Presidential Debates 2012

In Addition to Screaming at the TV, Here's Something Civil Libertarians Can Do During Tomorrow's Presidential Debate


NEXT: France to Subsidize Abortions

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

  1. You forgot the part that says how many drinks each square equals.

  2. Three words: Supreme Court nominees. So hold your nose and vote for Romney

    1. What makes you think Romney is going to nominate any justices worth having?

      1. He won’t nominate another libertarian like Thomas… but he also won’t nominate an authoritarian leftist like Kagan. I’d expect more Robertses, who aren’t perfect of course, but we did get CU and Heller from him.

        1. Advil underpants isn’t libertarian.

      2. Souter, Stevens, Kennedy all nominated by Republican presidents.

        1. Sounds like you haven’t read opinions from some of the justices nominated by Democratic presidents.

          These are “mixed bag” justices. The Democratic nominees are consistent ideologues, with Breyer at the far end of extreme intellectual dishonesty in the name of that ideology. See Heller.

      3. Remember that Earl Warren was a famous conservative, before he was placed on the Supreme Court and became an infamous liberal. Eisenhower called Warren’s appointment, “my worst mistake.”

        If Obama wins re-election, we can only hope that he makes similar “mistakes.” If Romney wins, we can only hope that he avoids them.

        1. Either is likely to appoint justices that expand the power and scope of the Executive branch. Either is likely to appoint justices that will be soft of issues such as domestic spying and curtailing of civil liberties. Voting for either would be a grievous error.

    2. Who nominated Roberts?

      1. I take it you don’t like Heller or Citizens United?

        1. On that, I agree with you — Romney’s nominees are pretty much certain to be leaps and bounds better than Hussein I’s.

          1. I don’t agree. They will be marginally better, maybe indistinguishable, like his presidency.

            The only difference is that when Romney’s policies fail they will be (in MSM reports) “hard right, racist, libertarian policies”

            Much better to let Obama dig his own grave and the countries and rebuild from the ashes.

            Who needs more justices who think the drug war is a great idea?

        2. I take it you don’t like Heller or Citizens United?

          I actually do like both. But voting for a prez because of supreme court picks is a crap shoot. Even the most “libertarian” justice thinks it is ok to force kids to submit to a strip search.

          1. I agree with the Mummy.

          2. So what the GOP is inviting us to do is to take the long view. So which approach is better: Gambling on Justice selections that will affect us in the future, or investing in the future of a party, a movement, and a candidate so that they can also be present and effective in the future? Given that I have been profoundly disappointed by even the Justices I have admired over the years, I think I would rather invest my vote to build a party and undermine confidence in the bipartisan scam. I think I would be as scared of the Justices that Romney would appoint, as of those Obama would — only for different reasons.

    3. If he’s going to nominate, say, Scalias, sure. But with our luck, he’ll probably just nominate Robertses.

      1. We should thank our lucky stars if he does. We don’t need a couple of Kagan clones taking Thomas’ and Scalia’s spots on the bench. And that’s before we take into account BO’s vaunted “flexibility” in his second term.

        1. Yeah, that would be astranomically awful for everybody.

          Holy fuck. Two more Kagans? Shoot me now.

          1. “Kagan? Take me away!”

      2. Scalia? The guy who thinks the Constitution allows the government to make it illegal to grow pot on your own property?

        1. If my choice is between three more Scalias and three more Kagans, absolutely.

  3. I like that the first ad under this is the “Master of Arts in Military History” at Norwich, Univ.

    Just an observation. Carry on.

  4. This would be more fun as a game of scrabble.

    1. The whole debate will be a form of scrabble.

      Trying to fit together bits and pieces of their arguments and sound bites to make a coherent thought.

  5. TSA, MJ legalization, unsustainable debt and unfunded liabilities just to start.

    1. police militarization, out of control atf, dea, fda, etc, emminent domain.

      1. You fucking wish.


        1. You think it’s overtaken abortion or are they about equal now?

          1. They fluctuate, I think, depending on whether gays or women send in more donations on any given week.

  6. I didn’t know health care was a human right. Why they don’t have food and shelter listed too.

    1. Those come after birth control.

    2. They have housing on there.

      Amnesty International used to be a decent organization doing some difficult work, but now it’s a fucking leftist front.

      1. Mission creep, how the fuck does it work?

      2. I thought they were always a leftist front.

        1. It’s always been a leftist organization, but in the early years they focused on their mission of helping political prisoners and prisoners of war and curbing extrajudicial executions and cops demanding bribes, etc.

          Along with the rest of the professional left, they’ve skewed waaaaay more authoritarian in recent years.

          1. There also used to be a lot more right-authoritarian governments for them to torment, back in the Cold War days.

            Nowadays, your authoritarian thugs are mostly either overtly (hard) left, or Islamist/theocratic, or otherwise off-limits to lefty multi-cultis.

            1. That’s a little too harsh. They do still condemn abuses by leftist governments, but most of their actual work is indistinguishable from other leftist orgs.

        2. Their leadership used to be tainted by center-left folks with a genuine love for people’s freedom (incompletely, but still), sort of like anti-socialist union leaders. Then it all went to shit.

          1. So now their leadership is just a bunch of taints.

    3. Amnesty International jumped the shark years ago.

  7. Women’s rights? I’m assuming they mean free stuff for women.

    1. Women’s have different rights than men, clearly. And that’s not a sexist view at all.

      1. Yeah. Stupid walking pussies and stupid niggers and kikes need our enlightened help to get anywhere in life. Let’s patronize them and give them free shit until the universe collapses under the sheer weight of our moral depravity.

        /Pinko fucks.

        1. I’m not sure if you’re joking, but I don’t get it. You kind of sound like an asshole. Don’t get me wrong, I believe everyone has a right to be an asshole, I just thought you should know that it looks as though you’re fully exercising that right. If that’s your intent, then carry on.

  8. Apparently the folks at Amnesty International have never played BINGO before. You can’t have one board for everyone, because then everyone will get BINGO at the same time.

    1. Doesn’t matter anyhow because the debates never focus on the issues anyhow.


    3. It wouldn’t be fair if someone had a better board than someone else!

  9. Unclear on what Marriage Equality, Housing, Internet Freedom, Poverty, Education, and a few others on the board have to do with Amnesty’s original mission. It looks like a laundry list of leftist talking points, almost as if it was transcribed from the BO hand advertisements.

    1. You’re overthinking it. It can all be summarized in three words — “free shit, please!”

  10. Reason staffers should create a debate drinking game. My husband and I would do that while watching the GOP debates. Every overused buzzword was cause to drink. It’s a good way to get wasted. Eff this BINGO tom foolery.

    1. We can start with the use of “forward” by Obama and “better off” by Romney.

      1. Obamas sure to bring up the “47%”. They may trade up between “Obamacare” and “Romneycare”

        1. “Israel” has to be on the list for sure. They always have to pledge their allegiance to Israel at the first debate so that will be worth some shots.

    2. Take one drink for every participle used by either candidate.

      1. I bet you’re a blast at parties SF:)

        1. My end of the semester party this year was a confused blur.

    3. Special Alcohol Poisoning Round: Take one drink for every word that is untrue in a given answer, including ‘a’ and ‘the’.

      1. No human can consume that much alcohol and live.

  11. Hopefully Romney will at least disagree with Obama on some topics. I was literally screaming at the TV when McCain agreed with everything Obama wanted, just less so.

    1. Yeah, that could be a part of the drinking game. A double when either of them agrees.

  12. If only Amnesty Inatl hadn’t long ago sold its credibility to the Progressives, I might participate. Eat a bullet you sellout fucks.

  13. Why is anyone going to waste time on the debates?

    Notorious and flagrant serial liars are going to stand there and say whatever it takes to scare people into voting for them.

    I can think of few more stupid ways to waste time than giving the serial liars any attention. Here’s an idea: when the debates start, grab your significant other and make passionate love to him/her. That would be a far better use of your time.

    1. I’d rather hit myself on the head with a hammer all night than spend the time watching those two sick fucks standing there lying about everything. I’m sure the hammer will cause less brain trauma.

  14. First of all, I would rather drink a strychnine-hemlock cocktail mix than watch one second of this so-called “debate”. I’ll be spending all day and night celebrating the last day of baseball’s regular season.

    Second of all, what Tulpa said about Amnesty International; they’re a bunch of cowards who only go after the easy targets. Screw them.

  15. I for one will be watching Mystery of the Wax Museum over on TCM.

    1. SOA is on tonight but we always dvr it and watch it on Wednesday’s without commercials. That show’s been pissing me off this season so they better get their shit together.

      1. It’s been awesome this season. No one is safe, and that means shit just got real.

  16. Amnesty International sucks. They have a skewed perspective of human rights.

    1. “I’ve had enough of your Vassar-bashing young lady!”

      1. lol. I had to look up the reference, but it was a good one.

    2. One wonders why a purportedly fully-libertarian org like Reason is approvingly displaying their propaganda as something libertarians would be interested in.

  17. Voting for a presidential candidate based solely on what kind of Supreme Court nominations he might make is like giving the Nobel Peace Price out for “expected” contributions to world dialogue and peace.

  18. Their inclusion of housing, poverty, education, and health care tell me that either they don’t understand what “human rights” are, or I don’t.

    1. Exactly, or the fact that they have death penalty but not genocide.

      1. or the fact that they have education and no child trafficking. Maybe it’s just me, but I think a free kid who doesn’t know math is better off than a well educated child slave.

  19. Since this is a domestic policy debate, the only Bingo I see available is the far right column.

  20. Without a doubt, the most pressing issue for discussion at the domestic policy debate is gun control.


  21. Maybe I’m missing something, but how does “Arms Trade” figure in to the general category of “human rights” other than as a general concern for the ability to trade among individuals free of government interference? Does trade in arms inherently affect people’s rights other than to self defense?

    1. I think the angle is that the arms trade makes war more likely, and war increases human rights violations. A tenuous link to be sure but not totally dishonest like the “housing” issue.

      1. As much of a fan of guns as I am, I wish the arms trade were less lucrative. I would have a problem, as a gun dealer, selling the tools of the trade to the oppressive state.

        1. I remember one time I joined the Save Darfur group on campus, and proposed we contract with that notorious arms dealer they made the Nick Cage movie about to ship AKs and ammo to the villages that were being victimized by the government death squads.

          You can imagine what that crowd of tree huggers and bead squeezers and Kumbayah humming morons thought of that idea.

  22. To make this a real game of bingo, they need each column restricted to certain terms, with a number of terms greater than the number of spaces in each column, and the terms in the column randomly selected from the list of terms for the column.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.