TARP

Watch: Paul Ryan's Speech in Support of TARP

"This bill offends my principles. But I'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system."

|

Courtesy of The Northwest Report, here is the video of Mitt Romney's new running mate, McKinley High School Glee Club Director Will Schuester, Congressman Paul Ryan, defending the passage of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (a.k.a. TARP) back in 2008:

Most bizarre line, in my humble opinion: "This bill offends my principles. But I'm going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system." I suppose it makes sense if you bought the "Too big to fail" argument.

The Northwest Report also hammers Ryan's record here, pointing out that he couldn't be much more opposite of Ron Paul. And yet many liberals are quick to join conservatives in calling Ron Paul a kook.

NEXT: Houston City Controller Wants Leniency for Felon in Real Estate Scam

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. Paul Ryan ain’t no Ron Paul.

  2. C’mon John!
    Defend your TEAM!
    Defend it!
    You gotta!
    Gotta gotta!

    1. This sounds rather sarcasticmic

    2. He fucked up. Don’t vote him. I don’t care. Clearly I think the best thing for libertarians to do is make sure they are extra hard on anyone who has ever crossed them who later then tries to come back and push any ideas they might like. Brutally punishing deserters from the other side is always the best way to win a war.

      1. John, John, John, you don’t understand. He’s not on “the other side” – he has committed a far worse crime than that: He is on a TEAM.

        1. His worse crime would be, you know, not being very good at the whole “liberty” thing.

          1. He wouldn’t have to be to be an improvement.

      2. It isn’t just a one-time “fuck up”, John.

        It’s TARP. It’s the Afghan war. It’s the PATRIOT Act (“voted YES to make PATRIOT Act permanent”). It’s the auto bailouts.

        Here’s some good ones:

        Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Nov 2007)
        Voted YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
        Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
        Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
        Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
        Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
        Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

        1. He is clearly worse than Obama. Vote Obama Randian. You gotta go with at least a known evil here.

          Clearly the pledge of allegiance and fucking same sex marriage are much more important issues than whether we go broke or not. And you need to make this decision based on the important things.

          1. Oh my god Republicans are so predictable it’s sad.

            Point out the flaws of their standard-bearers and suddenly you’re a Democrat.

            It’s going to be a lot of fun watching you cry for the next three months. It’s like 2008 and joe from lol all over again.

            1. I am not calling you a Democrat. I am saying you have made your case and are right. Ryan is horrible. Obama is the better choice. I am not saying you are or should be a Democrat. I am just saying you probably owe it to yourself to vote for Obama.

              1. Because we all know there’s no other choice.

              2. “He is clearly worse than Obama. Vote Obama Randian.”

                Yeah, you pretty much called him a Democrat. Pretending that there is no choice other than Obamney or Rombama is what we’re criticizing you for, John.

            2. Who knows, maybe he will make good on all of those promises about civil liberties in a second term. Why not give it a shot Randian?

              1. Jesus John seriously here’s a Kleenex now go dry up. You have turned into such a Redtard crybaby since the Ryan announcement it’s Tonyesque. I

                n that regard, the Ryan choice was a brilliant move by Romney. Well played sir.

                1. If Ryan is the same as obama and Mittens so bad, then the answer is to vote for Obama. How is that wrong?

                  1. If Ryan is the same as obama and Mittens so bad, then the answer is to vote for Obama. How is that wrong?

                    It is wrong cuz the answer is to vote for Gary Johnson.

                    1. John will not accept GJ as an answer.

            3. Randian| 8.13.12 @ 12:20PM |#

              Point out the flaws of their standard-bearers and suddenly you’re a Democrat.

              Flaws?? This is irrelevant. NOT OBAMA!! RED TIE!! BETTER THAN!!

          2. He isnt being compared to Obama, but to Johnson.

            1. BTW, who is Johnson’s running mate?

              Regardless, Johnson/X is better than Romney/Ryan. And that is the decision making process.

                1. Thats right, thanks.

              1. Regardless, Johnson/X is better than Romney/Ryan. And that is the decision making process.

                This is like saying you’d rather go to the prom with Megan Fox than the girl next door. Sure, but Megan Fox will never go to the prom. I wish it wasn’t the case, but Johnson has zero chance of getting elected.

                1. I wish it wasn’t the case, but Johnson has zero chance of getting elected.

                  Self-fulfilling prophecy is self-fulfilling.

                  He is not going to win if you don’t vote for him. Which you won’t, because he’s not going to get enough votes.

                  Does that make sense to you?

                  1. Actually, I may well vote for him, since Obama has a lock on California. But my vote won’t elect Johnson, and even is every even vaguely libertarian-leaning person voted for Johnson, he still wouldn’t get elected. There aren’t enough of them. The most that would happen is that Johnson would deprive Romney of enough votes in enough swing states to hand it to Obama.

                    I’m just being realistic about who has a chance to get elected and who doesn’t. Given that, Romney/Ryan are at least closer to libertarian positions on some issues than Obama. We didn’t get so socialist because Socialist Party people got elected. We got this way because socialists took over the Democratic Party. It’s unfortunate, but the best hope for various libertarian positions is if the GOP takes the presidency.

                2. I wish it wasn’t the case, but Johnson has zero chance of getting elected.

                  The republicans democrats need to learn that they must give something to the the libertarian vote in order to get that vote.

                  The only way they will learn is if we show them that we exist and that we swing elections. The best way to do that is give Johnson as many votes as possible.

                  Whoever wins this election (it will be Romney) it will still be close. The losing party will see where they could have gotten more votes and could have won if only they had given them something.

                  libertarians may one day dominate the politics of the US…but right now we are a small minority. The only way for us to effect policy is by being the “must have” swing vote that determines elections.

                  Obama and Romney give us nothing…lets give them nothing in return.

          3. To be honest, “we” are not going broke. The federal budget is not “we”.

            1. When they take our currency with them, it will be “we” going broke.

              1. I’ve got enough silver and gold to last me a couple of months at least. After that runs out I guess I’ll have to rely on bullets.

                1. I’ve got enough silver and gold to last me a couple of months at least. After that runs out I guess I’ll have to rely on bullets.

                  If you have enough gold and silver to pay for a couple of months at current values then when the shit hits the fan you will be set for life.

                  In the American financial apocalypse expect gold and silver to raise in value by 1000 to 5,000 percent.

                  Of course it will never come to that. The more technologically advanced a society is the more resistant it is to catastrophe.

              2. why is it “our” currency again?

                Nothings says I can’t buy a bunch of gold, silver and Canadian dollars.

          4. Clearly the pledge of allegiance and fucking same sex marriage are much more important issues than whether we go broke or not. And you need to make this decision based on the important things.

            And how does Ryan’s budget keep us from going broke? He’s balancing the budget over, what, 30 years? He’ll pay off the debt around the 5th of Never. The best I can say about Ryan’s budget is that it is slightly less irresponsible than Obama’s.

            1. Incrementalism got us into socialized bankruptcy, so why can’t it get us out?

      3. It’s hard to win a war when you already lost it a century ago and are now interned in a camp of sorts against your own wishes/knowledge/consent. Brtually punishing snitches and toadies(hypocrites) is all we’ve got left.

      4. Clearly I think the best thing for libertarians to do is make sure they are extra hard on anyone who has ever crossed them who later then tries to come back and push any ideas they might like. Brutally punishing deserters from the other side is always the best way to win a war.

        It’s even better than that John,

        By working to defeat the first guy that even talks about limiting entitlements libertarians ensure that no other politician will go there for at least another generation.

        And what could be more libertarian than that?

        1. By working to defeat the first guy that even talks about limiting entitlements libertarians ensure that no other politician will go there for at least another generation.

          You realize that what most libertarians are doing is rejecting the idea that Paul Ryan is a SMALL government LIBERTARIAN as he is being portrayed in the media.

          Many of us are also rejecting the GOP fallacy that we have two choices in this election, Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden.

          The pressure is being applied hard right now because the GOP fucked up and put the least conservative choice on the ballot and there is a good chance that Tea Partiers, Libertairans, and Economic Conservatives are just going to stay home this election (or *gasp* vote third party) because there is little substantive difference between the choices this election cycle.

          That Ryan or Romney also fail on many of the civil liberties that are equally important to libertarians is just another reason to reject the “Obama is Satan who will ruin the country” line of reasoning.

          The fact of the matter is that Obama has largely been an ineffective president whose main accomplishment was a horrible health care bill that wasn’t his and was only passed by the narrowest of partisan margins AND doubling down on almost all of the worst abuses of the previous GOP administration.

          Yes libertarians are working “against” Romney/Ryan as they should. They are not one of us and their priorities will not be ours even if they win.

          1. “The pressure is being applied hard right now because the GOP fucked up and put the least conservative choice on the ballot”

            That Romney is less conservative than Santorum or Moonbase Gingrich is not a given

          2. Many of us are also rejecting the GOP fallacy that we have two choices in this election, Romney/Ryan or Obama/Biden.

            Right, because the US political system is so conducive to other parties.

            Why in only 40 years the Libertarian party consistently get 2-3% is selected races. Clearly, you should stick to that tactic. By 2200 a Libertarian presidential candidate will actually get some electoral college votes.

            1. Yes, convincing argument. The two major parties have rigged the system to block out third parties, so there is no reason I should bother to vote for them.

              Since giving up is such a compelling strategy and all.

              After all I can easily find a candidate in one of the two major parties who I find acceptable. Oh wait, I did. Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, and we saw how well those campaigns did this year. So I guess I shouldn’t bother voting at all since my preferred candidates can’t even win in the primaries.

              But wait, I can still vote for one of my two preferred candidates in the Presidential election. So I will. I have a choice and I am going to take it. I would rather vote for someone who shares many of my principles and lose than waste another vote on a candidate because he is “less bad” of the two choices “who could win”.

              1. “After all I can easily find a candidate in one of the two major parties who I find acceptable. Oh wait, I did. Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, and we saw how well those campaigns did this year.”

                And the answer to this problem is to take your ball and go home. Then wonder why nobody listens to you when you want to play next time.

            2. THat is a good argument for not voting. Not a very good one for voting republican. Nothing will change substantially until people stop thinking that there are only the two choices. If that is not going to happen, then we are just fucked and should be spending our time on more fun things than arguing over who to vote for and voting.

      5. Clearly I think the best thing for libertarians to do is make sure they are extra hard on anyone who has ever crossed them who later then tries to come back and push any ideas they might like. Brutally punishing deserters from the other side is always the best way to win a war.

        Is the answer then to simply continue to vote for the lesser of two evils? That doesn’t seem to have worked out too well so far.

        1. If the GOP really wants to know why they are having more difficulty bringing the libertarians into they fold they should seriously reflect on the 8 years of the Bush administration.

          Not only did the GOP run from the small government principles that had been the alliance point with libertarians, they set the stage for every abuse of fiscal and civil liberties that have been engaged in during the current administration.

          At some point Charlie Brown (Libertarians) needs to stop letting Lucy (GOP) hold the football.

          1. “At some point Charlie Brown (Libertarians) needs to stop letting Lucy (GOP) hold the football.”

            Are you saying Libertarians helped elect GWB?

          2. “At some point Charlie Brown (Libertarians) needs to stop letting Lucy (GOP) hold the football”

            That the GOP and Libertarians have been on the same team all along and now Libertarians are just tired of the GOP not being sufficiently libertarian? Politics…how does it work?

    3. Limericks are supposed to rhyme.

    4. I’m sorry, this whole ‘John-baiting’ thing is getting too funny.

      I love how its been like only 3-4 days since the guy was picked and already John has gone “TRAITORS!” and turned away sulking because reasonoids fail to get excited by (nay! even be so crass as to *criticise*) Empty Suit#1’s choice of Meaningless Political Slot#1.

      I also note: Romney today… in Florida promising to “protect and preserve Medicare”… and Ryan today… aghast that Obama accuses him of being Weak on Farm Subsidies, retorts: “Paul Ryan hails from an agriculture state and supported disaster relief, and the truth is no one will work harder to defend farmers and ranchers than the Romney-Ryan ticket,” said Ryan Williams, a campaign spokesman

  3. “This bill offends my principles. But I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles…”

    We had to destroy the village to save it. Do I have to beat you to show you how much I love you?

    “Get it right – the police aren’t there to create disorder, the police are there a PRESERVE disorder.” – Mayor Richard M. Daley, back in the day…ley.

    1. “This bill offends my principles. But I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principlespals…”

      ftfy

      1. +subtle

        1. He could have said “cronies”, but that would have been too honest.

    2. I have to take poison/radiation to kill this cancer.

      1. That’s different!

  4. He had to protect his insider trading gains.

    http://www.businessinsider.com…..ing-2012-8

    1. I am not even remotely close to voting for Republicans, but that seems like a pretty weak charge.

      1. It was a (failed) attempt at a joke. I don’t think he did it for that reason. I actually largely agree with his vote (and reasoning) on voting for TARP. A bank collapse would lead to a far more nationalized system and a rehash of a bunch of FDResque laws that would come out of the wreckage.

        1. Ah, well, you know that that Law 0 of my Objectobot Programming is “An Objectivist may not cause humor, or, by inaction, allow humor to come to humanity.”

        2. Good to see that a more nationalized bank system and expansive, harmful bank regulations never happened after that TARP vote.

          It is almost like he wasn’t willing to “…take poison/radiation to kill this cancer.” and instead just opted for more painkillers to hide the pain.

  5. “This bill offends my principles. But I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system.”

    “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system” – GW Bush

    Meet the new boss…

  6. And so begins the full court press by the legions of HitUndRunpublicans.

    1. Yes, everyone who believes that an imperfect Paul Ryan would be an improvement over what we have now is a Republican.

      1. Yes, probably.

        It’s every four years – like clockwork – that you all come around to try to convince us that the Republicans are better.

        You did it in 2004 with Bush/Kerry, you did it in 2008 with Obama/McCain, and you’re here doing it again.

        It’s every election. Every time. But noooo, you’re not a Republican. You just want us to vote for them every election

        *eyeroll*

        1. Then vote for Obama. Go for the devil you know. Don’t waste your vote on Johnson. Vote for Obama. One thing is sure, he won’t be worse than what he is now. And Romney and Ryan might be.

          You just made the Libertarian case for Obama.

          1. I just made the libertarian case for voting for a Libertarian.

            Imagine that.

            1. But Johnson won’t hit 5%. Why not just stay home? What good does voting for Johnson do? Better just not to vote than vote for a sure loser.

              1. Because I want Gary Johnson to be President.

                You do know that’s why you vote, right? You vote for who you want to be President.

                It’s astonishing that people forget that.

                1. But you might as well stay home and jerk off. At least you have something to show for your efforts.

                  I honestly think Randian, you should vote for Obama. Ryan is terrible and Mittens is worse. Go vote for Obama and at least know you haven’t wasted your vote or voted to make things worse.

                  1. What is it about “I want Gary Johnson to be President” do you not understand?

                    When you go pull the lever for Mittens, you will have done three things:

                    1. Sold your integrity out
                    2. Made no difference in the outcome of the election
                    3. Supported an agenda you don’t believe in.

                    The worst thing you can accuse me of is #2. And yet somehow my actions are worse than yours because something something Democrat bogeyman.

                  2. Johnson getting votes shows that there’s appeal to his views, gets ballot access for the LP for the next election and telling a pollster you’ll vote for him makes it more likely he’ll appear in a debate. By your logic, no California or New York Republican should vote for Romney and should stay at home instead.

                    1. No Mo. I am saying no one should vote for Romney anywhere. Reason has convinced me. Him and Ryan are communists. Obama is the better candidate.

                  3. But you might as well stay home and jerk off. At least you have something to show for your efforts.

                    I was with you John until you got here. If you pointed a gun at my head and made be pick between Ryan,Romney,Obama, and Biden as the President, I think Ryan would be my choice. However, that isn’t what is happening. Johnson is also one of the choices, and I think he is the best choice.

                    You can’t say that voting for Johnson is a stupid waste of time but voting for Romney isn’t. Unless you are just saying that all voting is a stupid waste of time. If that is what you are saying then I’m OK with that too.

                    1. Emmerson.

                      I am saying the latter. The whole thing gives me a headache. I think Romney and Ryan will try to do the right thing. But there will be enough Dems and RINOS to keep that from happening. At this point, I am not sure it might not be better for OBama to win and be in line to take all of the blame for the coming depression. As it is, he will skate off without getting the full blame he so richly deserves.

                    2. John, why do you think Obama will get the blame? Roosevelt was in office throughout the Great Depression, making it worse, and he is a hero. Why are you sure Obama wouldn’t go down the same in history books. He will never have to own up to this economy.

                  4. John, you might as well stay home and jerk off no matter who you want to vote for. Your vote isn’t going to make the difference. I’ll bet you anything that the margin of victory in your state will be more than one vote. So everyone should just stay home and jerk off.

                  5. I live in New York, which Obama is liable to carry by 20 points even if I vote for Mittens. Why throw my vote away on Mittens when I can make a statement by voting for Gary Johnson?

                2. You do know that’s why you vote, right? You vote for who you want to be President.

                  Maybe that’s why you vote. It certainly isn’t why many people vote. Given the often dismal choice, a lot of people vote against who they don’t want to be president. I’ve done it a number of times myself and will be doing it again in a few months.

                  1. Given the often dismal choice, a lot of people vote against who they don’t want to be president.

                    And there is more than one way to do that. For example, voting for Gary Johnson.

              2. But Johnson won’t hit 5%.

                So the fuck what?

                Everyone who votes for the Obama/Romney loser will be “wasting their vote” by that standard.

                1. Also, Obama got 41.15% in my state 4 years ago. I dont see him breaking 40% this time around.

                  Im not sure how voting for Johnson harms Romney’s chances in my state in any fucking way.

                  1. Im not sure how voting for Johnson harms Romney’s chances in my state in any fucking way.

                    Who cares? It’s the 2 party lock on the system that has us all screwed. Voting for either of the big 2 does nothing to solve our problems as far as I can tell. The only thing you have left to trade on is principles.

              3. What good does voting for Johnson do?

                It does just as much good as voting for whichever of Obama and Romney loses the election. Losers are losers. Doesn’t matter how close they were to winning.

              4. Worst case scenario, ballot access. That’s the only reason I even bothered to vote for Barr. It would have been much harder and more expensive for Johnson to get on the ballot access had all libertarians stayed home in 2008.

                Staying home or voting for the lesser of two major party evils is concession that the major parties deserve their oligopoly.

          2. And in news that shocks no one here in the HyRiverse, John is on TEAM ROMNEY despite repeated claims that he would never do join any such thing.

            1. I am not voting for Romney Randian. If I was, I wouldn’t be telling you to vote for Obama.

              1. Bullcrap John.

                You will be voting for your TEAM. Everyone knows it.

                You may lie about it, but we all know that you will.

                1. I think everyone on this forum should vote for Obama sarcasmic. Many of them voted for him in 2008 along with several Reason staffers. Why change dicks in the middle of the screw? It is clear from the posts on here that Ryan is worse.

                  1. I predicted this shit months ago. The preaching that there are only two “real” choices, and that we must therefore go with Romney.

                    1. No. Joe. There are only tow real choices. And judging from what Reason has to say, the choice is Obama. Ryan voted for TARP. Ryan is a big spending Republican. Obama is the better choice.

                    2. No, John, there are more than two real choices. Not a single vote has been cast and each voter is free to vote for whomever they want to. No, I don’t think that there is much likelihood that anyone other than the big two will win, but there is still a choice to be made.

                    3. Fallacy Alert!
                      “False Dilemma”

                      From now on I’d like the serious commenters here to answer John, Tony and all the other fallacious concern trolls with the specific fallacy they’re committing and just leave it at that. Someday maybe they’ll get fed up with people ignoring their points and grow some honesty.

                2. Sarc, please stop feeding the troll.

                  1. HI Mary. How long before you lose your mind and get banned again?

                    1. Remove filter:Johnshow once

                    2. Don’t look Mary. Maybe you won’t go crazy and cause Allisi to ban your dumb ass.

                    3. Interesting. John spouts false choices, puts words in other peoples’ mouths, then starts calling people Mary. Is it possible…is John Mary? Is Mary John?

                    4. JESUS CHRIST HOW HORRIFYING

                      I’ve never actually watched someone perfectly reasonable break down into madness on the internet. Watching John do so fills me with sadness and rage. John, I’m saying this for your benefit: just unplug until later November. You’re clearly done with thinking in a remotely rational manner and that just makes it to easy for us.

                    5. Sarcasm. Cytoxic. Sarcasm. I am just taking what people are saying at face value. If Ryan is so bad, fine vote for Obama. If you honestly think there is no difference between the parties, than vote for the devil you know. And if you are not voting for the devil you know, maybe there is some difference.

                    6. No, you’re extrapolating perfectly good criticisms of Ryan into perfectly BS voting motivations because you want Ryan to be ‘The Solution Man’ and can’t handle that he isn’t. It’s fine to be upset over our current predicament just don’t take it out on those seeing things and people the way they are.

                    7. Is Ryan a big spending fraud or is he not Cytoxic? Is Romney just the other side of the Obama coin or is he not?

                      If both of those things are true, why not for for Obama on the off chance that without the threat of re-election he might do something about civil liberties like he promised?

                      I am not kidding. Based on what being said here, Reason people would be better off voting for Obama than Romney. I don’t care who they vote for. But if you take their thinking to its logical conclusion, it makes more sense to vote for Obama than it does to vote for Romney.

                    8. Shorter John: GO TEAM!

                    9. “Shorter John: GO TEAM!”
                      Other John: Christianity is the greatest, bestest thing EVEA! with nothing unpleasant in its past and all those other beliefs are stinky poo-poo.

                    10. “Shorter John: GO TEAM!”
                      Other John: Christianity is the greatest, bestest thing EVEA! with nothing unpleasant in its past and all those other beliefs are stinky poo-poo.

                      The word “Christianity” was not uttered until you came along.

                      Take your dipshittery on down the road, sister, we’re all full up here.

                    11. No John you are being a dishonest ass.

                      First, you ignore the fact this election is not a binary choice. There are more than two tickets on the ballot in every state of this nation. To attempt to force someone into a binary choice because you dislike their opinion is just a dick response.

                      Second, you are ignoring the fact that part of the goal of an article like this is to allow people to make informed choices. Whether you like it or not Ryan is bad on many libertarian issues. Letting people know this information allows them to make an informed choice between candidates. They might still choose Romney/Ryan, but at least they are doing it knowing his record…To attempt to drown out this information by screaming “Don’t Look Behind the Curtain” is likewise dickish.

                      So John, don’t be a dick just because people are contemplating making choices you don’t like.

                    12. Whether you like it or not Ryan is bad on many libertarian issues

                      Sure he is. That is why voting for Obama makes sense. I am not saying don’t look behind the curtain. I am saying just the opposite. If Ryan is so bad, then the logical thing to do is vote for Obama. You can vote for Johnson, but you know he won’t win. Only one candidate offers a realistic chance of winning and has at least promised to do some good from the Libertarian perspective. And that is Obama, albeit four years ago.

                      Everyone here is saying there is no difference between Romney Ryan and Obama and in fact Ryan may be worse. But there is one difference, Obama at least once promised to close GUITMO and do something about civil liberties. So why not vote for him on the off chance he would follow through in a second term? It is not like he will be any different than Romney in any other way, right?

                    13. John, you’re just being an ass.

                      You’re a RED Tony.

                    14. “You’re a RED Tony.”
                      Someday, he may just figure it out.

                    15. This is what a grown-ass man having a temper tantrum looks like. Way to be, John. This might be a low for you.

                    16. I am not throwing a temper tantrum at all. You just don’t like what I am telling you Randian. What am I saying that is not true?

                      Is Ryan or is Ryan not a big spending Republican who is a total fraud about controling the budget?

                      Is Romney or is Romney not a RINO who invented Obamacare and is just as bad as Obama on nearly every issue sans the 2nd Amendment?

                      Did Obama or did he not promise to improve things on civil liberties during his 2008 campaign?

                      If all of those things are true, why would you not vote for Obama. It looks to me like there is a real Libertarian case for Obama, provided you don’t want to vote for Johnson out of principle.

                    17. Is Ryan or is Ryan not a big spending Republican who is a total fraud about controling the budget?

                      Not total, but mostly. He is a hair better than the other. Of course, he’s just the VP, not the President. Romney has not shown himself to be any better.

                      Is Romney or is Romney not a RINO who invented Obamacare and is just as bad as Obama on nearly every issue sans the 2nd Amendment?

                      Yes.

                      Did Obama or did he not promise to improve things on civil liberties during his 2008 campaign?

                      Yes.

                      If all of those things are true, why would you not vote for Obama.

                      Because just like I anticipate Romney not to keep his promises, so too did Barack Obama not keep his.

                      See, I learned pretty early on that the parties say anything to get power.

                      It looks to me like there is a real Libertarian case for Obama,

                      Because of broken promises?

                      This is what a temper tantrum looks like, ladies and gents.

                    18. It looks to me like there is a real Libertarian case for Obama

                      That’s dumb. I mean, just dumb. Tony grade dumb.

                      If the question is ‘who do you vote for?’, then the answer is Johnson.

                      If the question is ‘who do you vote against?’ then the answer is Obama.

                    19. But Johnson can’t win Sarcasmic. Obama can. So if you want to vote for someone who has a chance to make a difference, you have to vote for the R or the D. And when you compare Romney and Obama, this thread and others has made it clear that Obama is the choice. I don’t care who you vote for. But it looks to me like you need to seriously consider voting for Obama.

                    20. But Johnson can’t win Sarcasmic.

                      He can if he gets enough votes. In fact, that is the only way he can win. So why would I not vote for him again? Because you aren’t going to? That doesn’t sound like a great reason. Because others aren’t going to? That is not a good reason either.

                    21. Okay Randian. I said above you can vote for Johnson out of principle. But wouldn’t you agree based on what has been said on this thread that of the two major candidates, Obama is the better choice?

                    22. It isn’t out of principle, John. It’s as an expression of who I want for President, which is what voting is.

                    23. And when you compare Romney and Obama, this thread and others has made it clear that Obama is the choice.

                      Only in your mind, John. Only in your mind.

                    24. Why is Romney a better choice than Obama sarcasmic? Enlighten me.

                    25. Why is Romney a better choice than Obama sarcasmic? Enlighten me.

                      I’d never use the word “better” when comparing an R and a D.

                      “Less bad” perhaps, but not “better”.

                      Romney has real world experience and knows how economies work. That makes him “less bad” in my book.

                      Is that enough to vote for him instead of taking a principled stand and voting for Johnson?

                      I haven’t decided yet. Doesn’t matter anyway. I live in a blue state.

                      Now please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

                    26. You just admitted that there is no difference on spending and the size of government between Romney and Obama. And you also admit that Obama has at least promised to do a few good things. And he did end don’t ask don’t tell and now supports gay marriage.

                      I understand you may want to vote Johnson out of principle. And that is fine. But if you don’t want to just make a show vote for principle, Obama is really only alternative.

                      IT is pretty obvious that Romney and Ryan would probably run up even more debt than Obama. But you wouldn’t get the gay rights. And you wouldn’t have at least the small possibility of things getting better on civil rights.

                      It is not a great choice. But it is clearly a better choice than Romney. Of the two major candidates, Obama is clearly the better choice for Libertarians.

                    27. Will somebody get John his binkie, please?

                    28. Sorry Randian. I am just taking your thinking to its conclusion. Wouldn’t you agree that of Romney and Obama, Obama is the better choice? No difference on spending. But you do get gay rights with Obama and you do get the small possibility that Obama will go totally left wing on civil liberties in a second term.

                      And WAR, don’t forget war. Obama is less likely to get us in a big war. Only Republicans start wars.

                    29. I am voting for Johnson.

                      Please say that to yourself as often as necessary.

                    30. Fair enough Randian. But for those people who don’t vote for Johnsons, lets say he is not on your state’s ballot, shouldn’t they be voting for Obama?

                    31. But for those people who don’t vote for Johnsons, lets say he is not on your state’s ballot, shouldn’t they be voting for Obama?

                      They should be writing in Johnson.

                    32. But what if they don’t like Johnson Randian? Who should they vote for then? Or even if they vote for Johnson knowing he can’t win, who should they hope wins? It looks to me, given what you have said, they should vote for Johnson but hope Obama wins. Right?

                    33. John, do you have a point through all those tears? Because your misery was amusing at first but is rapidly boring me.

                    34. Why can’t you answer the question Randian? Who should Libertarians be hoping wins this election? They know Johnson won’t win. So who then? If everything you say is true, it seems to me that is Obama. Right?

                    35. I am just taking your thinking to its conclusion.

                      No you’re not. You’re pulling a Tony by intentionally using false premises to come up with a false conclusion.

                      You’re being dishonest and only making yourself look foolish.

                      Grow up.

                    36. So you think Romney is the better choice than Obama Sarcasmic? Why would that be?

                    37. Why are you hung up on only comparing those two?

                      You do realize that there are like, 9 people running for President, right?

                    38. Since one of those two is going to win, yes Randian. So who should Libertarians hope wins the election? My position is that since Johnson can’t win, they should hope the most Libertarian friendly candidate does and that is Obama. What is yours? Is Romney more Libertarian friendly?

                    39. Since one of those two is going to win, yes Randian.

                      Only because people such as yourself will not vote for Johnson.

                      This is just self-fulfilling prophecy.

                    40. I can’t control other people Randian. So I will ask you once again. Assuming Johnson can’t win, who should Libertarians be hoping wins? It is going to be Romney or Obama. So who should Libertarians think of as the lesser of the two evils?

                      Right now I can’t see a single thing about Romney that is better than Obama. And Obama is good on gay marriage and might be good on civil rights. So doesn’t the edge go to Obama?

                    41. Elections are not about picking the winner.

                      That’s what horse races are about.

                      Elections are about voting for the person who you believe will best represent you.

                      This notion that you must pick the winner is exactly what perpetuates the two party system.

                    42. I am not saying you have to pick a winner sarcasmic. But you will have to live with the winner. So which of the probable winners would you rather live with?

                    43. And for the record Randian, I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. You are the one who has talked yourself into a corner not me. I don’t understand why you can’t admit that Obama is the preferable choice to Romney.

                    44. And for the record Randian, I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time.

                      Sure, John. Just tell that to your hankie.

                      I don’t understand why you can’t admit that Obama is the preferable choice to Romney.

                      ???

                      Johnson is the preferable choice. I still fail to understand why you don’t understand that as my position.

                    45. So because you like Johnson, you can’t compare Obama to Romney? Forget Johnson for a second. Tell me why Obama isn’t a better candidate from a libertarian perspective than Romney?

                      Compare those two and tell me why it wouldn’t be better for Obama to win than Romney. That is a simple enough question isn’t it?

                    46. Forget Johnson for a second. Tell me why Obama isn’t a better candidate from a libertarian perspective than Romney?

                      I would only need to do that if Gary Johnson was not running.

                      He is, so your entire “point” is rendered moot.

                    47. I would only need to do that if Gary Johnson was not running.

                      Or maybe you just don’t like the answer and the corner you have talked yourself into. Or you just don’t want to bother your little pretty head about comparing Romney and Obama.

                      Give it up Randian. Who is better from a Libertarian perspective, Obama or Romney?

                    48. I don’t understand why you can’t admit that Obama is the preferable choice to Romney.

                      Because he’s not. He’s an economically illiterate collectivist.

                      Romney has some real world experience in the world of profit and loss, and of creating wealth.

                      That doesn’t make him “preferable” to Obama, but it does make him slightly “less-bad”.

                      In my book anyway.

                      Is it enough to vote for him? I have yet to decide.

                    49. Hold it hold it. You mean there is a difference between Romney and Obama sarcasmic? You mean they are not two sides of the same coin? Well knock me over with a feather.

                    50. Straw man / moving the goal posts.

                      I rank you with Tony.

                    51. You got me to deny something I never said!

                      Congrats Johntony!

                      Great work!

                      You make it into the Troll Hall of Fame!

                    52. Sarcasmic. I wasn’t talking about you. I am talking about Randian and SIV and the other people on this board who say the Romney is just as bad or worse on the budget as Obama. And how Ryan is in the words of SIV, “the king of the big spending Republicans”.

                      If that is true, then I don’t see how you don’t vote for Obama or at least hope he wins.

                    53. If that is true, then I don’t see how you don’t vote for Obama or at least hope he wins.

                      I don’t know why I’m even bothering but some of us are voting for GJ and hope he wins. Therefore your question, as Randian has pointed out about a millions times, is pointless.

                    54. But you know he is not going to win RBS. The fact is either Obama or Romney is going to win and you know it. So since we will have to live with one of them, asking who would be the better one to live with is a legitimate question.

                      And if you really think there is no difference between Romney and Obama on spending, then Obama, because of his record on gay rights, is the better choice.

                    55. Not sure why I am bothering, but here is my answer to your bullshit my way or the highway question.

                      I do believe they are both equally horrid on libertarian issues. Each also has a few issues where they are “less bad” than the other. So their very small “libertarian virtues” are negligible.

                      That being said I would rather Obama win, not because of any comparative “libertarian” virtue between the two of them. I would rather that he would win because the Republicans will maintain control of the house at the very least (and possibly take the Senate even with a Romney loss). 4 more years of relative gridlock is preferable to me than 2-4 years of one party control.

                      The last two presidents have shown quite clearly that single party control is bad for all involved.

                      BTW – my preference for Obama’s win over Romney does not mean I would ever vote for him. If I was left with the choice of only those two I would either not vote for President or do a write-in. I vowed after the 2008 Presidential election I would never again vote for a candidate whose views and beliefs were not closely aligned to mine.

                    56. Iamtheeviltwin

                      There you go, another reason why libertarians should be voting for Obama.

                      And since when is gay marriage not a huge Libertarian issue? On the reason board it is certainly in the top five of all issues. That alone seems like a reason to vote for Obama.

                    57. Because unlike in your binary world, there is not a “universal” libertarian position on “Gay Marriage”. It seems to be an important issue for the editors and staff of Reason, but it gets far less play at equally libertarian institutes like Cato.

                      Like abortion there is a pretty broad range of opinions among libertarians about Gay Marriage. Everything from “Best Thing Evah” to “Meh” and all points between. Some see it as a civil rights issue, others see it as rent-seeking by a vocal minority, even others see it as an unnecessary expansion of Government control over people’s private lives.

                      BTW – Once again, no reason for a libertarian to vote for either Obama or Romney over the other when there is one viable libertarian option on the ballot in all states and when you have at least two other valid options (write-in or no Pres vote). Despite your attempts to “Shame” libertarians with your playground level “you’re voting for Obama” taunt it is at best a logical fallacy and at worst a completely disgusting attempt to manipulate the emotions of others.

                    58. If I were an American I’d vote Johnson while hoping RR crushes Obama even with the full knowledge that Ryan’s ‘radicalism’ is a fraud like the party he hails from.

                      ARE YOU HAPPY NOW JOHN? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!?

          3. One thing is sure, he won’t be worse than what he is now.

            What are you smoking?

          4. I never understood this whole “wasted vote” trope. All votes are wasted, in that it is well-nigh statistically impossible that any sigle vote will make any difference. Nor will any single vote change the percentage won by each candidate. Nor do you receive a special prize if you vote for the person who ends up winnnig. The way I see it, the only utility voting has is psychic utility for the voter. So the voter should vote for the person he likes the most, and gives him the greatest psychic pleasure, which in my case is libertarian (Johnson).

            1. I find I can accurately predict the outcome of an election by taking the inverse of my ballot.

          5. my recall may be imperfect here – and I’m too lazy to search H-ampersand-R for a direct post – but I thought a few months ago that John was claiming he wouldn’t vote for *Romney. Has the Ryan pick been strong enough for you to switch sides?

            Note: I probably will vote for Romney with high expectations of being disappointed either way. Or perhaps I will get the gumption and pull the lever for Johnson, but at this point I’m undecided.

            1. bah, I should have read quicker since this was already covered above.

        2. You did it in 2004 with Bush/Kerry, you did it in 2008 with Obama/McCain, and you’re here doing it again.

          To be fair…they were probably right both of those times.

      2. You sure as fuck are.

      3. Yes, everyone who believes that an imperfect Paul Ryan would be an improvement over what we have now is a Republican.

        I don’t think this a Blue vs Red issue. Obama and the Dems have been awful. They need to be punished by a loss or they will only get worse. Republicans did the same shit from 2000 to 2006 and they needed that punishment when they lost.

        That said i am voting for Gary Johnson. My one vote will do more good by showing solidarity with libertarianism then any effect my vote could have in determining if team red/team blue win.

        A vote for Johnson counts more then a vote for ‘team blue/team red’.

    2. Look Epi, just because you couldn’t distinguish ROMNIAC/Ryan from Obama/Biden on paper doesn’t mean that Obama winning wouldn’t be 10,000x worse for America.

    3. Nobody has lazily accused you of being a Democrat yet, I see. How disappointing.

  7. Shooting heroin goes against my principles. But I’m going to shoot some so I don’t go through withdraw.

    1. *And* so that I, and everyone else, never have to shoot heroin again.

    2. Shooting heroin goes against my principles. But I’m going to shoot some so I don’t go through withdraw because this bullshit is easier to deal with if I’m stoned out of my fucking mind.

  8. WHO DOES NUMBER TWO WORK FOR?

    1. ” I am not a number! I am a free man!”

    2. “That’s right, your show that turd who’s boss.”

    3. I heard a newsperson refer to Ryan as the man chosen to fill Romney’s number two slot. The openly gay subtext was stunning.

  9. Once again, most important election eeeevvvveeerrrr

    1. This time, it is.

  10. “We added 107 pages of taxpayer protection”

    Another bizarre line.

  11. So it’s not possible to both believe that we shouldn’t have a system setup where bailouts are needed as well as believe that if we didn’t do these bailouts that the economy would have disintegrated? During 2008 foreign letters of credit (the backbone of international trade) where starting to not be accepted. This would have resulted in a stop of most/all trade. With our globally integrated supply chain this would be very bad.

    1. So it’s not possible to both believe that we shouldn’t have a system setup where bailouts are needed as well as believe that if we didn’t do these bailouts that the economy would have disintegrated?

      No, it is not possible.

      Actually, it is not possible to believe you should have a system where there are no bailouts and proceed to have a system with bailouts.

      Your justification for 2008 TARP is that the economy would have ‘disintegrated’. I would submit that the only way to have a system with no bailouts is to let the economy disintegrate.

      So technically it is possible to believe in both, but it is not possible to believe you can do anything about the latter and still believe in the system you want in the former.

      1. I think in this case the definition of “disintegrate” is that some major big-bank shareholders would stop contributing to certain political campaigns if they don’t get their bailout.

        1. No in this case the definition of disintegrate was no cash coming out of ATM’s or fuel at the pumps. Would we have recovered eventually, maybe. But it might have been a long time.

          The ONLY way to prevent a need for future bailouts is to prevent too big to fail in the first place. Any financial company that is big enough to wreck the system should be broken up.

          Also of course higher capital requirements, and stop securitzation.

          1. Wow. Did you copy and paste this from TPM or HuffPo?

          2. Nice story, tell me another.

          3. Come on, guys, without TARP it could have taken years to recover. But look at us now! Economy humming, unemployment in great shape, and declining budget deficits, just like Obama says in his commercials. Without TARP none of this would have been possible.

            no cash coming out of ATM’s or fuel at the pumps. Would we have recovered eventually, maybe. But it might have been a long time.

            Oh yeah, totally for sure, man! It was gonna be crazy, shit blowing up everywhere, just like when those computer dates got fucked up in Y2K. Fucking MADNESS!!

            1. Y2k, could have been a problem, but they stopped the worst of it, same with this financial crises.

              Obviously the best thing to do is have a system setup in place where you don’t get these types of problems.

              But if you don’t believe that shit was real bad then you are totally ignorant of how shit actually was on the ground at that time.

              Moreover, unless real changes are made the people in power will ALWAYS choose bailouts over financial armageddon.

  12. He’s a heretic – Burn Him

    1. Not a heretic, he just holds principles that are antithetical to the free market and limited government. Don’t burn him, just don’t trust or vote for him.

    2. Fallacy Alert!
      “Straw Man Argument”

  13. When Hank Paulson tells you the sky is falling, you give him the money to prop it up with.

    Otherwise, SOMALIA!

    1. pretty much this – from my hazy memory, Top Men came and told Bush Co. that the world was about to fail unless something was done.

      1. That was exactly it. I still remember the Paulson press conference – basically boiled down to, “Literally, if we don’t pass this law, the sky will fall and SOMALIA. Literally.”

        I remember thinking, “How do they know this, and why TOMORROW and not TWO DAYS FROM NOW or THREE WEEKS from now…? How do they KNOW this?”

        And we all found out what they “knew”, didn’t we?

  14. “These are my principles. And if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”

    1. “Principles are like assholes. Everyone has them, and they all stink.”

  15. C’mon John!
    Here boy!
    Defend your TEAM!
    Whoof whoof!
    C’mon!
    You can do it!

  16. Please…

    this so-called budget hawk was touting his *bold* plan to cut federal spending by 1% over 10 years. What a joke.

    They all play on the same team.

    1. Because you can’t tell the people who are old today and have planned around the current system to go fuck themselves. You can but no one is going to vote for you. So what you have to do change it for people going on the program in the future. That way they can plan for it. And they are going to buy into it because they know it will be that or nothing. You will never get the current old people to agree to a change since they will be dead before the system goes broke anyway.

      1. For someone who claims to be diametrically opposed to McArdle, you sound a lot like her.

        1. Stopped clock I guess. But it is true. You have to reform entitlements for future recipients not current ones.

          1. That’s nonsense and in fact, what is going to happen is they are going to reform entitlement for current recipients, no question about it.

            They will start by putting a means test into place and go from there. Don’t kid yourself.

            Reality has a way of making things happen. It simply won’t be possible to keep up payments so they will drop the payments. It’s very simple.

            1. Sure they will when the whole system goes broke? Wouldn’t it be a hell of a lot better to fix it now so that that doesn’t happen?

              Libertarians are as retarded as liberals claim they are if they honestly think that they can run on screwing all of the current old people an win.

              1. If winning was more important than being right to libertarians, then they wouldn’t be libertarians. I think that sometimes, if you want to be a moral person, you have to choose principles over pragmatism.

                1. Not when that intransigence allows evil people to prevail Zeb. And at some point you have to be humble enough to realize you don’t have all of the answers and other people can and should get a vote too. Libertarians forget that sometimes.

                  1. How does the “lesser of two evils” idea not allow evil people to prevail. At least voting third party doesn’t enable them.

                2. “I think that sometimes, if you want to be a moral person, you have to choose principles over pragmatism.”

                  The same argument is made by So-Cons

                  1. And good for them if they are sticking to their principles. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with them and won’t attempt to oppose them.

                    At least if they are principled I know where they are coming from and can have a decent idea of how they will respond/react to arguments and situations.

                    1. “At least if they are principled I know where they are coming from and can have a decent idea of how they will respond/react to arguments and situations.”

                      Politics is almost always pragmatic in function. Thus, you have a Gary Johnson increasing education spending in a first term and advocating school vouchers in the second.

                    2. Concern troll is concerned.

                      You realize education spending and vouchers are two separate issues within the greater subject of education reform?

                      You also realize not all libertarians are AnCaps many, like Johnson, are MinArchists and do accept there are some valid roles for government.

                      It is entirely possible for a libertarian to support increased education funding and simultaneously support more freedom of choice for students and families using that education system.

                      Finally, you do realize that Johnson is the candidate who best expresses and has acted according to libertarian principles in this campaign…that does not however mean there aren’t areas where his and others libertarian beliefs conflict.

                    3. “You also realize not all libertarians are AnCaps many, like Johnson, are MinArchists and do accept there are some valid roles for government.”

                      So, MinArchists are pragmatic libertarians…got it

                    4. Your point seems to be missing.

                    5. A Gary Johnson as an (R) 7 months ago and a Gary Johnson as an (L) now…principles…how do they work?

                    6. Because party label is so much more important that actual policies. Ron Paul was a Libertarian once, so he must also be unprincipled. The fact that so many of us would have willingly voted for Ron Paul is proof that most of us aren’t simply anti-Team teamers.

                    7. “Ron Paul was a Libertarian once, so he must also be unprincipled.”

                      Nope. But given he agrees more with the Libertarian party agenda, he is a Republican for a pragmatic reason.

                    8. Given that Gary Johnson was explicitly and actively ignored in the Republican primary despite having the most executive experience of any of the candidaties, and the fact that he mostly agrees with the LP platform, he is now a Libertarian for a pragmatic reason as well.

                      Politicians change parties for political opportunism, which isn’t necessarily the same thing as being unprincipled. The GOP tacitly rejected giving Johnson a chance to express his consistent philosophy.

                      Oh, and Gary Johnson has long been an LP member, even with the Republican affiliation.

  17. SOunds like he’s perfectly suited to work for Romney.

  18. He voted for TARP. He has no place in public life ever. If Libertarianism is ever going to succeed, it has to be pure. That means that no one who has ever been on the other side can ever be given credit for anything. It must be clear that the 96% of the population who are not Libertarians are never going to be rehabilitated. It doesn’t matter what Ryan says now. He is one the other side and will stay there forever. That sounds like a recipe for political success if there ever was one.

    1. Easy big guy. Ryan was brought on board to help conservatives pull the lever for Romney.
      “He’ll pull Romney to the right” they’ll say. But as TARP shows, Ryan is flexible too.

      1. The TARP vote bothers me less than the auto bailout vote. One can make a case that the cure was worse than the medicine for TARP, but the auto bailout doesn’t qualify.

        1. I agree MO. The Auto bailout was truly appalling.

        2. Ugh, replace, “One can make a case that the cure was worse than the medicine for TARP” with “One can make a case that the disease was worse than the cure for TARP”. Starting off slow this Monday.

        3. The auto bailout was nothing but proof of the success of government intervention. It preserved a lot of jobs, and not just in the auto industry. What harm did it cause, other than proving libertarians wrong?

          1. Tony would have advocated for a candlemakers bailout in the wake of the light bulb’s market dominance. Or maybe a buggy bailout when Henry Ford got rockin’ in Detroit.

            1. I advocate only a pragmatic approach to governance over a dogmatic one. Maybe we lost a bit of our soul bailing out the auto industry. But opponents would still be bitching about the unemployment level if we hadn’t done it.

              1. John Kerry dodged a bullet by loosing in 2004.

              2. Your pragmatic approach is to do politically convenient things so the Republicans don’t call you bad names?

                1. It entails factoring in political realities. I would go so far to say that there is no point in discussing the pros and cons of letting the big banks fail, as no politician would ever allow such a catastrophe on his watch. Not even free market dogmatists, as was proven in this instance. (Perhaps you would say there was no one in power who was dogmatic enough–but a political reality, at least in a free democracy, is that such dogmatists wouldn’t remain in power for long.) I consider it to be an essential problem with free market fundamentalism. Which I gather you guys understand, and is why you’re always so suspicious of democracy.

          2. Are you fucking kidding me?

            I could build a major car company if I could get the government to loan me 49 billion and then convert that debt to stock ownership of 26%.

            When do you think the government is going to get its money back?

            1. When do you think the government is going to get its money back?

              When it raises taxes on TEH EVUL RICH. /Progresso-tard troll

          3. Why do American automakers build such craptacular cars? Decade after decade, the federal government has paid them to do just that. It’s the wolf you feed.

          4. Proving libertarians wrong? Libertarians were the ones who said of course giving a company like GM billions of dollars for free would make them appear profitable for a couple of years. It’s a couple of years later and GM is tanking again. Jesus Christ, Tony, are you ever honest about anything, or did you just stop paying attention to GM when it became inconvenient?

          5. What harm did it cause

            Factories that built Nissans Toyotas subarus Fords all over the US were punished for not being complete fucking idiots like GM and Chrysler.

            So now instead of making better cars that people want to buy they have to spend more money competing against the government and its subsidized cars.

            Everyone was hurt. Customers, sellers, suppliers, producers all harmed.

    2. It doesn’t matter what Ryan says now. He is one the other side and will stay there forever.

      His voting record is consistent. I see no indication what he’s anything but a TEAM player.

    3. I’ll give him credit for the following:

      – Medicare Part D
      – NCLB
      – TARP
      – A lame ass budget proposal that doesn’t bring the government into the black for at least ten years.

    4. Has he explained his TARP vote more recently than 2/14/2010? If not, I don’t think libertarians (or libertarian-leaning Republicans) should find this explanation satisfactory:

      TARP. I’ll take one at a time. I believe we were on the cusp of a deflationary spiral which would have created a Depression. I think that’s probably pretty likely. If we would have allowed that to happen, I think we would have had a big government agenda sweeping through this country so fast that we wouldn’t have recovered from it. So in order to prevent a Depression and a complete evisceration of the free market system we have, I think it was necessary. It wasn’t a fun vote. You don’t get to choose the kind of votes you want. But I just think as far as the long term objectives that I have ? which are restoring the principles of this country ? I think it was necessary to prevent those principles from being really kind of wiped out for a generation.

      http://dailycaller.com/2010/02…..g-bonuses/

      1. Anyone who believes in the deflationary spiral theory isnt fit to hold a job, much less an elected position.

        1. “Anyone who believes in the deflationary spiral theory isnt fit to hold a job, much less an elected position.”

          Anyone who doesn’t believe it has no knowledge of economics.

          1. Anyone who thinks deflation is automatically a bad thing has no knowledge of economics. In the context of depressions, deflation is the effect, not the cause

      2. There wouldn’t have been a never-ending “spiral”, but with major banks leaving the market there would necessarily be a sharp decrease in the money supply, creating downward pressure on wages and prices. Even with a commensurate drop in prices, I don’t the the average voter would be okay with declining wages; they’d likely vote for policies and politicians who favored price and wage supports, which would worsen the economic decline in the wake of a smaller money supply (and likely decreased velocity as well, due to banks being more wary about lending).

        I think there’s some merit to his claim that not bailing out the banks would make the situation worse, but it is a political assertion rather than an economic one. Bailouts were bad, ceteris paribus, but there’s a damn good chance that ceteris wouldn’t be paribus when voters got upset.

  19. Everyone has something to hate about the response to the financial crisis. Free marketers hate the moral hazard, liberals hate that a corrupt status quo was preserved. One thing is pretty clear; if TBTF institutions had been allowed to fail, the response wouldn’t have been to apply free market principles, as there would be such a dire problem that there would be no option but a major government response. TARP saved a system neither liberals nor libertarians like, but without it there is absolutely no reason to believe you guys would have gotten something better rather than far worse from your perspective.

    1. Certain individual posters (I’m calling you out, robc) believe that the long term stabilization that would (may?) have resulted by letting the system implode would have been preferable to the present state of continued insecurity and the entrenchment of TBTF.

      I remain undecided…the short term pain of a full implosion would have been quite substantial. I believe it would have likely led to full on socialization. Simply put, the US populace would be unwilling to suffer the short term pain, and would have begun grasping at any solution to get out.

      1. Which is what we would up getting anyway, so I don’t see how implosion is somehow worse.

        1. We never came anywhere near full implosion. Full implosion would have been if GS, MS, Barclays, HSBC, and a few other big banks all went belly up. Oh, and the GSEs too.

          And that was a realistic possibility in Sept. 2008.

          1. “And that was a realistic possibility in Sept. 2008”

            For certain values of “Realistic,” I suppose.

        2. We have essentially the same system in place as before. The one built by, oh, Randians like Alan Greenspan and powerful bankers looking after their own short-term, compartmentalized interests. Little has changed about the system. A couple minor, toothless reforms that you no doubt oppose. It was faith in the ability of financial institutions to self-police that inevitably led to the crisis.

          And you suppose the most moral response would be to put millions more out of work (and of course into poverty, as you probably oppose a safety net) for the actions and failures of some bankers and politicians–actions that were sanctioned by your beliefs.

          1. Because Alan Greenspan is not a Randian, your entire critique is therefore fallacious.

            1. “Ayn Rand and I remained close until she died in 1982, and I’m grateful for the influence she had on my life. I was intellectually limited until I met her.”

              “Rand’s Collective became my first social circle outside the university and the economics profession. I engaged in the all-night debates and wrote spirited commentary for her newsletter with the fervor of a young acolyte drawn to a whole new set of ideas.”

              –Alan Greenspan

              I get it, really. Because libertarianism and Randianism are failed philosophies, the most prominent devotees to them must be excommunicated as soon as the damage they do is done, so that your failed philosophies can live to fight another day.

              Greenspan does go on to say that he found problems with Objectivism to such an extent that he couldn’t argue that others should readily accept it. But he was the most Randian figure in a position of power in American history, and it was not the qualifications to Objectivism that he admitted to failing the country after the crisis, but the unfettered free market preconceptions he held.

          2. Tony, how long have you been reading reason? How can anyone call the financial system prior to 2008 a “free market?”

            Let’s see.

            The FED controls the prices of your primary input and tries to manipulate the price of your outputs.

            The OCC, OTS and FDIC control entry and exit to the market.

            The FDIC, Fed and stet regulators control which products you are allowed to sell.

            The FDIC is socialized risk with giant amounts of moral hazard.

            The FED and FDIC control your bank’s capital ratios, asset mix, and liability structure.

            The FDIC and Fed do a risk assessment of your asset mix and require you to make provisions based on what they think the risk is.

            The GSE’s create artificial demand for mortgage securities to that originating banks don;t really give a shit about the quality of the loans.

            The FHLB, the FHA and the GSE’s prop up housing prices be incentivising higher levels of leverage.

            The Basel capital accords explicitly incetivised banks to hold securities over mortgages and mortgages over other kinds of loans.

            The FED, the FDIC, the SEC require you to use an oligopoly ratings agency to rate and asses your assets.

            The federal government has a long history of bailing out banks.

            So please tell me Tony, how the fuck is the banking industry some kind of Randian free market utopia?

            Banking is probably the most regulated and manipulated industry on the face of the planet. Healthcare is perhaps the only one that rivals it.

            1. It’s not, and will never will be, which is highly convenient for you guys. Of course if your beliefs require a free-market utopia before they have to take responsibility for anything, then I fail to see the point. But I’ve always failed to see the point of sitting around daydreaming to thoughts of utopia.

              It was the removal of certain specific restrictions (especially those found in Glass-Steagall) that facilitated the crisis. These deregulatory acts were done during the free-market zeal of 80s and 90s-era economics. My approach is to say, if those changes caused so much trouble, imagine if we did more.

              I will grant you that under a perfect libertopian system there probably wouldn’t be a financial system as we know it. But we live in the real world, in which changes are always incremental. There is bipartisan blame to go around, but it simply wasn’t the case that postwar government activism finally came to a head in 2008. It was the rolling back of the post-Great Depression reforms that caused it, and the private sector and society at large eerily resembled the pre-GD era in terms of unchecked power of banks and wealth inequality.

              Perhaps we can agree that a central problem is too much collusion between bankers and government–but libertarians have nothing to offer to solve that problem, just hand waving.

              1. It is amazing to me that you can manage to write so much and yet say so little.

              2. t’s not, and will never will be, which is highly convenient for you guys.

                It is not convenient for me. It’s cost me tens of thousands of dollars.

              3. Once again Tony pulls out the Glass-Steagall BS. Care to tell me how that led to the crisis Tony?

                And while your at it tell me how its removal caused housing bubbles and bank crisis in as different places ad Hong Kong to Finland.

                1. The larger point here is that all of those regulations and manipulations i mention create distortions that at least in part are what created the incentives to create a mess. Government regulators and monetary policy makers were deep in this mess and helped create it and didn’t realize there was a problem until too late.

                  Hell if the Euro crisis was a year later, the newest round of Basel accords was going to go into place that explicitly favored banks to hold OECD sovereign debt.

                  I’m sure when that helped to cause more banks to blow up, you’d blame that regulation on the free market too right tony?

      2. Call me out all you want. Destruction is necessary in a free market.

        We would be in recovery right now if we had allowed a larger number of banks to fail. Lots of smaller banks were doing things right, so I dont think the entire economic system would have crashed, thats silly.

        The hole would have been deep, however. We would be growing now, but from a bad point.

        1. The hole would have been deep

          The thing is, what happens when we dig a deep hole?

          Almost everyone turns to the government to dig them out. The expect that to be what their elected representatives should do. The deeper the hole, the grander the expectations.

          It’s an odd contradiction. To preserve the free market, you need to rescue it. Otherwise, even if natural recovery would be economically preferable due to the flushing of bad actors and a stronger, more stable, recovery, politically it is impossible.

          1. politically it is impossible.

            No it isnt.

            See Estonia for example. Its hard, and you have to accept a lowered standard of living for a few years, but it isnt impossible.

            1. What we ended up with was a bunch of wasted money, a hopelessly distorted economy, and a general standard of living that has been significantly lowered anyway, with more people in this country depending on government welfare today than at any time in our history.

              1. What we ended up with was a bunch of wasted money, a hopelessly distorted economy, and a general standard of living that has been significantly lowered anyway, with more people in this country depending on government welfare today than at any time in our history.

                Its hard to see how the political/economic system could have ended up in worse shape if we had let banks fail.

          2. My point is, while its possible you are right, the only way to find out for sure is to try it.

            If we dont allow the destruction, we have accepted the system we are fighting against. We got what you feared anyway, so why not go for broke?

            Sometimes you just have to throw caution to the wind and go for it. I think this was that key moment in American history, and we whiffed.

            1. We did not get what I feared. Or what anyone feared. I feared full on Depression and 30% unemployment. I believe a lot of people shared that same thought.

              Yes, there is a common argument that the Depression lingered longer than necessary due to FDR. Well, imagine this. Obama would have been even more of a shoe-in if things had really collapsed in Sept. 2008. And with the full backing of Congress behind him, if you think the PPACA was bad, it would’ve been nothing compared to the full onslaught of New Deal II.

              I wish I had your optimism

              1. I feared full on Depression and 30% unemployment.

                I thought that would have been a good cleanser.

                Obama would have been even more of a shoe-in if things had really collapsed in Sept. 2008.

                I thought McCain’s last best chance to win was to reverse his position and oppose TARP. I dont think it would have been enough, but he would have gained a few points.

    2. liberals hate that a corrupt status quo was preserved

      Citation needed. I don’t see liberals blaming the government for the situation, when it was the government’s choice on how to respond.

      1. I will blame government. Not “government” the concept, but the specific actions taken (or not taken) by various governments. Any market failure can also be considered a failure of government to properly regulate. But I don’t think that’s what you mean.

    3. Jesus Christ, Tony. How long have you been lingering on these boards? It’s not about better or worse for libertarians. It’s about principles.

      That being said, was there a better way to do it? How about instead of doling out all of that money to the TBTF, they instead, temporarily increased the FDIC limit, and provided funds to the smaller banks that didn’t make horrible mistakes, to buy up the fire saled assets that would have been liquidated.

      1. There were a thousand better ways to do it, just none that so well preserved the status quo that so much work had gone into creating.

        1. I thought you hated the status quo. I can’t tell what your point is… are you arguing that the bailouts were necessary because STATUS QUO! but at the same time we had to reform healthcare because STATUS QUO! all the while needing to tax the rich and elevate the poor because STATUS QUO!?

  20. Speaking of Too Connected to Fail, it’s fun to watch the kids on Bloomberg falling all over themselves with relief that Knight Capital got “rescued” Because nobody should suffer just because they fucked up in a truly monumental way. That would reduce us all to the level of monkeys.

    1. They didn’t get bailed out. The 6 companies that provided the financing got effective control of the company, have potential ownership of 75% of the firm and the stock dropped 24%, hurting shareholders. More importantly, it was done by private companies, using their money because they wanted to keep the system up and running. That’s the way it should work.

  21. The deception with tact, just what are you trying to say?
    You’ve got a blank face, which irritates
    Communicate, pull out your party piece
    You see dimensions in two
    State your case with black or white
    But when one little cross leads to shots, grit your teeth
    You run for cover so discreet, why don’t they:

    Do what they say, say what you mean

    Then it’s easy to believe
    Somebody’s been lying to me
    But when the wrong word goes in the right ear
    I know you’ve been lying to me
    It’s getting rough, off the cuff I’ve got to say enough’s enough
    Bigger the harder he falls
    But when the wrong antidote is like a bulge on the throat
    You run for cover in the heat why don’t they

    Do what they say, say what they mean

    1. On thing leads to another…

  22. Paul Ryan makes a mockery of fiscal conservatism. He’s just as bad as Romney, if not worse, as far as I’m concerned.

  23. I am still pegging the over under on Reason staffers voting for Obama at 2. There will be at least one and there might be three putting the over under at 2.

    1. Be a man, no pushes. 1.5 or 2.5?

      1. I will go with 1. The safe choice.

    2. Gillespie, Sullum, Steigerwald.

    3. I’ll bet zero

      1. Really? I bet one of them does. You watch, there will be a “libertarian case for Obama” published in October even if they have import a stunt douche bag like Will Wilkerson to do it.

        1. Imagine going back to 2000 in your time machine and trying to convince your former self that Gore has to be elected or war, suffering anf financial ruin will result.

          1. Gore wouldn’t have stopped 9-11. And Gore was a bigger hawk on Iraq than George Bush was. I don’t think Gore winning would have resulted in anything different than maybe higher tax rates. But everything else would have unfolded about the same.

            1. Gore wouldn’t have stopped 911, but he wouldn’t have responded with World War Two and a Half either.

              1. Yes he would have. Any President would have invaded Afghanistan after 9-11. And Al Gore was more hawkish on Iraq than Bush was. People forget that both Gore and Clinton thought Saddam had WMDs in the 1990s, Clinton waged what amounted a low intensity war against Iraq for his entire term, and large numbers of Democrats in Congress voted for war in Iraq.

                The idea that we went to war because of Bush is just total full on Tony level retard.

                1. NOw you’re getting nasty.

                  1. I take that back. But I hate the rewriting of history where no one but Bush and his evil NEOCONs ever supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                    1. I am not rewriting history, I am re-imagining it. Like Batman sequels.

                2. Sorry John you can play at counterfactuals all you want but to say a Democrat would have invaded Iraq is to let Bush off the hook completely unjustifiably. Iraq was not inevitable. It was the dream of neocons, who wouldn’t have surrounded a President Gore.

                  1. Go fuck yourself Tony and live in your fantasy world where Clinton didn’t spend 8 years bombing Iraq and where large numbers of Democrats in Congress didn’t vote to invade. The rest of us have to live in reality.

                    1. You’re trying to say Iraq–a war with no purpose or justification–was just one of those things, totally inevitable, and I’m living in a fantasy world? Sounds like a big fat convenient absolution for its perpetrators.

                    2. No you idiot, I am telling you that plenty of Democrats, including one Al Gore, thought Iraq was a threat and would have and did support the invasion. The Democrats own the Iraq war just as much as the Republicans. They supported it during the Clinton Administration, voted to authorize it and fund it during the Bush administration, and continued it during the Obama administration.

                      That is the past, own it.

                    3. You’re trying to say Iraq–a war with no purpose or justification

                      There was actually a quite compelling justification for the Iraq war:

                      The greatest threat the Saudi King faced was an invasion from Iraq. Saddam Hussein saw himself as the enforcer of the production restrictions that OPEC members were supposed to adhere to, and his invasion of Kuwait was pretty clearly intended to make an example of them for their rouge behavior.

                      The U.S. army’s presence on Saudi soil was the casus belli behind Al Queda’s creation. Thus, if one wished to defang Al Queda one needed to get the U.S. Army out of Saudi Arabia without risking an invasion by Saddam Hussein.

                      Thus, the invasion of Iraq was purposed to:
                      1) End the threat from the North to the Saudi King
                      2) Establish a new country that the U.S. could maintain a military presence in that wasn’t a holy land for muslims
                      3) Remove Al Queda’s main stated reason for targeting the U.S. (Al Queda would still attack the U.S. because U.S. support is critical to keeping the king they want to overthrow on the throne)

                      The notion that George Bush randomly decided to attack Iraq or was trying to avenge the assassination attempt against his dad is puerile dreck.

                      I don’t think the invasion was a good idea, but I recognize that there were very defensible realpolitik reasons for carrying it out.

        2. I seriously doubt that any of them are going to cop to it so we’ll never know for sure; but it’s an absolute 100% given that the jackass Chapman is voting for Obama again, and I suspect that Bailey probably will also.

      2. This is my thought. Last time around the “libertarian” choice was Barr. Who in my opinion was a worse choice than McCain or Obama in many ways. There was little fiscal difference between Obama and McCain, so they chose to vote for Obama because he seemed to be the better choice on social issues. Barr couldn’t be trusted to be better than Obama or McCain on either set of issues.

        This time around Johnson is out there, he is strong libertarian candidate and is a much better choice than both major party candidates on Social AND Economic issues. So I am pretty sure most of the staffers will vote Johnson.

    4. Except for the 24/7’ers, who don’t get to put their opinions in writing as much, I can’t imagine any of the current staffers voting for Obama. There’s no Republican power to punish and Obama has shown himself to be as much or more dangerous to libertarian ideals then the man a couple Reasoners punished last election.

      1. Funny how they always like to punish the Republican in power but you never hear them talk about the need to punish Dems when they are in power.

        If Bush deserved to be punished for selling out Libertarians on small government, doesn’t Obama deserve to be punished for selling out Libertarians on civil rights issues and the war on terror? Yet, I am still waiting for that “Obama must lose this elections because he deserves it for selling us out” article. They ran about a hundred of them during the run up to the 08 election. But this year not so much.

      2. I am still waiting for that “Obama and the Dems deserves to be punished for selling us out on civil liberties” article. They love punishing Republicans. Dems seem to get a pass.

      3. If the Republicans deserved to be punished for the sins of Bush, why don’t Democrats deserve to be punished for the sins of Obama on civil liberties and such?

        1. Fair question. So perhaps some of the Reasoners who used that rationale last time will vote for Romney. Either way, I haven’t seen any indication from any of the staffers that an Obama vote is in their future.

          1. That is just it. They won’t. They will vote, or at least claim to vote for Johnson. And that is their right. And they should vote for Johnson, they are Libertarians. But the issue is, why didn’t they vote for Barr in 2008? That is the real scandal.

            1. Johnson is libertarian, Barr wasnt.

              That is a decent reason.

              I voted for Barr (and worse Root), but wasnt happy about it.

              1. Not to mention, Gillespie, Sullum, Root, Balko, Walker and Weigel (fwiw) all said they would be voting for Barr, if they bothered to vote.

              2. But he ran for the Party. And I thought voting for a losing candidate was necessary so they could get more support and be on more ballots and such.

                It is all bullshit. They are all going to vote for Johnson this year. Then you watch, when Romney wins, come 2016, they won’t be voting, L, they will be voting D to punish the Republicans.

                1. What is the point you are trying to make John? That reason employees are secretly Democrats? I can see how people got swept up in Obama’s rhetoric, especially since Senator Obama was quite a bit different from President Obama.

                  But A) Romney is not a shoe-in this fall; if he was you wouldn’t be pushing for so many anti-Obama votes among libertarians who pretty much hate both candidates equally. and B) reason is about free minds and free markets (shots for everyone!), so I don’t think the reactionary vote is one that’s used frequently here. I think it was a one-off in 2008 because people were THAT sick of George W. Bush. It was unfortunate, but more of an outlier among any libertarians who actually voted for Obama.

              3. Samesies, no homo. 2008 was right around the time of my libertarian awakening. All I could see though was that Obama was going to be terrible (the mindless wave he rode to the presidency on pretty much told me all I needed to know) and McCain would have been the same.

                My how things have changed in 4 years. /sarcasm

              4. I couldn’t bring myself to vote for Barr. It was the first time since I started voting that I didn’t pull the LP lever.

  24. The auto bailout was nothing but proof of the success of government intervention.

    “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Your Honor, I rest my case.”

  25. TARP saved a system neither liberals nor libertarians like, but without it there is absolutely no reason to believe you guys would have gotten something better rather than far worse from your perspective.

    Unfortunately, there is an element of truth to this.

    One substantial problem with the decoupling of gold from the currency is that it means there is no real economy left outside of the state and outside of the Fed system.

    In 1870 if Washington DC had been destroyed by asteroid strike the rest of the country would just have motored along, probably barely noticing. People would still have used the gold and silver coin based currency system because the gold and silver coins had their own value independent of the state.

    In 2012 that’s no longer the case. We need the state and its Fed-based banking system for the green pieces of paper in our pockets to mean anything. A total Fed system collapse shoots us back to pre-Lydian economics, without stopping at any of the waypoints in between.

    1. Thanks for reading Tony so I didn’t have to. And yeah, you are probably right.

    2. There are no Federal Reserve Banks in DC. The Board of Governors is there, but the Fed could chug along without them. Presumably, the governors from the 12 member banks could manage Fed policy.

      1. Without a US Navy Army to defend the Saudi monarch, his willingness to insist on payment in those green pieces of paper would be reduced, imperiling the ersatz petroleum standard of the U.S. financial system.

        1. Yep,

          The US economy is entirely dependent on the dollar being the world’s reserve currency, which in turn is only the case because of US military hegemony.

  26. They didn’t get bailed out.

    Hence “rescued”; meanwhile, the idiots/thieves running the company for their own benefit at the expense of the actual owners managed to keep their jobs and paychecks when they should be out wandering the sidewalks of lower Manhttan morosely clutching cardboard boxes full of family photos and stolen Mont Blanc pens.

    1. stolen Mont Blanc pens

      Noyce!

  27. I simpley cannot imagine how Romney/Ryan can be worse than Obama/Biden. So I don’t care how impure Ryan is from a libertarian point of view.

    1. Second.

      Besides, I’m voting for myself for President, so…whatever.

      1. Besides, I’m voting for myself for President

        Roseanne? Is that you?

    2. I cant imagine how Romney/Ryan can be better than Johnson/Gray. So I dont care how impure Ryan is from a libertarian point of view.

      1. Johnson/Gray would be my first choice, but they are not going to occupy the white house.

        I have voted libertarian in every election going back to Clark. I’m not going to change that habit.

        But that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a preference in who the ignorant masses vote for in November.

        1. The ignorant masses in my state hate Obama with a passion, so I really dont have anything to do on that front.

          1. The ignorant masses in my state hate Romney with something approaching passion (not Bush-level of course) so my preference isn’t relevant to the disposition of our three electoral votes. I’d vote for Johnson anyway though.

          2. Well, I have the benefit of living in a swing state. The TVs ads are incessant, and now they’re starting on the radio.

            Romney was here last week, and Obama will be here next week.

            The next three months are going to be miserable.

        2. ^This^ I plan to vote for Johnson, but if someone held a gun to my head* and forced me to choose between Romney and Obama, I’d choose Romney and then go home and take a shower. And, since Johnson isn’t going to win, I’d prefer Romney to win the votes of the useful idiots instead of Obama, but I’d still feel sick to my stomach.

          *Actually if someone held a gun to my head I’d probably disarm them and shoot them with their own gun, or at least try to. Better to go down fighting.

    3. Tell you what, I’ll give you $10,000 if you vote for Gary Johnson and, by that one vote, Romney loses your state and by losing your state loses the electoral college majority. We make too much of the importance of our one vote to the outcome and not enough about the importance of our one vote to our own sense of integrity, principles, and not feeling guilty for voting for a guy (or gal) who will inevitably do some particulary immoral act once elected.

      1. and not feeling guilty for voting for a guy (or gal) who will inevitably do some particulary immoral act once elected.

        So what you are saying is no one with integrity should ever vote or if they do should vote for a sure loser?

        I really wish Johnson would win for no other reason than to teach Libertarians not to put too much faith in politicians. Because all of them are going to do things in office they never dreamed they would do when they were campaigning.

        1. Because all of them are going to do things in office they never dreamed they would do when they were campaigning.

          Absolutely. I dont think any of us claimed otherwise. I know President Paul would have been a disappointment at times. But so fucking what?

          That isnt the point. Criticism of Ryan’s votes is very legitimate.

          And, honestly, I think TARP was possibly a watershed moment in US history, that vote is more important than just the results of that vote, if you know what I mean.

      2. 2000 (and 1888) proved that if the election is that close, the courts are going to be the final deciding factor anyway.

  28. The big question is why Mitt Romney is the front-runner instead of Ron Paul?

    1. Because there is a layer of GOP princes that are invisible to us yet who determine the nominee. They backed Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain and now Romney.

    2. Because Ron Paul is spent too much time around Murry Rothbard and couldn’t keep his mouth shut or resist crowing about how the US got what it deserved on 9-11. The Paultards can spin it all they want. But perception is reality in politics. And Paul let his opponents paint him as a get the US out of North America nut peacenik.

      1. You continue to lie about this. Not once did Paul say the US got what it deserved.

        You are a liar.

        1. He created that impression and that is just as bad. Again, spin it all you want. But Paul’s total mishandling of that issue killed him. This was the year he could have won.

          1. I dont have to spin. You and the people who are INTENTIONALLY misunderstanding what he said are the ones spinning.

            I am taking his words literally. That is spinfree.

            1. His political enemies took an incendiary statement that anyone knew would be twisted and twisted it and destroyed him with it. Cry me a river. Paul had no reason to go on and on about blow back. It did him no good politically. But he just couldn’t resist. It was grade A political stupidity.

              1. Besides, the blowback meme is almost entirely bullshit.

                911 was caused by our arming Afghani muslims to fight the Soviets or by our defending Wahabis against an Arab Socialist.

                The premise is laughably retarded on the face of it.

                Right up there with the other America hating libertarian meme that the US caused the attack on Pearl Harbor by boycotting the Japanese empire.

                1. ^THIS^ Noninterventionism is a faith, pure and simple. Blowback is just the ‘morality’ mechanism of that faith.

                  1. I consider your views, which relies on a government acting moral and sensible when conducting foreign affars, including wars and all sorts of interventions, to be much more faith based

                    1. The USG has acted morally and sensibly in the past in foreign affairs and war. Hiroshima and Sherman’s campaign against the south come to mind. Most US interventions in the cold war were great ex aiding the Contras and Afghan resistance. Both were great moves.

          2. John,

            Can I criticize US policy wrt the plains Indians or are you going to spin it into me saying that the US got what it deserved at Little Big Horn?

            1. Sure. Because it is true. I can’t really say Custer didn’t get what he deserved. But to compare the US treatment of Muslims to the US treatment of Indians is profoundly stupid and erroneous.

              All of the people who attacked us on 9-11 were Saudis and Egyptians. We have never bombed either of those countries and in fact have given both billions in aid over the years. The biggest sin the Paultards keep bringing up is the US support of the Shah. Yet, Iranians were no the ones who attacked us.

              The whole theory is just stupid and totally counter to the facts. The fact that Paul not only believes it but thinks it is so important that he had to say it over and over again, just shows how dumb of a politician he is.

            2. Sure. And you would be right. Custer was an asshole who got what he deserved. But to compare the US treatment of the middle eastern nations to its treatment of Indians is total bullshit.

              1. Sigh, you dont get it. You are the one doing what you accuse Paul of. I dont think Custer deserved it.

                It was inevitable, but not deserved.

                Yes the analogy isnt the same, but blowback is blowback. When you fuck around in places you dont need to be, you piss people off. Eventually, they retaliate. They are still at fault, but its not surprising.

                If I walk down MLK Drive* yelling racial epithets, it shouldnt come as a surprise to me if I get assaulted. I dont deserve it, but its not a surprise.

                *see Rock, Chris

                1. The 9-11 hijackers were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries we have never been at war with and have given billions in aid. The biggest sin the Paul people point to in the middle east is supporting the Shah. But an Iranian has never attacked the US on American soil.

                  The blowback theory just doesn’t match with the facts. If it were about blowback Somalies and Vietnamese would be attacking us not Saudis.

                  1. Gee John, I wonder what those unpopular governments have done with the weapons and money the U.S. has been shipping to them?

                    It couldn’t be that they are using them against their people?

                    1. Tarran,

                      We supported a lot worse governments in South America than we ever did in the middle east. Yet, I don’t see any Chileans coming to America to fly planes into buildings.

                      So gee, maybe one has nothing to do with the other? Maybe people have their own motivations and the US can’t control the world.

                    2. If supporting bad governments makes the world hate us, why aren’t Philippinos waging endless war against the US? Not only did we forcibly colonize them, we propped up the Marcos regime, a regime just as bad as anything in Egypt, for 40 years.

                2. “And Paul let his opponents paint him…”

                  “Sigh, you dont get it. You are the one doing what you accuse Paul of. I dont think Custer deserved it.

                  It was inevitable, but not deserved.”

                  You’re making an argument against a position that hasn’t been taken. If you think it’s inaccurate that RP was “painted” in these terms, do a search on “Ron Paul US deserved 911” and see what you come up with.

                  1. If you think it’s inaccurate that RP was “painted” in these terms

                    Im not denying that. Im saying John is the painter.

                    1. EVery time this comes up, John starts by saying Paul said X, I say no he didnt, and John backpeddles into “but that is how it was spun”.

                      But notice that isnt what John said at first, John claimed Paul said it.

                    2. “The Paultards can spin it all they want. But perception is reality in politics”

                      Looks like a qualified statement to me, but then again, doesn’t really matter what John thought, as much as what 90% of the GOP primary voters thought.

                    3. crowing about how the US got what it deserved on 9-11.

                      There is nothing qualified about that.

                    4. But notice that isnt what John said at first, John claimed Paul said it.

                      Meanwhile George tried to clean his karma while tuning his guitar, and Ringo stuck his drumsticks in his ears so he couldn’t hear “mum and pa” bicker. Three months later, Abbey Road was released to much acclaim. Despite the artistic and financial success of the album, the recording process was excruciating, with many personality conflicts and infighting. It was the end of the Beatles, and the boys from Liverpool were cast astray.

                3. Yes the analogy isnt the same, but blowback is blowback. When you fuck around in places you dont need to be, you piss people off. Eventually, they retaliate.

                  What was the blowback for Hiroshima Nagasaki?

                  Or Fire bombing Dresden?

                  Or the mass slaughter of the Vietnam War?

                  Or the Cuba embargo?

                  Or Propping up dictators in Chile Argentian?

                  Or Spain.

                  Or Meddling in Columbia to create a new country?

                  Or Meddling in that new country?

                  What about all the trouble the US caused in the Phillipines?

                  Hell, were are the native Hawaiian terrorists?

                  Or the Mexicans?

                  1. You just have to wait for it. It’s coming…

                  2. What was the blowback for Hiroshima Nagasaki?

                    Iron Chef.

                    Or Fire bombing Dresden?

                    David Haselhoff.

                    etc, etc…you get the point.

                    Different cultures react differently, duh. But they all react. Some just seeth and hate us, some act on it.

                    And a more serious answer for Germany is The Werwolfs. They were mostly ineffective, but they did exist.

                  3. So if everyone who has ever been wronged doesn’t seek revenge, then there is no such thing as blowback?

                    What if some people decide to, and others don’t?

                    1. France: treats northern Arrica and other parts of Africa like neocolonial holdings. Blowback: nil

                      Denmark: publishes cartoons of The Prophet Mohommed. Embassies bombed and AQ sends an axe murderer to kill the cartoonist.

                      If you believe in blowback, it’s because you like blowback.

                      Ron Paul could’ve stressed his opposition to the UN and foreign aid over his myopic phobia of US interventionism at any time but he didn’t. And the way he ‘dealt’ with the newsletters issue was jaw-droppingly dumb.

                    2. The general trend of blowback is not undermined by specific instances where you don’t see a 1:1 correlation. Even you must see that’s fallacious reasoning.

                    3. The general trend of blowback is not undermined by specific instances where you don’t see a 1:1 correlation. Even you must see that’s fallacious reasoning.

                      So all of the examples that don’t prove your theory just goes to show how valid the theory really is. Are you fucking kidding me? And the examples are not just any examples, they are specific examples involving the middle east. And I have yet to hear a single example of actual blowback. All I see is “well someone got violent and doesn’t like us, so it must be blowback”. Tautology much?

                    4. So all of the examples that don’t prove your theory just goes to show how valid the theory really is.

                      Is that what I said?

                      Remind me not to count on your ability of reading comprehension when we are engaged with a discussion.

                      My point, of course, was not that failure to see blowback in a specific instance proves that blowback is real. In fact, my point was that failure to see blowback in a specific instance does not DISPROVE the general theory of blowback, no more so than a person who smokes three packs a day and gets hit by a bus at 90 years old disproves the correlation between smoking and cancer/heart disease.

                      I hope that you understand the difference, because unfortunately I cannot force you to return to 8th grade to learn how to read big words.

                    5. And Randian, assuming that it is there doesn’t prove it either. And that is all you can do.

                    6. Show me an undisputed instance of blowback Randian? We never bombed Saudi Arabia or Egypt. You assume 9-11 was blowback because that is what you want it to be not because you know.

                    7. You can dishonestly “dispute” anything you want John, just to give yourself epistemic closure.

                    8. And Randian, you can assume what you believe is true and project motives onto people all you want. But it won’t make your theories any more valid.

                    9. The general trend of blowback is not undermined by specific instances where you don’t see a 1:1 correlation. Even you must see that’s fallacious reasoning.

                      Nope, not at all.

                      If the concept of blocback is meaningful at all then there must be something close to a 1:1 correlation.

                      Part of the idea is that retaliation is predictable, which is meaningless when it happens in 1 out of 20 cases.

                    10. Just because a situation doesn’t cause large catastrophic blowback (ala 9/11) does not mean that our actions do not have much smaller and far less measurable consequences that eventually add up to a large eruption.

                      9/11 was part of an increasing series of attacks on American interests by a small cadre of radical islamists who were upset over the long term actions of the United Stated regarding our support of middle east dictators such as the Saudis and Saddam Hussein, long term support for Israel, and a perceived cultural invasion.

                      Just because you cannot pinpoint an event that “caused” 9/11 does not mean that the reasons the terrorists undertook those actions wasn’t in direct response to American actions.

                      Once again labeling something as blowback != justification of the action undertaken. It is simply acknowledging that we undertook actions that led to the eventual eruption.

                      While the actual nature of the blowback may not be predictable, the idea that it will likely come one day in response to our actions is fairly predictable.

                    11. Gojira,

                      Then there isn’t a correlation is there? People are going to do what they are going to do regardless.

                    12. In other words, every single transgression must be met by Cyto and John’s narrow blowback criteria, else the whole theory is total bunk.

                      That’s really scientific, guys. Way to be.

                    13. Uh yeah Randian I’m a scientist. When I come up with a hypothesis and then my evidence contradicts that hypothesis, the hypothesis was wrong no matter how much I liked it. There is no ‘trend’ by the way except of less and less danger to America, thanks to droning.

                    14. If Islam itself is the problem, why are terror attacks in the West such a recent phenomena? The US actually used to have a pretty good reputation in the Middle East. How do you explain Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Christian who assassinated a US presidential candidate over US support for Israel? Are the Lebanon Marine barrack bombings not blowback? Is the whole situation in Iran not blowback for 1953? I mean literally, that blew up right in our faces. And it’s not like Muslims are the only group to ever resort to terrorism against what they saw as an occupying force. See the IRA, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the ETA in Spain etc

                    15. I never said Islam was the problem, although it is ‘a problem’. The reason terror attacks are more recent is because America allowed state sponsors of terrorism to exist, namely Islamist Iran. This is was the worst FP move America has made in the 2nd half of the 20th century Vietnam aside. That situation is ‘blowback’ for not conducting a proper invasion in 1980.

                      I’m glad you mentioned those other terror groups. They have all been crushed some to extinction and are thus made infinitely less dangerous. Lesson learned.

  29. We would be in recovery right now if we had allowed a larger number of banks to fail.

    I think we would be much better off if Sheila Bair hadn’t shoveled the banks which *did* fail into the portfolios of the three or four biggest banks. “Urgent time constraints” or no, letting those assets get bought up by smaller regional banks instead of Citi and B of A would have been better. If Too Big to Fail is universally recognized as a problem, why do you make a conscious effort to make the biggest banks even bigger?

    And, of course, marking those assets to market at the time would have helped.

    1. Certainly would have been better for BofA shareholders.

  30. I’m voting for myself for President, so…whatever.

  31. Whoops

    I’m voting for myself for President, so…whatever.

    Who’s your running mate? The non other evil twin?

  32. Fuck this TEAM RED circlejerk. You people get La Noche Del Domingo.

    1. Is it a circle? Look more like a rhomboid to me.

      1. Sorry. Elliptijerk.

    2. Oh my god.

      1. If the girl in the pink skirt doesn’t win, the clearly the fix is in.

    3. Have I ever told you guys how much I love Latinas? Well if I haven’t before I have now

  33. pointing out that he couldn’t be much more opposite of Ron Paul.

    This could be said about almost every elected representative in the Federal government. Republican or Democrat.

  34. For the record, I do not believe Romney will be an improvement in any meaningful way. I just want to see the Campaigner-in-Chief booted out on his worthless ass. With any luck, he’ll be filing for bankruptcy in three years.

    1. “I just want to see the Campaigner-in-Chief booted out on his worthless ass.”

      Agreed. I’m tired of the constant smug deceitfulness and the army of bootlickers trying to justify it.

      1. The idea that every sitting President should be booted out because the second term is so much more dangerous when they’re untethered from electoral consequences is the only compelling argument to vote for the non-incumbent in the major party.

        Of course, then we would have had more not-awesome presidents like Mondale, Dole, Kerry and Romney.

        1. Then again, the “devil you know” counterpoint cancels that out, more or less.

        2. I’ll take someone that struggled with a vote on TARP over a thug that will accuse someone of causing cancer because they were CEO of an investment company any day. Obama will say and do anything to keep his power and having seen his agenda, there’s only one practical choice I have. That is to vote for someone that will at least stop the insanity, principled and perfect or not.

    2. He’s going to make a fortune in speaking engagements and ghost written book sales.

      1. This. No modern President ever need worry about money. He’s already proven he’s a good speaker and people will pay top dollar to hear his worthless rhetoric.

    3. For the record, I do not believe Romney will be an improvement in any meaningful way. I just want to see the Campaigner-in-Chief booted out on his worthless ass. With any luck, he’ll be filing for bankruptcy in three years.

      Amen to this. I can absolutely no longer stand all of the sycophants crowing about how awesome Obama is when in reality he hasn’t done anything remotely impressive in his entire fucking life. Also, I am somewhat looking forward to watching the VP debates in hopes we’ll all get to hear an Edwards-style “my daddy dun lernt to read from watchin’ the tee-vee” anecdote come out of Biden’s mouth in response to some hard numbers from Ryan.

    4. I just want to see the Campaigner-in-Chief booted out on his worthless ass

      What I do not look forward to are all the libbruls who weep “THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN!!” and spend the next few years dissecting some conspiracy about how it all had to do with Corporate Influence in politics and wahhh waaaaaaaa awaahahaha

  35. The WSJ has a piece on tattooing in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Makes me glad I’m tat-free.

    1. As a retort, VICE should do a piece on the likelihood of Municipal Bond defaults as reflected by their yield spread relative to treasuries. It makes about as much sense.

      Also, the WSJ’s cultural-awareness is only about a few months more up-to-date than the NYT… which has an inherent 10yr time-lag. They wrote an article about the growing trend with ‘downloading’ music… like 2 years ago.

      [*Note: I live in Wburg]

  36. We can go back and forth (and you have) about the endgame strategies regarding another Obama term or 4-8 years with Romney, but in the end the vote is personal. I choose to vote for who is actually closest to me in his principles and beliefs. Unfortunately, I’m not 35 so my own name cannot be on the ballot, so for the next 3 elections I will have to choose between dipshit A, dipshit B, and a myriad of 3rd party choices. But the way things have gone lately, almost any of the 3rd party candidates are more deserving of my vote than the Republican or Democrat standard-bearer.

    Vote your conscience, or don’t. I don’t care. But just live with your decision and stop with the ad hominem attacks on others based on who they pick.

    1. Vote for Obama on the off chance that he will change on civil rights and be the President he promised in 2008. Romney certainly won’t be. And it is clear from this thread both Romney and Ryan are as bad or really worse than Obama on the budget. So why not roll the dice that Obama might go all hopey changy in a second term?

      1. John, your argument is basically:

        “OBAMA IS TEH BAD!! Examining how “good” the Republican candidates actually are is a mistake which distracts THE TEAM from remembering OBAMA BAD!! Oh, you find ‘imperfections’ in our GOP offering?! GO SUCK AN OBAMA YOU ENEMYSLAVE@!!!

        It really is funny to watch.

        Me personally, I actually kinda like Ryan, if only for the fact he is a small step away from the hyper-pandering social-cons wringing their hands over the gays and the liberal media agenda to defend the terrists and waging war on christmas and terry sciavo and bomb iran! etc.

        although, as noted by Randian above: he plays that game just like the rest when needed.

  37. TARP was like a statist Pascal’s Wager. The supposed consequences of not passing it were so severe that no matter how irrational it was to believe them, people were too scared to take that chance.

    You can hear the fear in his voice. I don’t know whether to view his vote for TARP as an intellectual failure or a moral one, but could cut him a little more slack if he would admit that it was a mistake. There are no atheists in a foxhole, and maybe no one refuses to worship Leviathan when it looks like the economy is teetering on the edge. Maybe I would have made the same mistake if that responsibility had rested on me, but he should at least admit the mistake after the fact. Come out and say, “I was scared and acted irrationally,” and I think I could forgive it.

    1. Isn’t that pretty much what he said?

      This bill offends my principles. But I’m going to vote for this bill in order to preserve my principles, in order to preserve this free enterprise system.”

      Isn’t that saying “God I hate this but what if I am wrong?”

      1. Anyone with the slightest inkling of comprehending market economics, incentive theory, etc. should know that introducing moral hazards endangers the free market system more than letting the market work its magic. The fact that he was confused when 1/3rd of the House wasn’t indicates that he has no principles, and that he succumbed to the Congressional “Do Something” mentality.

  38. Jeebus H. Cristo, WTF is going on here? What has happened with you, John, you are sounding a little unhinged, telling people to vote for Obama? LMAO.

    Here’s just my 3 cents worth cause you know I can’t stop with 2.

    People are finally wising up and are ready to say a big fuck you to the 2 party duopoly. I am one of them. Johnson has my vote and there is nothing that Romney or Ryan can say to change that. They can get right up on the stage and say that Ron Paul was right all along and that they should have listened to his message, and from this point on they will amend their clueless ways and carry the Libertarian message straight to the Presidency. I still wouldn’t vote for Romney because for starters, I wouldn’t believe a word of it. If the ticket were reversed and Ryan was the POTUS nominee, I still wouldn’t vote for them. Ryan is a smart guy, well spoken, and all that. But a Libertarian, he is not, and I don’t even see a tiny portion of anything Libertarian in either one of them.

    So, yes, there is a choice in this election. His name is Gary Johnson, and whether he gets 5%, or 2%, is irrelevant, I am voting for what I believe in.

    1. I am just saying that if you honestly believe that there is no difference between Romney and Obama on spending, then Obama is the better choice since he is pro gay rights and has at least promised to do something about GUITMO and such in his second term.

      The position on this board seems to be that Ryan is a huge spending Republican and just as bad as Obama. Fine. Maybe he is. All I am saying is is that if you really believe that, then Obama is the better choice from a Libertarian perspective. And if you don’t think Obama is the better choice, then maybe you ought to rethink the first clause of that sentence.

      1. I don’t think that Obama is the better choice. But I think that Romney will be bad in many ways. His strings are being pulled by the neocons and he will get us into another war, with Iran. I also think that despite anything that Romney and Ryan say, that they will not support free markets and that they will engage in all kinds of cronyism, just like Obama and Bush before him.

        Let me ask you this. If you believe that it might be better if Obama wins, so that he takes all of the blame for his economic mess, then why not vote for Johnson and maybe that throws the election back to Obama. Then you get to vote your principles and you got the 2nd best outcome in your opinion, which is to get Obama 4 more years to show just how bad he really can be(I have this feeling, it will be very, very bad).

        1. I agree with you. I don’t think voting for Johnson is a bad choice for the reason you give. Rather than vote for Johnson, I would just stay home and not vote. But that is just me, I hate standing in line. But yeah, I have made that same argument and go back and forth on it all of the time.

          As far as the war goes, Obama has already got us into a war. And we are more than likely getting into a war with Iran no matter who is elected. That whole “but the Republicans will get us into a big war” is just bullshit people who regret voting for Obama in 08 tell themselves. Obama is hawkish as hell on Iran and would be in a second term. Any President would be because no President is going to let Iran get the bomb on his watch.

          And Romney is going to be just as bad on the drug war and such as Obama. No question. But find it difficult to believe he wouldn’t be a significant improvement on the budget. Whether that would be enough and whether he could even get Congress to do enough to make a difference in the long term is a different story. But the idea that he would be just as bad or worse as Obama seems pretty unlikely. And indeed if you really think he will be, then you should be hoping for an Obama win.

          1. Again, I don’t think that Romney will be worse than Obama. I think he will be better for the economy, just not much. Staying home and not voting is not advancing the cause for Liberty. As long as the GOP establishment thinks they can ignore Libertarians, they will. My goal is to make it impossible for them to ignore us. In that way, I am somewhat aligned with the Pauls, I just don’t have the party loyalty that they do. If I have to jump ranks and vote L as a punishment for the GOP being so stupid as to try to ignore us, then I will.

          2. Why would you rather stay home and not vote instead of at minimum helping the LP get future ballot access, if the two party system is so unbearably bad and unbreakable? That alone is enough reason to vote LP or any third party, regardless of whether the individual candidate is your ideal selection.

            1. Put it this way, I’d vote for Ralph Nader before I’d vote for Romney or Obama. Not only is Nader more libertarian socially and foreign-policy-wise than either, but the principle of voting against the duopoly is inherently worth it, especially if the major parties aren’t fielding even marginally libertarian candidates. The more people that push on the fingers of the iron fist, the looser the grip.

  39. In 2008, the Obamessiah still thought same sex marriage was wrong! In fact, it was a “deeply held belief” to him at that point. It has clearly been a long time.

    1. The Obama believes in nothing. I think that at one time, he did. I believe that he was an angry young man who like many who wind up following the progressive ideaology, feels that the world just fucked them over from the start, and that it is clearly the fault of anyone who has more than they do, who is more popular than they are, etc., etc., and so they wind up being a radical who supports any policy that will punish those who are better off, and make themselves more equal.

      But with Obamas rise to fame and fortune, he has no need for ideaology. In his new world view, a view that is centered directly on himself as the center of the universe, the only thing that is important is whatever it takes to keep himself in power. He will throw anyone under the bus that stands in the way of that, gays, minorities, he doesn’t care. If they are not useful for him, he will abandom them.

      1. Hyperion| 8.13.12 @ 4:06PM |#

        The Obama believes in nothing

        …Nothing! And tomorrow he’ll come back and he cut off your chonson!

        NIHILIST #2
        Just think about that, Lebowski.

        NIHILIST
        Yeah, your wiggly penis, Lebowski.

        NIHILIST #3
        Yeah and maybe we stomp on it and squoosh it, Lebowski.

  40. The worst part about Ryan is the stupid media calling him a “Small Government” sort when he clearly isn’t. God damn it, conservatives, small government means small government all-around.

    1. Exactly. He is a fake. Vote for Obama and at least get gay marriage.

      1. So you are saying you really do believe that Ryan is a small government, free market kind of guy?

        1. Compared to Obama and within the realm of what can actually be accomplished, he is as good as you are going to get. Ron Paul could be President and it wouldn’t mean we would have a small government. The Congress would just tell him to go fuck himself. And more importantly, the American people would tell him to go fuck himself.

          We didn’t build this government in a day and it is not going to be torn down in a day.

          1. Yes, I know, but the difference is that Ron Paul would try. He would also veto really bad bills coming out of congress, and you know there will be plenty of them coming. Afterall, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Shumer, and plenty of other statist fucktards are still there just dreamiing up their latest idea for a bill to remove the rest of our liberties. So, in that regards, it is very important who is President. I don’t have any more faith in Romney than Obama, that he will ever use a veto pen no matter how bad of a bill crosses his desk.

            We have to end this duopoly founded on the lesser of two evils scheme. Until we do, we will make progress at a snails pace, if at all.

            1. You gotta start somewhere.

              1. I start by voting for GJ.

        2. Hyperion| 8.13.12 @ 4:12PM |#

          So you are saying you really do believe that Ryan is a small government, free market kind of guy?

          I think you’ve come late to the “John’s Self-Flagellation Party”… no, he’s having a ‘cut off your nose to spite your face’-sense of indignation that anyone is daring to criticise the GOP candidates in the face of an alternative (Obama) who is clearly so way different and awful and unacceptable that any consideration of the ‘weaknesses’ of the GOP-chosen is sheer idiocy and a reflection of the appeaser-mentality of libertarians and he’s so frustrated and flabbergasted by the lack of partisan RAH RAH RAH! around here that he sulks and simpers and groans and snarks and says Well Vote For Obama Then You Cowards!

          Like I said, its kinda funny. Its Sara Palin 2.0

  41. I can’t wait for Thursday.

    1. is it the weekly jobless claims, Housing starts, or the Philly Fed data?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.