter which has made the judiciary unpopular over the last 40 years.”

          Excuse me? SCOTUS did not start making unpopular decisions in the 1960s or 1970s. Every time it overrules a law it is overruling something created by elected politicians. Acting as a brake on popular demands is never going to make the court popular, even when the popular law is blatantly unconstitutional (Say, for example, miscegenation laws, which were popular but an egregious violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.)

        5. Metro-tarians court idolatry would be less laughable if the SC actually overturned liberty killing laws on a regular basis. Instead they’ve been a cog in the wheel of government oppression since Plessy v Ferguson.

          1. If the Congress passes ten laws that violate the enumerated rights of the citizenry and the SCOTUS goes along on nine of them and only overturns one, you know what that means?

            It means that the SCOTUS is still doing a literally infinitely better job of protecting the enumerated rights of the citizenry than the Congress is.

      2. We already have the law school indoctrination veto in the case of the racist ninth and tenth amendments, and the not so racist but extremely inconvenient article one of the fourteenth amendment, of which none are any longer enforced. That’s a kind of populism as all forms of populism limit those whom have access.

  5. I thought libertarians respected the Constitution. The Founders, when writing and passing the Constitution, did NOT give the Judiciary the power to determine is or isn’t constitutional. That was a power assumed by the Judiciary by Justice Marshall. So, I assume by this article that Mr. Root and Reason are just fine with branches assuming power not constitutionally allocated to them.
    Seems to me there are 5 justices that should be impeached due to their undermining of our property rights & the Constitution and violation of their oath the Constitution on the Kelo case. But apparently there is not accountability for SC justices by libertarian thinking.

    1. But apparently there is not accountability for SC justices by libertarian thinking.

      Seems to me there are 5 justices that should be impeached

      Seems to me your problem is with the legislature for not doing their duty to impeach those judges.

      Also libertarian =/= constitutionalist. Many us may see respecting the original intent of the constitution as a means to achieving a more libertarian government but that’s it.

      “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain ? that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

      Lysander Motherfuckin Spooner

      1. “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain ? that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

        ^^^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!

      2. Many us may see respecting the original intent of the constitution as a means to achieving a more libertarian government but that’s it.

        It’s always nice when a libertarian admits that he views the Constitution as nothing more than a means to an ends, i.e. that libertarians are as much deceitful shits as liberals and conservatives. I like it when the holier-than-thou, I-stand-on-rock-solid-principle veneer of libertarian politics is stripped away to reveal what lowbrow cunts libertarians really are.

        1. that libertarians are as much deceitful shits as liberals and conservatives.

          LOL!

          Yes, libertarians are deceitful shits who broadcast their political positions even when they are unpopular.

          Dude, it’s better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought possibly a fool, than to open it and confirm it. 😉

          1. Libertarians don’t usually admit that they view Constitutional arguments as a means to their ends and I complimented Apatheist for his forthrightness. Don’t be so sensitive, you feces-eating fucker of dogs.

            1. Don’t be so sensitive, you feces-eating fucker of dogs.

              Oh, I’m sorry. Mr Hah!, did I hurt your feelings?

              Do you need to go in the corner and have a little cry?

              Would you like a hot beverage?

              1. I smell Derider, or some other similar worthless cunt.

        2. The constitution was nothing more than a means to an ends when the founders wrote it. You would have to accuse them of utilitarian cynicism too as they saw it as a means to join the states in a compact while limiting the powers of a central government, and nothing beyond that.

          The civil religion doctrine came much later, and today is only promoted by Claremont Institute weirdos. However, your interpretation leaves only them as the legitimate standard bearers of the Constitution, and that is ridiculous because their creed is based upon a fantasy.

    2. Also this “Mr. Root and Reason” is bullshit. The different writers here each have their own individual opinions.

    3. The Constitution gives no branch the authority to interpret it. The Judiciary seem like a logical choice. If the Legislature wants to protest, there’s always the Constitutional amendment.

      Additionally, not all Libertarians and libertarians are Constitutionalists. Others disagree with the Constitution on many issues and would like to amend it, even to the extent of drastically changing branch of government, election processes, enumerated powers, and current interpretations.

      1. Others disagree with the Constitution on many issues and would like to amend it

        Congratulations for espousing a desire to work, in a legitimate manner, within the framework of the U.S. government to achieve your political ends. Using the illegitimately acquired power of the judiciary to achieve one’s ends is a guaranteed way to ensure that tyranny eventually prevails. The Constitution provides a well-defined way to make changes. Letting the judiciary trump the other branches will be the bane of us all.

        1. Well, since you asserted those things then they must be true.

          Shut down the thread boys, genius here’s got it all figured!

        2. “Using the illegitimately acquired power of the judiciary to achieve one’s ends is a guaranteed way to ensure that tyranny eventually prevails. The Constitution provides a well-defined way to make changes. Letting the judiciary trump the other branches will be the bane of us all.”

          I didn’t say this, nor was it implied. Kindly don’t presume to know what I’m thinking.

          I believe Judiciary power is legitimate, and would favor amending the Constitution to make it explicit.

        3. If the judiciary can’t overturn laws by ruling them unconstitutional, then we don’t have a constitution and it would be pointless to talk about amending one.

          If the Congress tomorrow passes a law banning judaism and the President signs it, without judicial review it doesn’t matter one skinny rat’s ass if you think that violates the First Amendment. Who would give a shit? The Congress has spoken and anyone who doesn’t like it can go fuck themselves. Right?

    4. Ummmm…

      If judges cannot decide constitutionality then Kelo definitely stands.

    5. You are correct.
      Marbury versus Madison was THE greatest power grab by the Federal Bench.
      The US Constitution is mute on the concept of “judicial review”.

      However, the US Constitution does give the President ? and ? Congress the impeachment hammer; and it is past time it is brought down to bear on prideful and pernicious judicial nails.

      This is not radical or revolutionary; it merely re-sets the “balance” between THREE co-equal branches of government. That is all.

      And finally – this was stated by President Andrew Jackson and it bears worth repeating:
      “… The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.”

      1. The problem with impeaching justices is that it will ALWAYS be a purely political decision (unless obvious corruption is occurring).

        There would be nothing to stop a government like the 2008-2010 Democrat controlled EVERYTHING (Or the 2000-2006 Team RED everything if you prefer) from impeaching those justices whom they disliked and stacking the court. And it would take place on the regular just so that the court would put out decisions that favored the existing government.

        1. As to –
          “The problem with impeaching justices is that it will ALWAYS be a purely political decision…”
          That is correct; and THAT defines democracy
          Consequently – via judicial impeachment – no JUDGES are above and exempt from the rule of the people? Yes?

          As to –
          “There would be nothing to stop a government like the 2008-2010 Democrat controlled EVERYTHING (Or the 2000-2006 Team RED everything if you prefer) from impeaching those justices whom they disliked and stacking the court.”
          That is correct.

          However in the following election – the newly elected Congress and President could throw THOSE stacked judges out… if they choose to do so.

          In sum, ALL federal judges are political creatures beholden to those that appointed them; and the impeachment option – is a constitutionally mandated procedure in place so as to limit – and throw out – unaccountable tyrannical judges.
          That is all.

          1. Your definition of “democracy” is no more than a fig’s leaf for tyranny of the majority. Besides. We don’t live in a democracy, but in a representative republic.

            That is why the judiciary exists, to protect the people from the majority. The only other option is rebellion and eventually revolution.

            The point of the judiciary is NOT to simply sit around and acquiesce to the current legislators, but to ensure that said legislators don’t fuck us under a veil of doing the will of the people. This is not, in any way, to argue that they always accomplish that job.

    6. You know why you’re wrong?

      Because the entire point of the Kelo decision was that the court bent over backwards to defer to the legislative branch.

      The majority in Kelo said that a “public” purpose was whatever the legislative branch (or the legislature of a state) wanted to say it was, and that they would not assume the power to review that decision.

      So there’s one reason you’re wrong. You’re wrong because you don’t understand the decision you’re angry about.

      Here’s the other reason you’re wrong:

      If the constitution doesn’t give the SCOTUS the authority to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not, then the state of Connecticut and the city of New London was entitled to skull fuck Kelo eight ways to Sunday and nobody was empowered to say shit about it. The entire reason Kelo was before the court was to seek protection from the mob from that court – a protection you’re asserting the SCOTUS had no right to give.

      So you’re wrong because you’re bitching that SCOTUS justices failed to discharge a duty you’re claiming they have no rightful power to discharge.

      1. That was some serious owning right there.

    7. “I thought libertarians respected the Constitution.”

      Well, there was your first mistake. We respect liberty, which sometimes is enhanced by the Constitution, and sometimes is trampled by it.

  6. There’s a fucking process for amending the constitution should judicial interpretation go to far one way or the other. Christ it’s not fucking rocket science. I knew I shouldn’t have gone online.

  7. Is this the open weekend thread? If not, too bad, this is relevant to many of our interests…

    http://www.eyehandy.com/weapon…..th-ashley/

    1. Won’t play on my android.

      1. This is why Flash needs to die ASAP.

        1. ^^THIS^^

          HTML 5 works just fine, and isn’t a fucking resource hog/battery suck.

          1. The one problem I’ve found with HTML5 is that it loads automatically rather than waiting for me to tell it to load. Since I’ve got bandwidth caps, this can be a problem.

            (By the same token, I hate Hate HATE when people use .gifs as a substitute for video. They’re never very funny, either.)

            1. Not all gifs are bad. (Possibly NSFW).

              But yes – Flash is a system resource hog and unsafe to boot.

    2. not bad, but I would look ridiculous in that outfit. She shoots the glock one-handed, a sure prescription for hitting everything within a 30 degree cone.

      1. Dude, a thin girl wearing lingerie is not giving a serious firearms training course.

    3. Very informative.

    4. That was sweet. All gun videos should be like that:) I love my G22.

  8. There’s a fucking process for amending the constitution should judicial interpretation go to far one way or the other. Christ it’s not fucking rocket science. I knew I shouldn’t have gone online.

    1. Interesting double-submit.

    2. Well, yes and no. Amendments can’t solve the problem of bad faith interpretation. If the country ratifies an amendment that bans drug laws at the federal level, and SCOTUS makes up a rationale for allowing the status quo to stand on the WoD, what exactly can you do? Write a second amendment? Actually, the second amendment is pretty much the solution left to you at that point.

      1. Watering Tree of Liberty, yada, yada, yada.

      2. If you have the kind of support you would need to pass an constitutional amendment then you would have the support you need to start impeaching judges. There’s a process for that as well.

        1. That begs the question, is non-adherence to popular public opinion a high crime or misdemeanor?

          1. The process to amend the constitution which is the primary solution requires much more than simple popular opinion to avoid things like mob rule. But it nice that you have the option to do so in case to need to do things like maybe outlaw slavery. If you’ve going to those lengths to detail the law and the justices still try to do an end around, than they should be impeached. That’s why the process exist in the first place.

  9. Politicians pass dumbass laws. Judges make dumbass decisions. Both pols and judges are subject to terms of office.
    If we believe the above blather, the wrongs can be made right with greater alacrity than those terms. Bullshit.

  10. a time when progressives were committed to curbing court power

    That was back when the courts actually upheld the constitution instead of looking for ways to pretend it doesn’t say what it says, right?

    -jcr

    1. Apparently there was.

    2. Nope. The Supreme Court has always been a bunch of weasels.

      See the contortions they went through to decide a black man couldn’t be a citizen of a state. Or, in violation of the plain meaning of the 14th ammendment, how they permitted Jim Crow laws.

      Brutus was right!

  11. As an ACLU donor and classic liberal I support Heller, Citizens United, Roe v Wade, Griswold, and Kelo.

    The Right to Privacy is just as important as the Right to Self Defense. Only conservatives object to this claim.

    1. Exactly, I don’t hear any babies complaining about Roe v. Wade.

      1. Freedom is the theme here, pal.

        No one wants a Wahhibi Christian police state where uterine inspections are routine.

        Some asshole Republickin in my home stated introduced a law to investigate all miscarriages for murder charges. The sex police need to go fuck each other hard.

        1. No baby should ever interfere in an adult’s freedom. If a baby has to be killed to expand that freedom, well, that sucks for the baby, but babies don’t make much noise when they are dead so no harm, no foul.

        2. Team Blue, shrike. Can’t leave out their massive shortcomings.

          Tony won’t cop to it, though.

        3. Needs more Christ-Fags!!!

        4. We got to get that homophobic fucking Obama out of office, quick!!!

    2. You are the shrike. All hail the shrike. Worship the wisdom. Fondle his balls.

    3. So why hasn’t the right of privacy been used to strike down drug laws, Obamacare and financial regulations?

  12. I’m kind of ignorant in these matters so I have a question.

    If the judiciary doesn’t have the authority to decided the constitutionality of a law then what mechanism is there to rid ourselves of blatantly unconstitutional laws?

    Say congress passes a law making swearing in public punishable by death, the law is signed by the president and enforced by the executive branch; wouldn’t a constitutionally powerless court be forced to sentence the guilty to death?

    1. At the time everybody got to weigh in on constitutionality.

      a) So, the Congress could choose not to pass a law as being unconstitutional.

      b) The president could refuse to enforce it.

      c) The courts could invalidate it.

      d) Juries could refuse to indict or convict people.

      e) State legilatures could recall senators who voted for the bill.

      At this point most of these limitations have been effectively short-circuited.

      1. Then it seems that without a strong judiciary the constitution is moot in the face of solid majorities.

        1. I’m with you on that one. The answer is not so clear as I would like. Seems like Chief Justice Marshall saved us from a worse national fate by making the stand for Supremacy that he did is not an unreasonable conclusion. How could the courts maintain any semblance of power versus majorities otherwise? I’d like to see that debated in length. My minds not made up either way.

          1. Like take tarran’s list for example it’s correct as far as I know, but as he says history has shown that we shouldn’t count on any, save for c, to undo an unconstitutional law.

            a, and b – only a fool would believe that either of those two scenarios would happen

            d, and e – good luck with those as well

            1. Well, the 17th Amendment guarantees e won’t work, but once upon a time Senators represented the interest of the various states in the bicameral legislature.

            2. Even c) can be short-circuited.

              1. Isn’t c the same thing as “judicial review?”

                1. Isn’t c the same thing as “judicial review?”

                  Yes.

      2. b) The president could refuse to enforce it.

        Especially when Captain Hope and Change signs bills in to law that he knows are bad, yet does it anyways with the Hope that it isn’t used badly.

  13. Ugh! So much misinformation —

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscie…../?pid=2729

    1. As a counter to the insanity of the world view in that article, here is a reality check on regulation as it effects just one commodity:

      http://mises.org/daily/5840/Th…..es-Utility

    2. Damn those speculators!! (shakes fist)

      Luckily these guys had “mathematical models” to figure it all out. What we need is for food to be regulated. Maybe some price controls will work.

    3. Gee, I wonder why speculators would want to bid up the price of commodities. Could it have anything to do with Federal Reserve monetary policy that was explicitly designed to boost prices?

      This is just the typical statist schizophrenia. The monetary central planners at the Fed inflate the money supply and inject fresh reserves into the banking system to support price levels because any hint of deflation is believed to put the economy in an inextricable liquidity trap. Open Market Committee signal its intent in advance and buy Treasurys and MBS in record amounts. Naturally speculators bid up commodity prices. Since high prices are the intent of monetary policy, the speculators should be congratulated for fulfilling the wishes of the monetary central planners. But … wait … then poor people have to pay higher prices for food. Well, yeah … can’t the geniuses at the Fed and Department of Ag grasp that producers can only receive higher ag prices if consumers are paying higher prices (either in cash or with an EBT card)?

    4. It’s bad enough to write it, but to call it a top economic discovery of 2011? Wow.

  14. You know who has no left wing leanings?

    That’s right.

    Mitt.

    1. Check number four on the donor list.

      http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..ksters.jpg

      That’s right, Ron Paul, Free Mason.

      Unlike the good Americans who are my rock solid support, Ron Paul is a member of the Illuminati.

      1. and hates JOOOOOOOOOOOOs!

        1. Is he a Zionist? Because I wanna join that organization, yo.

      2. What am I, chopped liver?

      3. Paul’s Illuminati membership is just a cover for a more subversive membership in the Non-Interventionist Conspiracy which is also [shock] against both the racist War On Drugs and the New World Police State.

    2. That is Grade A stupidity. But it made me laugh.

      1. It made me laugh for a moment, but I swear, in my rational mind, I am so fucking tired of this shit. I mean, really, these fucking people.

  15. Roosevelt summarized this by saying that, when judges decide a constitutional question, “the people should have the right to recall that decision if they think it wrong.”

    If only there were some way of doing that. Perhaps by 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

    1. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law, all we need to do is a constitutional amendment to overrule Congress!

      1. You fail at reading comprehension.

  16. Since when has the constitution been left-wing?
    Lincoln said he was a real “conservative” for standing against the court’s insistence that their particular rulings pertained to all general cases, or as much as they saw fit.
    Gingrich’s point is hardly novel or leftist. He just has the audacity to point out that the courts have very limited powers and qualified jurisdiction in a democracy under the very laws they are supposed to apply to particular cases that come under their purview. They are not supposed to be the absolute or final arbiter of what we truly want and mean by our laws – they decide cases and offer opinions, but every elected official is sworn to protect and uphold the same constitution and should not blindly apply bad decisions to every law and case. We really are free to ignore or reject stupid rulings! We don’t have to wait on them to approve or prescribe every detail of our lives for us – I mean, if we are still worthy of our liberty as democratic citizens of a republic created by and for the people.
    I thought libertarians were for liberty, not arbitrary submission to whoever happens to be appointed to the bench at a particular time. Isn’t this the site that criticizes Scalia, Ginsberg and others for trampling freedom, and yet praises the rule of law as the bulwark of freedom? You can’t have it both ways (not respectfully). Either quietly submit to their rule until you get your 2/3 + 3/4 (good luck) or start taking your constitution seriously.
    Look what you made me do – defend newt and fdr! What dark madness have we fallen into that even friends of liberty defend the absolute authority of nine.

    1. Muddled, needs clarification.

    2. Who said anything about left wing. Being able to ignore/recall decisions by the judiciary is a progressive ideology.

      Leftist != Progressive. They are particularly odious people from both aisles.

      1. For example, the scions of the Rockefeller family from whom Rockefeller Republicans get their name are very much progressives. They are also on the right…

  17. It’s Brock Lesnar time.

    1. well that was quick

      1. Don’t worry, you can watch his next fight. Wait…

  18. So much for Kochtopus, best defense of Paul I’ve seen yet:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/…..inion_main

    1. Not bad as a whole.

      However, I’m wondering, has anyone that is not white chimed in about the newsletters in the media? Julian doesn’t count in that scoring. He’s whiter than I am.

      1. http://www.google.com/search?q…..80&bih=624

        Alright, it’s more of a dead even match.

  19. An accent that never gets tired.

    1. Heavenly!

      There’s a reason why they call it a lilt.

  20. http://supervillainornewt.com

    Welcome to the Supervillain or Newt Game, where you have to decide whether an idea comes from an indestructible megalomaniac hell-bent on ruling the world, or from a fictional supervillain.

    1. Good idea, but it’s a bit of a dud in practice.

  21. Behold the mountain of douchebaggery that is Ed Schulzt.

      1. I was able to watch a whole minute of that, which I think is pretty damn impressive.

        1. So Ron Paul is supposed to be locked arm-in-arm with a guy who thinks TEH GHEYS ought to be executed in accordance with Levitic sodomy laws (JUDAIZER!) but Ron Paul has stated, often and repeatedly that he is against the death penalty?

          Ed Schultz vs. a Box of Rocks: Who will win this climatic battle of wits?

  22. I’m OK with the people having the ability to overturn a judicial decision that expands the power of the government. I’m deadset against the people having the ability to overturn a judicial decision that restricts government power.

  23. We haven’t had an independent judiciary in 70+ years.

    And you neglect to mention that the judiciary was never intended to be superior to the other branches.

    1. A judiciary that isn’t superior is a joke. If the judiciary isn’t meant to be a final arbiter than what is good for?

  24. Its like I said on the PM Links thread about this. Foreseeable consequences are not unintended. You think the justices of SCOTUS are going to let hoi polloi reverse them? Fuck no. Decisions immediately become 6-3 or they aren’t taken up. While this might suit Mr. Donnelly’s purposes in regards to Obamacare, he’s gonna shit a brick when Oklahoma outlaws abortion and SCOTUS won’t grant cert, thereby making the law Constitutional by default.

  25. Newt’s instincts are progressive. Anyone who has read much of my commentary in the past knows of my references to what I call the ‘religious impulse’. This is the desire to see the behaviour of others controlled or manipulated in a way that is conducive to whatever shape of society one desires to see in place rather than the one that exists. This impulse can manifest itself in anyone regardless of their political self-description. It, in my opinion, is most manifested in those desirous of shaping a society to fit a particular ideology, and this is in the main the province of the left. It is also why libertarians have little to fear even from the most religious of social conservatives. I call it the religious impulse, but if you care to look at the religionists themselves, again this impulse is most manifest in religionists of the left than the right. Progressivism obtained much of its origin in churchmen who preached a ‘social gospel’ insisting on visible good works with visible effects in society. This where I got the idea for the term in the first place. Newt has unconsciously inherited this attitude and this is why he harbors so many errors of progressivism in his thinking and rhetoric.

    1. It’s much simpler than that. Newt is a vile man hell-bent on using government to tell people how to live according to his vision.

  26. “It is also why libertarians have little to fear even from the most religious of social conservatives. I call it the religious impulse, but if you care to look at the religionists themselves, again this impulse is most manifest in religionists of the left than the right.”

    I disagree. If you go back to the time that many of these religionists say they like, the 1950’s, you find quite a bit of religion inspired control of society. It was quite pervasive. Like to go shopping on Sunday? Blue laws prevented that. Liquor by the drink? Prevented in many areas. Like to read or watch what you want? Obscenity laws made it so novels and movies had to barely allude to “naughty” things (and federal obscenity laws go waaaaay back, can’t pin them on “progressives” in even the most fevered Beckian revisionism). State organized and mandated prayer in schools. Contraception bans, abortion bans, penalties for cohabitation.

    We know what it looked like when religionists held power, and it won’t pretty from a liberty view.

    Thankfully most of the stuff mentioned above were struck down by “evil activist liberal judges” reading the BoR broadly and forcing it on the states via incorporation, while conservative religionists howled the entire time…

    1. Stop slipping partisan, lefitsst douchebaggery into all of your posts, or the DI’s going to cut your head off and shit down your neck.

      1. Er, so you were fine with the partisan, right wing stuff in the post I responded to though, huh? Interesting dynamic, that.

        1. Neo-conservatives and proto-theocrats also suck, don’t get me wrong. But I’ll take HALLELUJAH PRAISE THUH LAWD over Barack Obama’s voting block any fucking day of the week.

          1. I won’t argue that Obama has given libertarians a single thing to applaud, not a single thing. But I think you have far too glossy of a view of the kind of liberty restricted world the PRAISE THE LAWD folks would put on you, probably because you’ve been safely insulated from it for all of your life thanks to the work of liberal activist judges and more liberal social views.

            1. I like that I can eat out and shop on Sundays, I can remember when everything but the pharmacy was closed then (by law).

              I like that I can buy liquor by the drink, I can remember a time when people could not.

              I like that my kids don’t have to join in state organized prayer and religious activities.

              I like that I can watch TV, movies, read books and listen to songs that would have been prosecuted under state and federal obscenity laws a few decades ago.

              I like that my wife can buy contraception or that I could have chosen to cohabitate with a significant other without legal penalty.

              Thank God for liberal activist judges and the liberalization of social mores that got rid of all of that crap conservative religionists pushed on us back then. Every time you go shopping or out to eat on a Sunday, go to a bar, buy birth control pills, read a book or watch a movie in which characters can do more than kiss goodnight, or send your kid to school knowing they won’t have the Ten Commandments pushed on them, thank a liberal.

              1. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a shill. Liberals have, since the 1950’s, pushed a pile of anti-liberty stuff. When you go to that bar to get liquor by the drink you might be banned from smoking. Your kid might not have the Ten Commandments pushed on them in a public school, but they might get some multicultural claptrap pushed on them. You can buy porn but not transfat foods. Etc. Each side has plenty of nannies. My point is that it is just easy to gloss over the conservative religionists nannies because they’ve lost so many battles recently, thank God.

              2. “Every time you go shopping or out to eat on a Sunday, go to a bar, buy birth control pills, read a book or watch a movie in which characters can do more than kiss goodnight, or send your kid to school knowing they won’t have the Ten Commandments pushed on them, thank a liberal.”

                Wow, then you had to go full retard.

                1. I don’t know what to say…Would you like links to the court decisions that freed these areas up with a list of the justices who provided the votes and their fairly well acknowledged ideological leanings?

                  These are not all dead issues for the religious right either you know. There are still prominent conservative legal scholars who mock and lament Griswold. The current GOP governor of Virginia lamented in his Masters thesis, which he got at a college run by Pat Robertson, the erosion of cohabitation and “fornication” laws. Just a few years ago conservative darling Robert Bork wrote with nostalgic affection of strict obscenity laws and the strict censorship of movies, books and tv. And Rick Perry is currently running an ad in Iowa lamenting that courts eliminated state led prayer in schools….

                  1. What the the fuck does the religious right have to do with what I’m saying.

                    Christ, I acknowledged already that you were correct that religious puritans make no better masters than liberal PC puritans.

                    But then you had to go all TEAM BLUE and claim credit for saving modern civilization from the Inquisition.

                    1. Dude, who do you think struck down all those laws, libertarian or conservative judges? I’m just giving credit where its due as a historical matter. I also took the time to note where “team blue” (I think you mean “the Left”, those two things are not quite the same) has pushed liberty restrictions when they could.

                2. Your welcome !!!

                  1. I’d prefer that both Teams stay the fuck out of social engineering, period. That way, neither Team has to do/undo things one of them starts, in the name of “the public good”.

                    Guess that’s too much to ask, though.

              3. Oh thank ya most kind sir for all you done fo’ me. Some say it was disco that got liquor by the drink passed but I knew it was you all along.

              4. When O when will the liberal judges [many of whom are actually progressives] jump down the throat of the oppressive DHS Security State so you, your wife and children won’t get strip-searched at the airport? The administration and DHS claim almost unlimited power to do as they please. I think because the judges have bought into the Total Control Model and won’t do anything to upset the central authority because to go against the tide is career suicide.

                The ACLU is still upset, what about the courts? They didn’t get taken over by neoconservatives.

            2. I won’t argue that Obama has given libertarians a single thing to applaud, not a single thing. But I think you have far too glossy of a view of the kind of liberty restricted world the PRAISE THE LAWD folks would put on you

              Absolutely fucking agreed.

          2. —“But I’ll take HALLELUJAH PRAISE THUH LAWD over Barack Obama’s voting block any fucking day of the week.”—

            Douchebaggery is douchebaggery, no matter what side it is from.

            1. +1

    2. You make a good point in the first paragraph. Religious conservatives certainly do tend want to regulate how people live, especially in the bedroom.

      I disagree that activist judges were the solution, or should ever be the solution. I think changing social mores from the baby boomer generation were the real driving force.

      1. We’ll need to review that documentation. It doesn’t seem they have been produce in triplicate. Did she give her consent at every stage in your attempt to rape her? And was that consent an enthusiastic consent?

    3. I agree with MNG.

      I take it a step futher.

      I always thought of religion as a funny thing. Seeing Jews pray to a wall, Christians making the sign of cross when plane takes off. Muslims speak for themselves. After that entire airplane thru the window bit i experienced 10years ago…I don’t think its funny…it it straight up dangerous.

      And, the claims that these religions (mostly the western religions) make a terrible.

      The Jews claim god gave them Israel…a violation of their own commandment of not taking god’s name in vein.

      And Christians and Muslims pretty much see it the same…Convert or be killed.

      I say religions merit 0% respect. And, at best should be tolerated to an extent and not absolutely.

      1. I’d like to introduce you to a few of my friends that did a bunch of heinous shut in the name of the state and not religion. Meet Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, etc.

        Are religions or the people that practice them perfect? No. But you can step down off your damn high horse about how everyone who believes is crazy or out to get you.

        I’m a believer and a libertarian. How do you like them apples?

    4. MNG: All bad, to be sure.

      But eugenics. Leftist progressives OWN it. Based on the religious belief that government can fix society. And all WAY worse than anything you listed (or likely could list).

      1. “But eugenics. Leftist progressives OWN it.”

        That’s absolutely not true. One of the first state’s to pass eugenics laws was Oklahoma, not exactly a hotbed of liberal progressivism. Or look at the Carrie Buck SCOTUS case:yes progressive Holmes wrote the opinion but all but one of the justices (many of which were on the “libertarian” side later in famous cases such as Lochner) joined it. Eugenics just was “accepted” as “scientifically sound” back then, all sides ate it up. To their credit the only real opposition came from conservative Catholics, but everyone else accepted it.

        1. Correction: not Lochner, but the famous anti-New Deal cases. Three of the famed “Four Horsemen” (James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter) who thwarted FDR often voted with Holmes in Buck.

          Interestingly, it was liberal judges that you can credit with striking down eugenics laws (Skinner v. Oklahoma), with probably the most liberal SCOTUS justice in history, William O Douglas, writing the opinion. Those laws were thought constitional because they don’t violate any explicit text of the Constitution. It was only under “Living Constitution” and “activist” interpretations of the Equal Protection and Due Procss Clauses were well accepted that justices found ground to strike these laws.

          1. ‘the only real opposition came from conservative Catholics, but everyone else accepted it.’

            No, conservative Protestants didn’t like it either. Go to this link, look up “eugenics,” and go to p. 552 et seq:

            http://amzn.to/sOEUQU

            “Many conservative Protestants also voiced religious objections to eugenic legislation, especially in the American South, where fundamentalism was strong.”

            1. William Jennings Bryant was opposed to it. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay about that. But he was a strange blend of what we today would call conservative and progressive.

              1. Nothing strange about WJB. *We* can call him anything we want, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a social-gospel, rural progressive – he was only “strange” from the point of view of urban progressives, but conservatives knew he wasn’t on their side, which is why the conservative wing of the Democratic Party opposed him and the liberal wing kept getting him nominated.

                When you spend your career opposing the gold standard, opposing wall street, supporting the income tax, denouncing monopoly capital, voicing optimism about American democracy, and promoting peacenik ideas about international conciliation in preference to war, you’ve earned the right not to have snarky liberals call you “strange” and “conservative.”

                His anti-evolutionism wasn’t some “strange” deviation into “conservative” ideology, as a biographer points out:

                “Bryan, of course, had seen Darwin’s teachings used to bolster political and economic conservatism in the form of Social Darwinism, and he objected to them
                on this ground as well. In 1905, after reading Darwin’s Descent of Man, Bryan told the sociologist E. A. Ross that ‘such a conception of man’s origin would weaken the cause of democracy and strengthen class pride and the power of wealth.'”
                (Lawrence W. Levine, Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan: The Last Decade, 1915-1925, Oxford University Press, 1965, pp. 261-62)

                1. Just for yuks, here is a fun passage from p. 263 of Hunter’s Civic Biology – you know, that textbook “everyone else accepted” which featured in the Scopes case:

                  “The Remedy – If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.”

                  http://bit.ly/vqob79

                2. Yes, this was detailed in the Gould essay (can’t remember the title off hand).

                  The internet is a funny place, it’s hard to tell when someone is actually agreeing with you (intentionally or not). It seems your post proves that many progressives opposed eugenics in its heyday. Right?

                  1. “Eugenics just was ‘accepted’ as ‘scientifically sound’ back then, *all sides* ate it up. To their credit the only real opposition came from conservative Catholics, but *everyone else accepted it*.” [emphasis added]

                    The citations I gave show that this is not the case.

                    Protestant fundamentalists included a lot of eugenic opponents – and since lots of Protestant fundamentalists were also social-gospel progressives, then yes, there’s an overlapping Venn diagram showing progressives who opposed their fellow-progressives on the eugenic issue. Their reward was to be dismissed as anti-science troglodytes, ignored and marginalized – and of all things, conflated with Catholics! Not to mention having their progressive credentials challenged (“strange,” “conservative”) because they were skeptical of evolution (a position connected to their opposition to eugenics).

                    The dominant, urban progressives managed to “defeat” the fundamentalists in 1925, rewriting history so that only the urban, pro-eugenics progressives were the real progressives.

                    Then some guy in Germany Godwinned all over the idea of eugenics, causing many (but not all) of its erstwhile progressive supporters to turn against it.

                    It wasn’t until the civil-rights era that “everyone” finally turned against eugenics, taking up the ground which the fundies and Catholics had been occupying all along.

                    1. So eugenics was supported by many conservatives and progressives, but opposed by many conservatives and progressives, especially Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants (many of whom were “progressives”).

                      So you’re right I was wrong in saying only conservative Catholics opposed it. But I was right in arguing you can’t just lay eugenics at the feet of progressives (after all, the eugenics laws of, say, Oklahoma were hardly pushed through by all the urban progressives in that state, and the “Four Horseman” who joined Holmes in upholding eugenics laws were about as conservative as you could be).

                3. ” but conservatives knew he wasn’t on their side”

                  Again, I think this might point to the difficulty of trying to fit historical figures into our current ideas of “conservative” and “liberal.” It seems like on issues like evolution or prohibition Bryant would have been in step with many of the forerunners of what we today would call “christian conservatives,” no? Somewhere along the way urban progressives and rural progressives split up and went their own seperate ways. The rural ones seemed to drop their “economic progressivism,” retain their “social conservatism” and become what we stereotype today as “red staters” while the urban progressives became the modern Left. I think maybe this kind of “realignment” was established with Truman/Wallace/Thurmond split tickets in 48…Your thoughts?

                  1. It took more than the Dixiecrats, IMHO, to get rural progressives into a conservative political mode.

                    What it took was for the main party of the progressives – the Democrats – to relegate economic issues to subsidiary status and pursue a cultural revolution in the areas of abortion, sexual morality, drugs, school prayer, etc., etc. Notice how there is no automatic link between supporting racial justice and supporting a sexual revolution (quite the opposite, as history demonstrated).

                    The urban progressives were so busy with these new cultural issues – seeing their erstwhile economic allies as cultural enemies – that they didn’t care (if they knew) that they were driving solid economic progressives out of their party (and it wasn’t just rural progressives either – the famous white ethnics of the cities counted, too).

                    The Republicans, seeing a gift-wrapped present of alienated Democrats left on their doorstep, unwrapped the present, and in turn the Democrats accused the Repubs of a sinister conspiracy to exploit cultural issues! No, the Repub behavior doesn’t need explanation – they were trolling for votes. The progressives’ behavior needs an explanation – why did they flush loyal voters down the toilet like that?

                    Once in the Repub ranks, the erstwhile progressives were exposed to a broad conservative movement, opening them up to economically-conservative arguments. Contrariwise, the new conservatives opened up the conservative movement to economically-progressive ideas.

                    So now we have to listen to tiresome “what’s the matter with kansas” whining from the people who alienated these voters in the first place!

                    1. I’m not claiming that no conservatives ever supported eugenics, but I would like to be educated on the issue. I know the immigration-restriction crowd included conservatives, many of whom were worried about the wrong kind of immigrants.

                    2. Woodrow Wilson supported eugenics, but so did Calvin Coolidge. It’s going to take some mighty revisionism to brand Coolidge as a Progressive…I think it was pretty widely accepted in its day as “scientific fact.”

                    3. I agree, while I support many elements of “lifestyle liberalism” many liberals went out of their way to threaten and offend many rural social conservative folks and mores (let’s be fair though too, many of these people were just upset about the loss of a socially conservative hegemony).

                      Still, I think race had a lot to do with it. It’s telling that the big splits at the Presidential level in the New Deal coalition seemed to have that as the main source (the Wallace/Thurmond run in 48, the G. Wallace run later).

                    4. I’m sure you have something there. In the South, the Dems were the white supremacist party, and for this they were rewarded with the votes of a majority of whites (except the descendants of Union loyalists and some others).

                      When the Democratic Party abandoned its white-supremacist heritage and joined the Republicans in opposing Jim Crow, that in itself would have shaken up some votes. Add to this the issue of the rights of private businesses – the reason Goldwater broke with his previous record to oppose the 1964 Act – and in general the fact that civil rights became a slogan justifying all sorts of dubious policies, and the inevitable political shift got even worse.

                      But there were many simultaneous factors, and it would be too easy to single out the racial angle. Unless the sexual revolution, abortion, and the other urban-liberal wish list were all black issues – which they weren’t.

                    5. “But there were many simultaneous factors, and it would be too easy to single out the racial angle.”

                      Agreed. I have to go, but thanks for the very thoughtful correction to my initial post and the interesting discussion.

                    6. Agreed. I have to go, but thanks for the very thoughtful correction to my initial post and the interesting discussion.

                      This is why I always liked MNG. Good show.

      2. I’m progressive, not religious, and wouldn’t exactly call myself a leftist.

        The Government is a group of people.
        The Union is a group of people.
        The Corporation is a group of people.

        These three institutions have their good and bad. All all have shaped society in many ways.

        I think if you speak to non-religious progressives you’ll find that it’s not religion that drives us to make sure no one goes hungry, lives on the straights, or dies due to lack of medical treatment. None of these resources are truly scarce in the USA. For as crappy as the PROJECTS are in Newark, Camden, and the Bronx, they are a shelter. For as much of a disaster Medicaid is for the poor, alternative the libertarians offer is straight-up awful…and only those that are wealthy or just plain stupid would support.

        We can spend money to love one another. We don’t need to tax the rich beyond what we tax them today. Maybe raise the FICA to a level of fairness, but that’s pretty much it. We spent $11Billion dollars a month for 10 years murdering people…We can do it. We can spend the money taking care of people.

        1. Viscerally delusional progressive bullshit hasn’t exactly been in short supply over the last century, Alice, so yours isn’t really necessary.

          1. You must admit, it was cute though.

            Saw your video below Res, must have been some night.

            1. Yeah, my cousin came out as a Romney supporter a few days ago, so I had to drink myself shitless at a party to drown the sorrow.

          2. As Viscerally delusionally progressive as it may sound, it comes with good intentions. I know I know, Hitler had good intentions. Except that our good intentions doesn’t requiring systematically murdering anyone or making people suffer.

            1. Actually, it does. Central planning always fails. Always.

              You “progressives” never see the unintended consequences of government action. You never see who the government takes the money from. You never see how your arbitrary restrictions hurt people.

            2. Except that our good intentions doesn’t requiring systematically murdering anyone or making people suffer.

              Hmmm, I seem to recall a formerly idealistic young black president systematically murdering a lot of brown skinned people.

              I suppose in your mind systematically stealing a huge chunk of people’s incomes isn’t in any way making them suffer.

          3. Is it viscerally delusional to think we should take some of the money we dump into war and militarism and use it to provide a basic safety net for the less fortunate? Because that’s all Bowie seems to be saying.

            1. It’s a nice gesture though. Jesus-like. To quote Matthew 19:24: “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.

              I Jesus sees it more like we Progressives that don’t even believe in god than the way conservatives that do.

              1. Well, to be fair, conservatives or libertarians can reply that Jesus might not have been talking about coerced giving to the poor. Most libertarians I talk to seem quite open to voluntary charity.

                1. Separation of church and state, Alice. We either forbid it full-bore, or not.

                  1. It’s in copyright violation.

                    1. That was meant for you down there.

              2. It’s a nice gesture though. Jesus-like. To quote Matthew 19:24: “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”.

                You forget what happened next, Alice. The rich young man walked away unmolested, and Jesus didn’t advocate forcibly taking his money because he didn’t accept Jesus’ offer to give away 100% of his wealth.

                How anyone can take from this story the moral that it is right to have the government steal for “charitable” purposes is beyond me.

                1. Progressives act as if they can’t tell the difference between “you should do this” and “you should force everyone to do this”. Is it because they are dishonest, or because they are stupid?

                  1. Is it because they are dishonest, or because they are stupid?

                    Can’t it be both?

    5. Obscenity laws made it so novels and movies had to barely allude to “naughty” things (and federal obscenity laws go waaaaay back, can’t pin them on “progressives” in even the most fevered Beckian revisionism).

      I love to be the bearer of bad news, but much of Progressivism, especially in the late 19th/early 20th century is just the postmillennialist Social Gospel with the serial numbers filed off.

  27. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..an.svg.png

    Wow, never knew Detroit’s flag was badass.

  28. Man. This has has both sucked, but mercifully, Time Flies.

    1. I’m too depressed to concentrate on that, so here’s this:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzRdhfrou4g

      1. It’s actually one of the few uplifting PT songs, with an epic Pink Floyd homage.

  29. We’ve been subject to 75 years of courts being used to enact a progressive agenda, making in almost all cases a clean break with the intent of the Drafters. To rephrase, we have seen 75 years of Courts unilaterally amending the Constitution per their whim. Yet you conclude that Gingrich’s motivation is that he does not want an independent judiciary that “can sometimes act as a check on the tyranny of the majority.” What we have been subject to is a tyranny of 9 unelected judges. So why project on Gingrich the worst of motivations? Another right wing hit piece on Gingrich. What utter horse crap.

    1. Name one element of the progressive agenda imposed by the Supreme Court.

      1. Absolute immunity for prosecutors.

        1. I don’t think that applies to just progressives.

  30. Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts?
    Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.

    1. Are we saying that the chick in the office with the nice ass should consider getting a lipo or start wearing Moo-Moo dresses in the office?

      Are you bringing up Contributory negligence?

      Sorry, I’m drawing a line in the sand. People that rape women/children along with people who abuse their authority to effectively rape women/children SHOULD BE HELD 100% liable. Call me PINKO…go ahead.

      1. along with people who abuse their authority to effectively rape women/children SHOULD BE HELD 100% liable.

        I can understand how this may apply to a police officer. I don’t understand how this applies to any other voluntary situation though.

        1. Because the liquidity in job opportunities is just NOT THERE. I don’t know why Libertarians don’t see this.

          People invest a lot of time, money, and education to get into fields in which JUST quitting is not that much of an option.

          What Ron Paul is really saying is that I should just suck my bosses dick if I don’t want to quit.

          1. Re: Alice “Logicide” Bowie,

            Because the liquidity in job opportunities is just NOT THERE.

            Non sequitur.

            People invest a lot of time, money, and education to get into fields in which JUST quitting is not that much of an option.

            Non sequitur again. A person may spend his entire life studying to be a painter, that does not entitle him or her to some art collector’s money.

          2. Job opportunities have nothing to do with it. If you would rather suck your boss’ dick than find a new job, who am I to stop you?

            1. But you, with the current setup, I don’t have to suck his Dick. On top of that, the companies tend to bend-over-backwards to fire anyone they even suspect of sexual harassment. Plus, as u libertarians love the most, one get get some money out of the deal.

              1. Re: Alice Bowie,

                On top of that, the companies tend to bend-over-backwards to fire anyone they even suspect of sexual harassment.

                Again, non sequitur. Companies established policies after scores of lawsuits, most of them fraudulent, were issued by disgruntled workers, but that does not give validity to the notion that the way to solve sexual harassment is through violations of property rights and freedom of association, i.e. sexual harassment laws.

    2. Chucking restrictions on employers in what they can do or ask of workers is one of the sticking points I have with libertarians. I sympathize with the moral problems of forcing someone to do X or Y at their own business, or forcing associations. But most people spend most of their days working for someone, and they don’t do it for fun, they do it out of necessity, to feed themselves and their families. The cavalier way that many libertarians respond to this kind of thing (“you’re always free to just quit your job and go elsewhere”) seems grossly insufficient (industry wide standards tend to spring up; quitting your job hurts can eventually hurt your chancs of getting another one; etc.). The bargaining position is rarely equal (interestingly people acknowledge this when they talk of “job creators”, employers “create” and “give” jobs; that gives them a far superior position in bargaining).

      But I don’t pretend that this some simple issue.

  31. What pisses conservatives/libertarians off about the welfare state is the low prosecution rate of those that commit fraud and steal food stamps, welfare checks, section 8 housing etc.

    Progressives would like to remedy this by prosecuting more people who commit fraud and keep these programs.

    Conservatives would like to remedy this by just simply eliminating all of the safety nets, which we can obviously afford.

    I’ve never collected any government anything. I don’t think affirmative action ever really helped me out personally. I come from poverty and I’m doing pretty well and never had to use the safety nets. I STILL WANT them there for others that are doing bad.

    i know so many people doing bad. Last month, I received phone calls from a check processor, mental office manager mainframe and a vb programmer that can’t find work to maintain their middle-class lifestyles, and project managers.

    The safety nets came in very handy. They ate through savings, received unemployment and one even applied and obtained medicaid. The VB Programmer lived in his house for THREE years without making a single payment and Chase still hasn’t taken the home due to the mayor’s moratorium on bankruptcy.

    We need these safety nets, we can afford them, and we should go after people that commit fraud.

    1. Alice
      I’d disagree with you a bit here. Liberals have pushed for safety nets to become far too wide. This is a real problem with liberals. It’s an amazingly generous thing for ANY safety net to be provided, that is someone else’s money. The original vision of these safety nets were that they would be temporary unless for very small groups such as widows (back when job opportunities for women were restricted) and orphans. Backlash against these programs have come from them being expanded to hard to defend levels.

      Liberals tend to f*ck up every good thing. Take the ADA. Most people, even most conservatives, can sympathize with reasonable accomodations for people who have what we can call “well recognized” disabilities (being blind, crippled, etc). But no, they had to expand the program to people with insomnia, anxiety and recovering addicts (all groups I sympathise with, but not what I would call “disabled to the point that they cannot take care of themselves”).

      1. I agree.

        The safety net has the potential to be far too too wide.

        Many people can claim to be disabled that are really not and can do other things. You can sympathize with someone that lost both legs. But that person should be productive in another matter. The question becomes, when this person that loses both legs becomes so demoralized, should we offer the MINIMAL ‘all-expense-paid’ lifetime or should at least supply a lethal dose of cyanide?

        Welfare should be workfare.

        1. Like I said, I don’t think people are so appalled at SSI or ADA accomodations for people with no legs. It’s when people are getting that because they are anxious or can’t sleep that it starts to grate.

          1. “has the potential”? Shit, Alice, we passed that threshold a LONG time ago.

            1. Mr Flify…I have to agree.

              – Restless leg syndrome
              – Sex addition
              – Ugly Duckling syndrome
              – Fat Girl Syndrome

              There are so many today

          2. Restless Leg Syndrome

            1. Say what you will about RLS, but it sucks.

              Not “I need to be on disability” sucks (very few things are), but it sucks nonetheless.

      2. Minge, you’re back and sounding all reasonable again. Good to hear from you.

        Please, don’t fall back into Tony mode again.

        I’ve noticed something, tell me if I’m off-base here, but it seems that as elections near that your posts become more reasonable and less partisan while John’s take on the opposite transformation.

        1. “as elections near that your posts become more reasonable and less partisan while John’s take on the opposite transformation.”

          Maybe that has to do with me and him having different motivations for coming here 😉

    2. The welfare state has no incentive to check for fraud because it wants to pay off as many people as possible to keep them voting for the welfare state.

      Conservatives understand, unlike some people, that there was a social safety net before there was a state safety net. Because charities often run by volunteers and givers, they have an incentive to make sure their time and money isn’t being wasted on those that aren’t deserving (plus, they’re more likely to exercise personal judgment without a bureaucratic rulebook to hide behind).

      1. “there was a social safety net before there was a state safety net”

        Why do you think people turned to/supported/allowed this alternative state safety net? Were they hoodwinked or did a lot of people find the private ones to be insufficient in some way?

        1. Quite simple; Progressives don’t think it’s their job specifically to help anyone, and think it’s a legitimate function of government, not individuals.

          1. What this progressive is saying that part of the 63% of my salary that goes to the government should go towards safety nets that I HOPE I’ll never use.

            Tell you the truth, I’d rather my tax dollars go to pay teachers better salaries than to give $5Billion a year to Israel…they don’t even need the money…not that i’m particularly picking on them. I don’t like the money that goes to Pakastan either.

            1. Teachers don’t need better salaries. Starting salaries are low, but most teachers get >$50,000 per year, with two or three months of built in vacation time.

              *If* teachers are being paid too poorly for their efforts, a free market in education would solve that, because then teachers wouldn’t work for jobs that underpay. Additionally, the idea of teachers having to do a *good* job or get fired (unlike teachers now, who, unless they commit a felony, are often immune to firing) would discourage individuals who would make bad teachers from choosing the profession, reducing the number competing for each opening.

              I won’t even get started on the safety net; let’s just say I think its a cushion made of human bodies, mostly for those who volitionally choose to jump off the cliff. But that’s a different thread.

        2. Why do you think people turned to/supported/allowed this alternative state safety net? Were they hoodwinked or did a lot of people find the private ones to be insufficient in some way?

          They turned to this form of theft because some people just like stealing stuff. They also like to salve their conscience by prettying up the theft by pretending it is somehow moral and just and good, when they are just common thieves hiring government thugs to steal on their behalf for their perceived benefit.

        3. Why do you think people turned to/supported/allowed this alternative state safety net? Were they hoodwinked or did a lot of people find the private ones to be insufficient in some way?

          In my experience, most liberals, and all progressives, I know, government welfare is better because is that it forces EVERYONE to pay for THEIR agenda. iT has nothing to do with what is or isn’t sufficient. It’s all about force.

        4. Yes.

          That is, private consensual solutions will always be imperfect. State solutions are usually worse. They saw that that status quo was imperfect, and were hoodwinked (or hoodwinked themlseves) into thinking that state welfare would make things better.

        5. Why do you think people turned to/supported/allowed this alternative state safety net?

          Because it’s easier to bribe the ignorant masses with someone else’s money (the taxpayers’) than with your own (the politicians’).

      2. In the words of a great man and defender of American Capitalist Warren Buffet: one must not depend on the kindness of strangers.

        That’s bullshit. There are caring people in this world. But most of us a bunch of stingy sons-of-bitches that can give two shits about other people.

        That’s why EVERY civilized society today has a TAX system.

        I’ll tell what I would like though, I’d like the budget of items to be set via popular vote. So, everyone pays Taxes. However, people can vote on the allocation of their personal tax dollars in categories like:

        – War
        – Welfare
        – Roads
        – Schools
        – Giving money to Israel and Africa

        1. You forgot “-none of the above”.

        2. There are caring people in this world. But most of us a bunch of stingy sons-of-bitches that can give two shits about other people.

          That’s why EVERY civilized society today has a TAX system.

          So, you’re saying we have a tax system because the sons-of-bitches who don’t care about others want to be able to steal using a ballot box, and the minority who are caring people don’t have the power — yet — to stop those SOBs from this massive theft via taxation?

          Hey, I agree with you! =O

        3. “But most of us a bunch of stingy sons-of-bitches that can give two shits about other people.”

          Doubtful, or we would have already shut down the welfare system through our votes.

          Aside from maybe Objectivists, no one is against a safety net, the only question is whether it’s state-run with mandatory giving or private with consensual giving.

          Certainly, given that the bureaucratic welfare state has cannibalized the charitable impulse and charitable institutions of society to some extent (not nearly entirely though, as evidenced by the fact that there is still a great deal of charitable giving in the U.S., particularly after international disasters) we shouldn’t transition abruptly to a pure private system, but we can definitely remove the federal government from the equation and leave it as a responsibility for the nation’s communities and their local governments.

          1. Even Ayn Rand thought you should help those who are genuinely in trouble by no fault of their own, or if they recognize where they went wrong and will correct their mistakes.

            “As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any man’s demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property-and loathsome as such claim might be, there’s something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if it’s ever proper to help another man? No-if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes-if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only man’s fight against suffering, is. If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his right to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help. Be to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim-is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values.”

            There’s a better selection than this, but it’s such a long speech.
            http://amberandchaos.com/?page_id=106

        4. I would just like to point out this peculiar disconnect:

          Alice opposes a corporate…whoever coercing sexual favors from subordinates in exchange for their jobs, but is in favor of the government coercing money from the citizens in exchange for their freedom, because people are “stingy sons-of-bitches.”

          If only employees wouldn’t be such “stingy sons-of-bitches” with their sexual favors. Everybody needs a blowjob every once in awhile.

    3. Re: Alice Bowie,

      The safety nets came in very handy.

      Any money you didn’t work for will always come handy. This is hardly an argument, but it does summarize your whole diatribe pretty well: If it works for me, good!

      1. When you pay over 60% in taxes during your working life, the safety net is not funded by “money you didn’t work for”

        1. Re: Alice Bowie,

          When you pay over 60% in taxes during your working life, the safety net is not funded by “money you didn’t work for”

          The fact that it is funded by stolen money does not make it moral for you to receive it back later as welfare. You should ask for a refund or sue the government. Two WRONGS don’t make a right, A.

          1. Stop calling it stolen money.

            If u wanna act libertarian with me, then call it a mere contractual agreement when you go to work.

            If you want to be paid for working, you have to pony up 63%. If you don’t want to work, you don’t have to pay.

            1. Contractual agreements usually involve… contracts.

              Dumbass.

            2. Re: Alice Bowie,

              Stop calling it stolen money.

              Why? It is taken by force, ergo stolen. Why would you want to obviate that fact, A?

              If u wanna act libertarian with me, then call it a mere contractual agreement when you go to work.

              Contracts are mutual agreements done in a totally voluntary way, A. Government acts through force and naked aggression. If you don’t want to see reality, that is your problem but then don’t come here to pontificate on what’s moral.

            3. Stop calling it stolen money.

              Why? To make your conscience feel better about advocating theft? Why should I want to make a thief feel less guilty about their depredations?

            4. If you want to be paid for working, you have to pony up 63%. If you don’t want to work, you don’t have to pay.

              Glad you subscribe to the Fuck You Pay Me school of government. Then there’s the fact that you unwittingly compared government to a criminal enterprise (racketeering).

  32. As a liberal, I’m used to being blamed for everything by libertarians. Glad to see that also includes Newt Gingrich.

    1. Just wait until a Republican takes over.

      1. I can’t wait. Think of all that’s coming for me

        1. I’ll have to go back into the closet

        2. I’ll have to start sitting in the back of the bus again

        3. I’ll have to go to church as that’ll be the only place to obtain my ‘daily bred’

        1. Interestingly, Republicans have had little success at removing welfare programs (the 0 times they’ve tried, to my knowledge), no one has had to sit at the back of the bus since, what, 1965? and no one forces you to be in the closet, you’re just not allowed to marry.

  33. Where’s Calvin Coolidge when we need him? The only person we’ve had in the White House in the last 100 years who truly believed in small-goernment Conservatism and a true understanding when it came to the separation of powers as laid down by the Founders in their infinite wisdom.

    1. Yeah, I think he really showed this with his support of eugenics laws barring race-mixing, restrictive immigration quotas based on race, and high tariffs.

      1. Coolidge was actually an outspoken supporter civil rights for blacks, Catholics and Native Americans. He took on Southern Democrats in Congress in trying to pass anti-lynching laws.

        1. Don’t forget the “moderate” New England Democrats that latched onto the race-separation train — Coolidge opposed them, too, but don’t expect MNG to know/bring that fact into the fold.

        2. “We might avoid this danger were we insistent that the immigrant, before he leaves foreign soil, is temperamentally keyed for our national background. There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.” Good Housekeeping, 1921 volume 72 number 2

    2. You lose.

  34. If this is the weekend thread, does anybody besides me think it’s almost criminally stupid for Ron Paul’s people to have him on THREE Sunday news talk shows this weekend – including with Christ Motherfucking Wallace?

    WTF guys?

    How about just put the guy on a bus and drive around Iowa this weekend instead?

    Giving assholes like Chris Wallace a shot at Paul the weekend before the caucus seems silly to me. Why not just have Paul strangle a kitten on live TV instead?

    1. Paul needs to test-market a few more stories about the newsletters.

      1. They were taken out of context.
      2. I never read them.
      3. It was only a few rogue sentences.

      No winners so far.

      1. Actually, they all appear to have been winners, since nobody seems to give a shit other than people who already didn’t like Paul.

        The only way they could be losers would be for Paul to put himself in a position where a lying whore like Chris Wallace could have unfettered access to him.

        That’s why I don’t get his schedule tomorrow.

    2. How about just put the guy on a bus and drive around Iowa this weekend instead?

      Because everyone knows Iowa don’t mean shit if Paul wins it.

    3. Saying homos that went to their local cruising spot and got AIDS deserve what they got and don’t deserve public medication is like saying someone that lost both of their legs in a car accident deserve what they got. Hey, that driver knew the risks of driving. Forty-five thousand people die a year in accidents. Why should I now have to pay for this persons therapy and wheelchair.

      That crippled person who was crippled due to NO fault of Mine, should go speak to their pastor and get some church money. Oh, he doesn’t go to church…well, that’s not my problem either.

      We should pay for anyone that gets hurt regardless of whether it was a car accident, a dick in da ass, a ski accident, an individual who is accidentally shot during a hunting exercise.

      SHARE THE WEALTH America.

      1. Proletariy vsekh stran, soydenyaytes’!

        Proletarians of the world, unite!

      2. We already do “share the wealth”. Of course, to some people, it isn’t enough to only take 34%…

        1. Nothing lower than 100% will suffice!

        2. It’s nowhere near 34%. In NYC State, someone making a modest $125000/year pays the following:

          FED: 28%
          STATE: 4%
          FICA/MEDIC 15%
          Healthcare 8% (need to include to compare with rest of world)
          Property Tax 8% (8k annual median)
          ————————————
          I’m already up to 63%.

          1. I’m talking about the current top federal tax rate, Alice… the one that “desperately needs” to go back up to 39.6%, according to the Tonytard.

            But, yeah, you’re right… 63% is insane.

            1. Stossel had a show on years ago, when he was on ABC, about the total amount of money that the average American paid in taxes, and it was an obscene total.

              Well over 50% if I recall correctly.

              He added all the taxes you pay, but maybe aren’t aware of. Like all those extra little things added on to your power or phone bill.

              1. Yes. Sales taxes. FCC type taxes on phone/internet/satellite. Property taxes. Sin taxes.

                All of those, plus other surely, take in over 50% of a person’s income. But we’re not pating our “fair share”! Or something.

                1. Don’t forget the corporate taxes levied against those evil corporation which in reality are passed on to the consumer. Also, don’t forget one of the most insidious taxes. The increases in the money supply.

      3. Re: Alice “I Lie Through My Teeth” Bowie,

        Saying homos that went to their local cruising spot and got AIDS deserve what they got and don’t deserve public medication

        Paul never wrote that. Don’t be a goddamned liar.

        He said that AIDS victims are also victims of their own lifestyle, so they have no moral case to ask the government to steal from others to pay for their treatments. There is NO such thing as “public” medication – somebody is paying for that.

        There’s no way you can construe the term “victim” to mean “you have the blame,” except unless you are simply dishonest and a liar.

        1. It’s the same thing.

          “The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim – frequently a victim of his own lifestyle – ”

          This part means that it is HIS OWN FAULT.

          “but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,” Paul wrote.
          THIS PART MEANS he doesn’t deserve public medication.

          1. hurr durr this part means that Mr. Gay McGayerson DIDN’T WEAR A FUCKING CONDOM.

            Jesus christ you’re retarded.

          2. “This part means that it is HIS OWN FAULT.”

            Which is, often, true. Yes, it’s more fashionable to be sympathetic to AIDS victims, but not really justifiable. I mean, I don’t remember seeing any Lung-Cancer quilts for smokers, and there was plenty of that going around too. And there weren’t e-cigs at the time, so addicts basically had to quit or take risks — remembering to use a clean fucking needle to shoot up is a little bit easier.

            “THIS PART MEANS he doesn’t deserve public medication.”

            Yes, but I imagine that Paul thinks that in general people shouldn’t get tax-funded medication. In which case he’s saying that an exception should not be made for AIDS patients.

          3. Re: Alice Bowie,

            This part means that it is HIS OWN FAULT.

            No, you stupid ignorant peasant. It means that it is no one’s fault, implied in the word “victim,” but even less the fault of the taxpayers’. THAT’S Paul’s point, not that the AIDS victims are sorely to blame.

            THIS PART MEANS he doesn’t deserve public medication.

            NOBODY deserves it, because (as I pointed out in the previous post) there’s nothing “public” about medication – someone had his or her productive efforts stolen to pay for them. I suffered once from kidney stones; I certainly did not stick up some poor soul on the street to pay for my treatment, so why would it be moral or ethical to ask the government to do the stealing for me?

          4. Everybody sniggers behind the back of the person who gets herpes or any other VD.

            The only exception to that seems to be AIDS. Why?

            1. Like i Said, regardless of whether or not it is your fault that you got sick or injured, if you can’t afford medical treat, you should still get good quality medical treatment.

              1. At who’s expense?

                1. At our expense. We should fund a safety net fund just as we fund the war fund and the Israel fund and the War on Drug fund and the salaries of the politicians.

                  1. How does picking up the tab for someone elses ignorance make our country better?

                    1. Because it makes us free to do what we want.

                      Let’s say u wanna go skiing and you blow your ACL, if you don’t have insurance, we should go ahead a pay the doctors/hospitals/pharmacy.

                      Pretty much EVERYONE that has TYPE II Diabetes, High Blood Pressure, etc. IS AT FAULT.

                    2. Because it makes us free to do what we want.

                      I want to play video games all day. Me playing games is of no value to society. Why should society pay me to play video games all day when I don’t contribute?

                      Great recipe for social discord you’ve come up with though.

                    3. If I go skiing and blow my ACL without insurance, I’m at fault for taking the risk knowing the consequences.

                      It’s like robbing a bank then crying when you get shot.

                  2. Also, putting a gun to my head to pay for some asshole to get AIDS drugs because he didn’t wear a fucking condom is *not* good policy.

                  3. Yet even further, it’s probably not in the interest of society to keep people that have AIDS living, as they have more chances to spread the disease, further burdening society.

                    1. But what if you or one of your loved ones got aids and couldn’t afford treatment? Should we give money to Israel/Pakastan over you or a loved one that is sick?

                    2. Look, nibbling on an unfamiliar ding-a-ling shouldn’t be a death sentence if we can help it. Stop being such a meanie.

                    3. Look, nibbling on an unfamiliar ding-a-ling shouldn’t be a death sentence if we can help it. Stop being such a meanie.

                      if we can help it.

                      You just destroyed your own argument. AIDS is 100% preventable.

                    4. Should we give money to Israel/Pakastan over you or a loved one that is sick?

                      You’re really good with non-sequiturs and appeals to emotion. Too bad neither one makes for a good logical argument.

                      I don’t care if my loved ones get AIDS. It’s -their fucking fault.- I don’t understand how you can’t comprehend that AIDS is a disease that you can only get by willful ignorance.

                    5. An ACL injury or Boot fracture during skiing are also examples of injuries that you can on get by willful ignorance.

                      People like to have sex. And, the ocassional slip-up is common.

                    6. People like to have sex. And, the ocassional slip-up is common.
                      Yeah. Except AIDS is 100% preventable.

                    7. As Michael Jackson said during the Oprah interview: “Na! Na! That’s ignorant.”

                      In the USA, women, contract aids while being in a so-called monogamous relationship in an extremely alarming rate.

                    8. Really? Michael Jackson’s going to be your appeal to authority on the issue? If you’re going to commit a logical fallacy, at least make it good.

                      In the USA, women, contract aids while being in a so-called monogamous relationship in an extremely alarming rate.

                      The assumptions made by an ignorant person are not my responsibility to rectify.

                    9. Not that I’m all that interested in this whole argument but that’s not true at all.

                    10. The comment about all the hetro women getting aids is what I was refering to.

                  4. We should fund a safety net fund just as we fund the war fund and the Israel fund and the War on Drug fund and the salaries of the politicians.

                    Wrong. We shouldn’t be funding any of those things either.

              2. Re: Alice Bowie,

                if you can’t afford medical treat, you should still get good quality medical treatment.

                Until we run out of money to pay for all these goodies, I would imagine. Right, A?

          5. This part means that it is HIS OWN FAULT.

            Someone doesn’t understand the definition of “consent”, which explains Troll Alice’s views on life, society and government.

      4. Saying homos that went to their local cruising spot and got AIDS deserve

        People deserve to have unprotected sex with strangers free of consequences! As a matter of fact, there shouldn’t be consequences for anything!

        Down with causality!

      5. Dear Alice,

        “Psychological Egoism” states that everything we do, we do for our own self-interest. “Sacrificing” for others may make us feel good about ourselves, therefore we gain a pleasant emotional response.

        If it makes someone feel good about themselves when they sacrifice, then great. By all means, do it. However, it does not make them a martyr. It does not give them the right to claim something from others some time in the future. “I sacrificed (X), therefore, I deserve (Y)”, is false. A voluntary sacrifice that is one sided does not entitle one to anything.

        I do not necessarily get the same benefit from a specific sacrifice as someone else. The “value” of personal sacrifice for a perceived emotional feeling is purely subjective. If someone forces me to sacrifice, the person forcing me receives a personal gain from the action. I, however, do not. Those who would force others to sacrifice, for their own personal gain, are thieves. Those who are forced to sacrifice without receiving any personal gain harbor resentments, misgivings, and distrust which ultimately leads to conflict.

        Those who “sacrifice” for those less fortunate do it for their own personal gain. Therefore, it is not really a sacrifice. The only true sacrifice, is when people are forced to give, against their will and against their own personal self-interests.

        Sacrifice is always theft. Altruism does not exist.

        1. BTW, psychological egoism should not be confused with ethical egoism.

          Psychological egoism is descriptive (is)

          Ethical egoism is normative (ought)

      6. I think those are very, very different scenarios. The homosexual should have known the risks (especially if we’re talking about these things happening in say 2010), and things didn’t work out. That was his choice, which could have been avoided by refusing to have intercourse with an HIV carrier, or someone they’re not sure about. Same risk as anyone getting an STD from a prostitute: you took the risk of intercourse with an uncertain partner.

        A driver, on the other hand, is making the choice to go onto roads where *all drivers have allegedly passed a driving test*. The driver may obey traffic laws perfectly and still be crippled. If they were hurt by another’s negligence, then it is their *right* to compensation from that party. Libertarians would likely agree that it is the government’s duty to secure that compensation.

        Supposing, however, that it was the driver’s negligence that caused the accident, then the driver is not deserving of compensation. I would be willing to give them compensation for warning about the risks of negligent driving, however.

        There are inclement circumstances, where one is for instance mandated by law to be at a certain location and there is not option but to drive, but the individual cannot do that safely. These can be resolved by more rational policies.

  35. Pinko mother-fuckers and historically uninformed progressives take a backseat today, dudes, because the New Year is rolling closer and closer!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?N…..W_MW6WwhbE

    Enjoy!

    1. That’s pretty good.

      Now I’m going to have to go on disability due to my sex addition caused by that video…which resulted in restless leg syndrome and corpal-tunnel syndrome of the left hand.

    2. That’s where I should be!

  36. Ron Paul proven right AGAIN about Iran’s nukes.

    JERUSALEM ? The head of Israel’s intelligence agency says that a nuclear-armed Iran does not necessarily pose an existential threat to the Jewish state, according to Israeli ambassadors.

    Mossad chief Tamir Pardo addressed a conclave of Israeli ambassadors in Jerusalem on Thursday, saying that Israel’s existence is not inevitably endangered by Iran acquiring an atomic weapon, even as Israel has tried to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

    “What is the significance of the term ‘existential?'” Mr. Pardo was quoted as saying by several ambassadors. “If you said a nuclear bomb in Iranian hands was an ‘existential’ threat, that would mean that we would have to close up shop. That’s not the situation. The term is used too freely.”

    BY the way, this is the CURRENT head of Israel’s intelligence. The FORMER head of Israel intelligence ALSO expressed a similar sentiment. Ron Paul was proved right not once, but twice, and by the same Israelis that “Crazy Bat” Bachmann and “Altar Boy” Santorum say “we” need to defend from those wily Iranians.

    1. I didn’t know you supported Paul, OM. You should use this forum to tell us at every opportunity.

    2. Michael Schueur, the CIA agent that was in charge of the unit that hunted down Osama bin Laden, also endorsed Ron Paul.

    3. The head of Mossad is anti-semitic!

  37. Sorry Paultards, I love Ron Paul, but not so much that I am willing to buy a Kelly Clarkson album. And no, I don’t know a single person I could give it to.

    1. My wife likes that crap. I prefer Korn.

      1. They do have special Korn Powers.

      2. Korn? Seriously?

        Korn is like Nickelback’s granddaddy. Think about that for a minute.

  38. Glen Greenwald: Progressives And The Ron Paul Fallacy

    The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here ? the game that’s being played ? is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.

    The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives ? President Obama ? himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians ? Muslim children by the dozens ? not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents ? in secret and with no checks ? to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.

    1. I never got why John hated Glen Greenwald so much (now that he’s gone full retard, I guess I don’t really care). Certainly, he’s one of the few good guys on TEAM BLUE, and he’s the only reason a non-moron might want to read Salon.

      1. The one area where John likes Obama (and really hates Paul) is foreign policy.

      2. Greenwald, despite being a liberal’s liberal on most accounts, is, by far, one of the best, most intellectually honest political writers.

        Even when I can’t agree with him, he makes a cogent, non-retard argument as to why he might support policy “X”.

        In fact, he’s probably better and more honest than most of the writers here on Reason.

        And when it comes to civil liberties, he’s almost always perfectly on the mark.

        1. Should be noted here that he became so after getting epically bitch-slapped over sock-puppeting his own comments and became so. That is why I and I assume several others of us are skeptical of him. That said, he does do a pretty good job of making compelling arguments when he’s outside his own particular issues that induce insanity. Of course, the same could be said about Andrew Sullivan, only his insanity inducing issues are now just about everything he chooses to write about.

    2. Hey Dirty Sanchez…we finally agree on something … OBAMA

      You’ll be happy to know that I am not voting for him.

      1. Re: Alice Bowie,

        Hey Dirty Sanchez[…]

        The idiot bites again.

        1. And again… and again.

  39. http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/4305/323ws.jpg

    Wouldn’t you much rather observe hot chicks than bother yourself with some labor union-loving statist?

    1. Only 100% of the time.

      1. Happy New Year, pal.

        1. Back atcha RPA!

          1. http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9780/402iw.jpg

            These chicks also send their new-year regards!

            1. I have at least two dozen bottles of liquor here. Bring them all over:)

            2. The one in the middle has her high-beams on. She’s hawt and tawt.

            3. Playboy TV: Hot Babes Doing Stuff Naked (guns)

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6itKVP41Ao&

          2. http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6959/403fi.jpg

            And this one’s a little out of theme, but what the hell?

            1. I think she needs some more sunscreen applied:)

      2. http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9780/402iw.jpg

        These chicks also send their new-year regards!

        http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6959/403fi.jpg

        And that one’s a little out of theme, but what the hell?

  40. Re: Alice Bowie,

    Stop calling it stolen money.

    Why? It is taken by force, ergo stolen. Why would you want to obviate that fact, A?

    If u wanna act libertarian with me, then call it a mere contractual agreement when you go to work.

    Contracts are mutual agreements done in a totally voluntary way, A. Government acts through force and naked aggression. If you don’t want to see reality, that is your problem but then don’t come here to pontificate on what’s moral.

    1. Don’t come here to pontificate on what’s moral

      You tell ‘er, OM!

      1. Re:,

        You tell ‘er, OM!

        “Her”?

    2. Seriously OM, that completely reminds me of this time at a party when I got waaay too drunk, and accidentally crapped myself right then and there in front of everyone. It was so embarassing!

      1. Do you dipshits ever fail to fuck up a guy’s email when you’re spoofing?

        Try harder, asswipe

        1. Once, some fucktard tried to post a derogatory comment on my blog. I just love having administration powers 😉

          Have a happy new year, Res!

          1. Happy new year, dude. Viva libertad!

  41. The college bowl league is heating up. If I get all three games on right now I gain on everybody above me. Or I could lose all three, they are all close!

    1. After struggling back to 2nd place, TAMU fails to fall apart in the 4th quarter and Illinois finds their offense. FML.

  42. I just read a reaction to an Arizona judges ruling that you can’t teach “Mexican American Studies” in part due to a law that says things about treating people as individuals.

    Apparently, the highest, newest form of racism is treating people as individuals and discouraging them from collectivism. Also, apparently, the Asian “model minority” shit is just a way to get minorities to compete against each other for Whitey’s approval, as opposed to banding together for “social change”.

    If you want to lose brain cells, it is here:

    http://www.autostraddle.com/ar…..ng-126352/

    Personally, I need a goddamn drink.

    1. Sample passage:

      It’s very divide-and-conquer ? by discouraging “ethnic solidarity,” and making the existence of minority studies illegal in Tucson public schools, this ruling is really trying to break down “threatening” groups of racial minorities into individuals who are more easily dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Kowal would appreciate the Asian/American “model minority” system too, where minorities compete against each other for social acceptance and upward mobility rather than working together in groups to enact real activism. Why? Because he’s afraid ? afraid of upwardly mobile minorities in the great state of Arizona.

      1. AuH, you’re a fucking lifesaver — instead of wasting lots of cash on booze, I now get the same effect by reading that shit — it’s already annihilated so many brain cells that I’m feeling queasy, so now I have money for hookers instead!

        1. I’m just doing the Lord’s work, Res. Jesus himself was a big fan of the whores.

        2. Also, Res, the preferred nomenclature is call girl. Unless they’re dead, in which case they’re just hookers.

          1. Yeah, I should have thought of that. The noblest profession deserves more than some awful, slang-based term.

            1. Bullshit! Hookers is a noble term. I mean, “call girls and blow” just doesn’t have a good ring to it.

      2. If someone wanted to teach European-American studies, then what?

        1. “Raaaaacist!!”

        2. It’s called American history before the Civil War.

    2. “Or when the Arizona Department of Education decided that teachers with “heavy” or “ungrammatical” accents can no longer teach English classes?”

      Because English isn’t a spoken language?

  43. In honor of our party, I’m just going to post a few smile/erection-inducers here for you guys, for a happier new year!

    http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/6300/acsz.jpg

    http://img854.imageshack.us/im…..jukilo.jpg

    1. Jesus H, boy! Get a life!

      1. Party soon, so I’m about to, but I honestly didn’t think there was anybody who’d have any reason to object to pictures of hot girls. Sorry, dude. Homosexual pornography’s always an option for you on the internet!

        1. Homosexual pornography’s always an option

          I comment, therefore I’m gay?
          Who’s the homophobe?*

           

          *Res Publica Americana!

        2. Why would you talk to rectal? You should know better by now.

  44. Abraham Lincoln was worse.

    He set up a sentry in front of a judge’s house to block him from court.

    He also sent thousands to detention centers.

    This has become precedence for Presidents, and because it was “honest Abe, the first K-street lobbyist” every seems to think it’s ok.

  45. RPA, you’ve made this the best thread of the year.

    1. Hey, it’s a party! Here’s an extra:

      http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/549/719f.jpg

    1. http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/3372/726ia.jpg

      Forget the hat, dude — get the gag and cuffs!

  46. I’ll be in my bunk, droppin’ the ball.

  47. Turns out MNG has a blog:

    http://denniscooper-theweaklin…..chive.html

  48. Thanks!

  49. MANLY/lessMANLY has ruined the pic dump for me. You bastard.

    1. Using Reason commenter provided bikini pics for pron is like jerking off to the bra section of a Sears catalog in a bathroom of a Bangkok brothel. The internet is full of wonders!

      Here’s something special for a celebratory night.

      1. Is porn allowed? Because I’ve got a directory of about 10,000 videos, and I wasn’t sure if linking it was appropriate.

        1. I don’t think that the eds have a problem with it, but for people with the reasonable app the video may show up on their screen(nsfw). But since I doubt that anyone is at work now, pron is probably okay.

          Don’t take my word for it. Though I’m sure that I’ve seen pron here before.

          1. I’ll maintain an obscenity limit of nudity — but I’ll keep an eye out on Reason policy and comments-section happenings in the future to see if it’s truly safe to venture into the realm of porn.

        2. Depending on how long those videos are, that may be quite impressive.

          By my calculations it would take me about 10 weeks to watch my entire video collection if I did it nonstop, back to back, 24/7. Don’t know how many vids are there, though.

    2. http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/8180/756la.jpg

      Here, that should reverse the boner-killer!

                1. I have nothing to add but a +1 to that, so I’ll just post this photo of the best real-life J Rabbit ever:

                  http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/9213/483l.jpg

            1. That isn’t confusing, it is totally hot.

  50. New Iowa Poll shows Santorum surging and taking from Paul. Good job Reason. Way to support the team. Special thanks to the dogged reporting of Dave Weigal from 2008 who made it easy for the NY Times and everyone else to just copy and paste the worst thing anyone could find on Paul. Without such intrepid reporting I doubt as many of the newsletters would have been found and the whole thing would have amounted to nothing.

    CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION!!!

  51. Seriously Reason, since the 2008 campaign you were a heat seeking missile aimed at the Paul campaign. The last week of nice blog posts doesn’t make up for everything previous. Where do people get the idea that if not for Paul then Gary Johnson would garner all the same support? Or that we must continue to wait for some perfect candidate riding in on a white horse and wearing a shining coat of armor?

    1. You’re expecting–what?–from the free-minds? dilettantes?

    2. I think that since ’08 Reason has been pretty supportive of both Pauls. They’ve given plenty of coverage to GJ, but not to the detriment of RP.

      From my perspective anyhow.

      1. I think that since ’08 Reason has been pretty supportive of both Pauls.

        “Supportive” is certainly in the eye of the beholder. How much do you want to bet that Nick or Matt or Jesse will use Paul’s written comments on the CRA ’68 or about Sexual Harassment or AIDS patients as “proof” that the comments on those few newsletters were not that far from his true feelings?

        This despite the fact that those comments from “Our Freedom Under Siege” are totally based on libertarian principles, even Randian. Let’s wait and see, shall we???

    3. Are you turgid yet?

  52. http://i.imgur.com/68rop.jpg

    There has to be at least one female or male here that likes men. Or not.

    1. Awkwardly conjoined twins attract the ladies? Because Reason sure as eff don’t.

      1. Yeah that is an odd photo.

        1. I’m not sure this’ll attact the ladies, but it might boost traffic:

          http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8007/360zd.jpg

    2. I like men just fine, but that is a weird photo, and that dick photo below is also not all that 😛 WTF is that thing on his head in the dick photo, a pillow? 😛

      Still, I give you an A+ for thinking of the ladies and gay gays. THANK YOU.

  53. So this is it?
    A picture of TR and the usual off-topic cul-de-sacs?
    This is how we end 2011–not with a bang, but a simper?
    Disappoint, I am.

    1. Agreed. Who’s up for an in depth discussion on the Ground Zero Mosque? I’ll go first.

      I think Ron Paul would have been against it in his newsletters.

      1. Mosques have, like, silly pointy thingies with weird-looking moon thing-a-ma-bobs on top, so like, owls and shit can land on it and shit on the sidewalk, causing damage to the cement and shit over time and, like, being really bad and stuff.

      2. You ain’t out partyin’ fist?

        You can come over my house, I got a couple of z’s of black tar heroin. Bring the kids if you want!

    2. “We”? Who the fuck are you, the janitor? It’s easy to be a smartass when you’re anonymous, ain’t it?

  54. This woman is ready to have a physical encounter with you that you won’t soon forget:

    http://bit.ly/tbzPPG

    1. An Internet — you have won it.

      Here’s a bonus:

      http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1510/399m.jpg

  55. Time to get ready and go, so here’s a goodbye and a happy new year from some totally out-of-season chicks at some random party:

    http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/4959/190vw.jpg

    Happy New Year, guys, and have fun!

      1. I’m embarrassed for him.

  56. Have we won in Libya yet?

    1. Let me be clear.

      Re-elect me, and we will have.

  57. Happy New Year everyone! May it bring you all even more of the happiness and political success we’ve been enjoying over these last few decades!

    1. Embrace your future, prole.

      1. Not if we don’t “embrace” them first!

  58. Happy Final New Year to everyone in the Eastern Time Zone, the greatest time zone in the history of the universe. Everyone over to cap’s castle for champagne and a z of black tar heroin, whatever a z is.

  59. Lots of gay on this thread.

    nttawwt

        1. I’d offer to drive you, but aliens ate my Buick!

        2. Walking in a Lake.

        3. Walken, in L.A.?

        4. Wok in LA?

          1. That’s lacist!

    1. Lots of gay on this thread.

      Um. Way more tits and ass than cocks and chests. Or gay like pics of hot people are lame/gay? or just twee!

    1. They like ass ‘n titties, of course.

          1. Good call, Banjos.

  60. My New Year’s resolution? Stop watching really bad 80s pop music videos when I’m drunk.

    1. PLEASE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WATCHING BAD 80s POP WHEN YOU’RE DRUNK.

      🙂

    1. Is 2012 better than 2011 yet?

      1. Possibly worse.

        1. Well, a nuke didn’t hit D.C., so you’re right… it’s probably at least as bad as it was yesterday.

  61. With “Reservation”, Obama signs bill that allows the indefinite detention of US citizens who can now be captured on US soil with no charge or right to counsel.

    Fuck you, Obama. Fuck everyone who voted for him. And double fuck everyone who will vote for him again. May you all get exactly what you deserve.

    1. Don’t forget a hearty “fuck you” to Team Red, as well.

  62. Oh no mad lib, I am slipping already.

  63. What’s a Newt Gingrich?

    1. It’s a Republican who sometimes has Democrat ideas. A hideous mutant that must not be allowed to be the hood ornament for what used to be a great nation.

  64. For my boys on Reason.

    1. “Oops! Something went wrong.”

  65. https://reason.com/blog/2011/12…..nt_2729893

    You know what really sucks about DC? All those beautiful monuments and historic landmarks and museums and mausoleums being esthetically torn down and fucked up by the generic, shitty, unattractive zoning and construction-approved block buildings — it almost looks like a fucking nov constrot (Soviet colloquialism for a city that’s planned by a committee from scratch, ie Pripyat).

  66. SWAT team descends on teenager’s suburban home… after she sends fake texts to friends claiming she had been kidnapped

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rhood.html

    1. Yes, and…?

  67. Meadow Soprano is still hot

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..Beach.html

    1. I hate those sunglasses on people.
      Can that die in 2012?

      1. The sunglasses come off.

  68. Today is actually Gary Johnson’s Birthday. It’s the holiday season and you might have got some money over the holidays and were wondering about doing some good with it. Donating to the candidacy of a two-time statewide election winning guy who wants unequivocally to end the WOD, pull back from all non-defensive wars and honestly cut the federal budget across the board might be something worth considering. If you’re so inclined, here’s his site:

    http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

    1. I love your handle.

    2. NE Ohio has always had lots of minor-to-moderate earthquakes. This is nothing new.

  69. DES MOINES?”They’re closing, so if you want to get arrested, come now!”

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/3…..s_problem/

    1. “The movement sort of exists for its own sake; there’s no obvious authority that will realistically give it the kind of vast economic reforms that many occupiers would like to see, so many participants figure they’ll band together, stick around and raise hell until an authority exists that can.”

      That sort of thing usually ends well.

  70. I guess I just missed RP on Fox News Sunday. I was curious how he would do.

    1. He was on ABC’s This Week.

  71. Happy New Year

  72. Happy New Year assholes. You are all a bunch of mouthy fucks. But I wouldn’t associate with anything less.

  73. Let’s start this year off with some real fucking Rock and Roll. Some fucking AC/DC.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jvqPvDUEW8

    1. Great idea but if we’re going to do it, let’s do it right.

  74. Did you guys know that Warty is the inspiration for Dos Equis’ “The World’ Most Interesting Person”?

    Did you guys know that Sugarfree is Pabst Blue Ribbon’s inspiration for “The World Least Interesting Person”?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.