Government Spending

Reason Writers on the Air: Matt Welch Disses Mitt Romney's Government-Cutting Cred on Cavuto


On Friday, Jan. 13, Fox Business Network's Neil Cavuto spent nearly five minutes trying to nail down the Matt Welch vote in a two-man election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, with no other possible choices. Within that conversation was a discussion on Romney's (and the Republicans') lack of seriousness about cutting the size and scope of government. Watch below:


NEXT: Sheldon Richman on the Lame Liberal Campaign to Discredit Austrian Economics

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Republicans aren’t serious about supporting capitalism, either. A group of socialists is competing to be the next President of the United States and World Policeman, and Mitt Romney is the leading contender. The others refrain from criticizing him for vastly expanding government involvement in health care when he was Governor of Massachusetts, serving as a role model for President Obama to force everyone to buy overpriced health insurance. Instead, they repeat President Obama’s criticism that Romney fired employees when he managed Bain Capital.…

    1. Well, you’re probably correct in your presumption that one collectivist or another will be elected President. I’d take that bet, if any fool would offer against it. Not that I’m inclined to click your links.

      1. I fully understand the libertarian disdain for Romney, but….

        1) The man has at least some understanding and sympathy for free markets.

        2) He’s far more likely to appoint judges who don’t see the Constitution as a blank slate.

        I think it’s silly to be so purist that one can’t see these crucial differences between Romney and Obama.

        1. I don’t “disdain” Romney, and I’d certainly prefer him over Obama if it comes down to that, as it probably will. Romney measures, say, 20% on the collectivist scale vs. Obama’s 90%.

          1. Exactly. So is Welch such a purist that he can’t detect degrees of collectivism well enough to see the gulf between Romney and Obama?

            1. Feck Romney. Drink! Girls! Arse!

            2. I believe Welch and many others here are still clinging to the very unrealistic hope that somehow Ron Paul will be the Republican candidate. Whether Welch really believes it (privately) only he can say. He wants FOX’s audience and YouTube viewers to believe it. In marketing, one must publicly support the product that one is trying to sell.

              1. Very possibly. But feeding the (not entirely incorrect) perception that libertarians are uncompromising purists does not help win elections.

                1. Politics requires compromise in a representative form of government. That’s why the most intransigent and principled individuals never do well in politics, or stay out of it altogether.

    2. Bi-curious? is designed for bisexual and bi-curious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment. It hopes that all members can make new friends and establish romantic relationships.

  2. Romney does have that Kerry facade

    Change your glasses; I think the color is wrong

    1. Been meaning to do this for almost four years now. Good ones are hard to find!


        You need to let them choose for your profile, and read the face shape chart link.

        Mention you’re on TV/video and they will pick the right lens.

        You should have called Cavuto on the party line sentences

      2. Go for the Spencer Tracy look

        Or maybe the Charles Coburn monocle look. That one’s more appropriate for a libertarian.

      3. good lord, Matt, Cavuto is such an ass, how did you endure that. You should have just told him, “look, I know what you’re trying to do and here’s what I think: Ron Paul voters are not interested in compromise. They want someone of principle. If the republicans want to win, they better pick him in the primaries, because otherwise those votes are going away.”

  3. Cavuto: “If it were between Romney and Obama, who would you vote for?”

    Welch: “I’d vote for a third-party candidate.”

    Cavuto: “Yeah, but what if were just Romney and Obama?”

    Welch: “?”

    Cavuto: “Just tell the audience to vote Republican.”

  4. “The Republican version of John Kerry.”

    Nice, Matt. Cavuto’s reaction was beautiful.

  5. Matt, worry some folks…naive, if not dangerous…Ralph Nader

    You had plenty of time to call him on his bull; he steered the conversation to make his points, yours were lost in your French etiquette;

    Show some balls, pretend you’re talking to me  

  6. Life is short,We always need passions!
    SeekCasual*COM, a place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship.And also for finding soul mates.Over 160000 honest members with real photos and detailed profiles.Sign up free and have a try!Nothing to lose!




    3. That’s not your name.

      1. Is your mom on the site, stacy?

  7. Why was there an advertisement for a Department of Justice wood wall plaque for $100 from on the main Hit&Run; page? Don’t they know the only thing people here would use that for is target practice and we can get targets a hell of a lot cheaper than that.

    1. I love getting those ads. I’ve been seeing a lot of the Alan Grayson solicitations, which is extra funny to me as I live in Virginia right now. I click on them every chance I get in an effort to pull money from their pocket and fractionally into Reason’s.

      1. There are ads here? I see the “Try Reason FREE on your e-reader!” but there are other ads?

  8. Judge rules that Gingrich, Huntsman, Santorum and Perry will not be included on Virginia’s primary ballot…..ia-ballot/

    1. The salty ham tears at FreeRepublic are particularly delicious.

    2. Judicial activism strikes again!

  9. Is Cavuto always so annoyong? Jeez…

    1. Yes, he is. He’s the number one douch at Fox and that is truely an accomplishment. Clueless as well which makes it all the worse.

      1. Yes, the stoopid was very strong with him. Matt was way too nice.

      2. Hannity isn’t on Fox any more?

      3. Dude, there are SEVERAL bigger douches at Fox than Cavuto.

        Unless O’Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Wallace, Kristol, and Krauthammer all died in a plane crash overnight (please please).

        1. Like I said. One hell of an accomplishment. While a strong case could be made for all of the above, IMO Cavotu is the winner.

          1. agreed. O’reilly is an ass, but not a douche. Hannity is a prick, but not a douche. Hume, Wallace, Kristol and Krauthammer are generally milder.

            1. .. O’reilly can be a douche, but usually he’s either completely correct (10% of the time) or an ass (75% of the time)

        2. Back when I had cable I liked Shepard Smith, he seemed like a pretty cool and fair guy. The rest of the ones you mention are indeed a-holes, though.

          1. I grudgingly respect Shep.

            1. Shep Smith always looks baked which goes with the rumors I’ve heard of him being a huge pothead.

              1. not a condemnation because I’m a pothead.

                1. A pothead working at Fox must get props simply for dealing daily with the irony and cognitive dissonance.

                2. Yeah, I’d say so.

                  You tellin’ me he doesn’t have any pants on? It’s a hot day. There it goes Whoop-de-do… He’s about outta go juice. Judges in our studio have given him an 8.9 for that jump. Sir, get out of me and give me back to the man who used to treat me properly. Hello? Knocking on the window, please come out… Sir, it’s over, get out… we have other news. Luckily we have 24 hours in the news day.

    2. Have you ever seen him ‘interview’ Donald Trump?

      Trump: Teh CHINEEEZE!!!!!

      Cavuto: *nods head reverently* so as not to show any disrespect to the Donald.

  10. What an ass. Nonsense hypothetical piss me off. If hypothetically 11 months from now all third parties and independents are abolished, which jackass to vote for is going to be the least of my worries.

    1. Matt should of pointed out that in the hypothetical two person race between Obama and Romney, there’s not really any effectIve difference, so what would it matter?

      Then, while Cavuto is gobsmacked, explain how they’re the same.

      1. Then, while Cavuto is gobsmacked, explain how they’re the same.

        I’d love to see that, particularly because it would represent Reason finally justifying the oft-repeated claim that they’re equally bad. Which, you know, they haven’t done yet.

        And don’t give me the “Romney paved the way for Obamacare” crap. Justifying that requires proof that Obamacare would have been less likely to happen if MassCare hadn’t, and I’ve seen zero evidence of that.

        1. Isn’t “Obama-care” pretty much the same thing that Bob Dole suggested when the Democrats were trying to push through the Clinton healthcare thing back in the early 90’s? The current incarnation of health care reform started with the GOP.

          1. Well then that just makes it all okey-dokey doesn’t it?

            Stupid ass troll.

            1. It’s relevant to the claim that Romney invented Obamacare, since he was a missionary in 1993, not a politician.

        2. Try to find one example of Romney standing up to the civil service… You can’t. He’ll be their bitch just as much as Obama is.

          The durg raids will continue. The drone attacks will continue. The treasury department will continue to whore out to Goldman Sachs. The EPA will continue to strangle commerce.

          All the powerpoint warriors will need to do is to show Mittens nice convincing spreadsheets that “show” how their desired policy will imrove GDP, crime, Al Queda attritions by .5% etc and he’ll be on board.

  11. Wow, Matt, what an annoying conversation that must’ve been. The whole time, Cavuto was trying to get you to basically agree, yeah yeah, all that talk of liberty and limited government to the side, Romney’s better than Obama, amirite?

    A friend of mine had a great response back in 2004 when someone asked him, “If someone put a gun to your head and said you had to pick Bush or Kerry, who would you pick?” His answer: “I’d take the bullet.”

  12. If that were the real Matt Welch, he would insist on scratching his nipples off and slowly bleeding to death in the voting booth.

  13. OT:

    In the morning links, there was the mention of Colbert’s fake primary run in South Carolina. I was just wondering, for those out there who, at least initially, found the show entertaining, when did you consider it to jump the shark?

    I think I’ve narrowed it down to 3 possibilities:

    1) Before 2005: The kind of person Colbert parodies (the primetime Fox News pundit) was already a joke BEFORE The Colbert Report ever debuted. Colbert has been wasting his time either running a joke into the ground or trying desperately to discredit Fox News.

    2) The 2006 midterm elections/2008 presidential election. Kinda makes it less cool when the people you’ve supported are put in power and the world is still shit, am I right?

    3) The Colbert Christmas Special. The Toby Keith “War on Christmas” carol was epic.

    1. I hardly ever watch his show, but I still think it’s funny when I do catch it. More for the silliness than any political insight he may think he’s providing.

      1. That’s basically my take on the show. I can still enjoy it, but it’s mainly the non-political humor I enjoy.

        1. I watch about half the Colbert Show and Daily Show. When they get too lefty advocacy or get an annoying government person on, the fast forward gets deployed.

          But, they’ve had moments that were so funny I was laughing with tears running down my face, in particular Stewart imitating Glenn Beck. So, I keep watching.

          1. This takedown of Froma Harrop and her Civility Project yesterday (at around the 8 minute mark) was fucking hilarious for her cluelessness and inability to get irony or grasp her doublespeak.

            1. I just watched that too. It has too be staged right? I mean no one can be that lacking in self awareness! Right?!? Fuck me.

              1. I know, Tea Partiers are so clueless!

            2. That shit was epic.

            3. The segment on Newcular at the beginning was pretty good as well. Nothing is going to beat the Froma piece, though.

              1. Kink of Kwanza:) Classic. LOL:)

                1. King not Kink:)

    2. While I’m on the topic of “Jump the Shark,” I think we can all agree that The 700 Club jumped the shark after the Heavy Metal-hysteria craze died down.

      Oh, they tried to introduce gimmicks like “Abortion” or “Presidential Blowjobs” or “Muslim Terrorists” or “War on Christmas”, but the writers never got back to what made us love the characters.

  14. well originally i felt a little grudge about the fact that reason weren’t with us since the beginning when we were still in the high single digits.. not until when we were in the high teens did reason begin start showing more backing toward the paul campaign, and only after he went over 20% in two states did many people come out in full force..

    but looking at the fact that many self professed libertarians support romney and even gingrich, and i turned to my local news channel just now and saw this self proclaimed ‘libertarian republican’ supporting romney and the anchor asks him why not ron paul, he says “i like paul, but he is too ‘ideological'”. it’s amazing to see the array of excuses people can find to not support someone above 75% libertarian by any standard, ranging on “he’s not 85%+ hence not good enough”, and now “his solutions are too ideological”.. it’s amazing what passes for libertarian these days.

    when put in proper perspective, it does draw a stark contrast and makes one think differently and appreciate those that do come around, perhaps not as early as me and others would like, but at least people at reason are on the bandwagon now. rest assured that credit is given where due.. and there is still a lot lying around to be given. there will indeed come a time when we go well beyond a critical mass, and these johnny come lately beltway libertarians don’t get much appreciation for being the last ones on the bus, that i have no doubt.

    1. but for the time being i would just like to thank everyone for the effort they have contributed. great work here too matt.

    2. The ‘libertarian republican’ usually means Eric Dondero, a disgruntled former Paul staffer, a neocon.

      1. DONEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!ONE!!!!

      2. He wouldn’t have said “I like Paul, but…” He would have said, “He hates Israel!!!!!1111!1!1!!!!”

    3. Far be it from me to keep Paulites from playing their favorite victim card, but many Reason writers have been writing positively about Ron Paul for years.

      1. This.

        It never occurs to them that a publication that dare occasionally print non-fawning things about Ron Paul may have more credibility when they promote him. And they do promote him a lot, obviously.

        1. Well yeah, that’s the difference between a libertarians and a follower in a cult of personality.

          1. would just like to point out that a voting record of 30 years, returning unspent budget to treasuries each year and everything else is all about personality. libertarianism doesn’t say anything about corruption and character, when you voting yay or nay doesn’t affect the overwhelming opposition.

        2. Yuuuuuuuuup!

          I really do hate that douchebag from Storage Wars, but it seemed appropriate here.

          There is definitely some criticism of Paul on reason, and for good cause. But to say that reason, as a general rule, hasn’t overwhelmingly supported Paul for YEARS is disingenuous at best. To be critical of certain positions or past episodes does not constitute a “hit piece” as so many have called them, but, as Bee Tagger notes, actually gives the publication a level of credibility not possible if everything they wrote about him were blind to reality (which is that Paul is not a strict libertarian in any sense, and that some of his policy positions are not all libertarian, all the time). Is Paul the best hope we have in the very near term? Absolutely. And to point out ideological flaws doesn’t change that, and should be ENCOURAGED, not denigrated as some sort of character assassination.

          1. Paul is not a strict libertarian in any sense

            No one is a strict libertarian, since libertarians themselves disagree about some important issues (eg abortion, immigration, foreign policy, gay marriage)

            1. This is true.

              But it is pretty plain that, on some issues, Paul is more a of a Constitutionalist than a libertarian.

              1. Im not sure those are, or can be, in conflict.

                Libertarianism is a political theory, constitutionalism (or federalism) is a governing theory.

                Political systems are enacted inside the governing system, some fit better with each other than others.

                Libertarianism could exist within a federal republic (like we have) or in a parliamentary system or etc.

                1. Libertarianism could exist within a federal republic (like we have) or in a parliamentary system or etc.

                  I would prefer a libertarian dictatorship to a statist democracy.

              2. I don’t think that’s quite right. His principles are libertarian, but he also believes the plain meaning of the Constitution should be adhered to, as it represents the supreme law of the land.

  15. Not News: Famous transman comes out as gay

    I’m not usually a follower of celebrity news. I don’t belong to Twitter, don’t watch Entertainment Tonight except by accident, and would rather eat worms than read a National Enquirer or People Magazine.

    In recent weeks, Stephen Ira Beatty has caught the attention of the international press.

    Stephen Ira has a blog, called Supermattachine.

    His most recent post is “I’m sorry, I just can’t get your pronouns right!” Yes, you can. You just won’t.

    I once had a long conversation with a highly educated cis man about pronouns. I know him to be absolutely brilliant. He was an official at a school. He told me that I had to understand, that the cis people (everyone else) at my school couldn’t get my pronouns right because I wasn’t “masculine” enough for them to associate male pronouns with me. As I do now, I dressed like a cute gay boy. As I do now, I gesticulated often and acknowledged the fact that I was capable of bending my wrists and hips. I talked openly about my interests in dance, poetry, and cute boys.
    He acknowledged that this was fucked as hell, albeit in nicer language, because he was at least gender-positive enough to believe that men shouldn’t have to like football and beer and women shouldn’t have to like pink dresses and fluffy bunnies. But instead of attempting to educate these people?which he could have done, as he was in a position of extremely high authority?he asked me to accept their sexist, homophobic, and cissexist perspective on gender. I was the one who needed to change, not them, although he openly acknowledged that they were wrong. During this conversation, I was in tears, because I was having regular panic attacks during the school day. They were happening because of persistent and unapologetic mispronouning. (Keep in mind, I was a sixteen-year-old kid. Sixteen-year-olds are not known for their emotional maturity, and we shouldn’t ask them to be as mature as or more mature than adults.)

    Anyhoo, Stephen Ira has been in the news the past few days.


    Stephen Ira has revealed that he has a boyfriend.

    On December 22, Stephen Ira (@supermattachine on Twitter) tweeted:

    @SmartAssJen Oh! Haha, yeah, I’m trans and I’m gay. Double the fun!

    And a transguy with a boyfriend is gay and that doesn’t fit with the image that the majority of people have with transpeople, who prefer to believe that we go through gender reassignment in order to heterosexualize our relationships.

    Generally speaking those are the same people who think that transgender is a “sexual orientation”.

    That’s just not true. Many of us have no idea when we start transition how that transition will affect our sexual attraction. Being a transsexual lesbian myself (meaning that I have a female partner), most of the transwomen I personally know are also lesbians (or bisexual) and most of the transmen I know happen to be gay.

    It has been estimated that, in fact, 1/4 of transpeople identify as gay or lesbian after transition, 1/4 identify as straight, 1/4 identify as bisexual, and the remainder identify as Other (asexual, polysexual or pansexual). Personally, I don’t get polysexuality or pansexuality, and some people consider me therefore to be a sexual binarist. I’ll cop to that.

    Now his boyfriend has made him a pair of socks as a gift for his birthday.

    From The Daily Mail:

    ‘So yeah. Queer Christmas: stressful, especially if people are trying to take your picture because they are interested in the confluence of your gender identity and your parentage.’
    Stephen is one of four children the Oscar winning sex symbol [Warren Beatty] has with his wife of the last 19-years [Annette Benning].

    They have another two daughters, Isabel and Ella, and a son Ben.

    Firebrand Stephen was recently embroiled in a war of words with Chaz Bono, who he branded a ‘mysogonist’ after he claimed being transgender as effectively having a ‘mismatched’ brain and body, akin to a ‘birth defect like a cleft palate’.

    Warren’s son said in his blog: ‘[Chaz] has appointed himself as the representative of a group of people who are not all like him.

    ‘He has said misogynistic… things about gender. I take particular issue with his comments on trans embodiment and on women.’

    Use of the word “another” above, was, of course, totally inappropriate. Beatty and Benning have two sons and two daughters. Disavowing that ought to cause The Daily Mail to lose their license to print “news”.

    Of course, it won’t.

    From RadarOnline:

    “I do not have a birth defect. If you feel like you have a birth defect, fine. That’s how you feel. Go feel that,” Stephen wrote.
    “Do not put it onto me. Do not define me that way, and do not define other trans people that way unless they claim that label.

    “It’s beyond that, though. Chaz is a misogynist. He is a trans man who seems to believe that his female-assignedness and his female socialization makes him immune from being a misogynist, and he is manifestly wrong.”

    He continued, “This man doesn’t represent our community… The next time you hear Chaz’s name brought up in a conversation about trans issues, point out the things he’s said about surgery, ‘birth defects,’ and women.

    Recently the Beatty family celebrated Stephen’s bravery.

    Personal emotion: “Bravery” in this context makes me cringe. Is it really bravery to grow into oneself? Is it really brave to choose to live rather than die?

    But that’s probably just me.

    1. I wanted to know the important info -shoe size

    2. Personal emotion: “Bravery” in this context makes me cringe. Is it really bravery to grow into oneself? Is it really brave to choose to live rather than die?

      Yes, it is bravery if expressing one’s true self involves facing the very real possibility of physical harm. Yes it is bravery to chose to live a life where one is considered a second-class citizen due to one’s gender and/or sexual orientation.

      1. I agree with Heller; was this predicted for the 2012 end of the world?

    3. Maybe people can’t keep track of your pronouns because it takes a fucking wall of text for you to explain the problem.

      Guess what? I’m going to use the first pronoun that comes into my head, as the fucking spirit moves me. If you don’t like that, feel free to “correct” me. Of course, whenever people try to “correct” me, it’s likely I’ll tell them to fuck off – but hey, I could just give you a return wall of text about how telling you to fuck off is an essential part of my being and everything, so then that will mean you’ll just have to shut up and take it. Right?

      1. “I will also extend faddish Marxist group identifications to insane hairsplitting lengths, invent words like ‘cissexist,’ and expect the rest of the world to learn my ideologically-inspired terminology even though it couldn’t possibly apply to more than a handful of people in the world.”

    4. “Disavowing that ought to cause The Daily Mail to lose their license to print “news”.

      Of course, it won’t.”

      I am unaware that the Daily Mail has a license to print news to lose. If it did, it certainly should not lose it for refusing to cater to everyone’s personal issues as that person prefers. A person with two X chromosomes and no genetic abnormalites is still a female, no matter how male she feels she is. If living as a male makes her happy, fine, but no one else is required to validate her self image.

    5. This poor man has suffered through so much microaggresion!

      Also, can microagression be fast tracked for the drinking game?

    6. [golf clap]

      A little long on the backswing, but nice follow-through.

  16. Vicious regressive racist Ron Paul’s Stormfront style campaign annihilated by the brilliant Tim Wise:…..-liberals/

    1. Reading that guy’s bullshit must be what a hemmrhoid feels like.

    2. I’d love to see him debate Ward Connelly or Thomas Sowell.

  17. “two-man election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, with no other possible choices”

    I would vote for the winner, by not wasting my time to vote. If someone threatened me into voting, I would ask if I could at least toss a coin.

    1. Yeah, but, ummmm…

      OH yeah! There are terrorists with a bomb and THERE’S NO TIME TO FLIP A COIN!

      Red wire, or blue wire? PICK, YOU COWARD!!

      1. “But if all the third party candidates were simply Romney or Obama in disguise…”

        “Or what if the third-party candidates all died in a nuclear explosion?”

        “If the major-party candidates each promise to give you a million dollars tax-free?”

        “If the Joker dropped them both into deadly pit-traps and you could only rescue one of them?”

        1. I’d actually like to see the last question asked.

          I would answer “neither”, but I’m a horrible person.

          1. “Neither, and I’d try to bang Harley Quinn.”

        2. I’d vote Joker 2012

    2. ? If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice ?

      1. Yes, but you didn’t choose either of them. There’s ALWAYS a third option.

        1. But the third option has the same effect as not voting at all.

          1. So do the first two.

  18. If you had to vote for either the rape Neil Cavuto’s Mother Party and the Rape Neil Cavuto’s Sister Party, which one would it be?

    1. I’d mix it up and just fuck you in the eye socket EDH.

      1. bah, *EVH

    2. So, you’re totally OK with Cavuto’s sister being raped?

  19. New pill can theoretically eliminate the negative externalities of drinking such as hangovers and drunken driving, yet some nannies at the mother nature network see this as a bad thing, and ONLY useful to those who are seeking to rid themselves of the evil disease of drinking.

    It’s certainly easy to imagine how such a drug could be abused. Drinkers could become intoxicated, then take a pill when it comes time to drive themselves home. Hangovers would also no longer be a deterrent to imbibing. But for those struggling to overcome an alcohol addiction ? not to mention the 2.5 million people who are estimated to die every year due to alcoholism ? the drug could be a godsend and well worth the risks.

    God forbid we have a scientific means of helping eliminate drunk driving with a simple pill, or that we end the scourge of the epic hangover. That would be bad. The only good that can come from this technology is to help them quit drinking in the first place.

    Goddammit I fucking hate nannies.

    1. It’s certainly easy to imagine how such a drug could be abused. Drinkers could become intoxicated, then take a pill when it comes time to drive themselves home. Hangovers would also no longer be a deterrent to imbibing.

      Do they ever explain exactly how this would constitute “abuse”?

      Never mind, I’m sure I already know the answer.

      No, I will not RTFA.

      1. Using it to eliminate the externalities in and of itself IS the abuse.

        The ONLY good that can come of this drug would be to use it to “cure” people from drinking at all.

        These are the worst kinds of nannies.

        They don’t even elude to the idea that something like this might have externalities of its own, such as the possibility for using this pill as an excuse to drink heavily every night which, over LONG periods of time, MIGHT help contribute to a greater number of cirrhosis cases.

        But even if that were the case, it’s NO ONE ELSE’S FUCKING BUSINESS.

        1. That page has a MillerCoors ad asking people to “take the pledge,” but it turns out to be a recycling pledge. The ad talks about new ways to wash your car, but I think they’re talking about using water, not using their product.

          1. That’s too bad, because that’s about all their product is good for.

            1. I thought I’d leave it to you to apply the coup de grace.

          2. Old joke-

            Q: How is a Coor’s Light like sex on the beach?

            A: They’re both f’in near water.

      2. I don’t think you can dispute the fact that alcoholism is extremely destructive to the alcoholic, even without hangovers and drunk driving.

        Now, that doesn’t justify coercion, but it certainly qualifies as abuse.

        1. She doesn’t say “alcoholics using the pill to let themselves drink even more and still function” would be abuse.

          She says that if a drinker (which to me means any drinker, including the person who has a couple of glasses of wine in a restaurant once a year) takes the pill so they can safely drive, it’s abuse.

          It seems to me that would be the perfect, quintessential non-abusive use of the drug.

          1. If it’s enabling alcohol abuse, it’s abuse.

            1. So an alcoholic using a fridge to keep his beer cold is abuse?

          2. I mean, if someone who usually drinks responsibly goes over his limit at his best friend’s wedding, and then takes this pill to avoid the aftereffects, that’s one thing.

            If a person who previously didn’t drink too much because of the aftereffects now gets wasted every night because they have a pill to take care of it, that’s another.

            It’s like the effect of contraception on sexual activity. You don’t think women aren’t on average easier in the contraceptive era, do you?

            1. Because there are no situations other than a responsible friend drinking at his best friend’s wedding and an alcoholic.


              But again, you’re ignoring the obvious point. Even if this pill MIGHT lead someone to be more self destructive in their drinking habits, how does that in any way mitigate the overwhelming positives that would be the result of reduced drunk driving?

              Your POV is the same as the nanny author of the article. That any positive externalities of the pill are risks to be “suffered”.

              1. Tulpa’s argument is the exact same as the gun-control nannies. The gun and that pill are both tools that can be used responsibly and irresponsibly.

                So fucking what?

                1. Only if you ignore the fact that I said “it doesn’t justify coercion”.

                  The nannies aren’t merely opining that having guns around is a bad choice, they want to use force to prevent that choice.

            2. …and that’s why Tulpa supports the return of prohibition.

    2. As I sit here this morning, nursing a vodka hangover, I pray for this pill.

      1. Even if I had one, I couldn’t give it to you.

        You might abuse it, you know. And we just can’t have that.

  20. Got to love the conservative guilt trip that Cavuto attempts about not wanting to vote for Romney or Obama.

  21. Stupid hypothetical aside, Obama v. Romney would be a straightforward choice – whichever would most likely lead to divided government. Right now, it’s highly likely the Republicans maintain control of the House, and have a decent shot at the Senate. In this case, I’d vote Obama. Of course, given Obama’s penchant for dictatorial powers, this choice becomes more difficult.

    1. Voting for gridlock is a tricky thing. Back in 2006 we were told (by libertarians) to vote Dem to get gridlock rather than unified GOP governance.

      Kind of backfired with the lanky messiah taking office in 2009, didn’t it?

      Likewise, a strategery of voting BO this time around could backfire big time if the Dems get Congress back in 2014.

      1. There is NO WAY that I would ever vote for BO.

        It’s Paul if he’s the Team RED nominee, otherwise it’s 3rd party (preferably Johnson).

      2. Good thing more than one person gets to vote then huh.

    2. An Obama worried about re-election is bad enough. I don’t want to find out what an Obama without that concern is capable of. Plus, SCOTUS picks. That pretty much makes it a no-brainer to me, divided government or no. Besides, even if the Republicans take over Congress this year, that could easily change in just two years. Obama plus a Democratic Congress gave us Obamacare. No thanks.

  22. Uh Oh! Cavuto says you’re not pragmatic. That tears it; I better vote for Romney.

  23. Unless Johnson or whoever the LP candidate is breaks 25% in the polls, it really is a worthless vote to vote for him.

    So, you can respond to that by hitting the pavement and going door to door to try to increase GJ’s support to that level, or you can vote for the best of two evils.

    1. Was it 25% some magical number? McCain was in the 40%s and every vote for him was wasted.

      1. Gore got MORE votes than Bush in 2000, and every vote for him was a wasted vote.

        1. It’s wasted given the knowledge we have now. It wasn’t wasted given the knowledge they had on election day 2000.

          Barring a huge electoral shift, a vote for the LP will be a waste given the knowledge we have in November 2012.

      2. 25% is the bare minimum. Below that you have no shot of winning even in a three-way race.

    2. Ugh, that argument sickens me. Why not everyone vote their conscience instead of playing this game theory bullshit where you have to vote for the lesser of two evils? In the end, how can you know that you actually did vote for the lesser evil until it’s too late?

      1. Agreed. In virtually every election in history, no person cast a vote that affected the result of the election. If an inability to get a third-party candidate elected is reason enough not to vote for a third-party candidate, it is reason enough to not vote at all.

        1. If anyone here hasn’t seen it, read this.

          1. You know he doesn’t consider himself Libertarian? Do you have to return your decoder ring or will your pinky suffice for the offense?

            1. Not that it’s relevant (I wasn’t sure until I looked it up just now – it doesn’t matter in this instance), it looks like you’re wrong.

    3. So what if he causes Romney to lose to Obama. Like Romneys any different than Obama, Maybe The GOP might start to figure out that if they want to continue to exist they need to kick the neocons to the curb and stop promising to start a new war every few years. Stop the gay bashing, stop the war mongering, stop talking about abortion since you’re not going to do anything about it anyways and win every election. Even a maroon could figure it out. It’s not that frackin’ complicated.

      1. I’m starting to subscribe to this form of thought.

        It’s obvious that Team BLUE and libertarianism are completely irreconcilable. Team RED and libertarianism have some common ground (at least in theory). I like the start of changes happening in some of Team RED (the Ron Paul surge and strong following, for instance). What it seems like we need is to have Obama elected again, hopefully pushing MORE people toward libertarianism.

        It’s a thought anyways.

        1. Well pre-neocon era , NOT being policeman of the world was a popular team red concept. The further we can push both teams toward libertarian ideas the better.

        2. And if we let the Dems control the federal government for the next 20 years, it would convert even more Republicans to libertarianism! Great strategy.

          Of course, there is the small concern of the irreparable damage the Dems are wreaking on our nation every day they have any power at all.

          1. If Romney was any different than Obama I might have a different opinion about it. If it was maybe Paul Ryan or someone who actually believed in a limited government than I would say yeah, if Paul has no chance you need to make sure Ryan defeats Obama, but instead the GOP gives us Obama clones in Romney and Huntsman, and arrogant asshole douchbag pieces of shit like Santorum and Gingrich. I won’t even talk about since he’s populist pandering is getting him nowhere fast. Fuck them, if they don’t want to lose stop running losers. I don’t see how the damage is going to be any less with Romney in charge.

            1. talk about Perry, kinda funny I actually didn’t

  24. Of course, there is the small concern of the irreparable damage the Dems are wreaking on our nation every day they have any power at all.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  25. Yep, you have to admit that is some pretty lame stuff dude.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.