A Re-elected Obama Wouldn't Be the End of Liberty

Whatever happens in November, the work will have to go on.


Editor's Note: This column is reprinted with permission of the Washington Examiner. Click here to read it at that site.

I yield to nobody in my conviction that Barack Obama's presidency has been a disaster for the Republic. Last week, in this space, I even suggested that some of his offenses rose to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Yet, try as I might, I can't convince myself that the 2012 election is a "hinge of history," and it's "game over" for liberty unless he's defeated. If Obama wins, the fight goes on; if he loses, don't pop the champagne corks just yet.

Consider that, since FDR, few second-term presidents have been capable of great mischief. Obama may have done most of the real damage he's capable of already.

Of course, there's still the matter of undoing the grave damage that's been done.

Mitt Romney has promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare (for which Romneycare served as a model) if he's elected. Obama's veto would be a serious obstacle to repeal, though not necessarily a fatal one, depending on what happens in the Supreme Court.

I asked Michael Cannon, Cato's health policy guru, "how much can be done with defunding if Obama gets re-elected?" Quite a bit, he says, as the health insurance exchanges "are crucial to Obamacare. If the states refuse to create them, the law says the feds can. But it provides zero funds. And good luck getting them through a GOP House."

Should the GOP take the presidency, unified Republican government will present its own challenges. The late Bill Niskanen, longtime chairman of the Cato Institute, noted that America "prospers most when excesses are curbed, and, if the numbers from the past 50 years are any indication, divided government is what curbs them."

Per Niskanen's calculations, since the end of World War II, unified governments have spent roughly three times as fast as divided ones, and they've been much more likely to waste blood and treasure abroad.

Maybe the days of the "K Street Project" are over, thanks to a Tea Party movement energized by Obama's abuses—but they'll need to keep holding the Red Team's feet to the fire.

As law professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermuele point out in their book "Executive Unbound": "The continuity across presidencies is striking. Richard Nixon respected and advanced liberal Great Society programs … [and] under Reagan, government spending continued its advance."

Obama continued the Bush bailouts, they further note, and he has "retained the main features of virtually every counterterror tool used by the Bush administration."

Indeed, there's something eerily mechanical in the way the modern state steadily expands regardless which party or president holds the office.

Last summer saw the Patriot Act renewed by presidential autopen, just weeks after SEAL Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden. As the terrorist threat receded, the perpetual War on Terror continued, with even American citizens subject to targeting by remote-controlled robot assassins.

In July, one of Washington's perennial budget fights presented an interesting wrinkle: It turned out that, if Congress failed to raise the debt limit by the statutory deadline, the executive branch could not stop spending even if it tried.

Spending would continue, Reuters reported, because Treasury would not be able to "re-program government computers that generate automatic payments as they fall due."

At home and abroad, FedGov is out of control, and it seems there's no manual override switch capable of shutting it down.

As others have observed, our government has become a runaway train—and presidential elections increasingly look like a struggle to determine who gets to sit in front and pretend he's driving.

The point is to derail this juggernaut, and no single election can do that. Whatever happens in November, the work will have to go on.

Examiner Columnist Gene Healy is a vice president at the Cato Institute and the author of The Cult of the Presidency.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on the IRS's Power Grab

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. Obama may have done most of the real damage he’s capable of already.

    Perhaps, especially if you assume that no real change to ObamaCare will clear a Dem filibuster regardless of who is President.

    However, this overlooks the vast amount of damage that can be done by a President with an leftist ideological agenda, a penchant for kleptocratic corporatism, and no compunction at using the regulatory state that is 100% under his control.

    1. However, this overlooks the vast amount of damage that can be done by a President with an leftist ideological agenda, a penchant for kleptocratic corporatism, and no compunction at using the regulatory state that is 100% under his control.

      Read: Romney

      1. However, this overlooks the vast amount of damage that can be done by a President with an leftist ideological agenda, a penchant for kleptocratic corporatism, and no compunction at using the regulatory state that is 100% under his control.

        Read: Romney and in spades.

        I think the line “Mitt Romney has promised to sign a repeal of Obamacare (for which Romneycare served as a model) if he’s elected” is Gene’s polite way of saying “Romney is a lying POS.” I seem to recall Romney clarifying his remark that he didn’t care about the poor by pointing out that he meant there was a social safety net there for the poor and he intended to make sure the net not only stayed there but that he would fix the holes in it. IOW – he would add to the welfare state.

        1. (And that he doesn’t know that a net without holes is like a tree that’s just the right height. Does anybody else think Romney may suffer from complex migraines?)

          1. Is there anything other than assholes, wannabee stand up comics and fuckheads on reason blogs?

            Just asking, because you have to read 25 comments bafore you run into a cogent thought on the topic of the article. Pat yourselves on the back guys, and have fun responding to your own quick wits.
            No wonder Ron Paul is a loser!!! Let your freak flag fly baby!!!

            1. Interesting that after I read 25 comments, the next comment was shrike. What exactly is your definition of a cogent thought?

              BTW – I am an asshole wannabee standup comic fuckhead. I am also fat and stupid and ugly and my mom is a whore. Got a problem with that?

        2. Romney did say something about Obamacare being ok for a state, but not ok for the Federal level because it takes out choice. Easier to move from one state to a freer one as opposed to a new country.

          It’s weaksauce, but a narrow limb he can stand on. If the tards in Masshole land want that crap, let them have it and others will live in free states and try to keep out the Massholes for as long as possible.

    2. Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

      Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame.

      Bloomberg Oct 25, 2011

      1. Bush’s Fault?

      2. Wow – 4.7%!

        1. 5% less.

          Certain paranoid idiot posters here claim “massive power grabs” into “all facets of life” and cataclysmic regulatory overreach!

          5% less.


          1. Bush passed a bunch of regs in response to this little even you might have heard of called 9-11.

            His numbers should be twice that of Obama. What exactly is Obama’s excuse?

            1. Financial meltdown and $13 trillion in lost wealth pissed a lot of Americans off in 2008.

              Far worse than 9/11 insofar as regs are concerned.

              1. this is also based on rules approved. Rules in queue in the writing process for both the healthcare bill and dodd-frank dwarf the ones already approved. Wait two years and I guarantee this metric will be larger for Obama.

                1. Wow! A whole five percent fewer federal rules!

                  Fuck you, shrike.

              2. Only if you are stupid skrike.

            2. Economic regulation increased dramatically under Bush as well, outstripping his predecessors. That had nothing to do with 9/11.

          2. 5% less put into place compared to Bush’s first term, but still a growth in regulation. Regulation didn’t shrink, the growth rate declined by 5%.

            1. Good point, Bulb.

              Watch the resident liberals say “so what?”, though.

            2. A drop of the rate of increase = a decrease.


              1. No, a drop in the total == a decrease. A drop in the rate of increase is just a slower increase.


                (I can’t tell spoof from his reality anymore.)

                1. neither can he. that is why it is all so confusing for you

              2. That’s why we have 4 trillion dollars in new debt despite 2 trillion dollars in spending “cuts”.

                It’s so sad that when Leftys read Orwell they thought he was a textbook writer.

                1. There’s a security camera outside of Orwell’s old residence. Perhaps it keeps people safe from terrorists.

                  It’s sad that Reason seems to be taken over by the same partisan forces that have caused such problems. Did anyone read this piece at all? Having the opposing forces in power helps keep things in check. If we replace a “lefty” government for a “righty” government, we’ll have the same problems.

                  Shrike does have a point, though: Bush, in many ways, is more “lefty” than the current guy. Obama is doing what Dems typically do: there’s big problems in the country, so here comes the government to help. Unfortunately, the guy before him was the same, if not worse, and during his watch some cute gimmicks–like Afghanistan and Iraq being emergency spending–and more funny numbers to support Medicare Part D.

                  But hey, let’s pretend it’s all Obama’s fault.

              3. Liberal tard fails at basic math.

                Abort yourself, fetus-shrike.

          3. Obamacare is thousands of pages that require tens of thousands of unlegislated regulation by unelected bureaucrats to operate.

            That is a glaring fact.

            Bloomberg is a shill for his fascist rulers and intentionally ignoring the monster in the room.

            Even were it not a deceptive statistic that Obama ‘merely’ added as much new regulation as Bush hardly a recommendation of Obama.

            Now if he rescinded, say, just half of Bush’s new regulation that would be reason to commend Obama.

            Ultimately you should examine your position when it boils down to “My guy is not much worse than Bush” lol.

        2. Shrike’s obama boner is like a coke addict trying to justify his issue of cocaine.

          1. shriek is a sockpuppet. I suggest you ignore it.

      3. How many of those regulations are considered economically significant? Isn’t there usually an estimated cost-to-the-economy figure attached?

        1. The number of significant federal rules, defined as those costing more than $100 million, has gone up under Obama, with 129 approved so far, compared with 90 for Bush, 115 for President Bill Clinton and 127 for the first President Bush over the same period in their first terms. In part that’s because $100 million in past years was worth more than it is now due to inflation, Livermore said.


          1. Danke fur der link

          2. So are you giving Obama a pass because of inflation? I thought you said that there wasn’t any inflation going on?

            1. There’s a necessary inflation for government spending, but no real inflation on food, energy or the other items that you folks bitch about.

              1. no inflation on food and energy?
                three years ago gas was $1.87 today its $3.90? Please explain shrike how that is not energy inflation?

                1. The CPI is at less than 1%. And we all know that the CPI is an absolutely perfect indicator of real inflation in the real economy. Because the beneficent gubbament has no incentive whatsoever to devalue its currency.

      4. Shrike, shrike, shrike. I know you can do math. If Bush added 643 regulations to the register and Obama added 613 what does that equal?

        Well the numerical answer is 1256. But the more in depth answer is that is a shit ton of new regulations between two fucking presidents.

        So yes, there have been “massive power grabs” into “all facets of life”. Its just that Bush was a little bit worse about it than Obama (hint: that doesn’t excuse Obama).

        1. You’re right. But other posters and contributors here are saying Obama is a regulatory freak of some type.

          Reality – he is right in the norm.

          1. regulations proposed but no approved yet dwarfs the stated number. Wait till Dodd-Frank and the healthcare bill are done with.

            1. Slurp slurp, shrike.

          2. A) Since when is the Bush administration “the norm” considering all of the massive power consolidation that took place after 9/11?

            B) The nature and cost of the regs in question is an interesting detail as well.

      5. So Obama’s giving America a slow, deep raping as opposed to the rabbit-pounding Bush gave us?

        Gee, thanks. By the by, when’s the “not going to fuck America” option going to appear?

      6. Bloomberg….now there is someone you can trust.

      7. Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News.

        Bullshit. Bush was a deregulator. How can we have two narratives at the same time?

        1. If cognitive dissonance were a problem for liberals there wouldn’t be a Team Blue.

      8. shrike, how does the fact that Bush passed a bunch of regulations refute the proposition that Obama has no compunction about using the regulatory state that is 100% under his control?

        1. I think we’re back to the body count argument.

          The only other option I have here is that shrike will look like one of those old hippies with grey hair who still talks about that lying sonofabitch Johnson and that crook Nixon 40 years after they’re long dead.

          I think the Bush years were shrike’s 60s. He needs Bush the way Hunter S. Thompson needed Nixon.

      9. Because we all know that you measure the strength of a power grab by numbers of regulations.

      10. Oh wow something tobe proud about. Obama approved 30 less federal laws than Bush. Color me unimpressed.

      11. Wow, a whole 4.7% less! I am impressed in no way at all.

        Besides it is not the quantity but the quality as Obama intends to outlaw health insurance that does not include “free” birth control.

      12. It was in bloomberg? Oh, its got to be true!!
        Take the patriot act out and bloomberg goes flacid. Try again please.

    3. Im sorry to bother u all, but I have to say every one should be equal. Im bisexual, feeling helpless, luckily my friend jessica told me a nice place to date bisexual {{{d a t e b i.c/ o /m}}}, there are a lot of bisexual singles and couples looking to explore their bisexuality.I come home now!!!!So I’d like to share my experience with the like minded people, If u r not bi, please just ignore it! Honestly wish all bisexual could come home!! We bi also need your respect then!!!

  2. No doubt Obama will be re-elected. But as long as there’s a nice Republican majority in Congress to prevent him from doing too much more damage, I’m OK with that.

    1. They haven’t prevented anything yet in two years so I think they are useless.

    2. Just like the Dem majority Congress prevented Boosh from pushing through his agenda?

      Yeah, I won’t be holding my breath.

      1. well 2007, there was gridlock and it was the closest year of the decade to a balanced budget and there were no major laws passed. Bush magically found his veto pen, and the dems were still pretending to be fiscally responsible. It wasn’t until the financial crisis that bush allied with the dems to get the bailouts.

    3. Has anyone taken a guess at what the next congress will look like? At this point we can nearly call the presidential race, so why isn’t there more talk about congressional power shifts? It would be a lot more interesting than the endless analysis of who will be the GOP loser in November.

      1. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP still has the momentum and will increase its gains in both houses. Whether that will actually happen is another question. I tend to expect that it will, but the presidential election might affect that.

      2. The conventional wisdom is that the GOP still has the momentum and will increase its gains in both houses. Whether that will actually happen is another question. I tend to expect that it will, but the presidential election might affect that.

      3. The math points to the Repubs taking the Senate – there’s way more Dems up than Repubs, including some in reddish to purple states.

        There isn’t much reason, at this point, to think that the Dems can retake the House.

        1. The LP is taking over both houses!

          No, it’s okay, just a little heat stroke.

    4. Everybody’s assuming the GOP takes back the Senate.

      TBH I’m not sure they even keep the House. It’s a toss-up whether they get the Senate back.

  3. It’s not Obama we need to worry about. It’s all the agencies that have become incredibly emboldened under his administration to make massive power grabs over more and more facets of life, commerce, money, what have you.

    Another four years of that would be absolutely horrific. Just three years so far has been appalling.

    1. Solyndra, Fast And Furious, the Non-death panel death panels, Drone strikes approved for US citizens (hell, use of drones by state law enforcement), the crackdown on Medical marijuana dispensaries, expanded TSA efforts at airports, the war on food, etc. etc. etc.

      All of these are instigated by the Obama admin, but it’s their respective agencies who have gained the most power during his term.

      I shudder to think what would happen if these aforementioned agencies got another four years under this admin.


      1. How would McPalin have been any different?

        1. How would McPalin have been any different?

          No Solyndra, No F&F, sure as hell no Obamacare, Palin admitted that busting people for smoking weed was stupid, etc.

          I agree that the War on Terror stuff would’ve probably been the same and one can easily argue that the TSA stuff would’ve been worse.

          Better off with McPalin, but still plenty of anti-liberty issues I agree. The difference would be that at least the media would call McCain out on this stuff whereas Obama can do whatever the fuck he wants and the media just fights over who gets to slobber over him next.

          1. I’m pretty sure McCain is a global warmer, so he may have supported Solyndra. He’s also a staunch drug warrior, so he may have supported F&F and Palin’s opinion on busting people for weed is irrelevant.
            I believe he would have signed a watered down health care bill as well.

            And I agree about the rest.

            1. McCain would not have been a gigantic improvement on most of those issues I agree, but he wouldn’t have had a free pass from the press on it either.

              Obama could fuck a goat on live television and the goat would become a celebrity over night at this point.

              1. Tman-

                That’s pretty fucking rude.

                I know that Michelle Obama isn’t very attractive, but to call her a goat is really harsh.

            2. Insane McCain would have gone to war with everyone.

              1. Insane McCain would have gone to war with everyone.

                Those damn Tongans!!

                … Hobbit

              2. And Obama hasn’t?

            3. Fast and Furious was a gun control scandal – not a drug war scandal.

        2. Carpet bombings of Iran and Syria.

          1. You sure this still won’t happen with Obama?

        3. Instead of Solyndra we’d have war in Iran. I’m not sure what the war on food thing is suppose to be (Michele has a garden!).

          1. Good thing that won’t happen. Uh huh.

      2. Oh fuck! Solyndra. $500 million into the shitcan.

        How can we go on living?

        1. Sure what is a few billion dollars given to cronies.

          1. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.


            1. Keep slurpin’, shrike.

              1. I wish Barack would stop smoking. It makes his cum taste like ash.

                1. You’re supposed to put it in the ash-hole.

            2. You need to update that to “trillion”.

        2. Yeah I mean after all, Halliburton, Solyndra, GE, Goldman Sachs, it’s all the fascist norm amirite?

          Obama is the norm.

          Hope and change, for the same old fascism, just accelerated a bit.

    2. Is there someone else with a chance of winning who would change that?

  4. But he’s black!

  5. I disagree.
    Oh, that’s not enough for a comment..OK, here is one example of what this BusHitler lite can do:


    He made a seemingly minor change, beyond the atrocious Bush changes, to allow the government to do whatever it takes for defense preparedness even in non-emergency conditions. This defense preparedness covers all aspects of manufacturing and production as it might relate to the government having the goods, energy, and materials it needs in any variety of scenarios. I don’t want to stray too far into WND territory, but..I am anyway. Seems like this sort of thing is what a “New Party” sort of guy would implement as a first stage.

    1. What did that pass the house 388 for?

  6. With over two million Americans in prison, and at least 25,000 of them languishing in ‘supermax’ living sarcophagi;

    with access to some of the most effective pallitive medicine cut off by a runaway war on drugs;

    With civil policing being steadily displaced by paramilitary shock-and-terror commando raids;

    I find it very, very, very hard to take seriously anyone who holds up “ObamaCare” — an incremental bureaucratic overlay on a health insurance system that was already under the total control of a cabal of rent-seeking corporate behemoths — as a the signal threat to our individual liberties.

    I think the “big-L’s” have just stopped caring, and take their talking points straight and unfiltered from GOPac out of sheer laziness.

    1. 2,000+ (or whatever it is) pages of law isn’t exactly what I would call incremental.

      1. the first 1,999 are just ”the’ repeated. (no one read the bill!)

    2. Lesbians? That can’t be right.

    3. Because taking away your dope is a lot more serious than forcing you to purchase something as a condition of your being alive.

  7. My expectation that [insert Rethuglitard] will make any effort whatsoever to roll back anything done in the past eleven years is zilch. In five years it will probably be necessary to get a visa to travel outside your state of residence.

    It was nice while it lasted.

  8. I have a backup plan to leave the country – I just haven’t decided on the destination.

    What country is the most liberty friendly but doesn’t require a bodyguard squad?

    1. You’re living in it, unfortunately.

      1. Harsh, dude. Super harsh.

      2. dammit!

    2. Bingo kindly drew this to my attention re. the expatriation thread from a couple weeks ago. Someone from St. Kitts responded with some interesting info.

      All things considered, it still sounds awfully appealing.

      1. It does. But it costs a fortune.

        1. When you factor in the savings over however many years of paying essentially zero tax you might come out ahead, even with that potential bodyguard squad expense.

          Plus, having your own bodyguard squad could be kind of fun. You could have snappy uniforms designed for them, for example.

          1. Women and their uniform fetishes. Yeah, except that you would, unless you were independently wealthy, have to have a job there. That might be hard.

      2. And how long before the US government show up to police up all of the emigres like Revolutionary France did?

        1. I’m not actually worried about this part – lots of ways to get to Canada from here. And from there – ??

          1. I was going to say Australia with no joke intended. NZ? They both have good economic freedom.

            There aren’t a lot of options, but it depends a lot on what freedoms matter the most to you. Also, w/o a bodyguard squad, St. Kitts might be bad, since it has a terrible homicide rate.

            1. Nunavut.

            2. Seriously? Have you seen our gun laws? Our ‘Carbon Tax/Emissions Trading’ is due to kick in real soon. Economically, we didn’t do as bad as most places over the last few years – primarily due to a boom in the mining sector. So of course, the government decided that miners need to be taxed higher on their ‘super-profits’ so that everyone can have their ‘fair share’.

              I had to use far too many damn quotation marks there. Even with things as they are, I’m still looking for ways to legally immigrate to the U.S.

    3. What country is the most liberty friendly but doesn’t require a bodyguard squad?

      First you need to tell me if you are in possession of a can of iced tea and a bag of Skittles.

      1. Too soon!

        1. The kid could have used a bodyguard squad, right? Hell, just one… I’m sure Malia could have got by with only 23 SS agents. You got to share the wealth around, right?

          1. I was kidding. On the Internet its never too soon.

            1. I know. I am attuned to the emanations of sarcasm in the cosmos.

    4. If you’re willing to exchange the institutionalized repression of the US for petty corruption (which I think is much easier to live with), you should look into Costa Rica, Panama, or Uruguay.

    5. The hard part is finding a place that will let you go sport shooting. Oz and NZ have some pretty brutal gun laws, IIRC.

      … Hobbit

    6. I thought Ireland had come to its’ senses – but it is part of the UK so who knows?

      1. No it isn’t!

  9. I mean, it’s not that I’m sorry you’re here. Oh, you know what I mean.

  10. I think as long as the republicans don’t repeat the mistake the democrats made in 2004 and do something stupid like nominate a wealthy, arrogant Massachusetts liberal they should win in November.

    1. Romney, Kerry, and Dukakis.

      MA should never ever be allowed by the public to nominate a Pres.

      They all suck as candidates since JFK.

      1. Why the Kerry hate, shrike? Going by your Obama slurpage, you should have *loved* Teresa Heinz’ husband being elected Chief Figurehead.

        1. Kerry wouldn’t have receded the oceans and healed the wounds of the nation though…

  11. First term Obama will be a sweet summer breeze compared to Obama 2.0, with no election to worry about in four years and under the delusion that he has a super-duper mandate because of his media-narrated landslide win over a slavering Santorum determined to deliver a theocon win to the dipshit voting block.

    1. But he is not going to run against Santorum. He is going to run against Romney. I think Romney is going to be able to pass the test of “is there a non retarded alternative to Obama”. Sure he will barely pass it. But that is all that will be required to win.

    2. I disagree with your motivation explanation. I don’t think Obama gives a hot shit about “mandates”. Everything he does is politically calculated to get either him or a crony or a supporting voting block or a contributing donor/corporation something. With another four years, we will have more and much bigger Solyndras, GMs, and so on.

      The guy is flat out a complete crook, and with another four years with no chance of relection, he is going to max out what he can squeeze from being the President of the US, which is a lot.

      His presidential pardons at the end of all this should be mindboggling. They’ll probably make Clinton’s look like the height of discretion.

      1. I think you are right. There is one upside to that. He will take the entire thing down and not give a shit. He might actually do so much damage that things have to change.

      2. Oh, the pardons will be hilarious. And the sockpuppets will be here defending every one.

        The mandate, though, is not really for his benefit, but to fool the doughy, listless mid-line of the electorate, who only really pay attention to politics on presidential election years and think what the media tells them to think. And Fox News won’t kick up too much of a fuss so they can preserve the “mandate” story line the next time TEAM RED gets someone in.

        1. Rumor is he wants to trade the blind sheik to the Muslim Brotherhood. Won’t that be a fucking laugh riot.

          1. We should give them Tebow and a secular humanist to be named later.

            1. That is not a bad idea. Tebow is unstoppable. Egypt would be Christian again in no time.

          2. A rumor in your fevered wingneck mind.

            1. Just like he wasn’t going to bomb Libya, and didn’t plan to drone strike US citizens. And close CITMO. Don’t forget that.

              1. Don’t forget “Obama wouldn’t dream of spying on average American citizens”, John.

                1. And that every bill put forward would be put online to be reviewed by the American people before passing…oh wait.

        2. You really can count on both TEAMs to trot out the mandate myth whenever possible.

    3. As long as he doesn’t have a majority in Congress it can’t be all that bad, can it?

      1. What has happened in the last two years?

        1. Legislatively? Not a whole hell of a lot.

          1. We are headed for a fiscal cliff in 2013 or 14. When that happens what then? The plan all along has been to steal as much as possible and force a crisis as an excuse to create higher taxes.

            1. Will electing a Republican change that? I don’t think so.

              Hell, if history is any guide, a Republican would be worse because he’d try to cut taxes while also increasing spending.

              Even if Ron Paul got in there we’d still be fucked, because anything he would propose would be dismissed by Congress out of hand, and the only things that would get done would be by overriding his veto.

              Not to say that that would be a bad thing, but it wouldn’t avert the looming financial crisis.

              1. Romney wants to increase the deficit and reverse Obama’s spending cuts.

                But John, like all aborto-freaks, sucks him off anyway.

                1. What spending cuts?

                  1. Fuck you, idiot.

                    Romney is complaining about Obama’s $500 billion in Medicare cuts and his $1 trillion in sequestered cuts.

                    1. Cuts in the rate of increase are not decreases.

                    2. You mean his decrease in the increase of spending? Lets get fucking real here shrike there are no real spending cuts, just goverment hodoo magic cuts. It’s like saying 2+2 is 5, only fucking retards believe it.

                    3. [Obama’s $500 billion in Medicare cuts ]

                      Good ‘un!

                2. As opposed to Obama who has run up more debt in three years than any President in history. Yet, you still suck his cock.

                  God you are a disgusting little weirdo.

                  1. You’re way too kind to shrike, John.

    4. ^THIS^

    5. Precisely. It’s not like stupid shit is in short supply. Second term will be Stupid Shit 2: Nothing To Lose and the only way it could get worse is if it were directed by Michael Bay.

      1. ‘SPOLSHUNS!

  12. We had liberty when Obama’s term began?

    1. That was the part of the headline that shocked me. Unfortunately the article wasn’t specific about my supposed liberty I have now and how much less I should expect to have in 4 years.

  13. The biggest danger of an Obama second term would be Scalia or one of the other pro Heller justices dying or retiring.

    1. True.

  14. On some level I *wish* I could believe Obama is in reality an evil super genius, whose endgame is to use his eight years as President to enrich himself to such a point where he can hire Kindly Old Grandpa Buffett to shine his shoes.

    1. He doesn’t think that far ahead. He only knows it is good to be Obama.

  15. Layoffs at the Oprah network. Gee, how is whoring yourself out for Obama working out for you there Oprah?


    1. You have that backwards. Obama is Oprah’s whore.

      1. They both have their mouths pressed up to each other’s backsides. Now you will never be able to get that image out of your head.

        1. Tossing each other’s salads.

  16. Sometimes the end of re-election worries brings out some decent stuff in politicians. ( Like supreme court justices who decide to just do what they think is constitutional and right ). Obama has done lots of bad dumb stuff. But he does think a lot for a politician. Maybe if he wins, we will get lucky.

    1. But he does think a lot for a politician.

      Citation please?

      1. To be fair, it takes a lot of planning and foresight to waste that much money.

  17. Great news! If Obama is reelected not everybody will have to suck dick.

    1. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

    2. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

    3. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

    4. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

  18. Whenever I read things about the Holocaust or the Russian Revolution or the French Revolution, I always find myself thinking “why doesn’t everyone just run?”. Then I read the news and think “nah, the worst will never happen hear”. Why do I have this horrible feeling someone is going to read about me or my peers in a history book and say “why didn’t you guys just leave?”

    1. run where? is the question.

      1. I don’t know. You look at nasty little fuckers like Shreek. And you have to think it is just a matter of time before they start killing people.

        1. If it comes to death squads and armed resistance, this country will literally (and, yes, I mean it that way) explode.

          Because there are so many guns, and so much ammo, already in circulation.

          And any attempt to confiscate them will precipitate the explosion.

          1. It would be nasty, but wouldn’t last long, Dean. Figurehead Obama (or insert Republican figurehead, if applicable after this presidential sweepstakes) would go on TV and lament the “necessity” of our own military roaming the streets and plains of The Country Formerly Known As a Free Nation, but said Figurehead would still sign off on martial law at the drop of a hat.

            1. The difficulty will come when (and I think it will be when, not if) elements of the Army refuse those orders.

              Plus, our Army isn’t very big, and is mostly tied down overseas. Not nearly enough to impose martial law.

              Bring back the draft? Sure. Historically, its draftees who are the first to join the Revolution.

              1. Oh, it could be done, RC… though you have a point about how many of our fellow American troop members would follow such orders.

                But don’t forget about the other military-style forces – cops, FBI, et cetera. Hell, some IRS employees are armed.

                1. You gentlemen are on the right track. The combat arms of the Army would balk at such orders and the Marines would outright mutiny. And don’t expect National Guardsmen to go to their own neighborhoods to confiscate their own guns. Lots of people, including Vets who are very weapons proficient mixed in with the general population.

                  It will be the militarized ABC agencies trying to put down a revolution.

                  1. Kurtz: “Are you an assassin?” Williard: “I’m a soldier.” Kurtz: “You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.”

    2. John – I get that bad feeling that we are on the eve of something historically bad sometimes too.

      I thing of the Romans who didn’t react as the Visigoths approached in 408. After all, Rome hadn’t been sacked in 800 years…

  19. Obama continued the Bush bailouts, they further note, and he has “retained the main features of virtually every counterterror tool used by the Bush administration.”

    Obama is a damned repube in schlep’s clothing.

    The republican party must be destroyed.

    1. They BOTH must be destroyed.

      1. One at a time.

        First, the weakest and the most corrupt, which also is the snare and delusion of timid libertarian types.

        1. You blew it on that last post, wef.

    2. You won’t last here with that kind of logic.

      1. What Nate said, +1.

      2. That’s because Team Blue cock sucking isn’t generally looked on any more favorably than Team Red cock sucking around here.

    3. Yes, because TEAM Blue is holy and pure and true keepers of the Democrat faith would never do anything like protect their political donors or use the power of the state to tyrannize the people.

      Now excuse me while I go try to catch the unicorn that gallops past my house every day about this time.

    4. Bush was a southern democrat. He enjoyed almost as much spending and regulation as Obama, just he didn’t like abortion and gay marriage. The culture war is really the only major difference between the two.

  20. What is this sophomoric adherence to liturgical balance that requires imprecations and execrations against repubes be accompanied by similar curses against the demothugs?

    Screw that. The republican party is the particularly vile institution that has conned otherwise libertarian-leaning rubes into wasting their money and votes on con artist promises of limited government.

    The republican party must be destroyed.

    1. Why do you not take the full logical leap and call for the OTHER particularly vile institution that conned otherwise reasonable people?

      Destroy BOTH Teams, wef. Cutting off one head just won’t do… it’s a two-headed monster.

      1. Which is an awfully convenient argument for the worse offender, considering the duopoly isn’t going anywhere.

        The Republicans are a far-right anti-intellectual party that lies its way into wars and lies to the American people on just about every domestic issue there is, all in the service of transferring what little wealth remains in the hands of the middle class to the already wealthy.

        They will distract you with whatever they can, usually scapegoating minorities. But the first count I listed is enough to hope that they are destroyed and replaced by something more moderate. Far-right political parties are never good. Nobody says Democrats are perfect. But there is a clear and present danger to this country (and global stability, and global environmental health) and this pseudointellectual false equivalence argument only helps that cause.

        1. “Nobody says Democrats are perfect.”

          Howls of derisive laughter.

          1. At least you were, for once, intellectually honest with the “duopoly” part, Tony.

            But the fact that you never say “far-right political parties are never good, nor are far-left ones”, shows just how far up Team Blue’s ass you really are.

            1. And the fact that you can’t rid yourself of the obviously fallacious false equivalency argument–to the extent that you think Democrats are far left–proves how far up Team Red’s ass you are AND how much of a liar you are about it.

              Far left = communist. Are Democrats communists?

              1. Fuck you, Tony.

                1. No, wait… strike that.

                  If you knew how much I despise the far-right, you’d apologize for that, Tony.

                  And, yes, some of the far-left are as you describe; however, most of the Dems are only curly-hair widths from being, again, such as you describe. Socialism is the red-headed step-cousin of communism, after all.

                  Now… back to the fuck you.

                  1. The current Democratic party in the US is a centrist party. It is not socialist, and it certainly isn’t communist. It is where the Republican party was a generation ago. The Republicans have been moving further and further right, but the Democrats have not been moving in an equal and opposite vector, but have been following them to the right. This is a perfectly plausible chain of events. Calling Democrats socialists is what the Republicans do to distract you from their own radicalization. So if you’re not indeed a cheerleader for either team, why do you repeat one of the team’s lies?

                    1. Voting only for Ron Paul in the primaries, does not a Team Red cheerleader make, Tony.

                      But, to you, that would be “Team Red cheerleading”.

                      Then again, voting for one local-level Democrat does not make one a Democrat. I’ll cop to both of the above deviations from LP-only candidate selection, but never to allegiance to either of those eventually-fatal-for-liberty factions/Teams.

                      In order to be in your good graces – which is not my mission in life – I would have to agree with whatever egalitarian bullshit you or your Team espouse. Since I am not, you have placed me in the Team Red category.

                      Which warrants another “fuck you”.

                    2. I place you in the Team Red apologist category because you’re repeating their propaganda rather than looking at the world as it is.

                      If you want to throw away your vote on quixotic utopian candidates, that’s your business. But the GOP has enough advantages without alleged nonpartisans carrying their water.

                    3. You’re not one to talk about “utopian”, Tony.

                    4. BTW, I don’t need anyone to tell me how Democrats act and think, Tony… I gleaned that a long time ago, just by listening to them and watching what they do.

                      Remember, I haven’t listened to Limbaugh in over a decade, and only listened to one hour of one show, so don’t bother with the “you only get your brainwashing from Team Red radio”.

                      I’ll bet I watch more C-SPAN than you do, which is a great place to see the sausage being grinded out.

                    5. Rick Santorum considers the Republican Party to be a moderate pro-homosexual party. See, your assessment depends on your starting point. That you think the Democratic Party is centrist says a lot about your mindset.

                    6. Tony said The current Democratic party in the US is a centrist party.

                      So, the party that shoved ObamaCare down the throat of the American people was the “centrist” party?

            2. Anyone who only wants one political party destroyed, wishes us to be subject to one-party rule… which NEVER works out well for liberty.

              1. I don’t want one-party rule. Actually, I want a multiparty parliamentary system. But in the US, two sane parties would do for now. Unfortunately, and this is not my fault, we have one insane party that keeps getting power.

                1. Only “one”?

                  1. It’s a trap, TPO. Tony only wants left-wing parties in his “multiiparty parliamentary system”.

                    Oh, he *might* allow a mildly centrist faction, but only if they vote to increase spending and government reach.

                    1. I would allow for a party that wants to dismantle the welfare state–it would be disingenuous of me to say that alone makes them far-right, radical, and scary, since there are sane conservative parties left in the world who want to do that.

                      The problem with the GOP that I see as the crossed line of acceptability in the modern world is their anti-intellectualism and religious fundamentalism–and the various far-right methods (minority scapegoating, cough) they employ.

                    2. “I would allow”

                      How goddamned gracious of you.

                    3. I see what you mean about the trap, FIFY.

                    4. I will, for just a moment, be gracious, Tony… it wasn’t you calling for one-party rule, it was the guy/ette calling itself “wef”.

                    5. Oh and their massive corruption.

                    6. So, only Team Red is corrupt?

                    7. Nope, but they invented the form of corruption that pervades Washington today. There are decent Democrats, a few corrupt ones. The Republican party is corrupt to the core. Sorry, it’s just not likely that the parties are always equal on everything–and I don’t see why a grownup with a brain thinks that’s a logical case.

                    8. If you were referring to my post above, Tony, let it be known I was, also, replying to the poster known as “wef”.

                    9. Only “a few corrupt ones”?

                      You need to be more pessimistic and untrusting, Tony. Me, I trust maybe two politicians in the entire country.

                    10. So, if only a few Democrats are corrupt… sorry, I can’t see the logic in keeping even the ones who are only MILDLY corrupted.

                      ALL politicians are criminals to one extent or another. Even what few “good” ones exist.

                    11. When a Democrat is corrupt, don’t worry, there is a vast network of rightwing media to expose, humiliate, and oust them. Drudge is on the case.

                      Meanwhile the GOP has been selling the country off to multinational corporations and you guys are cheerleading them on, calling it freedom.

                    12. It would be helpful if leftwing media joined in the “expose, humiliate, and oust[ing]”.

                    13. Can you name a single example of a corrupt Democrat being drummed out of office by the “rightwing media”? And don’t trot out Anthony Weiner – that wasn’t exactly “corruption” as much as it was idiocy and poon hounding – besides of which, the entire media rushed to his defense right up to the press conference he held when he actually confessed.

                    14. I would say John Edwards, except he deserved it, and I’m glad someone was willing to point out how much of a scum bag he was. After all, the Democrats were considering him for head of state.

                    15. Guys, Tony is just full of shit. He desperately wants to prove that you’re all Republicans at heart, so he hopes he can flush that out by insulting Republicans all day.

                      I find his praise of Democrats more repulsive than his dislike of Republicans.

                    16. The GOP along with the Democrats. Look at all the Democrats who voted for the bailout and cheer on the most corrupt corporation in American history(The Federal Reserve)

                      But keep repeating MSNBC talking points. You’re really getting people here to change their minds

                    17. Well, let me amend that… I know one local-level politician I trust, but he’s a libertarian.

                      The only Democrat I trust, is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

                    18. [The only Democrat I trust, is the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan]

                      Zell Miller?

                    19. I trust maybe two politicians in the entire country.

                      Pretty cynical, aintchya? I trust tons of politicians – all the ones born in the 18th and 19th centuries.

                      And the idea that Democrats are centrists and Republicans are far-right can only be true for a very constrained view of history. Any range of political philosophies that puts Obama and Romney more than one unit apart is an extremely narrow range.

                      I am pretty sure FDR never dreamed we would be where we are now, nor did the Supreme Court that once shot down his ambitions for regulatory powers. Where would FDR fit into this range? Where would Charles Evans Hughes?

                    20. The problem with the GOP that I see as the crossed line of acceptability in the modern world is their anti-intellectualism

                      You must have a very perverse view of anti-intellectualism. You know that if you don’t want to vaccinate your kids because you’re afraid they’ll get autism, you’re probably liberal, even though all claims that vaccinations cause autism have been thoroughly, scientifically refuted? What about the children, Tony? How many children need to die of reborn polio so that liberal Democrats can practice pseudo-science?

                      The same goes for radiated food, bio engineering, etc. In general, liberals are much more likely to be anti-technology. Republicans may have cornered the market on Creationist quackery, but not anti-intellectualism.

                    21. I’m necessarily cynical, JK. No rational person would trust more than a few of the people elected to rule our lives.

                      Your results may vary.

                      BTW, I was talking about *living* politicians, though there are a few dead ones about whom I have my doubts.

                    22. No he can’t conceive that someone who disagrees wth geniuses like Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman might have legitimate ground for doing so besides “rightwing fundamentalism”

                    23. Seeing as how you can’t even conceive of how a national welfare state might be a detriment the GOP isn’t the only “anti-intellectual” one here.

                      Statist fundemantalism is every bit as bad as religious fundamentalism and has had far worse consequences for millions of people (See Pol Pot, Stalin, and every socialist shithole in history).

                      But at least religious fundamentalism will tell you that stealing is bad

        2. Well; do you see what you did, fifi & wef? Do you see??? You just had to keep flushing the toilet until the septic tank overflowed and Tony wriggled out of the leech line. Having to endure shreek’s vomitous spittle wasn’t enough for you. No! you had to keep on on until you managed to summon the flesh-eating bacteria with legs. Nice going!

      2. And why is it so offensive to you that I call for the republican party to be destroyed, but fail to mention the demos? Does it offend your sense of fairness? Why can’t you be happy that I at least want to destroy the repubes? Geez.

        1. I’m not offended, wef… I’m perplexed. Why would you allow the other half of all our problems, to survive unharmed?

          1. The griefer is strong in young wef.

    2. imprecations and execrations against repubes be accompanied by similar curses against the demothugs

      Because from our perspective, on most of the issues that matter, they are equally bad?

      Because going after one, without pointing out that the other is equally bad, flags you as the lowest form of life?

      The braindead partisan.

      1. Speaking of such, Dean… Tony’s added his 42 cents’ worth. It’s a real knee-slapper, too.

      2. The unwritten social rules of proper signaling in the herd. OK. Understood.

        Here goes: I hate demothugs too!

        Should I wear some kind of a ribbon?

        In any event, the republican party still has to be destroy.

        (And, er, the democrat party too!)

        1. Better, but you need to work on mistrusting BOTH Teams equally, wen.

      3. I don’t do equivications in the same post because it distracts from the particular point being made and thus weakens the argument. I said more than a few things lambasting Republicans over the first few months of the primary season, and now that I’m utterly bored with the primaries I don’t feel it necessary to continue down that path. If I concentrate my ire on the Obama administration now it is only because they are the suckiest sucks in all of suckdom not because I’m rooting for Team Red. If you were to pick out the worst fifty members of congress on Team Red and the worst fifty members on Team Blue and put them in front of a firing squad, I would be quite pleased.

        1. Can I be the Picker? Please? Me! Me! Pick me for the Picker!!

          1. Only fifty per Team?

    3. “What is this sophomoric adherence to liturgical balance that requires imprecations and execrations against repubes be accompanied by similar curses against the demothugs?”

      If there weren’t Republicans, Democrats could devote themselves fully to devouring America and shitting it out. As it is, the Big Parties expend a lot of their destructive efforts on each other, which is the only reason we’ve lasted this long.

  21. Our goal should be the end of social security, the end of medicare, and the end of public education. There are countless federal agencies that we can get rid of to help lower our taxes so we aren’t paying for products other people use. The Republicans are far more likely to agree with us here than the left.

    The Republicans and Democrats both suck on civil liberties. But I’ll be blunt about this, neither of these are as important as lowering out taxes and making sure we aren’t paying for programs that the moochers and the losers use. The Democrats are afraid of the seniors and what will happen when we cut the social security checks. I say screw that, I know I’m not going to get it, so I don’t want to pay for it, and if that ends up with them “starving in the streets” as the left worries, who cares?

    1. I, for one.

  22. A re-elected Obama won’t *help* liberty, either.

    Nor would electing any Republican (excepting Ron Paul).

    It’s just a matter of time. We might make it to the next decade without being subjected to a full police-state shithammering, but it’s coming.

    1. Good. We have too much freedom, anyway.

      1. We were just going to say the same thing, Team Red.

        Great minds think alike!


          1. Nicely done, R C.

  23. @Mr. FIFY

    No, Ron Paul wouldn’t do much for liberty. He’s still got the congress to deal with. At best we could get rid of problems like social security, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, medicaid/medicare, and polution restrictions faster, since Republicans agree with us here.

    Other items, he couldn’t get it through. He’d just be blocked on the military and civil liberties issues.

    1. I didn’t mean Paul could single-handedly fix it, steve, but at least he’d do his damnedest to slow it down.

      Any other presidential incumbent/candidate, however, would just bend over and sign the paperwork.

      1. I think you’re being overly-optimistic, FIFY.

        1. You caught me, TPO. I’m in a rare generous mood today.

  24. Are we more screwed with 4+ years of lackluster Romney court appointees or 4 more years of disastrous Obama court appointees? As for the budget/spending situation, I predict that Obama would remain an obstacle and best we can hope for with Romney is that he wouldn’t do much worse than Obama or guarantee another left wing Democrat succeeds him.

  25. If Obama is re-elected he will increase the size and powers of the state dramatically. If Romney or Santorum are elected they will increase the size and powers of the state dramatically. We do have something to worry about, but it’s not just Obama.

    1. That is correct Gleek. It isnt just Obama, or Romney, or Santorum, or Congress, or the SCOTUS, or…..
      It is the voters.
      We have met the enemy and……

  26. funny I think it is vital for our country he is reelected…


    i think he has been a centrist…

    1. ” i think..”

      See, there is where you are wrong.

      BTW, when referring to yourself, I is capitalized.

      1. thanks… trying to limit my grammatical liberty… lol… anyway, it is true, Obama has been a centrist compared to every President since FDR… he is right smack dab in the middle… and we weren’t the super economy we have all known to expect America to always be until FDR

        1. Just kidding about the grammar, but i strongly disagree about Obama being a centrist. Both parties have been tag-teaming us for decades, grabbing power, wiping their asses with the constitution, sticking their noses in our personal business….etc. . The pace of it seems to be ever increasing, and Obama has been a real team player in this.
          If he is a centrist, then i am a flying reindeer.
          He is a left wing radical.

          1. if he has been a team player between the two parties.. wouldn’t that make you a flying reindeer?

            1. I was sloppy with my choice of words. Very sloppy. You should know there are no reindeer in Louisiana.
              Correction; if Obama has the best interest of the American people and their liberty in mind, I am a flying reindeer.

              1. it depends on what liberty you are talking about… the liberty to kill someone, probably not… the liberty to pee in public (a right many in other countries have), then probably not… but the right to worship who you please… he doesn’t crawl inside your head and tell you to pray to allah… the right to call him a muslim, although he will think you are a moron, he has not encroached on this right… the right to a fair trial, well guantanimo is still open.. against cruel and unusual punishment… he stopped torture…

                but sorry, if you want to pee in public, you need to focus on local elections

              2. next time i see someone peeing in the street… i’ll say “you know sir, Obama doesn’t have your liberty in mind, you might want to zip up”

                1. As discussed above, you are picking one of two villains to complain about and neglecting the other…partisanship. Hmmph. But you are from Mississippi, so I understand your choice. Still, you are only seeing half of the picture.

          2. Ideologically, historically, maybe. But Mussolini was a radical leftist in his younger days too. In practice, it’s hard to be “radical” when you’re the leader of a nationalist, militarist, corporatist police state. As for who I was talking about in that last bit, use your judgment.

  27. it’s not Obama who is railing against the porn industry… it’s not Obama limiting speech on college campuses… it’s not Obama limiting daily choices we make every day… It is, and always has been Christian Republicans…

    1. Read above. There are ample examples of this community complaining about power-grabs and control freaks on both sides of the aisle.
      I saw a particularly appealing suggestion from Killaz that we pick the worst 50 from both parties and organize a firing squad party.

      1. oh… ugh, no… not violent… but if you speak of personal liberty… 9 times out of 10 its a republican taking that away… how many pro republican voters would cringe at the idea of a zoning issue allowing a gas station to be run in their neighborhood…

    2. You’re mad. Certifiable.

    3. There are plenty of examples of people broadly aligned with Obama politically railing against porn (typically feminists complaining that it causes rape).

      The notion that political censorship on college campuses tends to favor the right is so laughable that I won’t even address it.

  28. Interesting, the Romneybot just won Illinois, Obama’s home state, by the highest margin yet – 75%.
    Voters overwhelmingly said the reason they voted Romneybot was because he stood the best chance of beating Obama.

    1. kerry had the best chance of beating bush.. bush wasn’t half the president Obama is… and romney isn’t half the man kerry was…


      1. Kerry was, and still is, a cocksucker.

  29. It is the voters.

    I disagree – it is the non-voters. How many people don’t vote because they are too stupid to vote and how many don’t vote because they are smart enough to know it doesn’t matter?

    Keep in mind Obama is a Chicago politician. They don’t have elections in Chicago even though everybody votes – even the dead vote. There is no way you can tell me Obama isn’t the most immoral, lyingest, cheatingest, thievingest bastard we have ever had in office. He came from Chicago. Rahm Emanuel will someday break his shittiness record.

    I still think the real reason Gore was so bat-shit crazy about Bush stealing the election from him was that he had Bill Daley as his campaign chairman and he knows goddamned well Daley stole the election first. Bill Daley wound up as Obama’s Chief of Staff because he made sure the election in 2008 stayed stolen.

    1. Hmmm, is it possible that there is someone more cynical than I am? And, with the ring of truth?
      Well, I guess when you are in a wheelchair…..
      +1 to you Jerryskids.

    2. so you don’t think that the biggest majority since 1984, with the highest percentage of eligible voters voting since the 1960’s, where so fed up with a terrible economy that eventually crashed, and 2 long wars, 1 of which was unprovoked…

  30. the best thing libertarians could do.. is to accept progressive economics in the form of the welfare state… and move to the democratic party… democrats are better on personal liberty than republicans… just accept welfare economics and we could have more personal liberty if you were on our side…

    1. You are under 30 yo arent you?

    2. There is no personal liberty without economic liberty.

      1) It’s pretty hard to have personal liberty when the state takes all your money and then uses it to buy the things they think you ought to have. I’m pretty sure that they won’t give you vouchers for bacon, porn, and weed.

      2) The welfare state is a huge excuse to remove personal liberty (“if we’re paying your way, we should get a say”). Welfare always ends up with strings attached, eventually.

      3) Look at almost any personal (not civil) liberty violation on the part of the feds, and what do they claim as the source of their authority to diminish it? The commerce clause, almost invariably. If that looks too shaky for the courts to accept (a rare situation, to be sure), the tax power.

      1. Keep it up, Matt… we could use a few laughs around here.

        1. Seriously… accept progressive economics? Join Team Blue?

          You might as well ask us to move to North Korea, and enjoy living there as well.

  31. “democrats are better on personal liberty than republicans”

    1. PATRIOT Act: Still intact
    2. Domestic surveillance: More prevalent than ever
    3. TSA not dismantled
    4. SPLC still taken seriously

    That’s just for starters, Matt. You might want to re-think your position.

  32. I sense an early attempt by yet another Reason contributor, to apologize early for another Obama vote.

  33. A Re-elected Obama Wouldn’t Be the End of Liberty

    That is because he already killed that beast.

  34. my classmate’s ex-wife makes $67 hourly on the internet. She has been unemployed for six months but last month her pay was $16238 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site..MakeCash2.com

  35. my neighbor’s aunt makes $65 hourly on the laptop. She has been unemployed for six months but last month her income was $13081 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site..MakeCash2.comONly

  36. herm?s constance-2012 Fr?hjahr Hermes Taschen neue Vitalit?t, Verkauf sac birkin prix

  37. hermes sac birkin prix Fr?hjahr Hermes Taschen neue Vitalit?t, Verkauf

    Dans le cas o? la m?t?o a commenc? ? devenir un peu chaud, mes pens?estournent toujours au moins une chose: ROADTRIP Ne vous inqui?tez pas si je n’ai pas une voiture, parce que ma famille est ? New York,hermes sac birkin prix ou qu’il n’est pas assez d’enthousiasme dans toute station baln?aire, la conduite est une distance agr?able.Mon horloge interne r?gl?e au printemps, et, le alsoPercent’m je commencer ? obtenir l’envie de conduire une voiture de la c?te de la Floride comme nous le faisons chaque ann?e ? l’?cole secondaire hermes sac birkin prix.

  38. sac birkin prix neuf?Lorsque le programme au printemps de 2012, il est devenu clair, sac birkin prix neuf pastels lesaccessoires les plus importants, la tendance de cette saison, j’ai ?t? un peu d??u.Pastels ne se sentent pas excit? ou tendances printani?res ?nerg?tiques sont sac birkin prix neuf

  39. prix sac birkin herm?s neuf souvent la il ya, j’ai fait une description mentale de ne jamais achet? ? l’?poque et les efforts, laissez-moi acheter votre saison.sac hermes birkin herm?s? Puis,prix sac birkin herm?s neuf j’ai vu ? la menthe ? main en cuirHerm?s Birkin, a compl?tement chang? mon esprit. Qui veut avoir devin? le prince des t?n?bres prix sac birkin herm?s neuf pour apporter mon c?t? du soleil?

  40. sac birkin hermes Soleil Soleil I sac de voyage-sac birkin hermes

  41. I can agree to a point. The worst thing maybe the judges that could be appointed by Obama in a 2nd term. The ideology supported by Obama that will use any distorted logic to trample the constitutional limits of government.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.