Iran

Navy Rescues Iranians; Jobs Data Dispute; Ron Paul, Freemason? PM Links

|

Our high-tech enemies, ready for war on land and sea.

U.S. Navy media blitz includes commander of Stennis carrier strike group after team from U.S.S. Kidd rescues Iranian sailors from Somali pirates. 

Employment second-guessing begins. What could be wrong with this week's positive jobs numbers? AEI scholars say we're not paying enough attention to U-6. Heartland Institute's Eli Lehrer says current unemployment measures are a "reasonable enough approach." Zero Hedge says applying a "realistic labor force participation rate" puts the real implied unemployment rate at 11.4 percent

Ron Paul is a Freemason Illuminati tool of the Jews, says anti-Masonic interest hawk Henry Makow. Makow notes that many believers in Austrian economics were Jewish Jews whose ancestors practiced Judaism according to Jewish customs. Also Mozart was a freemason, and he borrowed a lot of money during his lifetime…in Vienna, which is Austrian

SF Chron tries to disarm Solyndra story, but the strongest claim (in a story that makes no mention of Republicans' ongoing efforts to get the White House to cough up public records) is that "the most sensational allegations—particularly those of cronyism—remain unproven, though the public documents do provide support for some of the accusations." 

Where are Film Critics Without Borders when we need them? Village Voice lays off long-running auteur theorist J. Hoberman, generating what passes for a hubbub these days in the cineaste community. 

NEXT: Why Shouldn't Point Break Auteur Kathryn Bigelow Get the Same Respect as a Journalist?

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. Fst!

  2. It’s sad for people to obsessed with a website or its writers. It’s way, way sadder for them to be obsessed with commenters on a website’s blog.

    1. and which category do you fall into?

      1. your mother’s vagina. I fell into your mother’s vagina.

        1. You’re one sick dude – my moms dead 10 years.

          1. Charles must be, like, half an inch tall.

  3. This couldn’t have anything to do with the mind-numbing effects of employment as a British Public Servant, could it?

    1. Sir, you’ll need to submit your query in triplicate, using Form #34GHH9P…

  4. NPR was talking about the “undermployed” this morning.

    Now for purposes of discussion, I know exactly what people mean when they say that, and to be sure, there’s a boatload of people who are now undermployed– ie, a skilled worker delivering pizza because he just can’t find anything available.

    But “underemployed” seems dangerously vague to quantify.

    For instance, over the years I’ve known a few people who did the work that would normally pay the mid-five figures but were paid well over six figures not including bonuses. Enter some event which causes them to lose that job (company goes out of business, they get fired, company downsizes) and they end up in a job that pays… mid-five figures.

    To formerly six-figured person, they’re horrendously underemployed. If there was ever good use of the word “right-sized” over the more direct and realistic “downsized” this is it.

    So how many ‘underemployed’ people are now making what they should have been making all along– sort of like housing not being in crisis, but being deflated to its proper, rightful market price.

    1. But “underemployed” seems dangerously vague to quantify.

      Not to mention spell.

        1. I was referring to the first two instances of the word in your original post, but you had to go and ruin the joke by spelling it right that time!

          1. Jeebus… I typod that twice…the exact same way… Or was the right one the typo… I’ve been doing that a lot lately… I hope it’s not a tumor.

            1. It’s not a tumah.

      1. No, no, he’s referring to undermployed, which as we all know is a a scheme to remove one’s skin for the purposes of making bizarre Spanish movies no one will ever see that Kurt Loder will review on reason.com.

    2. Friend of mine is a civil engineer that works on a contract basis. Prior to the downturn he was getting about as much work as he wanted. After the downturn he was getting far less. Underemployed, for him, meant “not being able to book as much work as I would prefer to”.

  5. Hoberman’s absence won’t just affect the Voice and its readers, many of whom are now losing their last connection to the newspaper of their youth. It could also affect the fortunes of the independent film distributors who depended on Hoberman to trumpet their work. Five years ago, when the Voice laid off several less senior movie critics, some indie companies threatened to stop buying ads in the Voice if Hoberman were let go as well.

    Wow, there are a dozen ways to interpret just what the meaning of this is, and all of them are either delicious or too full of irony to ignore.

    1. If only there were some way of marketing independent films apart from the notorious newspaper barons.

      1. Here’s hoping that Hoberman can continue to be a forceful advocate for such movies, and that his voice won’t be lost in the wilderness.

        Wilderness? Wilderness of what? I thought there was a– let’s see if I get this right– a dangerous lack of diversity in media voices due to the conglomeration of media… and mysteriously we were better off with only three channels, or something.

        1. The internet is a wilderness of tubes.

          1. Here’s a indie film to watch:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

            1. I actually watched 30 seconds of that, asshole.

    2. So wait a second–these companies were threatening to stop buying space if the resident indie tongue-bather was let go? Talk about falling to the lowest common denominator. Say what you like about Michael Bay, at least he doesn’t give a shit if movie critics like his craptacular films, because he knows his stuff is actually popular. These indie poseurs know damn well no one would go see their pozzed-out nonsense without Hoberman shilling for them.

  6. Ron Paul takes Santorum from behind:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..09895.html

    1. Well, there goes that talking point for Santorum!

      1. I’m only guessing that Paul’s campaign thinks Santorum is the one to beat in SC.

        1. I was referring to your lead-in to the link.

        2. This is only helping Romney in SC. And I don’t think it will help Paul if Gingrich, Santorum and Perry drop out too soon.

          1. Paul’s no dummy. Romney is no libertarian, but he’s light years better than Gingrich and Santorum.

            Note that Paul has never gone after him (and vice versa). Not a coincidence, imho.

            1. Interesting poi-

              I get it now. It’s all so clear. I thought the GOP nominee list was just a bunch of retard plus Paul, Johnson, and Romneybot. Now I see what it really was: Romney knew he would have trouble, and Paul knew it too. So they worked together to rig the game to include only idiotic or otherwise incompetent competitors, and then lobotomized most of them to be safe. HnR and NRO were probably working together to make it all go down like a clockwork retarded. Not sure if or where the Illuminati come in, but the Freemasons are for Ron.

              1. That does fit the data pretty well, but that meddling Occam…

                Seriously, I don’t think there’s any coordination between them, but is pretty noticeable that Paul rips into every other GOP candidate but whenever Paul is asked about Romney he says nice things.

                1. My tongue was firmly in my cheek, but Paul and Romney definitely do want to fight the other and only the other no pretenders in the ring. So do I that would be a hell of a throwdown.

                2. Perhaps Ron Paul is angling to be Romney’s VP, or vice-versa, since none of the other candidates in the race are worth a damn.

                  1. I don’t think RP would want that, unless he knows something we don’t in terms of deal-making. As long as RP didn’t say anything dumb, that would be a coup de grace for Romney.

                  2. If Paul made a deal with Romney, that would kill his organization. Very few would believe in his sincerity after that.

                3. “but is pretty noticeable that Paul rips into every other GOP candidate but whenever Paul is asked about Romney he says nice things.”

                  Of course the other option is that he genuinely believes Santorum et al. are truly shitbags and Romney isn’t quite as bad.

                  He pretty much calls it like he sees it all the time. Why doubt his sincerity here?

                  I could probably hold my nose and vote for Romney. If it’s any of the others I’ll burn my vote by voting my conscience.

                  1. Oliver Stones next pic.The anti-semite jewish illuminati plant working to get the mormon elected.

                  2. Of course the other option is that he genuinely believes Santorum et al. are truly shitbags and Romney isn’t quite as bad.

                    Yes, this is my guess too. I really don’t see the two of them explicitly making deals with each other.

                    Unlike Mr Penguin’s opinion, if RP actually got something liberty-enhancing in return for a ceasefire my opinion of him would go up, not down.

                    1. Unlike Mr Penguin’s opinion, if RP actually got something liberty-enhancing in return for a ceasefire my opinion of him would go up, not down.

                      Same.

    2. I was begging for this earlier today.

      I feel warm and fuzzy all over now.

    3. Yeah, Santorum isn’t likely to survive once the other candidates start digging into him. I think he’s going to do what Huckabee did: win Iowa then quickly fade.

      At least I hope so.

    4. Ouch. That shit is harsh.

      1. It’s also true. That deficient, corrupt, fucktarded would-be tyrant can go fuck himself. I hope Paul’s campaign releases a hundred more on each candidate, and pays through the nose to air them EVERYWHERE. Make people see.

        1. How much would Paul need to raise for a Super Bowl ad? Preferably right after Obama’s.

          1. One highly publicized money bomb ought to do it.

            Slots are going for about $3.5M for 30 seconds.

            1. While tempting to do, he better have exactly the right message to deploy that kind of money this early in the election season. It would have to be primary oriented, which may not be the best use of funds for a national advertisement.

              1. hile tempting to do, he better have exactly the right message to deploy that kind of money this early in the election season. It would have to be primary oriented, which may not be the best use of funds for a national advertisement.

                Agreed. Except that the SB is still early in the primaries and, primary votes of one sort or another happen in ALL 50 states.

                It would have to be a pro-Paul message without referring to anyone else in order to keep it broad enough for a national audience in the primaries. But since Paul is so different from the other candidates, this might be a great opportunity to promote liberty to a national audience.

    5. Wow, talk about bitchslapping the frontrunner du jour …

  7. Are Toddlers and Tiaras mothers DOPING their daughters? Girls’ drinks spiked with ‘pageant crack and go-go juice’ in most shocking scenes yet

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem…..crack.html

    1. There are no words.

    2. She says: ‘Beauty is so boring, I don’t want to do it.’

      I detected nothing on that page remotely resembling beauty.

    3. Americans, eh, what do you expect….
      – dman, vancouver, bc, 06/1/2012 18:48

      ———-

      Van-motherfucking-couver? Fuck off, asshole.

      1. I can’t believe he was available and posting around 7 pm, those are prime panhandling hours…

  8. Meghan McCain is still hot:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..89478.html

    1. You lie.

          1. Wow. I like the Cube thingy.

          2. For some inexplicable reason OMG-WTF Kitty (scroll down) made me crack a few ribs from laughing.

      1. Somebody take away her sammich.

    2. Only if you like fatties.

      1. “Fatty” doesn’t mean what you think it does. McCain has a rocking bod.

        1. McCain’s a fatty, sorry dude. Not that there’s anything wrong with liking fatties.

      2. *looks around nervously*

  9. Rick Santorum is still an asshole:

    http://www.tnr.com/article/pol…..ing-quotes

    http://www.tnr.com/article/pol…..et-project

    1. RoboCain is still an asshole:

      https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..nt_2745056

      Sorry. Too easy.

      1. Dog Nmad it – I followed that f-ing link, too!!

    2. He really is an entirely loathsome individual.

      1. But at least he’s not as bad as this guy:

        https://reason.com/blog/2012/01…..nt_2745072

        1. The thing about Santorum is, it is kind of horrifying to me to listen to the diarrhea that comes out of his mouth, but on the other hand I hope he does keep talking. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and all that, and the more he runs his mouth, the more disenchanted people will become with him.

          1. If Louis Brandeis were alive today he would smack Rick Santorum upside the head.

            1. One generation of intolerant idiots is enough

    3. I almost want Santorum to win the nomination. The juicy tears that would result from him losing to Obama just might outweigh the horribleness of a second Obama term.

      1. I don’t think the GOP would learn the right lesson from their loss…

        Really, they would probably think that they aren’t socially conservative or hawkish enough and that’s why they lost. Or that they threatened government handouts too much.

        1. Bingo, Bingo.

          Romney losing would be as delicious and would teach the GOP better lessons.

          1. Nah dude, it would be “Oh, he wasn’t socially conservative enough! If we had chosen someone who hadn’t flip-flopped on abortion and the gays then we would have won!”

            1. Uh…maybe…but that could’ve happened after McCain lost. I think ‘economic conservatives’ could own narrative again. The SoCons are always and forever on the cross if Santorum loses they will be butthurt about the media ‘demonizing’ him.

              1. The only way Republicans won’t be able to rationalize nominating someone odious like Santorum is if the Ron Paul faction of the GOP bolts for the LP and gives them about 20% of the vote. Now, that would send a fucking message: “You need us more than we need you. Nominate our guys or else.”

                1. e only way Republicans won’t be able to rationalize nominating someone odious like Santorum is if the Ron Paul faction of the GOP bolts for the LP and gives them about 20% of the vote. Now, that would send a fucking message: “You need us more than we need you. Nominate our guys or else.”

                  This.

                  The Republican Party will not seek to change themselves until the voting public takes their votes elsewhere.

            2. Uh…maybe…but that could’ve happened after McCain lost. I think ‘economic conservatives’ could own narrative again. The SoCons are always and forever on the cross if Santorum loses they will be butthurt about the media ‘demonizing’ him.

              1. I think ‘economic conservatives’ could own narrative again.

                You both underestimate the tenacity of so-cons, matched only by their stupidity (One must necessarily be a social conservative in order to be a fiscal conservative!!11!!!one1!!), and overestimate the level to which so-called fiscal conservatives are willing to climb in order to take their party back.

                1. I thought the fiscal cons did some decent climbing from 2009 onward, but I understand where you’re coming from.

            3. Nah dude, it would be “Oh, he wasn’t socially conservative enough! If we had chosen Newcular Titties then we would have won!”

        2. “I don’t think the GOP would learn the right lesson from their loss…”

          No doubt, but the tears would be juicy regardless.

  10. I foolishly went to the website of that anti-semite nut, and now I have to wash out my computer.

    1. “Interest is a wealth transfer from the poorest 80% to the richest 10%.”
      -Idiot anti-semite

      So, er, what about those people in the middle? Can this guy not add?

      1. Maybe he thinks the “middle” 10% isn’t borrowing a whole lot. In any case he’s right, interest is the transfer of wealth from morons who finance every damn thing to people who lend the money.

  11. Angelina Jolie (still hot) isn’t that liberal:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..89573.html

    1. After clicking a bunch of links from that article I found out that perfection actually does exist in the form of Victoria Justice

      http://plannedman.com/wp-conte…..ale001.jpg

    2. Isn’t Jolie pretty apolitical anyway?

    3. Least flattering photo evar.

  12. Man stabbed for not knowing Beyonce is married to Jay-Z

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..Jay-Z.html

    1. Fucking asians…

    2. Who is Jay-Z?

      1. Someone with 99 problems.

        1. But a shiv ain’t one.

    3. Yeah my 11 year old daughter gets upset that I don’t know anything about Justin Bieber too!

      Hasn’t tried to stick me yet though.

  13. Is Libertarianism Fundamentally Racist?

    http://andrewsullivan.thedaily…..acist.html

    http://andrewsullivan.thedaily…..t-ctd.html

    1. WTF does any of that have to do with Trig Palin or raw muscle glutes?

      1. “Since I am a privileged white male…”

        Sullivan, you’re a stoopid fuck.

        1. “Since I am a privileged white male…”

          You need to read the whole sentence.

          “Since I am a privileged white male…I know want you to take me vigorously from behind you proud african stallion”

          In context it makes perfect sense. Sullivan isn’t making a comment about political philosophy….he’s just cruisin for a little ethnic strange. Perfectly understandable.

          1. “Since I am a privileged white male…I know want you to take me vigorously from behind you proud african stallion”

            Shit.

            1. NOW it makes sense!

    2. I would click that link, but I can see the andrewsullivan part so I know better.

      Your tricksy plan has been foiled.

  14. In Newark, turn in your gun owning neighbors, and get $1,000:

    http://www.saysuncle.com/2012/01/06/gun-turn-in/

    1. Take a breath, RoboCain.
      The blog will still be here tomorrow.
      Probably.

    2. That pitch is just like the “Cash for Gold” guys!

      Mo money, Mo money, Mo money!

  15. but the strongest claim (in a story that makes no mention of Republicans’ ongoing efforts to get the White House to cough up public records) is that “the most sensational allegations – particularly those of cronyism – remain unproven, though the public documents do provide support for some of the accusations.”

    Are you sure you don’t mean strangest claim?

    1. stupidest?

      1. And I know stupid!

  16. The Georgia State Patrol trooper involved in the New Year’s Eve crash that killed the wife of Braves trainer Jeff Porter has been fired.

    In a statement released Friday, Col. Mark W. McDonough, commissioner of the state Department of Public Safety, said that while the investigation into Saturday’s wreck in downtown Atlanta is continuing, Trooper 1st Class Donald Crozier’s employment was terminated earlier in the day.

    http://www.ajc.com/news/atlant…..92228.html

    What’s the over/under on how long it’ll take him to find a new LEO job?

    1. I hear there are some openings in Utah.

        1. I N S U R R E C T I O N I S T

          S C U M

          Reported to the Department of Homeland Securit and the Federal Morality Enforcement Agency.

      1. Oh, snap!

    1. First and last ones.

    2. first one had me in tears

      1. Sublime.

    3. Like a bouse!!

  17. Ron Paul a Mason? So what? So were half the Founding Fathers and at least a dosen Presidents.

      1. Ron Paul is prolly a Stonecutter.

        1. *returns to plotting with the Kochs AND Soros for world domination*

          So basically, you’re a Stonecutter. Aren’t you worried about us learning your nefarious plans?

        2. Paul is a No-Homers.

      2. I actually almost became a Mason myself about 11 years ago, some of my older relatives being Masons, but I thought my scraggly-haired punk-rock ass would look silly in that tuxedo and apron you have to wear at ceremonial functions.

        1. There’s actually a decent number of punk-ish freemasons nowadays…

          1. Yeah – I joined the lodge in the People’s Republic of Ann Arbor (MI). Freakishly diverse group – tats, rockers and bikers well represented, along with the usual Control-the-World suspects 🙂

            I like wearing my F&AM; #262 t-shirt, just to watch how people react.

            *returns to plotting with the Kochs AND Soros for world domination*

  18. Speaking of both the Navy and conspiracy theories, this has been making the wingnut rounds:

    http://townhall.com/video/navy…..se-ventura

    I watched it and I’m pretty convinced Mr Sniper is a liar. He gives two distinct answers to the implied question ‘what occurred next’ after punching out Ventura. The first time, he says he was teased by other SEAL members for punching out a senior citizen (paraphrasing there, used synonymous terms) the second time he says he fled from the cops. He also implies he did so immediately after he punched Ventura, so both actions could not have occurred. It all feels made up to be honest, a little too perfectly tuned to the emotions. He being reasonable good guy, looking out for others, Ventura being pig head, etc. Admittedly, Ventura is pig headed as all hell, but this is pure caricature in the guy’s description.

  19. Not sure why you bothered with that link to Henry Makow.

    Guy appears just plain nuts.

    1. A chick that is five pounds over weight hangs out on the beach with her girlfriends that are twenty five pounds over weight so she is ht in comparison. Same principle applies.

    2. Is he the same guy from TimeCube?

  20. So Ron Paul is racist antisemite and aMasonic Jew Illuminatus? He really does have all the right enemies.

    1. We’re supposed to think that Paul is the quintessential Renaissance man – he’s everything to everybody!

    2. Funny thing, with Bachmann out, Paul is the only WASP in the race right now. Just a decade ago, almost all of the candidates were WASP.* Unless you count the two Mormons as Protestant. The creed with its addition of a second mythology makes it as different in kind to Christianity as Christianity is to Islam. However, I’ve seen consistently applied arguments that Islam with its decentralization was the first Protestant creed.

      * For the youths not familiar with out dated terminology, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

      1. Given previous history of WASP presidents, I calculate about a 92% chance of Paul being the next president.

        1. Did you count Nixon as a non-WASP? Because I got 95% (everyone except BHO & JFK).

          1. I included a 3% mortality rate into the mix (shit you not) given Paul’s advanced age.

          2. If my moves there seem a little slick, I’ve been thinking about this odd factor for a few weeks now before mentioning it.

          3. Martin Van Buren was of Dutch ancestry. He is also the only President to have spoken English as a second language.

            The Roosevelts were also of Dutch ancestry, and Reagan was half Irish.

            1. I looked into weeks ago too when I recalled Reagan’s nick being Dutch, and Van Buren’s name as well —
              http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t16067-45.htm

              Dutch and Saxon tribes merely separated by a few generations. Closer than the Normans.

            2. Marty was also the first president born in the USA.

      2. I would call Romney and Gingrich WASPs. It’s not just about race and religion, otherwise white trash would be considered WASPs, and they aren’t.

        1. In no other generation before the present would either man be considered WASP. That’s why I called it out dated terminology.

          1. “Gingrich is of German, English, Scottish, and Irish ancestry, and was raised a Lutheran.”

            1. He’s a Catholic convert.

              1. Was it a conversion of convenience?

                1. The US presidency is worth a mass.

                  Couldn’t resist. I do wonder what that is about. The right, I’m going to need to use goofy scare quotes to stomach writing this, ‘intellectual’ elite seems to be dominated by Catholics these days. William Bennett is probably some kind of gate keeper in those circles.

                  1. To him, it’s worth about anything other than keeping his zipper closed.
                    I don’t follow right-wing ‘thought’ (those scare quotes), but is this social conservative ‘thought’? (s-q-a).

                  2. chris, what is it with you and the Catholic Church?

                    1. What is it with you being defensive. It’s a side issue in this discussion about the diminishing role of WASP in this election.

                2. Re: Sevo,

                  Was it a conversion of convenience?

                  Must’ve been one of conviction. Whether it was conviction based on doctrine or expediency, that is up to you to absolutely already know the answer to that so why keep beating around the bush right ok so we are in agreement so there

                  1. OM, that’s a hell of a sentence.
                    The question (implied) was whether the conversion was an obvious appeal to a certain constituency at some time in Newt’s ‘career’.

                3. If anything I’m objective about the RC Church, and you are anything but.

        2. White trash is stereotypically Scots Irish.

      3. Ron Paul is actually black. I mean what WASP would advocate the legalization of pot?

      4. Mormons are not Protestants. They will mildly deny being Protestants, and many Protestants will vehemently denounce them as Satanic scum going to hell.

        1. Not only arent they protestant, they arent christian.

          And Im pretty ecumenical about that line.

          But, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are on the other side of the line.

          1. Just curious – what puts the Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses on the other side of the line to you?

      5. Perry isnt a WASP?

        No clue to his heritage or religion.

        1. You’re right, robc. Almost forgot he was still in the race, but that is not the source of my error though. Wikipedia says his ancestry is almost entirely English. The Perry family that were my neighbors down the block were Irish horse thieves (weird neighborhood), so I discounted him without checking his profile. My bad, two WASP in the race. Though Paul is mostly German descent, however German decent also traditionally have been included in the WASP designation, it’s parsing a bit to thinly to not include Paul.

    3. Yeah, but is he a Bilderberger (or is that Build-a-Bear), a Tri-lateralist, a Noble of the Mystic Shrine, or a Grand High Exhalted Mystic Ruler, nternational Order of Loyal Raccoons?

  21. I’d love to see a debate between the pro-Paul ‘anti-Zionists’ and the anti-Paul ‘anti-Zionists’.
    ‘Who’s paying you?!’
    ‘Who’s paying YOU?!’

    1. I’m a pro-Paul pro-Zionist. I never get invited to parties.

    2. At least they’d both agree it’s THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSS!

  22. Don’t worry, you’re not.

    1. man face

      1. It’s because her hair is so severely styled. If she wants to look more “feminine” she needs a softer hairdo.

        1. Also her shoulders are much wider than her hips.

          1. I’ve notice linebacker shoulders usually equal tight little asses on, uhm, the womens.

      2. I’d hit it……

    2. Hey I hear she’s “tasted second” if you know what I mean.

  23. generating what passes for a hubbub these days in the cineaste community.

    Why are you implying that only female movie buffs would care? (For the record, I’m male and don’t care.)

  24. Well I can certainly think of no better person to explain Ron Paul and his belief in Austrian econonmics than Slate’s left-wing econ blogger and housing market Pollyanna Matthew Yglesias.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/…..h_it_.html

    1. “Austrian economics,” in this sense, goes beyond standard-issue free market thinking in a number of ways. Most notably, it seeks to build a strong ethical case for strict libertarianism without admitting that this would lead to any practical problems whatsoever.

      Austrian economics is not normative.

      1. I missed this:
        “Most notably, it seeks to build a strong ethical case for strict libertarianism without admitting that this would lead to any practical problems whatsoever.”
        No, shithead, no one promised you utopia.

        1. And the “shithead” wasn’t aimed at jerry; it was aimed at the author and shithead (AKA Tony), since that’s a typical shithead strawman.

        2. Whereas left-wing economic theories are known for acknowledging their negative side effects…?

          1. Inflation will never, ever, never be a problem! Quantitative Easing doesn’t lead to deeper troughs later on! Cash for Clunkers was a roaring success!

          2. Hey we is benefit from all dat free money and food stamps and they ain’t no side efex fo me or mine babyz

            1. “mine babyz”? A *German* welfare mother?

              1. Yo EBT, Yo EBT, Yo EBT……..

    2. From the link:
      “He was referring to so-called “Austrian economics,” an idiosyncratic passion of his and a set of beliefs that put him at odds with the vast majority of well-known economists of all ideological inclinations.”
      I presume the ‘well known’ and ‘all ideological inclinations’ limits the field to Krugman and Reich, since they’re ‘well known’ and obviously cover the field of ‘ideological inclinations’.
      And it’s equally obvious that “Austrian economics” has to be explained to his readers; he’s playing to his audience.

      1. Well I’m pleasantly surprised at the number of people in the comments section criticizing the article and knocking down not only the strawman the Keynes worshippers bust out, but also the essential arguments of that philosophy in of itself.

      2. Hmm, Wikipedia identifies Austrian economics as “heterodox” in the first sentence of the article.

          1. I presume the ‘well known’ and ‘all ideological inclinations’ limits the field to Krugman and Reich, since they’re ‘well known’ and obviously cover the field of ‘ideological inclinations’.

            Heterodox != “opposed by Krugman and Reich”

            1. I was particularly amused by the “all ideological inclinations”. Is he really spouting off that economists who are ideologically libertarian or Austrians or both are overwhelmingly opposed to Austrian economics?

              WTF?

        1. Re: Tulpa,

          Hmm, Wikipedia identifies Austrian economics as “heterodox” in the first sentence of the article.

          Your point being?

          1. Every wacky theory is heliocentrism in the eyes of its adherents, just like every invasion is WW2 and every peace agreement Munich in the eyes of neocons.

            1. Funny, I thought every peace agreement was letting the terrorists win.

  25. I am shocked that nobody has commented on the Iranians being rescued from pirates by a ship named after a pirate.

    1. “She is the third Navy ship named after Rear Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, who was on board Arizona during the attack on Pearl Harbor, and was the first American flag officer to die in World War II.”

      1. “Rear Admiral”

        *chortle*

      2. Way to ruin the bit…………sigh.

    2. Actually, it would have been funnier if it was the original U.S.S. Kidd, which was initially built for the shah.

      1. Can I take it for a ride when the shah is done?

      2. OT: How much fun would it be to have your own guided missile destroyer?

        1. You don’t have one???
          And you call yourself a libertarian.
          Way to piss all over the 2nd amendment.

  26. Girl sneaks inside Russian rocket factory, takes pictures

    http://lana-sator.livejournal.com/160176.html

    I thought it might have been an abandoned relic of the cold war, but she links to a website and some of the security cameras look pretty new?

    1. The closest she comes to an answer is that she suspects it may still be operational because of far-too-advanced-for-the-twentieth-century tidbits of technology she kept finding. It’s an interesting read to accompany the photographs.

      1. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the Russkis were still building rockets in a factory that looks like a derelict. It seems to be the way that Russian engineering is done.

        A Scandinavian buddy of mine was telling me that while he was in the military they were purchasing some new helicopters and doing cold weather testing on the prospects. They were testing Apaches and some Russian chopper (not sure if it was a Hind). Apparently the Apache was this sleek, sophisticated modern machine while the Russian was a rattling, primitive bucket of bolts. Yet, somehow the Russian chopper destroyed the Apache in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.

        1. Reading further, she’s saying she thinks the government might be trying to cover up the fact that the facility is still in use by actually abandoning it when it’s not essential. I wonder if there’s dead Soviets roaming the corridors.

          1. In Soviet Russia, corridors roam you!

        2. Apparently the Apache was this sleek, sophisticated modern machine while the Russian was a rattling, primitive bucket of bolts. Yet, somehow the Russian chopper destroyed the Apache in terms of reliability and ease of maintenance.

          Goddamn, that’s a microcosm of 20th-century Cold War weapons development.

        3. My father, who was a flight test engineer for the Air Force, told me about how they took apart some captured Russian fighter jets, and were shocked at how incredibly primitive the planes were, and yet managed to stay reasonably competitive with vastly more advanced American jets.

          He also told me the story about how, when planning missions in zero gravity, the ink in ballpoint pens wouldn’t flow, so the Americans spent huge amounts of money to design a snazzy high-tech ballpoint pen that worked in zero grav.

          The Russians switched to pencils.

          1. My former company gave out these zero-g pens at a technology awards dinner. The irony was lost on the British CEO.

          2. We need to spend this year’s budget, or we will lose it next year!!

          3. The reasons the Russian fighters are competitive with American is fighter aerodynamics really hasn’t progressed since the early 1970s. What has happened since then is mostly tweaks. Where we have progressed is avionics and stealth.

          4. The pencil story is bullshit, through and through. The “space pen” was created by a private inventor, Paul Fisher. He sent it to NASA and after approval they bought them for a few dollars each.

            You can’t use a regular graphite pencil in space. If the tip broke off, it would be come a hazard. Prior to using the space pen, they used grease pencils that smudged horribly.

            I have one of the space pens. Unlike a regular ballpoint pen, the semisolid ink can’t leak or explode in a pocket. It also writes well on wet or damp paper.

            Oh, and it turns out the Soviets bought space pens from Fisher too. American private ingenuity can’t be beat.

            http://history.nasa.gov/spacepen.html

            1. More on the awesomeness of Paul Fisher:

              “He asked me why I was so recalcitrant? I looked up, and here was a picture of Thomas Jefferson on the wall. I said, because I believe I have certain inalienable rights. With that he interrupted me and said, `Mr. Fisher, you as an individual have no inalienable rights. You live in a democracy subject to the will of the majority, and the will of the majority, through an act of Congress can deprive you of any right.’

              “Well, I got a little hot under the collar, and I jumped up and said: `I’m going to teach you a lesson. I’ll show you whether I have any rights or not.’ That was the beginning.”

              What followed was a court order to surrender his books and several denied appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court twice refused to review the case. “I just felt they were wrong, and I wasn’t going to comply,” he says.

              Found in contempt, he was jailed. Fisher held out for two weeks and became national news.

              http://www.hydeparkmedia.com/fisher.html

        4. It’s why the AK-47 is the weapon of choice for rebels all over the world: crappy wide tolerances that make it inaccurate at any distance, but make it almost impossible to jam no matter how much crap you let in it when wading through jungle streams or hunkering down in dust storms.

        5. There is a great line on Russian engineering in Cryptonomicon, I hope I get it close to right off the top of my head:

          “Ask a Russian to design a shoe, and he will give you something shaped like a shoebox. Ask him to build something to kill Nazis and he turns into Albert Fucking Einstein.”

    2. About 40 years ago I went out with a waitress at my favorite swillhole who read, wrote and spoke fluent Russian. She was from Chicago and she wanted to work at the UN.
      Her name was Jill. She looked just like Diana Rigg, aka Emma Peel of The Avengers.
      She was the second gal I ever screwed.
      I wish I knew where she was today.

      1. Email me the name and I can find her

  27. The internet is a wilderness of tubes.

    It’s all becoming clear to me, now.

    1. I bet he’s referring to all the porn websites with the word “tube” in the name somewhere, eh?

    2. I’m still unable to see the forest for the trees.

      Fucking wilderness….

  28. We’re so a-skeert of teh Eye Rain-ians that we can’t DEVASTATE OUR DEFENSE BUDGET BY SLASHING IT BY $500B ZOMG in the face of their EVUL AND ADVANCED NEWCULAR WEAPONSZES PROGRAMS!!!11!!

    But we have to rescue said Eye Rain-ians from 95 pound, starving Somali “pirates”.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    *gasp*

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    That’s teh awsum.

    1. We’re funny when we drink.

  29. Who converts *to* Catholicism in this day and age?
    Other than Tony Blair.

    1. I actually thought about it. Then, I went to a couple services (friends’ family funerals), where we Presby’s and other heathens are not given communion, and I remembered why I hate the RC Church 🙂

      But I really did look into it. And itreally was the whole “exclusionary” thing that shut me back off. Whatever faults the Presby version of Protestantism has, “exclusion” is emphatically NOT one of them. Everyone’s just happy when we get more than 65 in attendance (small church) – we really DON’T care who you are – if you’re in the pew, you’re welcome.

      And we’d damned sure never refuse someone communion who wants to take it.

      The RC’s? Mmmmm – not so much, in my experience.

      1. BONUS: As I always say – “Being Presbyterian is like having no religion at all.” Christianity Lite —

        1. Then why do you bother with it.

          1. To meet chicks! Duh.

        2. Methodist = All the salvation, none of the guilt.

      2. And we’d damned sure never refuse someone communion who wants to take it.

        Presbyterians believe communion is a piece of bread.

        Catholics believe it’s the literal body of Christ. And from 1 Cor 11:29 believe that “anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.”

        1. Yeah, that’s it, Tulpa.

        2. “Presbyterians believe communion is a piece of bread.
          Catholics believe it’s the literal body of Christ”
          And I’m pretty sure that both of them are drinking too much of the wine.
          Hint: there is zero evidence for an historical junior.

          1. there is zero evidence for an historical junior.

            You mean, if we throw out all the Christian documents of that time?

            If we throw out all of the writings of his disciples, there’s no evidence a historical Socrates existed either.

            There’s no historical evidence for more than a couple of hundred individuals existing in AD 30, but none of us believes there were only that many people living then.

        3. I think Luther was the first one to say out loud that the bread didn’t physically transform. I suspect most people realized that much earlier.

          1. If you mean “visibly” transform, explanations of how the bread could be transformed but still appear as bread appear in the earliest Christian writings. So yeah, everybody knew it still looked like bread.

            If you mean denying the real presence of Christ in the eucharist, that had also been done many, many times in church history before Luther. He was merely the first schismatic to be successful long-term in the West.

      3. I can’t remember–is it a renunciation of the Roman Catholic faith to take communion with another Christian church? I seem to remember that…

        1. No but if you post on H&R you’re done anyway

      4. I know of one.

        He was an atheist who on the first day of spring break in Florida was born again after a conversation with a beach evangelist.

        He said his first prayer was “Cant this wait until next week?”

        Anyway, being an intellectual type (when I met him he was working on his PhD in Electrical Engineering, this occurred when he was an undergrad), he went home, researched the beliefs of all the dominations, attended a bunch of different church services and decided he was catholic.

    2. Who converts *to* Catholicism in this day and age?

      Guys who want to fuck Catholic pussy.

      Same deal for a lot of Mormon converts — meet a hot person of the opposite sex, and either convert or break up.

      1. Catholic girls will fuck your brains out. More so than women of other religions. This is a fact.

    1. I’ve been curious – what’s the “NG” stand for in WWNGD?

      “Negrodamus ‘n’ God”?
      “Neville Grant”?
      “Nat Granderson”?
      “Nancy Grace”?

      1. Nick Gillespie

      2. And the “WWD”?

        “Women’s Wear Daily”?
        “Waste Watwer Discharge”?
        “World Wide Domination”?

        1. Heh, he said “Watwer”.

          1. That’s my line, dumbass.

      3. Newt Gingrich

      4. Newt Gingrich.

  30. Why is Reason refusing to report on the FACT that President Obama outpolled every single one of the Republican candidates in Iowa?

    What is Reason trying to hide from its readers?

    1. A CONSPIRACY!!!11eleventy-one1

    2. Because polling against a 3-way divided field means absolutely jack shit.

      1. I’ve polled a three way divided field before. Part of my constituent servicing program.

  31. If Ashton Kutcher lost his hair would he still be cool?

    1. When was he ever cool?

      1. I have no hair.

        1. You were in AI. Nelson HaHas.

      2. He’s soo tall! And happy!

  32. This is really just speculation, but an interesting article brigns forth evidence that suggests that the Jon Huntsmann campaign may be behind a low-quality, somewhat racist anti-Huntsman, anti-Chinese video that was posted by an apparent pro-Ron Paul YouTube account.

    Huntsmann has been playing victim all day while the media assails Paul for the supposed behavior of his supporters.

    http://www.theendrun.com/hunts…..ainst-paul

    1. See, now here’s an interesting conspiracy theory (and I call it that knowing it could be true).

      1. You know I really did call for a New World Order at my acceptance speach. That’s not just Coast to Coast George Noory talking shit to pull in advertisement dollars. I said it in front of an audience of like 700 million people watching, and here twenty three years later the entire media pretends it didn’t happen. THAT itself is a conspiracy! Do I have to call my buddies at the CFR and have a news conference telling you we run the fucking world; we’re purposely forcing the last hold outs like Iran into a corner. We get you to fund the National Endowment for Democracy to take out those who wont give us what we want, in a one color to the next color set of revolutions that, btw, we published a dozen years ago for anyone to see who wants to know how we planned it. Shit, the next few stages are not hidden either. We just do all of this in public because everybody is too fucking ‘fraidy cat that their peers will ridicule them to call us a conspiracy. The Soviets never had a climate of social fear that worked so well.

        Putin told my son, ‘I envy you. The docility of your subjects is like no society that has ever existed. Wait until somebody truly evil comes along and you’ll accomplish amazing things.’

  33. Sevo:
    Hint: there is zero evidence that I accept for an historical junior.

    ftfy.
    As the most respected scholars would disagree with herr sevo.

  34. Somebody, maybe a former subscriber to one of Ron Paul’s newsletters, has launched a racist attack ad on John Huntsman. Ron Paul, of course, has repudiated the ad.

    1. Hey Max, my dick up your ass can cure diabetes. Wanna give it a try?

      1. Proof Paul approved it, or STFU.

        Or… just STFU.

        1. Hey! Hey! Wha’di’ I do? Goin’ after any single one of ’em would be stupid on my part don’tcha think? Give’em time to tear each other apart.

          Max is your man. That’s right, Max. I fingered you like I was a member of your family.

          Show them where on the doll you were touched, Max. Do we need to turn the doll over? Oh, dear Lord, Max!

          1. Did, uh, he just say he, uh, fingered that guy?

            1. Ewwww! Gay!

              1. Way to mix the characters together, spoofers.

            2. That’s my line.

    2. You wouldn’t believe the things I’ve pulled out of that boys’ ass…

      1. Have you found the good silverware?

        1. You wouldn’t believe the things I’ve put into that boy’s ass…

          1. Have you found the good silverware?

            1. Ma’am, your son ditched that stuff on us months ago. He traded it for an old ColecoVision we had in the storeroom.

              1. Dammit I told you that boy’s no good.
                That silverware was my retirement. Now what are we gonna do?

                1. Uh, could I crash at your place tonight? My ol’ lady kicked me out for spendin’ rent money on Four Loko.

                  1. I wonder why he’s not interested in my diabetes cure…

                  2. I would have helped out, but then I got high.

                    1. Tell me more about this diabetes cure…

                    2. Who IS Max’s Father? Is it:

                      Chef?
                      Mr. Hat?
                      Paulie Krugnuts?
                      The 1994 Denver Broncos?
                      Tony?
                      Mr. Mackey?

                    3. It sure as fuck ain’t me.

                    4. Woof!*

                      *”No comment!”

                    5. Are you a fortyish something bear with the early warning signs of TYPE II? Means the fudge up your butt is too loose.

                    6. This is like the worst chat room ever.

                    7. Oh just drop dead, would you?

  35. What would interest-free, debt-free currency be? How would one keep people from loaning each other money? At interest, even! I guess you could make it Illegal; that would work…

    1. Can I interest you in some gold-pressed latinum?

      1. I’ve got my eye on you, Quark. Don’t make me turn into a Rigelian sand worm and crawl up your ass.

        1. I’ll take that latinum, Quark.

    2. Debt free? Why would I give you money?

      Interest free?

      Maybe you’re loaning to your family?

    3. It would be quite imaginary.

  36. What would interest-free, debt-free currency be?

    I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER!!

  37. OT: Pinkos win elections in Jamaica. Ain’t Cuba enough? Do we REALLY want another openly socialist state so close the US? Really? I say we boycott foreign reefer.

    1. Do you really think we import that much schwag from Jamaica to begin with?

      I’ll take the music, and good old domestic pot.

      1. Socialism harms productivity much more than pot.

        1. Being a pot-smoking socialist, I resent that remark.

          Then again, I am remarkably unproductive.

    2. Well, Jamaica’s fucked.

  38. I’ve been talking to some Ron Paul supporters I know and they seem to have no answers for the simplest questions.

    For example, why do libertarians want to ban voluntary collective action to better society? They all seem to lose their shit at the simple suggestion that we can voluntarily work through our elected representatives to enact successful policy.

    They don’t even oppose the policy, they just oppose our right to use the government to create the society we want. And then claim they’re for freedom? When they want to arrest anyone who wishes to use their right to work collectively with their fellow citizens?

    It’s quite weird how the infantile ideology of libertarianism and its Ron Paul stormtroopers are treated seriously by the media but Marxism is considered a black mark when Marx completely projected the current mess we’re in due to the insane spread of capitalism.

    1. “why do libertarians want to ban voluntary collective action to better society?”

      They don’t, as long as that action does not involve coercion. I’m not a libertarian but from what I understand they would have been fine with voluntary collective action such as many of the marches and boycotts in the Civil Rights Movements of the 1960s. They just oppose using “voluntary collective action…through our elected representatives to enact successful policy” because that usually involves laws and the coercive power of the state enforcing them.

      You really should take the time to get to know more about a group and philosophy before making such wholesale and emphatic attacks on them.

      1. Maybe you should take the time to learn about history as it took the government to ban slavery, Jim Crow and enact the Civil Rights Acts.

        The “free” market would have never eliminated any of those things, it took people working collectively to right wrongs and empower society with the tools it needed to begin chipping away at the racist power structure.

        1. The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.:

          1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.

          2. Dupes?a large class, no doubt?each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities.

          3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

          – Lysander Spooner, Radical Abolitionist

        2. No it took the government to. Create and enforce slavery and Jim Crow. The fact that it government a toons to undo he harm done by other government actions is hardly an endorsement of government action.

          1. “No it took the government to. Create and enforce slavery and Jim Crow. The fact that it government a toons to undo he harm done by other government actions is hardly an endorsement of government action.”

            Didn’t you use to lecture rather on typing in English ;)?

        3. Of course the created and codified slavery, and Jim Crowe.

          So you’re suggesting that I pat the back of the guy who “solved” a problem that he created himself?

          Fuck off, statist.

        4. Just come out and call us racists, Markus. It would be simpler that way, and you’d get immediate gratification.

        5. “Markus|1.7.12 @ 10:19AM|#

          Maybe you should take the time to learn about history as it took the government to ban slavery…”

          In a nation run under libertarian principles, slavery would have been non-existent.

    2. government isnt voluntary collection action.

      Your entire premise is invalid.

      1. Government is the very essence of voluntary collective action. We vote for representatives who carry out our wishes and enact the agenda we want put in place for the country.

        1. Nothing voluntary about it. Its forced upon us.

          1. Get out and vote. Have your voice heard.

            1. In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

              http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

              1. Quoting long discredited racist nutjobs is not empirical science.

                Adults understand that they cannot simply do whatever they want and experience no consequences. They also understand that instead of throwing tantrums that you have to follow the rules once you’ve matured.

                We live in a democracy, we speak together through our votes, complaining because society isn’t allowing you to be an absolute dictator and decide everything for everyone but instead is requiring you to respect the rights of all people is not something a grown up does.

                1. Wolf 1: Who shall we eat today?
                  Wolf 2: I don’t know, let’s have a vote shall we.
                  Sheep: Uh…I don’t know
                  Wolf 1: What, you don’t like democracy? Are you some sort of “libertarian”?
                  Sheep: No…
                  Wolf 1: Okay. Who shall we eat? I vote for the sheep
                  Wolf 2: Yes for the sheep.
                  Sheep: Nay on the sheep.
                  Wolf 1: Sorry, ol’ chap 2-1. Now don’t throw any temper tantrums about this, you have to be respectful and follow rules. We are trying to create a better society you know.

                2. Quoting long discredited racist nutjobs is not empirical science.

                  Racist? You are making a fool of yourself. Spooner was an Abolitionist, dumb ass.

                  Adults understand that they cannot simply do whatever they want and experience no consequences.

                  Who implied that?

                  We live in a democracy, we speak together through our votes, complaining because society isn’t allowing you to be an absolute dictator and decide everything for everyone but instead is requiring you to respect the rights of all people is not something a grown up does.

                  You’ve obviously lost your mind.

                3. Right, Lysander Spooner, staunch and vocal abolitionist, a racist nutjob….

                  We live in a democracy, we speak together through our votes, complaining because society isn’t allowing you to be an absolute dictator and decide everything for everyone but instead is requiring you to respect the rights of all people is not something a grown up does.

                  Er, pot meet kettle? I’m just shaking my head at the serious cognitive dissonance going on

                  1. Er, pot meet kettle? I’m just shaking my head at the serious cognitive dissonance going on

                    The indoctrination is strong in this one.

                4. Quoting long discredited racist nutjobs

                  Ad hominem.

                  is not empirical science.

                  What empirical science would it take to show that your definition of “voluntary” as “the right to vote” is not jive?

                  Adults understand that they cannot simply do whatever they want and experience no consequences.

                  Non-sequiter.

                  They also understand that instead of throwing tantrums

                  Ad hominem.

                  you have to follow the rules once you’ve matured.

                  Assertion that your rules are the correct ones without argument, ad hominem.

                  We live in a democracy,

                  Statement of fact not argument for policy.

                  we speak together through our votes,

                  Applause-light jive.

                  complaining because society isn’t allowing you to be an absolute dictator

                  Misrepresentation.

                  and decide everything for everyone

                  Exact opposite of our actual position.

                  but instead is requiring you to respect the rights of all people

                  Disagreement about what those rights are is what the argument’s about.

                  is not something a grown up does.

                  Ad hominem.

                5. Is everyone but a liberal, a “racist nutjob”?

                  Probably to you, Markus.

            2. Logic fail. I vote no. You vote yes. You get majority and win. I’ve got no choice but to go along with you. How is this in any way voluntary?

              1. Im fine with any laws passed unanimously.

                1. And I dont mean unanimously amongst the representatives (who arent).

                  1. You wouldn’t even be able to get unanimous consent for laws against rape.

                    1. anon – logical fallacy there.

                      I said nothing about my views on laws not passed unanimously. I only commented on laws passed unanimously.

                      As a minarchist, I accept that some laws will end up being passed nonunanimously. I am perfectly fine with requiring a hypersupermajority (like 90% or 95%) for passing any law that criminalizes behavior.

                      But that is just me compromising with reality.

                      I think rape and murder wont have any problem reaching the 90% barrier in my state houses.

                    2. I was just pointing out the fallacy of the idea that you could get everyone in society to agree on -anything- let alone a system of laws and governance.

                    3. Since I didnt suggest that, it wasnt a fallacy.

                      I made an if A->B comment. That in know way implies ~A->~B.

                    4. “know way”???

                      really rob?

                    5. However, I will say that the lack of unanimity does prevent it from being voluntary.

                    6. ” I am perfectly fine with requiring a hypersupermajority (like 90% or 95%) for passing any law that criminalizes behavior.”

                      With this goofy criteria the 13th Amendment would not have passed. robc’s libertarianism would have allowed actual human slavery.

                      But those of us who know robc know he doesn’t like to think these implications out. And he doesn’t like anyone to point them out, he’d rather live in an incifed world without such inconvenient points being made to undermine his cute ideas about minority rule.

                    7. Bullshit, the 13th passed almost unanimously, it got well over 90% of the states to pass it.

                      Name 11 members of the current senate who wouldnt make slavery criminal? If you cant, you are WRONG.

                      In long threads I do sometimes see incifed comments before they disappear.

                      This is why you are incifed. Deal with it.

                    8. Not near unanimous, even, it was unanimous, although Mississippi was the last of the 36 states, finally ratifying the 13th in 1995.

                    9. it got well over 90% of the states to pass it.
                      of the states

                      You see how you contradict yourself from earlier here?

                    10. You see how you contradict yourself from earlier here?

                      No. Not at all.

                    11. robc|1.7.12 @ 10:41AM|#

                      Im fine with any laws passed unanimously.
                      robc|1.7.12 @ 10:42AM|#

                      And I dont mean unanimously amongst the representatives (who arent).

                      Here, let me show you.

                    12. That doesnt contradict anything.

                      Once again A->B does not imply that ~A->~B.

                    13. Let me try again, since you cant piece together my points, including the unstated assumptions that I assumed were obvious.

                      1. Any law that EVERYONE (literally everone) favors Im okay with. We ALL agreed to it, so no problem.

                      2. There are some laws that Im okay with that not EVERYONE agreed with, but I acknowledge that it isnt a VOLUNTARY system at that point. Im only okay with ones that punish force/fraud/etc.

                      3. As a restraint against the current willingness to criminalize anything and everything, I would like to raise the standard in the legislatures from the current 51% to 90% for criminalizing acts. If an act cant get that kind of agreement, it doesnt need to be criminalized, IMO.

                      4. I realize that some things I want criminalized wont reach that standard and some things I dont want criminalized will still reach that standard, but it is still better than the current system.

                      I see no contradictions in those 4 statements.

                    14. “You see how you contradict yourself from earlier here?

                      No. Not at all.”

                      At least robc is honest, I believe him when he says he doesn’t see his contradiction. Hiding from people that disagree with him has done wonders for his argumentation skills!

                    15. “it got well over 90% of the states to pass i”

                      You just said “And I dont mean unanimously amongst the representatives (who arent”) but then point to the 13th’s passage by 90% of state legislators (with former confederates barred in many cases btw) as your proof.

                      And you say I’m disengenous. Wow.

                      Are you going to argue that slavery would have been abolished by 90-95% agreement by the people of the United States in the 1860s? Nonsense.

                    16. I’m skeptical when I agree with MNG on a subject, so I proceed cautiously.

                      Yes, this is exactly the type of “unanimous consent/hypermajority” whatever that I’m pointing out is absurd. You simply won’t get 90% of Americans today to agree that slavery is illegal. I know I’d vote against a law that said indentured servitude is illegal on the grounds that I think if someone wants to move to this country bad enough and work off the payment of becoming a citizen/housing/food/etc. they should be allowed to.

                      85% of our country right now believes in God. Should they be allowed to write a law that imposes that belief on atheists like me?

                      90% of the country wants a stable job. Is it the right and proper function of government to supply that job?

                      Simply requiring a hypermajority is not enough justification for a law. The government needs to be restrained to its proper role, which is protecting private property against coercion and fraud.

                    17. anon – you need to read what I wrote very carefully. I said I want a hypermajority to make make an act criminal.

                      Im serious abou this. I dont think anyone should go to prison for something that 51% of people think is wrong. If the act cant get 90% vote in the appropriate legislature, I dont think we should be sending the person to prison.

                      If you cant get (using KY as an example), 90/100 votes in the house and 35/38 votes in the senate to send people to prison for enslaving others, then so be it.

                      I dont think that is a hard standard to reach. Obviously, if it cant get the votes, then there isnt a clear overwhelming mandate that the act is evil enough to deserve prison.

                      The government needs to be restrained to its proper role, which is protecting private property against coercion and fraud.

                      duh. I dont see how a supermajority for criminal acts goes against that. In fact, it applies a restraint in that its very hard for them to criminalized things that arent clearly criminal.

                      It doesnt prevent them from overstepping their bounds. Maybe they can get 90% votes to make heroin illegal. But it does apply a restraint.

                      I would prefer some clearly criminal acts go unpunished than have some uncriminal acts be punished.

                    18. duh. I dont see how a supermajority for criminal acts goes against that. In fact, it applies a restraint in that its very hard for them to criminalized things that arent clearly criminal.

                      Because it looks like you’re implying that the -only- criminal activities would be those that 90% of the population agree with.

                      If I’m a shareholder of Standard Oil and the 90% of people decide that I’m producing too much kerosene I could be stripped of my company (this basically happened). There’s no justice in allowing 90% of people to decide to take 10% of people’s shit.

                      Which is why you must protect against coercion and fraud rather than the whims of the majority.

                    19. Because it looks like you’re implying that the -only- criminal activities would be those that 90% of the population agree with.

                      Correct. Nothing else would be criminal. But a 90% of the vote isnt the only criteria, it would still have to be constitutional.

                      There’s no justice in allowing 90% of people to decide to take 10% of people’s shit.

                      Agreed. What does that have to do with anyone. Today 51% of the people can take 49% of the shit.

                      We will keep all the current protections against tyranny of the majority that we currently have, we arent getting rid of them.

                    20. 85% of our country right now believes in God. Should they be allowed to write a law that imposes that belief on atheists like me?

                      Would you prefer the standard be 51%? Which it is now?

                      How does raising it from 51% to 90% make it more likely that their will be anti-atheist laws? It clearly makes it less likely. Our you that fucking math retarded?

                    21. Our==Are apparently.

                      Me fail english, thats unpossible.

                    22. Because you don’t have any other criteria for determining whether a law is just; simply what the -majority- wants.

                    23. Because you don’t have any other criteria for determining whether a law is just; simply what the -majority- wants.

                      WTF?

                      No, Im sticking with all the other criteria too, Im just changing the majority to supermajority.

                      Really, WTF?

                      Supermajority is not enough, I still expect the courts to throw out unconstitutional shit.

                    24. Ok, so now you’ve got a bit of a paradox. How do you determine a constitution if 90% of people are required to approve of it?

                      Keep in mind, I sincerely doubt you could get 90% of people to agree with our current constitution. Hell, I doubt it’s 51%.

                    25. Ummm…90% was required for CRIMINAL acts.

                      Do I need to link to RIF?

                    26. You don’t get it. Legislation decides legality; it’s legislation that makes possession of heroin a criminal act. Fuck, I think possession is a felony in my state.

                      You’re using circular logic. Stop it.

                    27. What? Want to break that down like I did in my 4 step approach above?

                      Let me try again, point to the circular logic.

                      1. For heroin to be made illegal under the current system, two things are required:

                      A. a 51% vote in the legislature.
                      B. said law to be constitutional (which I would argue it isnt, but the courts disagree with me)

                      2. For heroin to be made illegal under my suggested system, two things are required:

                      A. a 90% vote in the legislature.
                      B. said law to be constitutional (which I would argue it isnt, but the courts disagree with me)

                      How the fuck is that circular?

                    28. “said law to be constitutional”

                      Good god your “reasoning” is full of holes. You do realize that saying that something is “constitutional” means that it complies with provisions acted by supermajorities that fall well short of your desired point?

                    29. The constitution is a legal document. The bill of rights is a legal document. It details -criminal- behavior; meaning, you’d have to get 90% of people to agree with you that “The right to bear arms … shall not be infringed.” 90% to agree with -everything- in it.

                      It simply would not happen.

                      Which would mean that you’re reduced to your simple criteria of “90% of the population.”

                      If you constrain the role of government to the prevention of fraud and coercion, you -can’t- make heroin illegal. If you constrain the role of government to its proper roles, nobody is subject to the whims of the “hypermajority,” and everyone is protected justly and equally.

                    30. It details -criminal- behavior

                      No it doesnt. The bill of rights does not send anyone to prison. It details limits on government power and rights of individuals. It limits what cant be made criminal, but it itself does not criminalize anthing.

                      It details what restrictions are being placed on the federal government (and the state govenments in some cases).

                      A state, for example, doesnt have to make an act criminal just because it is allowed to by the constitution.

                      If you constrain the role of government to its proper roles, nobody is subject to the whims of the “hypermajority,” and everyone is protected justly and equally.

                      This is true today with a majority or with a hypermajority. Why do we have laws against heroin today when the constitution specifically forbids it?

                      The hypermajority is to provide a 2nd level of protection on top of that provided by the constitution. It shouldnt be necessary, but apparently it is.

                    31. Let me quote myself from upthread just to make clear:

                      I dont think anyone should go to prison for something that 51% of people think is wrong. If the act cant get 90% vote in the appropriate legislature, I dont think we should be sending the person to prison.

                      Nothing in the BoR sends anyone to prison. Nothing. Or the rest of the constitution.

                      That 90% statment was in regards to laws that send people to prison, as you can see from my quote.

                      Follow the logic thru.

                    32. You’re going to upset robc and get incifed by pointing that kind of shit out to him.

                    33. And, btw, 100% of states ratified the constitution.

                      Technically, under the Articles of Confederation the 9/13 to enable in the Constitution was illegal, but this was rendered moot when all 13 states ratified the constitution anyway. The AoC required unanimity for amendment to the Articles.

                    34. And how many -people- actually wanted to win the revolutionary war to provide us with a country?

                      I’ll give you a hint; it wasn’t even the bare majority.

                    35. And how many -people- actually wanted to win the revolutionary war to provide us with a country?

                      I’ll give you a hint; it wasn’t even the bare majority.

                      Non sequitor. What does that have to do with changing the system going forward from this point?

        2. Who is “we?” What of those who disagree with “us?”

          1. We is all of us, why do you people not get this?

            Whining about so-called “disagreements” is a non-sequitur because democracy allows us to have the discussion and reach a solution that everyone accepts.

            1. Do you really believe it’s possible to form one policy that “all of us” agree with? The question assumes that you aren’t defining the term down into some subgroup of “reasonable people. I’m asking about literally everyone here.

            2. reach a solution that everyone accepts.

              No it doesnt.

            3. reach a solution that everyone accepts.

              Fucking Tony and his consensus.

            4. Whining about so-called “disagreements” is a non-sequitur because democracy allows us to have the discussion and reach a solution that everyone accepts.

              Except those who don’t accept it – but who care about them?

            5. “Democracy” gave us the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Obama’s recent NDAA signing, and other bullshit too numerous to mention.

              “Everyone” did NOT accept the above.

          2. They should get to block the majority from doing what they think is proper, obviously. Minority rule sucks worse than majority rule imo.

            But the guy you’re arguing with is clearly a strawman-troll.

            1. Except for the inconvenient fact that the libertarian minority has no desire to rule, only to be left alone.

              1. Not true. You would rule those anarchists who don’t believe in property by enforcing trespass laws and such on them; you’d rule those who don’t think contracts should be enforced in situations you disagree on by holding them to those contracts; you’d rule those who don’t think fraud should be forcibly prevented by enforcing fraud laws, etc.

                But more importantly, why should everyone else argue under your assumptions (namely that coercion is always the worst option and can never be allowed)? To most people there are many situations where you blocking collective coercion is to rule the rest of us.

            2. How about oh I dunno… neither?

        3. Hey Tony…is “Markus” the sexy boy name you use when you feel all “crusie”?

        4. You seem to have trouble with the world “voluntary.”

    3. They don’t even oppose the policy, they just oppose our right to use the government to create the society we want.

      Who is “we”?

      1. All of us, Americans, everyone in society, etc. We want to be able to run our lives as we wish. Libertarians want to outlaw that and deny us the ability to enact policy that crafts our society in the way we want.

        1. Are there more than one of you posting under the same name? You keep using, “We”, as if you’re speaking for more than person.

          1. Yeah…this is “Markus”. He’s typing with one hand as he strokes “Little Markus” AKA Tony while he makes the same tired arguments he always makes in favor of having the government take your money to spend on things he thinks are important.

        2. Again, who is we? Are you foolish enough to think that everybody in this country can be in agreement? Don’t forget, it was government that created Jim Crow Laws.

          ‘for the people’, begs the question, ‘which people’? The government can’t possibly serve all of the people, all of the time. In fact, everything the government does helps some people, and hurts others. You wouldn’t be complaining about the governemnt helping Haliburton if your 401(k) mutual fund had a bunch of Haliburton stock in it. So, the question becomes, which people should the government help? But, that’s not the question we should be asking at all. The question should be, whether the government should be helping or hurting anybody at all?

          Individuals should be allowed to make these decisions based on where they choose to spend, invest, and donate their own money, without interference from a coercive force like government. The businesses and institutions that best serve the needs and desires of the people would be the ones that flourish, and that success would be tempered by the fear of bankruptcy by increasing pressure from the smaller, more efficient and innovative competitors.

          Perhaps, someday, we will ‘progress’ beyond the ‘need’ for a government.

          1. The government CAN serve all the people if we restore democracy and turn back the corporations, churches and military industrial complex that has undermined our democracy, our rights and our country for decades. The way to do that is not to destroy the few tools and rights we have left to protect our democracy and thus ourselves from these malevolent forces but to strengthen our right to guide society through democracy even more.

            1. What is Democracy? Democracy is only a means for the majority to force its will on the minority and the individual. The majority uses the ‘government’ to initiate force on the minority. The initiation of force is inherently immoral.

            2. Delusional commies and the borderline Marxist “DEMOCRACY YAYAYAYAYAYAYA” scum that enabled their rise to power in the last century, your predecessors, are, if it actually exists, burning in some hell right now, and I suggest you pull your head out of your ass unless you want to contribute to the world’s many problems.

        3. I suggest watching this short video:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

        4. “run our lives as we wish”

          Team Blue is just as bad at running our lives FOR us, as Team Red.

          But you know that, Markus.

        5. I wish to allow people to smoke in my restaurant.

          I presume you have no problems with my running my life that way?

    4. When two wolves and a sheep vote on what’s for dinner, is the sheep still free?

      1. But wouldn’t it be worse if the sheep could unanimously decide that the wolves aren’t allowed to kill him – that would make him dictator. Or something.

        1. Which obviously means that demanding a right to your own life makes you a fascist dictator akin to Hitler. Or something.

        2. But that’s only if everyone accepts your assumptions. If you are just arguing bare dmocracy vs. minority rule without your assumptions built in then the better analogy is: is it better for the two wolves to vote to eat the sheep or the sheep to vote to eat the two wolves?

          If you want to take out your appeals to emotion and your built in assumptions then its like this: is it better for the two wolves to enact, say, IP protections over the sheeps objections or should the sheep get a veto?

          1. Wow, you really don’t get it.

            The point of the analogy is that there must be another criteria besides what the majority -or- minority want. There’s an external right to your own life and fruits of your labor, and no vote on any law should be allowed to strip you of that right.

            1. I sympathize with your point, majorities can do terrible things. I think certain basic rights should be protected by supermajority provisions, like the Constitution in theory does. My point is that at some point though you either get majority rule, with all its possible attendant abuses, or minority rule with its abuses, and the latter is worse.

              “There’s an external right”

              See, here is your problem. What if a liberal minority says people have an “external right” to healthcare or housing provided at your dime? Are you just going to say “well, the external rights I recognize are the right ones, the ones they push are wrong?” That just gets us right back to the question of how we are to decide whose “external rights” apply.

              1. Nobody pays for your right to your own life. Someone pays for healthcare/insurance.

                Rights exist because you exist, not because a third party does. In example, I exist, therefore I have a right to my life. I exist, therefore I have a right to say whatever I want. I exist, therefore I have a right to protect myself from anyone trying to take either of the preceding two away from me.

                I exist, therefore I have a right to your life is a non-sequitur.

              2. That just gets us right back to the question of how we are to decide whose “external rights” apply.

                And the question of how to decide how to decide whose external rights apply. Don’t confuse the object level with the meta level – otherwise the answer is “strong people get what they want”, whatever it is you believe in, because that’s what it means to be strong.

              3. “I think certain basic rights should be protected by supermajority provisions, like the Constitution in theory does.”

                No.

                You make it sound like the Constitution is a conglomeration of laws. It isn’t. It is a framework to which all laws must adhere. If the framework is correctly constructed so as to strictly delineate the responsibilities/limitations of government and that framework is strictly adhered to, the majority cannot impose its will upon the minority without changing the framework itself.

                Your assertion, “What if a liberal minority says people have an “external right” to healthcare or housing provided at your dime? ” has no bearing in that, under the framework, the government has no mechanism to provide you with healthcare or housing without, again, amending the framework.

                Your argument is predicated upon the rationale that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says, but can be interpreted to mean anything you wish it to mean.

            2. I think MNG does get it – it’s just that he calls those other criteria “assumptions”. I think he knows that no libertarian would agree that we’re assuming our conclusions – he knows there exists a deep and detailed literature on libertarian philosophy. So I guess what he’s saying is “you’re only right if you’re right”. Good information.

          2. You keep using that word, rule. “Do what you want, but leave me out of it,” is pretty weak sauce for a purported ruler.

      2. It’s funny how libertarians go from “People generally -are- virtuous” to comparing majorities of people to wolves who want to eat the minority sheep when discussing democracy…

        1. Because when you use the government to do your dirty work, you don’t have your conscience objecting to the action.

          If I robbed you with a gun I’d feel guilty about it. It’d probably cause some severe depression for me, just because I don’t think it’s right. If I were to get a check from the government and not realize that basically I used them to rob you, all of a sudden it’s ok. It’s free money when I get a check from the Government, right?

          1. “It’s free money when I get a check from the Government, right?”

            Well, I don’t buy the pat libertarian line about government=robbery. But more importantly, many if not most people that support government also pay taxes themselves.

            1. But more importantly, many if not most people that support government also pay taxes themselves.

              Non-sequitur. We’re talking about receiving money from government, not paying money to government.

              Also, “most” people don’t have any federal income tax liability, so your argument is a bit flawed there.

              1. People are generally virtuous, but if we let majorities of them make decisions they will vote to eat others. Gotcha 😉

                My point about taxation is this: you can’t say supporters of government are just doing it to get free checks when most of those supporters pay for the checks.

                “”most” people don’t have any federal income tax liability”

                In honor of his Lions playing this weekend, insert J sub D’s usual reply about all the other taxes most people pay

        2. Yes, the analogy is slightly lossy – it’s more a problem of irrationality than lack of virtue. In a free market, when you act irrationally, it’s you who suffers – giving you a strong incentive not to be irrational. At the ballot box, when you’re irrational, the disutility is spread over everyone, creating a negative externality.

    5. “why do libertarians want to ban voluntary collective action to better society? They all seem to lose their shit at the simple suggestion that we can voluntarily work through our elected representatives to enact successful policy.”

      Several comments:

      1. That statement is so idiotic that I suspect a spoofer.

      2. If you are serious, your answer is simple, government is NOT voluntary. The will of the majority is FORCED upon the minority. Your premise is invalid. Libertarians believe you should be allowed to do as you wish provided you do not infringe upon the rights of others while doing so.

      3. I can’t believe I’m saying this…props to MNG for his objective criticism.

      1. Oh and

        4. Fuck off slaver!

  39. GOP: A House Divided?

    Santorum is not engaged in heresy; he represents an alternative tradition of conservative political philosophy. Libertarians may wish to claim exclusive marketing rights, but there are two healthy, intellectual movements in American conservatism: libertarianism and religious (particularly Catholic) social thought.

    Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, in which personal rights trump every other social goal and institution.The Catholic (and increasingly Protestant) approach to social ethics asserts that liberty is made possible by strong social institutions ? families, communities, congregations ? that prepare human beings for the exercise of liberty by teaching self-restraint, compassion and concern for the public good. Oppressive, overreaching government undermines these value-shaping institutions. Responsible government can empower them ? say, with a child tax credit or a deduction for charitable giving ? as well as defend them against the aggressions of extreme poverty or against “free markets” in drugs or obscenity.

    In a 2005 speech at the Heritage Foundation, Santorum argued that men and women should not be treated either as “pathetic dependents” or as “radical individuals.” “Someone,” he argued, “always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest. That is the great lie of liberal freedom. .?.?. Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye towards the common good.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. I’m all for the family, Barney’s Charity Soup Kitchen, and the East West East Eastern Northwestern Southern Upper Mid-City Downtown African-American Baptist Church. Laws and regulations pertaining to them? No. Santorum’s a proactive authoritarian, and I hope his support dwindles to near-zero in the coming weeks.

      1. Seriously. I’d vote for Newcular Titties over Santorum, and that’s a pathetic choice to be OK with.

        1. All very appealing rhetoric, until we realize that the “responsible government” these people are advocating is bankrupting the country and undermining private social institutions. They can’t say that they’re just waiting for the right people to be in charge, because these are GW Bush Republicans and we’ve already *seen* their version of “responsible government.”

          So it’s a bait and switch – praising responsible government and local institutions and then snatching it away and replacing it with GW Bush-ism. I sure hope noone’s stupid enough to fall for this again.

          1. Yes, the people need to be virtuous, and if they’re not the government won’t be able to make them virtuous – it will only be able to encourage popular vices and suppress virtues like thrift and work ethic, etc.

            The govt has already compromised the people’s virtue and hair of the dog isn’t going to work.

            1. People generally -are- virtuous. Government by its nature attracts the liars and thieves of our society because of the power government grants them over others. Expanding the power the government is able to grant compounds the problem.

            2. “Yes, the people need to be virtuous”

              You’d think they might learn from our experience with religious liberty resulting in a MORE religious nations than most European nations with established churches that perhaps we’d be more virtuous with less government “guidance.”

    2. People acting individually in their own self interests can do some harm. But the harm is limited. When they get together and start working for a noble idea, that is when they start doing real damage.

      And frankly Satorum sounds like the Clinton guru Micheal what’s his name. The known as Rabi Moonbeam. Honestly mng Santorum might be the candidate for you and other liberals angry at Obama. He seems to really believe in the good of collectivist action and government power.

      1. Rabbi Michael “Politics of Meaning” Lerner?

      2. “Honestly mng Santorum might be the candidate for you and other liberals angry at Obama. He seems to really believe in the good of collectivist action and government power.”

        Except that, as Gerson correctly points out, Santorum’s strain of collective action and government power is one firmly rooted in conservatism, both today and historically. That’s your baby Sunshine, not mine!

        1. Where’s my baby at?

        2. In other words he is not on your team. We get it. But don’t look away from Santorum because when you look hard liberals will see themselves. You just don’t like him culturally. He is crude and goes to church. But at heart his values are yours. You both value the collective over the individual and you both long to be a part if some greater good you both want to save the world. The rest is just details.

          1. “because when you look hard liberals will see themselves”

            Oh nonsense. Liberals and Santorum might agree that government should not be limited by the libertarian non-coercion principle, but that’s about all they agree on, and that’s a lot of details for the Devil to reside…

          2. “In other words he is not on your team.”

            You might as well argue that Santorum’s war stance against Iran is ridiculous, since aside from his choice of divinity, he’s got so much in common with the mullahs.

        3. From now on mng Ian going to refer to you as a “Santorum Liberal”. It fits too well not to stick

          1. You seriously must be typing on a tablet with auto-correct enabled.

          2. You’re just mad that your party is offering someone up who is so objectionable to the folks here that you so desperately want to like you.

            Like I said, this is your conservative baby John, I’m not taking him for you because he’s so ugly you don’t want to claim him.

          3. Actually John, I believe that minge said that he’d vote for Ron Paul over Obama.

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I remember.

            1. Johnson, Paul, Obama, not voting, then the Rest of the GOP field tied, is the order of my preferences.

              This brings an interesting question up: who are you going to support John? You’re already on record as ridiculing Paul’s foriegn policy (and you style yourself as a “national security conservative”) and have said you agree with Obama’s basic Bush policies on that matter and you’ve ridiculed Paul’s assertions that most of the federal government’s current activities are unconstitutional. You’ve sworn off Gingrich and Romney. So who’s your man?

              1. Guess he’s a Santorum-Conservative.

    3. Dealt with.

      Not like it matters. Idiots are still trying to erect strawmen dismantled by Bastiat in 1850.

    4. Libertarianism is an extreme form of individualism, in which personal rights trump every other social goal and institution.

      Imagine a society in which personal rights trump every orther social goal and institution.

      How would that society be a horrible place to live?

      1. Think of all the externalities?

    1. Egypt chat?

    1. The only good commie is a dead commie. That applies to Hugo Chavez doubly.

      1. Working on it. These things take time.

  40. Another Deep Thinker,

    Brought to us by,

    A Proposal to Occupy Virtual Public Spaces – A Plan for OWS-VPS

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..or-OWS-VPS

    1. How do we create an “Occupy Wall Street – Virtual Public Spaces” wing? We do it by flooding the comments and LTE pages of every on-line version of our state and local newspapers, new virtual publication, every internet magazine, and every blog in the country. By broadcasting our message into virtual public space, we can even begin to get the message into the ultimate “space” of the public: the space in their heads, the space in their consciousnesses.

      In other words, trolling.

    2. Because getting half of America to hate you is not enough already, we’re opening up the flood gates so all may partake in the lameness that is our movement.

      1. I think the people who do shit like this actually believe that when others see their “plight” they will become sympathetic to them.

  41. The government CAN serve all the people if we restore democracy and turn back the corporations, churches and military industrial complex that has undermined our democracy, our rights and our country for decades.

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNGGGGGGGGGGGGG

    Try harder.

  42. http://crookedtimber.org/2012/01/07/kafkaesque/

    Register your pregnancy with the government now!

    1. The article indicates that the President is suspect to Catholics and Evangelicals because of her unclear view of abortion. She may be trying to clear up doubts by endorsing a pregnancy registry.

      But such a registry need not be prolife – China probably has one, and not for antiabortion purposes, either.

  43. Bitches for Ron Paul, bitchez!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..ElnHKTk6Q#!

    1. When I heard that some whores were endorsing Paul, I thought that Romney, Gingritch and Santorum had dropped out of the race and endorsed the good doctor. Then I learned it was just a bunch of sex workers in Nevada. What a disappointment.

      1. A few Nevada sex workers for Paul is still a plus!

  44. Today’s insane Twitter-bot thread. Key phrase: “I don’t eat my friends tra”. Word

    avoqezupic Cleavland Toman : U say u dnt care bout my feelings….fuk you and i u die of terminal dick/vagina cancer

    avoqezupic Cleavland Toman : Need119 frm 56

    avoqezupic Cleavland Toman : blood money

    avoqezupic Cleavland Toman : Those who send anonymous “I would love to befriend you and stuff” 6aib why are you anonymous ya5i? I don’t eat my friends tra.

    avoqezupic Cleavland Toman : #SSN “Breaking news, #QPR put in a ?5mil bid for Samba” …it was ?6mil yesterday…and they want ?10mil…. SORT IT OUT.

  45. And you gotta respect this guy:

    Art Of War
    @ArtOf_War
    Art Of War is my favorite book, I will try and tweet the entire book

    A life’s mission – Sun Tzu be with you, my son!

    1. Wow. He’s setting his sights real high.

  46. It can’t be a bad day when you find Olbermann in a snit again:
    “I was not given a legitimate opportunity to host under acceptable conditions,”
    I’ll bet that translates to ‘there was no gaffer to hold my coffee cup’
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…..1MLGG2.DTL

    1. Maybe he was just mad that he couldn’t have naked strippers on his show like Penn Jillette.

    2. How is it that this douche can still be considered by anyone to be worth $10million a year?

      1. Hey, they just want to sell advertising. People probably tune in just to see what stupid shit he’s going to say next.

      2. According to the article, he has an equity interest in the network. So he sorta decides what he ought to be paid.

        1. Hah! A socialist, wanting to get paid big bucks. The ultimate hypocrisy.

        2. Yeah, of course, but then why doesn’t he get $20million? Doesn’t it kinda have to make a modicum of economic sense? Seems like this is a stretch at a financially struggling pissant network like that.

          1. IN,
            Who knows? Maybe he did and Gore as the co-owner told him to stuff it.

  47. NYT covers all the bases.

    The wellspring of this prosperity is not just the Defense Department’s vast payroll, nor just the fat profit margins of its contractors. It is also the Pentagon’s unmatched record in developing technologies with broad public benefits ? like the Internet, jet engines and satellite navigation ? and then encouraging private companies to reap the rewards.

    And as the Pentagon confronts the prospect of cutting its budget by about 10 percent over the next decade, even some people who do not count themselves among its traditional allies warn that the potential impact on scientific innovation is being overlooked. Spending less on military research, they say, could reduce the economy’s long-term growth.

    “If catalyzing innovation is going to be an important part of our economic strategy, then we better be careful how we handle” the military budget, said Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. “I’d like to see a lot less weapons and a lot less focus on them, but it’s not all about that.”

    Without the Pentagon, we’d be living in caves.

    1. [to the All in the Family theme song]

      We could use a man like Henry Stuart Hazlitt to parse between the seen and unseen, again.

    2. http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=601&type=0

      1. This paper concludes that additional federal investment spending is unlikely to have a perceptible effect on economic growth.

      2. Many federal investment projects yield net economic benefits that are small, or even negative. Others yield high returns that would be forgone in the absence of federal involvement, but the number of such projects appears to be limited, and hence their potential impact on growth is small. Increases in federal investment spending that are not targeted toward cost-beneficial projects can reduce growth.

      3. Federal investment spending can displace investments by state and local governments and the private sector. Displacement is likely to be substantial in some cases, such as roads and bridges, which state and local governments have a strong incentive to fund because the benefits accrue primarily to local users. Federal spending that displaces other investment is unlikely to have a positive effect on growth.

      4. Many federal investments are motivated primarily by noneconomic policy goals (such as equality of opportunity, national security, and the advance of scientific knowledge). Others are influenced by political considerations. For those reasons, one cannot expect that federal funds will always be directed toward the most cost-beneficial use, even within those classes of projects that have an economic rationale.

      5. …on balance, the available studies do not support the claim that increases in federal infrastructure spending would increase economic growth.

      6. Although overall investments in education and training contributed substantially to past increases in the productivity of the U.S. workforce, and hence to economic growth, it is not clear that increases in spending on those activities by the federal government would lead to additional growth. Many of the federal education and training initiatives target social goals, such as educational opportunity, rather than workforce productivity. Programs that focus more on economic gains have met with only limited success, and expanding them would offer little assurance of positive economic returns.

      7. First, most federal R&D is mission-oriented and typically cannot be justified by its economic return. Instead, it should be judged on its contribution to the federal mission in question (for example, national defense).

      8. This paper finds that increased federal spending on investment in infrastructure, education and training, and R&D is unlikely to have a perceptible positive effect on economic growth.

      9. Based on the available literature on the economic value of federal investments, CBO finds little ground for optimism about the effects of increased federal spending.

      10. In short, the federal government’s opportunities for making investments that yield economic benefits are limited.

    3. It’s quite likely the internet and GPS wouldn’t have been developed by the private sector, as they’re difficult to monetize in the form we know.

      Of course, the dozen or so “public goods” that have arisen as side-effects don’t quite justify 50 years of defense spending.

  48. John|1.7.12 @ 11:26AM|#
    People acting individually in their own self interests can do some harm. But the harm is limited. When they get together and start working for a noble idea, that is when they start doing real damage.

    Doesn’t that mean that collective action has greater potential for good as well?

    1. And, importantly, John’s assertion here implies that the larger benefits of individual’s acting in their own self interest is limited as well.

    2. His last sentence clearly provides (his idea of) the very answer to the question you are asking of it.

    3. Doesn’t that mean that collective action has greater potential for good as well?

      Not necessarily. Seems like another case of A->B does not imply ~A->~B. Not exactly that, but close enough.

    4. The number of possible “bad” things is orders of magnitude larger than the number of possible “good” things.

    5. No. It’s a lot easier to do harm than good.

    6. The problem comes in when the collective action involved force.

      Voluntary collective action – where people are led by persuasion and cooperation rather than guns, is much more likely to result in good.

      1. I don’t disagree with Hazel.

        robc
        Not necessarily. Seems like another case of A->B does not imply ~A->~B. Not exactly that, but close enough.

        But by what mechanism is one different than the other. It isn’t necessarily true, but without some reason for the asymmetry, I think it is still implied.

        sfc b/cancer
        The number of possible “bad” things is orders of magnitude larger than the number of possible “good” things.

        It’s a lot easier to do harm than good.

        Nope. You’ve got that backwards.

  49. ……..Obama promising massive defense-spending cuts: I know for sure it’s a great time to invest in the defense industry!

  50. anon|1.7.12 @ 11:01AM|#
    Seriously. I’d vote for Newcular Titties over Santorum, and that’s a pathetic choice to be OK with.

    Some choices are not choices.

    1. Between sticking your hand in a deep fryer, and in a running garbage disposal… oh, wait, that also applies to a Santorum/Obama matchup.

  51. Krugabe no like Mittens.

    The real complaint about Mr. Romney and his colleagues isn’t that they destroyed jobs, but that they destroyed good jobs.

    When the dust settled after the companies that Bain restructured were downsized ? or, as happened all too often, went bankrupt ? total U.S. employment was probably about the same as it would have been in any case. But the jobs that were lost paid more and had better benefits than the jobs that replaced them. Mr. Romney and those like him didn’t destroy jobs, but they did enrich themselves while helping to destroy the American middle class.

    If only everyone in America worked for the government and/or belonged to a union. Then you’d be able to buy a decent buggy whip or wooden barrel.

    1. Krugnuts knows full well, if Bain hadn’t restructured those companies, a LOT of people would’ve been out of work.

    2. I wonder – and I’m just spitballing here – if those higher salaries and bigger benefits had anything to do with the compaines’ problems.

    3. The only Mittens I like are cats. tee hee

  52. And if the government nationalized the airlines, flying would be a lot more pleasant and relaxing for the “right” sort of people; like Krugabe.

    1. Team Blue floated a trial balloon a while back, about nationalizing energy providers in America.

      Just a matter of time til we go the way of Hugo Chavez. Especially with a second Obama term.

  53. Another victory for unions.
    Workers of the world unite!

  54. The HuffPo, never disappoint:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..89989.html

    How many of these Democrats are just fine and fuckin’ dandy with drug-testing in general?

  55. Too bad it was the 3rd USS Kidd involved in the rescue. The irony of the 2nd USS Kidd performing the rescue would have been beautiful.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kidd_(DDG-100)

  56. A punk ass gets his clock cleaned, or in this case, his wooden shoes spiffed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

    1. Margaret Hoover was there saying MJ should stay illegal. But she’s “prochoice” on abortion – which, one might think, is more harmful even than the evil weed.

  57. Many federal investment projects yield net economic benefits that are small, or even negative. Others yield high returns that would be forgone in the absence of federal involvement, but the number of such projects appears to be limited vanishingly small

  58. Some of my more heartless opponents who hate the poor would like to end PBS, but they don’t realize it is not a budget issue, it is a moral issue of what we as a society should teach our children so they grow up to be healthy minded citizens. PBS needs to reformed not eliminated. We should start with Sesame Street which teaches our children vile, disrespectful language.

    Here is a video of Elmo, cursing like a sailor:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LEYwoooVfw

    What were those degenerates who run Sesame Street and PBS thinking?!? They should all be fired and replaced with good Christians who place morality and decency first.

    1. Taking the Lord’s name in vain euphemistically, and dressin’ and ramblin’ like an old Hank Williams era country crooner is just how I roll.

  59. Paul and Mozart were Freemasons, & Mozart’s music inspired an Austrian to write Die Fledermaus, proving Paul’s followers are bats.

    1. ….it’s all coming together.

  60. That you for pointing out the sinister connection between Ron Paul and the International Jewish banking Conspiracy. I hope this lays to rest the delusional beliefs among some of his supporters that Ron Paul is in any way an enemy of the Jews.

  61. MNG|1.7.12 @ 12:11PM|#

    My point about taxation is this: you can’t say supporters of government are just doing it to get free checks when most of those supporters pay for the checks.

    Most people who support bigger government expect to get more back for them and their buddies then is stolen from them. If most people in a given group hire thugs to steal from another group, and expect to also suffer some theft, but have an average of $1,000 stolen from them and expect to receive $10,000 in stolen goods, they are not paying for the checks they receive. They are stealing from someone else, and suffering some incident theft themselves.

  62. So I got in a couple hours on motorcycle #3, AND washed the Mustang. AND there are two football games, one of which is the Loser Lions who are actually in the playoffs.

    AND I have not one but TWO Delmonico steaks from Heinen’s (GREAT beef) that I’ll be having once the game starts.

    All in all, that’s a pretty goddamned good day right there. No complaints.

  63. So you’re looking to tar Austrians with guilt by association, and you pick Mozart?

  64. This is like the worst chat room ever.

  65. I appeared a few days ago on PJTV’s Front Page with Allen Barton.

  66. Mark Boal apparently received some level of assistance in their research for the Sony Pictures

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.