Election 2012

'90 Days' and No Good Reasons

The incoherence, petulance, and desperation of "90 Days" documents the decline of a presidential cult.

|

During the last presidential election cycle, a McCain campaign ad titled "The One" mocked the messianic vibe surrounding Barack Obama's candidacy. "It should be known," the voice-over began, "that in 2008, the world will be blessed: They will call him 'The One.' " Faced with a tightening race and waning liberal enthusiasm, lately, President Obama is finding out that "One" is the loneliest number.

To get a sense of Obamaphiles' current mood, I spent the last couple of days slogging through the 60-odd pro-Obama essays posted at "90 Days, 90 Reasons" (the things I do for you people). Dave Eggers, the author of "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius" and Jordan Kurland, a band manager, started the project in July in the hopes that they might "re-inspire the grassroots army that got Obama elected in the first place."

Eggers and friend sought contributions from "a wide range of cultural figures," including actors, directors, various unfunny comics, singers from twee little indie bands with names like My Morning Jacket and a gaggle of self-described "writers." The end product gives the lie to the old adage that "writing is thinking." Staggering genius this ain't—for the most part, you can find more clarity and insight in Miss America contestants' perennial calls for "world peace."

A few examples: "Life is short, very short, and what are we doing here if not trying to become more generous and loving?" writes creative writing professor George Saunders. "President Obama is a body surfer … He has a profound respect for nature," notes musician Jack Johnson. Fulfilling the ideal of government for the people "means that transgender men get to work alongside fratboys at an investment bank," write director Tom Gilroy and musician Michael Stipe.

"What Obama did—and continues to do—is expand the lungs of our ongoing sense of identity," gushes author Colum McCann. Only a narrow-lunged bigot would deny the significance of that achievement.

Not a few contributors ring the changes on "hope and change": "I believe in the power of hope," writes rapper Dee-1. "President Obama is more genuine than Romney. Has Romney heard of Jay-Z?" "Obama teaches us to believe hope can lead to real change," writes Roxane Gay.

As the days go on, there's a fatalistic, going-through-the motions aspect to much of "90 Days." And on and on it goes—with more in the way of juvenile insults than Obamaphiles engaged in back in the days of Hope and roses. "[S]hort of electing a born-again monkey with downs syndrome [sic], anyone who replaced Bush would be considered 'a change,' " writes comedian David Cross. Obama's "not Romney. He plays basketball. Romney sucks at basketball. He doesn't believe in wearing magical underwear, like Romney does," comments comedian Reggie Watts. Director David Lynch notes that if you scramble the GOP candidate's last name, you get "R MONEY. I believe Mitt Romney wants to get his Mitts on R Money. He would like to get it and divide it up with his friends, the Big Money Bunch." No wonder "Twin Peaks" didn't make any sense.

The incoherence, petulance and desperation of "90 Days" documents the decline of a presidential cult. That's a welcome development: Partisan fervor and cults of personality are the enemies of sober judgment. It's skepticism, not passion, we need when evaluating potential presidents, lest we get swept away and wind up ashamed of ourselves in the morning.

In one of "90 Days'" rare flashes of common sense, author and screenwriter Sherman Alexie observes that "the liberal messiah does not exist." True—and a good thing, too.

This column originally appared in the Washington Examiner.

NEXT: Lukashenko Doesn't Want Lenin and Stalin Demonized

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. I continue to be astonished at how rarely I see Obama 2012 bumper stickers in San Francisco and environs. In 2008 they seemed more common than license plates, but now they’re almost hard to find. They are nearly outnumbered by the few leftover 2008 stickers I see. Window signs are similarly rare.

    There was a pro-Obama flash mob/dance over the weekend in downtown SF. I don’t think even 20 people showed up.

    1. There’s a smell of epic defeat in the air for his campaign. I’m not sure anything can reverse it now, barring Romney revealing that he’s from a planet orbiting Antares before taking office.

      1. He’s already admitted to being Mormon, hasn’t he?

          1. How dare you accuse Hugh of lying, ProL! He doesn’t lie, he just…exaggerates!

            1. So Romney’s what, Catholic?

              1. Romney is an atheist, like 90% of high office politicians.

                1. Stop trying to woo Episiarch.

            2. I’ll admit it. When I said Episiarch is so fat he can’t even get out of bed, I was just kind of assuming there was a bed under all of that.

              1. I’m big boned!

                1. you and John Holmes

      2. Movie scene wipe — he’s standing before Roberts in January, mouthing the oath of office, raises his hand, the fingers spread, “Live long and…”

    2. It’s the racism. America just wasn’t ready for a black president with a proud african name. We’ll be hearing this for years, and for years we’ll be saying: “Look, the economy blew dog dicks and he had no clue how to get it running again.”

      1. Racist

        1. And species-ist. What did a dog ever do you Tim?

      2. If that’s the case, Obama has transformed the country into one that is too racist to get himself re-elected.

        1. So, then, Bush healed the racial rift and Obama restored it? Wow.

          1. No, PL. The country wasn’t too racist to elect Obama in 2008, but somehow racism will be the go to excuse should he lose in 2012.

            But really, my point is that the racism charge has jumped the shark. Sorry for being so obtuse.

            1. Racism is quite a bit like solipsism.

      3. The teabaggers are all racists. That’s why so many of them went gaga over Herman Cain.

        1. Hold on there, hoss. It’s well-established that black conservatives are not black.

          1. I stand corrected. They cannot be true Scotsmen socialists Christians black people.

        2. Was it Rachel Maddow who came up with an, umm, interesting, interpretation for why TP people supported Cain? Something along the lines of, they were supporting him to try and prove they weren’t racist (even though they really were).

          1. And once again projection is the hallmark of TEAM BLUE.

        3. But he’s a lawn jockey house nigger. He’s not really black; he’s an Uncle Tom.

          /liberal racist

    3. “I continue to be astonished at how rarely I see Obama 2012 bumper stickers in San Francisco and environs.”

      Maybe there’s no point in announcing yourself an Obama supporter when you’re in a world of Obama supporters.

      Maybe it was different in 2008, when, with a Republican in office, they thought they were differentiating themselves from the rest of America by supporting Obama.

      1. Alternate explanation – “I was an Obama supporter before it was cool.” Lulz

        1. They do have a depressingly large amount of hipsters in SF.

        2. And I was a non-supporter before that was cool.

          1. Me too. Being a libertarian on a university campus in 2008 was not conducive to making friends.

            1. You should have tried being a PhD student in an English department before African American and Feminist Studies split off.

              It was fuckin’ depressing as all shit.

      2. Maybe there’s no point in announcing yourself an Obama supporter when you’re in a world of Obama supporters.

        The point of bumperstickers, the entire point, is to signal your tribal affiliation. That doesn’t change if you’re in San Francisco or Salt Lake City. You put on the bumpersticker in San Francisco to proclaim, “Hey guys, I’m one of you!”

        The reason there’s not a lot of Obama worship on bumperstickers around here is the lack of excitement. San Franciscans are still going to overwhelmingly vote Democrat, even all the Greens and Peace-n-Freedom members are all going to vote Democrat. It’s the law here. But that doesn’t mean they’re excited about it.

        1. Well, a lot of San Fran people were undoubtably Occupy supporters. And Occupy protested the Democratic convention.

          They’re not necessarily going to vote Democrat.

          1. Yes, they are.

    4. same thing in Austin, in 2008 there were Obama stickers everywhere, in 2012 they are very scarce

    5. I’ve noticed the number of Romney/Ryan yard signs in my neighborhood has been increasing exponentially in the last two weeks. Along the main thoroughfare almost half of the houses have them now. I still have the only Gary Johnson sign as far as I know, but there are a couple holdouts still sporting Ron Paul signs.

  2. Obama is no longer a blank slate. It’s hard to project your dream leader onto a wall that’s suddenly got unpleasant graffiti all over it.

    It’s like when Jesus turned water into wine. Try as they might, after that point the Disciples couldn’t get MADD’s Galilee chapter back on board.

    1. They’re still trying, though, dude. They are doing their damnedest to continue to pretend he’s wonderful. Luckily, their spirits appear to be broken, and if the remaining debates go the way of epic lulz, they are toast.

      Who would have thought that Obama would self-destruct in what was thought (by his worshipers, not us) was one of his strongest arenas?

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      1. The Obama presidency was just too beautiful for this world.

        1. I so hate that kind of thinking. Politicians aren’t worthy of our “faith” or worship. That should be everyone’s default position.

          1. I suspect it’s because some people are religious by nature, but have a strong faith in an existing religion, while others just aren’t religious; it’s the people who are religious by nature, but don’t have a religion to fill that void, who tend to be drawn to this sort of thing.

            1. They should find solace in metaphysics then, not in some politician. They make the worst sort of gods.

        2. Much like me.

      2. The problem is, in that sort of failure scenario you never get the joy of the worshippers discovering their god is false. It’ll just be accorded to bad debate performance or Teh Evill Corporashuns.

        I want, more than anything, the obamabots to understand that they are supporting murder, indefinite detention, and imporverishment of their fellow human beings. I want a “soylent green is people” moment from those bastards. I want a hundred million people to find out not only that there is no Santa Claus, but that the guy who they saw dressed up in red on Christmas night was the there to screw their mom.

        1. That’s not entirely true. This is an inevitable situation that we all just had to wait out: the falling of the idol. We all knew Obama would fail his supporters, we said it many times. This moment was coming. The problem is not that they don’t discover their god is false, the problem is that they will paper over it as best they can and we don’t get to enjoy as many of their salty ham tears as we would like.

          Just know, they’re weeping inside, and smile a grim smile of pleasure at that.

          1. The problem is they will blame it on the rest of the country. Think Germans after the First World War. They had a false God called German nationalism. When that failed and almost destroyed the country, they blamed it on everyone and everything but themselves and their false God.

            1. Boy is there going to be egg on my face if there 1) is an afterlife, 2) I make it to the good part, and 3) it turns out the Jews really did have a massive conspiracy to stab Germany in the back and lose WWI.

              1. That sounds like a South Park episode if it were written by Nazis.

            2. The Germans in WWI would have been singing a different tune if they had been invaded and Berlin taken over. A thorough drubbing, like we did to the Nazis, was required to break their ways.

              [insert other war examples – Iraq, Vietnam, etc here]

              1. Uh, Germany was thoroughly drubbed in WWI. The Treaty of Versailles is credited with much that followed, including the rise of the NAZIS.

                WWI would have ended in stalemate but for the entry of the U.S. into the war after a concerted propaganda campaign by Wilson to rally American sentiment for sending troops to Europe.

              2. Japan’s defeat in WWII sure took the wind out of the sails of Shinto and loyalty to the Emperor who was forced to declare himself not divine. Depressed and angered the average Japanese immediately after the war.

                There’s still Shinto and an emperor of course, but no more suicide bombers from State enforced Shinto.

            3. Sort of like when the GOP lost big in the 2006 elections, they blamed Mark Foley and Katrina.

              1. Never say I don’t give credit where credit is due.

                Tulpa wins this sub-thread.

            4. There was also a German leader who was very disappointed in his people for failing him.

          2. Episiarch Johnson is right. They always shoot the messenger.

            1. I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin’ bushwackin’, hornswagglin’ cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.

              Gabby Johnson is right…..

          3. the problem is that they will paper over it as best they can and we don’t get to enjoy as many of their salty ham tears as we would like.

            Everyone else does it too! Papering done.

            Seriously, this is how the bulk of statists view the silly little problems of illegal wars, torture, habeas corpus suspension and droned wedding parties. The other guy will do it too, so I’m going to vote for the guy who gives me the mostest and bestest free ponies.

            The violence and corruption of the system is just background noise, now.

          4. Look, we just need to give them a face saving out of saying they weren’t really one of those crazy fans, they just really hated Bush a lot.

            Let everyone just disavow their affiliation with the Obama cult, it’ll be less satisfying, but ultimately more effective.

      3. It’s the doubling down on awful I don’t get. A second term of this incompetent could do some serious damage to the Democrats. More than the incredible amounts that have already been done. You’d think they’d offer token resistance and gear up for tearing down the Republicans.

        1. Such are the wages of partisanship, ProL. It’s ultimately destructive to everything, but partisans are too stupid and venal to understand that.

        2. I’ve got a lot of very smart (and I mean that) Democrat friends who believe some combination of the following:

          (1) Obama may not be perfect but Romney will be much, much worse; (2) things were so much worse in 2009 than what anyone knew (i.e. a revised “Bush’s fault”); (3) things are turning around, Obama just needs more time; (4) the main reason Obama hasn’t done better is b/c of Republican obstructionism.

          1. Wait, we have the same liberal friends?

            1. Same talking-points memos. They don’t have original thoughts.

              1. Sure they do – just ask them. They all have the same original thoughts. And, since they’re the same original thoughts as Democrat politicians it just goes to prove they’re all really smart.

                1. GOD that’s so true.

            2. it sounds like Tony personified.

        3. If we get four more years of Obama, the spectrum will flip, and progressives will (once again) be the pro-war, pro-torture, pro-bankruptcy, pro-corporate, pro-prohibition ideology. Heck, I wouldn’t put it past them if they got all into eugenics again.

          1. So, in other words, nothing changes.

          2. Among the more honest progressives who recognize the continuity in foreign policy from Bush the lesser to Emperor Obama, I believe there is a sense that “while he was totally a continuation of bushitler’s foreign policy, he was only that way to get re-elected. Once he is unrestrained from the demands of seeking reelection, he will become the benevolent peace-loving God we all knew him to be in 2008”

            1. Bingo. I wish they’d just come out and say that so we can shove it up their poopchute if Obama’s elected.

              1. My FB friends are in fact basically coming out and saying this. You can’t even get through to them if the ONe wins re-election he will never be accountable ever again. No more elections to stand for, nothing holding him back. Why on earth would he change policy?

        4. It could either damage the Democrats, or damage everyone else to the point that they win by default, forever.

          1. Nothing is forever.

      4. Who would have thought that Obama would self-destruct in what was thought (by his worshipers, not us) was one of his strongest arenas?

        This is an indictment of the supposedly independent media who fell for his tightly creased pants and “soaring rhetoric”. He was an empty suit then and many of us attempted to point this out and were told we were philistines who couldn’t appreciate his genius.

        Now he has a record, and boy is it terrible to look at.

        1. Part of the problem–present company excepted–is that journalists are much dumber, by and large, than they think they are.

          1. present company excepted

            Not sure of any need for that exception.

            1. Most of the present company excepted.

              I’m looking at a couple Reason Staffers with the stink eye. They fell for this pile of garbage and should’ve known better.

    2. If I were to write an essay intended to persuade people to re-elect an incumbent I would use concrete examples of policy achivements he’s made and the effects those achivements have had (not the effects they were intended to have). If I couldn’t do that I wouldnt write the essay, as I would have no evidence to support my claim that said incumbent ought to be re-elected.
      To the best of my knowledge in over 60 essays these craven cultists have yet to produce one that makes a fact based case for re-election. Its all about how he’s more stylish and young and hip. How he’s more compassionate and voting for him just feels better. Well I’m 19 years old, and I didn’t fall for it when I was 15, and I’m certainly not falling for it now. So to me, these people getting sucked into the heopey McChange ruse with 2 or 3 times more life experience than I have is just pathetic.

      1. He needs to be rewarded with another four years because the other guy will make things worse.
        Or so I’ve been told.

      2. Obamacare! Obamacare! Obamacare!

        Oh, and the republican is icky.

      3. “I’m 19 years old, and I didn’t fall for it when I was 15…. I’m certainly not falling for it now…..these people getting sucked into the heopey McChange ruse with 2 or 3 times more life experience than I have is just pathetic.”

        You will go far.

        1. You will go far.

          And yet your whole life will be plagued by the misery of being surrounded by other human beings.

          1. Hell is other people.

    3. “MADD’s Galilee chapter”

      I thought they were “MADC” – Mothers Against Drunk Charioteering (see Jessie Jackson Jr. for details).

  3. The magic is gone.

  4. I think we could probably do a “15 Days, 90 Reasons” to vote against Obama.

    1. Not only broke campaign promise to roll back infringements on civil liberties, but increased them and fought for their reauthorization.

    1. 2. His landmark “Healthcare Reform” law was actually just a giant reacharound for the very health insurance korporations he accused of making healthcare unaffordable.

    2. 2. The Wookiee fur sticks to the sofas.

      1. 3. We are the ones we’re still waiting for.

        1. 4. Solyndra

          5. Fast and Furious

          7. Benghazi

          1. 8. A123 battery

            1. 9. Illegal war.

              1. 6. Broke campaign promise on MMJ.

                10. ” ” ” ” ‘Most transparent administration evah.’

                11. Droning on and on.

                12.-2,584. Killed two American citizens without trial, and without habeas corpus.

                1. 12.-2,584. Killed two American citizens without trial, and without habeas corpus.

                  One of them being A FUCKING TEENAGER AT HIS FATHER’S FUNERAL.

              2. 10. The “more flexibility after the election” comment.

                1. *13, too slow
                  14. No budget in 4 years
                  15. Egomaniac
                  16. Seems intent on knocking our country down several pegs economically

              3. 10. You didn’t build that.

                1. So, we’re working on 90 reasons in 90 minutes?

                  I guess my #10 is realy like 18?

                  1. 17. Presided over the first downgrade of the United States’ formerly pristine credit rating.

                    1. 19. He bowed to foreign leaders.

                      20. He stood with a foreign leader before a joint session of congress and castigated one of the United States.

                      21. He stole General Motors from its shareholders, gave it to the unions, fired its CEO and installed his own apparatchiks.

                      22. He hired Van Jones, an avowed communist, Anita Dunn, who cited Mao as a favorite philosopher, and had a photo of Mao on the White House Christmas tree.

                      23. He was mentored by the communist Frank Marshall Davis and the Black Liberation theologist Jeremiah Wright and associated himself with the domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

                      24. He believes the economy is a static zero-sum system in which no participant can have more without another participant having less, while failing to understand that the sum of liberty plus government is the static quantity and any increase in government represents a decrease in liberty.

                    2. 25 Bradley Manning

                      26 Julian Assange “enemy of state” designation

                2. Don’t forget the GM bondholders.

                  1. Can’t manage to look smart without a teleprompter.

    3. You could parse out #1 into many different parts.

      -Increased scope of WoD
      -Extrajudicial killings of AmCits on his order alone
      -Gitmo
      -Patriot Act
      -NDAA
      -Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act expansion
      -Wikileaks and other whistleblower cases
      -FOIA refusals

      1. Why do you hate America, KK?

        1. It’s part of my I Hate Everybody n Everything Lifestyle Solution?

    4. 5.- He only picks the losers.

  5. Once again, I am compelled to ask, “Disappointed as they may be, who else could they vote for?”

    The best hope is that they just stay home. I suspect a lot of the youngest and most starry-eyed Obama voters from ’08 will do just that. Unfortunately, there are a lot of Demo voters who are motivated local-issue voters, and when they get in the booth to vote for their preferred judge, or county commissioner, or Senator, they won’t leave the box for President blank.

    1. I suspect a lot of the youngest and most starry-eyed Obama voters from ’08 will do just that.

      I suspect you are correct.

      1. Statistically, it’s almost a certainty.

        1. He’ll still get record black turnout.

    2. I know a 2008 Obama voter who is voting Green this year, but I suspect the rest will vote again for The One.

    3. Well a few would actually find plenty of agreement with Johnson, a larger number could easily vote for Stein without any qualms at all and the rest could have demanded an actual challenger or two for Obama in the Primary and then voted for those guys.

      1. Well a few would actually find plenty of agreement with Johnson,

        But where taxation and spending on the po’ folk is concerned, they would not find enough area of agreement. At the end of the day and for all their wondrous rhetoric about civil liberties, peace, and freedom, the thing that progressives most hate is anyone with money (a great irony as they rail against the greed and avarice of the rich without realizing that their contempt and jealousy is rooted in the basest greed of all, a greed combined with envy).

        the rest could have demanded an actual challenger or two for Obama in the Primary and then voted for those guys

        Had they actually proposed a serious challenger to Obama who got a significant chunk of votes, they would virtually overnight risk or possibly even destroy their one-party monopoly on the black vote.

  6. I’m beginning to think that the only people who care about “90 days, 90 reasons” are the Reason staff.

    1. Hey, don’t forget the publicists and personal assistants who wrote the essays and finally get to see their work published. If not necessarily in their own name.

    2. Even if its not a popular site, Reason’s coverage is still interesting for the insight it shows into the minds of the True Believers. I went to a fundamentalist christian school for 1st-3rd grades and 8th grade, and these people’s faith reminds me alot of some of the teachers and students there.

  7. Would it be inappropriate to throw together a script to parse the articles from there, pick random sentences, and tweet them (with attribution)?

    1. Hey, they wrote the words, right? You’re only trying to help them get Obama re-elected!

      1. Apparently they’ve already done it

        Although it could use a few more fun quotes.

  8. The Democrats have transformed themselves into a personality cult surrounding Obama?

    Where have I heard that before?

    1. Hitler?

    2. David Hasselhoff?

    3. From a ton of people, since before the fucker took office? I hope you weren’t trying to take out a patent on that.

      1. Really?

        You’ve heard that from me before?!

        Thanks for admitting it.

        Was that really so hard?

        Jesus, you’d think it was worse than passing a kidney stone.

        Yeah, spread it around…tell your Obama supporting friends. Accuse them of belonging to the cult!

        …even if it isn’t true, it makes them think about it. Make ’em tell you something they don’t like about Obama. Make them think of something they don’t like about Obama–and we’ve won something.

  9. “What Obama did — and continues to do — is expand the lungs of our ongoing sense of identity”

    That guy was in the Choom Gang, right?

    1. He’s obviously into Total Absorption of something, even if it is the methane from his own farts.

      1. I was going to mention that one, too. WTF is this supposed to mean?

        1. You’re just not enlightened enough to see it.

  10. What do you do when you start to suspect everything you believe in and all of the ideas that you derive most of your personal worth from believing in are wrong?

    Some of the liberals have to look at Europe and places like California and Detroit and start suspect the whole thing doesn’t work. And when they do that, I haven’t a clue how they are going to react. But I suspect it won’t be pretty.

    1. Re: John,

      But I suspect it won’t be pretty.

      One thing *I* know for sure, after knowing a few leftists: As far as they will be concerned, they and their ideology will remain, to the end, blameless.

    2. Are you kidding? All those failures were caused by wreckers.

      1. And the imperialist’s lackeys.

      2. I think the haters were much more to blame.

      3. You forgot the hoarders. Dope.

        1. And Kulaks and Splitters. Maybe Capitalist Running Dogs.

          1. And skags and bullymongs and Hyperion engineers.

            1. And the People’s Front of Judea

      4. And the racists, of course.

    3. Never happen.
      When they look at EU and Cal and Detroit… “It wasn’t allowed to work. Things were in a worse mess than first expected. We’re not giving it enough time.”
      Alan Colmes has said as much. True.

      1. For some or even most sure. But for a decent percentage, maybe one in five, they might have to face reality. And even the ones who don’t, will have to believe in increasingly crazy things to justify themselves.

        1. will have to believe in increasingly crazy things to justify themselves.

          Gonna be hard to top current levels of crazy

      2. The problem is that we didn’t spend nearly enough.

        1. The rich haven’t paid their fair share. We know this because they are rich. If they had paid their fair share then they wouldn’t be rich now would they?

    4. Some of the liberals have to look at Europe and places like California and Detroit and start suspect the whole thing doesn’t work.

      You’re kidding, right?

      The only problem liberals see is not enough government and too much capitalism.

      These people do not think. They feel. They see these places and it makes them feel bad. When they feel bad they want to use force. They want to force employers to hire people. They want to force the rich to pay their fair share. They want to force greedy businesses to give profits back to the workers. They want to force everyone into a single payer system.

      They will never see government as the problem because they worship force.

      1. At some point even the worst crazy wears off. What they do then is deny ever believing in it. Talk to a German who lived through the war. You will never meet a Nazi. It is always someone else who did it.

        When the country goes bankrupt, the people who caused it will swear, they never supported these policies.

        1. When the country goes bankrupt, the people who caused it will swear, they never supported these policies.

          When the country goes bankrupt, the people who caused it will swear that their policies had nothing to do with it, and would work again if only those greedy capitalists and libertarians didn’t get in the way.

        2. “You will never meet a Nazi….. the people who caused it will swear, they never supported these policies.”

          Bingo.

          ( I actually did meet a nazi once. Once.)

      2. They will never see government as the problem because they worship force.

        The Volt I was behind in traffic this morning with the “Celebrate Peace!” peace sign sticker on the back, is testimony to that cognitive dissonance.

        1. Peace through drone warfare.

        2. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance.

          Inclusiveness means excluding anyone who disagrees.

          Equality means they are better than everyone else.

          Yes. The cognitive dissonance of the left is deafening.

      3. You know the way you wrote this reminds me of a current series of commercials for satelite tv…..

        When pay too much for your government you create poverty

        When you create poverty you feel bad for those poor people and wonder what the government can do to help

        When you wonder what the government can do to help poor people you get expansive entitlement legislation passed

        When you get expansive entitlement legislation passed you run up unsustainable debts.

        When you run up unsustainable debts your country starts to look like Greece.

        Don’t end up looking like Greece, don’t pay too much for your government”

        1. Nice – I even imagined that in the announcer voice from those commercials.

      4. In a surprise move, the CPUSA (Communist Party USA) has announced a lawsuit against the Democratic Party and its leadership for the alleged theft of intellectual property. The plaintiffs claim that the entire so-called “new” Democratic agenda is, in fact, the product of a decades-long, painstaking campaign by CPUSA theorists, agitators, and underground subversive cells – which makes it the intellectual property of the Communist Party USA, protected by American copyright laws. “They stole our entire platform, rebranded it ‘progressive’, and claimed it as their own,” declared a CPUSA spokesperson at a press conference in San Francisco. “And we communists say, not so fast! Not in this country anyway, where we still have property rights and the rule of law, thank God! Actually, let me rephrase that..
        The Communist Party representative explained that government ownership of the auto and financial industries, redistribution of wealth, and free rationed healthcare have always been among the glorious CPUSA objectives: “We held on to these goals through all the difficult years of factional infighting, purges, denunciations, and heroic espionage on behalf of the Soviet intelligence services.
        “This may seem like a foreign idea to you, but we sacrificed everything for it – our friends, our neighbors, and our nation.

        1. ^^Clearly parody, but plausible.^^

          http://www.dailypaul.com/22447…..g-platform

  11. The incoherence, petulance and desperation of “90 Days” documents the decline of a presidential cult.

    I noticed something similar while looking at my sister’s postings in Facebook (she’s a big time supporter of Obama, all the way till ignominy): First, all the photos and websites she linked to were happy and full of optimism. The last couple of ones are creepy tidings of bad things coming if Obama is not president. The last one was particularly disturbing, a photo of a poor child (black, by the way) holding a bowl, with the caption: “When the poor have nothing else to eat, they will eat the rich.”

    That’s a welcome development: Partisan fervor and cults of personality are the enemies of sober judgment.

    So is hope, interestingly enough. It is fitting that one of the worst of the plagues that escaped the box after being opened by Pandora is hope.

    1. Hard to eat the rich when they got the hired guns.

      1. “Hard to eat the rich when they we got the hired guns.”

        -King Louis XVI, 1788
        -Tsar Nicholas II, 1916

        et al

        1. In both cases it was the middle class and upper middle class intelligentsia that caused the revolutions. The peasants never revolted in Russia or in France.

          1. Exactly. When have the poor revolted and won power?

              1. “Haiti”

                Define “win”

                1. In Haiti, winning would be “acquiring the means to leave”.

            1. Admittedly I’ve only seen the first movie in the Hunger Games series, so maybe I’m being too optimistic in thinking it goes there, but I could see it happening.

            2. They never win, but the poor are always revolting.

              1. You are telling me, they stink on ice!

                /King

              2. This comment is awarded one gold monocle.

          2. Doesn’t matter which class started it. What does matter is that the authorities, the ones with the guns, lost to mass uprisings.

            And Pro L, even if you stick to talking about the peasants, they don’t have to win power to make the whole exercise extremely unpleasant.

            1. I really don’t care who wants to use force to take things from me. The answer is no.

              1. I’m not arguing for entitlements, I’m an anarchist for flerk’s sake. I’m just saying I think a lot of people around here underestimate the upheaval that would happen if the checks stopped coming to millions of households.

                1. I think if we really did that, the economic surge would be so great as to minimize the damage. We’re immensely wealthy, so if the government stopped stealing and mismanaging our money, we’d have more than enough for charity and other things that help reduce or alleviate human suffering.

                  1. I disagree, but it’s all speculative opinion and nothing to get worked up over. God willing, we’ll be able to find out someday. I hope I’m wrong.

                    Mostly I think we’ll just never get to find out though -_-

                    1. Comparatively speaking, we were welfare free fifty years ago. Not a lot of rioting for financial reasons back then.

                      Granted, expectations are different now, but I also think that the people that are willing to riot over their “benefits” are a small percentage of the population.

                    2. You may well be right. Like I said, there’s no “right” or “wrong” here, just idle speculation.

                    3. let Kali and Detroit burn, it will be an improvement

                2. underestimate the upheaval that would happen if the checks stopped coming to millions of households

                  I’d guess that people who don’t know any other way to support themselves would turn to violence.

          3. I think a lot of people here forget to remember that most people do not have an anti-entitlement mindset. They truly believe they deserve their handouts, and I think many on here severely underestimate the amount of upheaval and violence that will happen when that gravy train is cut off.

            1. That is more because they are used to the gravy train in the first place. That is the problem, and that is the environment that the politicians specifically cultivate to foster dependence and the exact type of entitlement mindset you are talking about.

              Entitlements are like steroids to politicians, and they have figured that out. They will ensure their own power from now on by making sure they give handouts to enough people to make stopping those handouts an impossibility.

              Welcome to the end result of government.

          4. And you don’t think it’s the cronies, professors, and aparachiks who will foment the next revolution?

    2. The last one was particularly disturbing, a photo of a poor child (black, by the way) holding a bowl, with the caption: “When the poor have nothing else to eat, they will eat the rich.”

      This is something I’ve often wondered about. It’s one of, if not the, only interesting arguments Tony makes.

      Say we achieve Anarchotopia or Libertopia or whatever. The masses who initially can’t compete and suddenly find their apartments bare and stomaches empty aren’t just going to accept it. And by “not going to accept it”, I don’t mean they’ll double-down and work harder to get ahead. They’ll take to the streets and sieze what they want by force. And there are a hell of a lot more of them than there are people who would eshew such tactics to get what they want.

      1. You assume a lack of voluntary charity, and I reject that premise.

        1. No, I don’t. I assume voluntary charity won’t give them the same level of comfort that they’re used to getting (and believe they deserve to get) from entitlements.

          1. When you wrote “their apartments bare and stomaches empty” I assumed that you meant no charity.

            Charity might not pay for Internet and cable, but I am confident that it would keep people fed.

            1. Let’s not kid ourselves about the extent of charity.

              No, people will not be starving in the streets, and grandma will not be eating cat-food.

              But many people will be having to eat instant noodles multiple times a day and sitting on milk crates in their 1-bedroom efficiencies. And the comedown to that from what they’re used to ain’t gonna be pretty.

              1. And the comedown to that from what they’re used to ain’t gonna be pretty.

                In Libertopia they would have all kinds of economic opportunity that they do not have now.
                They could offer services without having to ask permission and take orders from asshole bureaucrats.
                Of course this explosion in wealth would create an incentive for a group of men to establish a monopoly on violence and use that as a license to steal, and before long we’d be back to where we are now.

                1. They would have the opportunity, but how many would take it and work hard, versus just taking the easy way out and stealing what they can?

                  I don’t buy the whole, “Everybody is a saintly hard worker being held down by entitlement mentality.” They have entitlement mentality because they’re lazy and don’t want to work and would rather steal from other people. That personality trait isn’t going to change when the checks stop coming.

                  1. The purpose of entitlements was to take the shame out of living off charity.

                    And it worked.

                    Charity once had a stigma to it. It was shameful. People would accept it only as a last resort, and do their best to get off of it.

                    That is no longer the case.

                    Entitlements are indeed theft, but they are theft by proxy. I don’t think that that many people on entitlements would do their own stealing once the government stopped doing it for them.

                    But I could be wrong.

                  2. These are people who have been trained their whole life to suck at the teats of others. They will become violent.

                    You can get rid of the government but the dysfunctional culture will remain. We’re not going to have a libertopia until we can raise at least one generation who considers the dole shameful.

                    1. We’re not going to have a libertopia until we can raise at least one generation who considers the dole shameful.

                      I agree.

                    2. we are not Japan, there is large segment of the population that don’t need much of push to begin to rape, burn, kill, and pilage everything in sight

                    3. Sounds to me like you’re describing the Japanese…

                  3. I agree. Even though a free market helps everyone’s standard of living, people still notice the contrast between their lifestyle and their neighbors. I think that’s where cultural virtues enter in, teaching people gratitude. That’s one thing religion is much better than politics at instilling.

                  4. Um, rioting is a hell of a lot harder than getting a frigging job.

                    Especially since they wouldn’t need to riot to matter much, they’d need to have an outright rebellion and if they are too lazy to flip burgers I’m not really too worried about their formeinting a revolt, even after they get hungry.

                    Sure they could start some riots, and a lot of them would be killed by those defending their private property and then in a day or two the rest would either make due with whatever charity they could get or do what they had to and go get a job.

                    1. Um, rioting is a hell of a lot harder than getting a frigging job.

                      No it isn’t. It takes about 30-40 minutes to fill out an online employment app.

                      If you don’t have a job, and nothing to do, why not go down to Main Street and throw a few stones?

                2. They could offer services without having to ask permission and take orders from asshole bureaucrats.

                  A lot of those people have no marketable skills to offer and lack the discipline to do shit jobs. Libertopia would be hell for them.

                3. You underestimate how many people are willing to sell their souls for a govt check, but would literally sit on their hands and die in a garbage stewn wasteland rather than lift a finger to work.

                  1. would literally sit on their hands and die in a garbage stewn wasteland rather than lift a finger to work.

                    Let ’em.

                    1. “would literally sit on their hands and die in a garbage stewn wasteland rather than lift a finger to work.

                      Let ’em.”

                      I agree. Let ’em.

                  2. Sorry, that was aimed at sarcasmic, who said “In Libertopia they would have all kinds of economic opportunity that they do not have now.
                    They could offer services…”

            2. Charity might not pay for Internet and cable, but I am confident that it would keep people fed.

              Who cares about being fed? I WANT AN OBAMAPHONE!

        2. You assume a lack of voluntary charity, and I reject that premise.

          It’s damned dirty pool for individualists to assume residual collectivism (which is what charity is) will soften the negative impacts of their philosophy.

          1. Charity is collectivism?

            When did you become a hardcore Objectivist?

            1. Never; but Rand was right about it. The difference between me and her is that I’m not after pure individualism so I don’t mind charity.

              1. Rand never said charity was collectivism.

                My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

                1. So any poor person who is unworthy of your help is just going to starve quietly. That seems to be the assumption.

                  1. So any poor person who is unworthy of your help is just going to starve quietly. That seems to be the assumption.

                    I note that you failed to retract the statement that Rand saw charity as collectivist when she implicitly said it was a minor virtue.

                    1. Your argument seems to be with the Mulatto above.

                    2. Are you capable of admitting you are wrong or not?

                    3. Are you capable of arguing with anyone besides me and John?

                  2. So any poor person who is unworthy of your help is just going to starve quietly. That seems to be the assumption.

                    Your assumption is that no one else would voluntarily help them.
                    That cannot be proven to be true or false, but I imagine it would be false.

              2. I’m not after pure individualism so I don’t mind charity

                No True Scotsman much, Fallacy Man?

                1. You really need to study the wiki Fallacy page, Toadie.

                  1. As I said, Fallacy Man, individualists do not oppose voluntary collectivism.

                    It’s the involuntary sort that we oppose.

                    Go stroke a straw man.

                    1. “Go stroke a straw man.”

                      Hay pr0n?

                    2. “Go stroke a straw man.”

                      Hay pr0n?

                    3. I swearz I only pushed “submit” once!

                    4. I think it had a sargasm.

          2. Collectivism, at least when the term is used by individualists, implies force.

            Individualists do not oppose collectivism, we oppose forced collectivism.

            Is a corporation not voluntary collectivism?

            1. A corporation is a creature of the state, benefitting from restrictions on civil actions against those investing in and running it.

              1. Is a corporation not a group of people voluntarily working collectively towards a common goal?

                Do individualists oppose corporations?

                1. Do you know what the L’s in LLC stand for, sarcasmic? Hint: it’s not something voluntary.

                  1. “Whoosh!”

                  2. Fine Tulpa – an unincorporated partnership.

                    Now we can get over the irrelevant focus on limited liability.

          3. Re: Tulpa,

            It’s damned dirty pool for individualists to assume residual collectivism (which is what charity is) will soften the negative impacts of their philosophy.

            You must be on drugs, or something. Peope do not give to charity if they don’t feel they will profit from it. There’s nothing collectivist about it – charity is entirely an individual’s choice. The problem for people that think like you is that you’re encased in the monetary aspect of economics, without realizing that there are other things man finds as rewarding for his efforts.

            In the case of charity, it would be the nice feeling that you have power to help someone. PROFIT is a psychic gain, Tulpa. Nothing has intrinsic value, only what we consider, so profit does not and cannot mean only “whatever you get above cost.”

            1. I see charity as a form of collectivism in that you have people pooling resources for a common goal.

              It differs from what collectivists refer to as collectivism in that there is no force involved.

              1. I see charity as a form of collectivism in that you have people pooling resources for a common goal.

                It is? What if you give food or money to another person–the paradigm case of charity? Where’s the collective? Where’s the common goal? Where’s the pooling resources?

            2. If all that’s driving charity are the warm fuzzies, the 47% are going to starve in week one of Libertopia.

              A lot of people do it out of a sense of community or guilt or duty or something like that. All those are collectivist concepts.

              1. A lot of people do it out of a sense of community or guilt or duty or something like that. All those are collectivist concepts.

                And that’s fine and dandy, until they show up at my door with some armed men asking for a “contribution”.

              2. Re: Tulpa,

                If all that’s driving charity are the warm fuzzies, the 47% are going to starve in week one of Libertopia.

                Why? What makes you say that?

                A lot of people do it out of a sense of community or guilt or duty or something like that. All those are collectivist concepts.

                Wait – guilt is a collectivist sentiment? Duty? Give me a break – now we’re in Equivocationtopia.

                1. A feeling of guilt for not helping other people is collectivist, yes. A sense of duty to do the same is also collectivist.

                  1. “A feeling of guilt for not helping other people is collectivist, yes. A sense of duty to do the same is also collectivist.”

                    Know any Catholics, or Protestants for that matter? Something about individual salvation comes to mind (at least to this Protestant).

            3. “Peope do not give to charity if they don’t feel they will profit from it.”

              I do.

          4. It’s an prediction. It is either right or wrong. It can’t be “dirty”.

            Charity doesn’t involve point guns at people. “Entitlements” do. That’s the important part.

      2. That is why we have charities. The thing about libertopia is that the burden is then on society and civil institutions to do these things. If we have a society that is broken and won’t do it, we will have a problem.

        1. Liberals assume that charity would not be enough because there is no force involved.

          1. Liberals assume that charity would not be enough because there is no force involved.

            It’s more a matter of charity not being *guaranteed* to be enough.

      3. Rubbish.
        Like the rioters took to the streets in the Rodney King debacle?
        The armed shopkeepers had no problem encouraging them to scatter like rats.

        1. Yeah, because the rioters in one city are in any way comparable to the scope and to the numbers of people getting various types of welfare.

          On a small-scale, sure. But on a large-scale? Even if they lose, what I’m saying is people undersestimate the amount of blood and violence that will happen. It will not be a smooth transition. Cutting people off from the teat never is.

          1. The idea of tens of millions of obese freeloaders in their little battery powered scooters rioting for their cable TV fills me with horror.

        2. Several of those shopkeepers were themselves shot, bub. You act as if they were the only ones with guns in South LA.

          1. Re: Tulpa,

            Several of those shopkeepers were themselves shot, bub. You act as if they were the only ones with guns in South LA.

            You posit an interesting argument, Tulpa. Do you mean that it would not matter at all if shopkeepers were armed compared to not being armed at all? Taking your assertion at face value, that a few of those shopkeepers were shot, do you think the very same number would be shot, or less that that would be shot, if they were NOT armed? Or do you think MORE of them would be shot?

            1. The point is that armed shopkeepers are not enough to solve the problem of the dispossessed govt dependants.

              1. There you go mixing up “some” and “all” again, Fallacy Man.

              2. Re: Tulpa,

                The point is that armed shopkeepers are not enough to solve the problem of the dispossessed govt dependants.

                You evaded the question. Would it have been better for the shopkeepers to forgo weapons for self-defense, or not? Do you think that dispossessed government dependants shed their instinct of self-preservation for the small pleasure of looting?

                By the way, there were far MORE shopkeepers hurt, either physically or economically, during the recent London riots than during the LA riots. The difference was armed resistance.

                1. This is what I was responding to, OM:

                  The armed shopkeepers had no problem encouraging them to scatter like rats.

                  So the question you’re asking is irrelevant to my point. Armed shopkeepers are not going to be sufficient to “solve” rioter problems.

                  Obviously it’s better to be armed than not armed in that situation, but that doesn’t mean arming up is a solution.

              3. That’s why Stalin killed his twenty millions and Mao his sixty millions.

      4. Re: Gojira,

        Say we achieve Anarchotopia or Libertopia or whatever. The masses who initially can’t compete and suddenly find their apartments bare and stomaches empty aren’t just going to accept it.

        If you mean that the whole government-controlled system breaks up, then it would not matter if we achieved Libertopia or whatever. What you describe is the inevitable result of the total collapse of the State. And because it would be inevitable (unless people prepared themselves,) then using this as an objection against Libertopia becomes a fallacy, like saying that it would be preferable to stay sick because you don’t like the taste of the medicine.

        1. I don’t think he’s objecting to Libertopia, he’s just saying it’s not a bed of roses at the beginning.

          1. Re: Tulpa,

            I don’t think he’s objecting to Libertopia, he’s just saying it’s not a bed of roses at the beginning.

            Is that supposed to be an argument, or just a comment? Because we go back again to the proposition that the initial chaos will be inevitable while people set up new networks through market forces. That does not mean there would be no point in doing it or in achieving a Stateless community, or that the intial shock is an argument against achieving a Stateless society. The State WILL collapse, there’s no question about it.

            1. Tulpa is correct, all I was implying was that it won’t be this wonderous, perfect transition to freedom that so many people around here seem to think.

              “Suddenly there will be opportunity so people will work hard!”

              No, first they’ll get violent and try to take back what they feel was “stolen” from them.

              I’m not saying it’s preventable, or worth preventing, and I’m not trying to make that argument. I’m only interested in a philosophical debate about entitlements actually being protection money paid to the masses, instead of purely being for their stated goal of “helping” people.

              1. That’s the reason many of us prefer incrementalism to radicalism. We can start by cutting government where the pain is least felt and hope that by the time we have gradually eliminated everything but the basic welfare safety net, there would be so much prosperity with an unencumbered free market that the transition towards charity would be relatively pain-free.

        2. Say we achieve Anarchotopia or Libertopia or whatever. The masses who initially can’t compete and suddenly find their apartments bare and stomaches empty aren’t just going to accept it.

          Reason #1 why I prep.

          1. I’m starting to get into that myself over the last year or so.

          2. You have to be clear on what you’re prepping for, of course. It sounds like you’re fearing total societal collapse from the previous thread… in which case I’m unsure of how much good prepping will do.

            1. Total? No.

              A few weeks or months of anarchy? Absolutely.

      5. Gojira,

        You seem to assume sudden libertopia.

        I agree if we went from current to that tonight, that the violence would be overwhelming.

        But if it happened over 20 years?

        If we started cutting 1% of GDP from spending each year for the next 20 years, that would get us down to, what, 19%? That would be pretty extreme but still not exactly libertopia after 20 years.

        (Im including state and local spending, which totaled 38.9% from numbers I found).

        1. You’re right in that I was assuming a sudden, dramatic transition. Like Old Mexican said, I was looking more at a collapse of the old order scenerio, akin to what may be starting in Greece right now.

          You are correct that everything I said changes if it’s a gradual transition. I personally believe that is less likely, because it depends on not only a couple of years of “shrink gov’t” politicians getting elected, but entire slates of them, over a course of decades. I just don’t see that happening. I hope I’m wrong.

          1. I see massive change, not gradual as necessary. But less massive than “all the way to libertopia in one step”.

            A President/congress that came in and balanced the budget in one term, for example. Obviously, that isnt Romney.

            That gets federal spending down to maybe 18% of GDP. Which is a huge cut, massive upheaval, but not of the type you are talking about.

            Of course, I think that is necessary to avoid the collapse. But I dont think that collapse will be into libertopia. The world doesnt work that way.

          2. One large change, but still an incremental step towards freedom would be replacing all government transfer programs with a negative income tax.

            No one would live in poverty, everyone would participate in taxation (sorta) and it starts encouraging work.

            If you want to live at the poverty level, you can do nothing. But every dollar you earn move you about 65* cents up.

            And everyone has an incentive to cut other spending at that point as it moves the amount you get to keep up.

            *back of envelope calculaton I did the other day.

    3. Hope was the only one that remained in the box.

  12. The endorsement we’ve all been waiting for.

    1. That shit ain’t gonna fly on the uber-conservative pageant circuit!

    2. And from the sound of many of the 90 reasons, about half of them could have been ghostwritten by her.

  13. “When the poor have nothing else to eat, they will eat the rich.”

    Or lead.

    1. who here hasn’t ranged their yard and neighborhood? be honest.

      1. I haven’t. But now that you mention it, it sounds like a good idea.

      2. what does it mean ‘to range’ a yard or neighborhood?

        1. gaijin, it means to make note of distances from your shooting position to where targets are or might be and calibrate your sights.

        2. calculating distance to target.

        3. what does it mean ‘to range’ a yard or neighborhood?

          To pre-determine the distance, angles, elevations, wind patterns, etc. of terrain from different vantage points. Perhaps through a high-powered scope. To make targeting easier, to defend yourself from assault.

          1. Be sure to leave your range card at each position!

        4. got it. thanks for all the answers!

        5. For those disinclined I suggest a scattergun.

      3. Wow. I actually thought I was a paranoid crazy and the only one who had done that. Knowing that everyone else is doing it is….kinda scary. And comforting that I am not that crazy after all….or maybe y’all are just as crazy as I am…or something.

        1. Rest assured Suthen, you are paranoid and crazy.

        2. you didn’t get paranoid and crazy on your own. someone else made that happen.

        3. You should see how many people buy ammo and 20 lbs of rice at the same time.

  14. Obama’s “not Romney. He plays basketball. Romney sucks at basketball. He doesn’t believe in wearing magical underwear, like Romney does,” comments comedian Reggie Watts.

    Is Mr. Watts’ target audience undereducated 4-year-olds with Down’s Syndrome? Because that really struck me as the quality of his commentary.

    1. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Obama really sucks at basketball.

      1. I can’t see him being anything except terrible. The only people that would consider him athletic are baseball scouts, and that is solely due to his skin tone.

      2. He can’t throw a baseball 54 feet on national television. I really doubt he can be that great at basketball either.

        1. If I ever throw the first pitch, I’m making damned sure I throw a strike.

          1. You can’t really tell if it’s a strike with no batter. Of course, you can tell it’s not when it bounces to the plate/Pujols commits catcher interference.

            1. Four feet over the plate will suffice.

      3. He sucks at Bowling and throws like a girl, but he can ball a little. There are YouTube videos of him taking (and making) a three point shot and his stroke looks pretty good.

        1. Are they edited clips of just the good shots, or do we have a video of the whole game.

          I was a decent basketball player, I was a demon on defense, but I was never a great shooter. I always wanted to be a good shooter, but alas, I never developed it. However, over my basketball playing lifetime, I hit some shots that would make your jaw drop… ’cause everyone gets lucky once in a while.

        2. I just learned yesterday that Michelle Obama’s brother coaches basketball at Oregon State (one of the Mavericks’ rookies played under him). Not that it has anything to do with Obama’s basketball skills, just thought it was interesting.

      4. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Obama really sucks at basketball leading the executive branch of the United States Government.

        FTFY

        1. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Obama really sucks at basketball leading the executive branch of the United States Government anything other than campaigning for an office in which he has no record, with the full cooperation of a complicit media.

          FTFY

    2. Is Mr. Watts’ target audience undereducated 4-year-olds with Down’s Syndrome?

      Reggie Watts hopes that, one day, he will achieve that much.

      You’d think the hair would be the first clue to not listen to a fucking thing he has to say.

    3. He doesn’t believe in wearing magical underwear, like Romney does

      HA!HA!HA! Signs of religious devotion are funny! Next up, Jews and their funny beanie hats!

      1. And don’t get me started on those funny rugs the Muslims use HAR HAR HAR!

        Man, not exactly a funny comedian.

  15. 90 reasons? Why not 99?

    And I notice that the economy ain’t one.

    1. You win the thread.

    2. It’s a bitch.

  16. Personally, I’d much rather have a dedicated thread on Hillary falling on her nerf sword for Obama.

  17. Will you guys still like 5 second films?

  18. I’m surprised we don’t hear a lot more about The Ascended One’s noble efforts to heal the Gender Gap on the Highest Court of the Land.

    Because I’m sure there are people who view that as a godlike gesture.

      1. Worth voting even if Obama is shackled by the Establishment and the Military Industrial Complex.
        We can only advance with little steps.
        – Obama Cult Member #348881

        Poor Obama, he’s shackled by the establishment, like a slave on a ship!

        1. We need to go to the head of the Military Industrial Complex and complain about how they’re holding Obama down.

          [ring ring]

          OBAMA: Hello, MIC Central Headquarters.

          “OMG, it’s worse than I thought, they’re holding Obama hostage!”

  19. But many people will be having to eat instant noodles multiple times a day and sitting on milk crates in their 1-bedroom efficiencies.

    What happened, did you forget to change your name before you started your dipshit troll routine?

    1. Fuck you man, that’s my honest opinion. You can disagree all you want, but if you think charity is going to be setting people up to the same degree that entitlements do now, you’re a fucking moron.

      And if you think that people will accept a lowered standard of living with a shrug and a, “Oh well I guess I deserve less because I can’t compete in the marketplace!” then you’re an even bigger moron.

      1. See what happens when you disagree with the groupthink, Gojira?

        1. There is no such thing as ‘groupthink’ here, Tulpa. What you experience is people who are tired of your shopworn analogies and your vision of yourself as a Socrates-level concern-troll.

          1. Tulpa offered Hit Und Run ORDER!!!

            1. glib glib go glib banana nana fo fib

          2. “There is no groupthink here!”

            “Yes there is!”

            “SHHHHHHHHHHH!”

            1. What is that called where a person considers denials even further evidence of the thesis?

              1. You can’t expect Diogenes to voluntarily put down the lamp, Randian. He’s the last sane man, dammit!

                1. I am totally getting Tulpa a big jar and some onions for Christmas.

              2. The evidence is all over this thread and many before it.

  20. singers from twee little indie bands with names like My Morning Jacket

    C’mon Healy. My Morning Jacket are far from twee. Why make that joke if you don’t know what they sound like?

      1. YOU’RE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG THING. There are literally ninety things to make fun of with this subject. Well, maybe not 90 but however many they’ve done so far.

        1. I still wish I hadn’t seen the David Lynch comment.

          1. It doesn’t matter, Ska. Lynch’s directorial talent has nothing to do with his political opinions. Just go watch The Elephant Man again and see if you still care whether he’s politically retarded or not.

            1. What’s the GOP mascot again? Yeah, he wasn’t making a political point about which party was the party of ugly.

              1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT ANNE BANCROFT

                You know that Mel Brooks produced that movie, right? And that Anne Bancroft is his wife? But he didn’t put his name on it because he was afraid people would assume it was a comedy.

        2. Artists that are less rocking and more likely to be called twee that have written reasons:

          Ben Gibbard (Death Cab for Cutie)
          Thao Nguyen
          Colin Meloy (The Decemberists)

          Not to mention, “little?” MMJ, Death Cab and Decemberists can all, arguably, be said to be mainstream music successes at this point.

          Why alienate “90 reasons” readers for a joke that doesn’t even land?

          1. Since I’m clearly the final arbiter on music, it’s fitting that I’m the final arbiter on humor, too. People love people like me.

          2. ok, if that video is at all representative of My Morning Jacket’s music on the whole, they are FAR FAR FAR from twee

            they kind of remind me of the replacements with a southern rock touch. (i hear a little skynrd)

            oh, and they fucking rock

            i saw decemberists at bumbershoot last year. they were decent. not really my type of music.

            Death Cab for Cuties can DEFINITELY be characterized as twee imo. they are pretty tight. they are from around my parts and i saw them live. good band, but their politics are absurd (they had to a do a couple of political rants during their show… yawn). and some of their music can definitely be a little “precious”

            speaking of “music”, i found an old cassette tape a while ago of my college band and managed to salvage a few recordings and upload them to soundcloud. pretty bitchen resource.

            also, for those musicians here, i’ve been using Reaper to do a software recording studio type emulation. it’s fucking fantastic. blows away the 4 track recorder i had in college. and it’s software and it’s free

            REAPER

            if you write/play music — get it

  21. If I can ask, aren’t these the urban sophisticates who assured the rest of us ad nauseum that they were soooooo much more educated, intellectual and sophisticated than the rednecks in flyover country? The writing I’m seeing quoted here is the sort of thing I’d expect from a (rather slow) grade school student. I mean, is this really the state of America’s leading culture workers? Have we really reached the state of Idiocracy 490 years early?

    1. Hey, pal – they have artisanal mayo! ’nuff said.

      /sloopy bait placed.

  22. Not since the days of slavery have there been so many people who feel entitled to what other people have produced as there are in the modern welfare state, whether in Western Europe or on this side of the Atlantic.

    Economist Edward Lazear has cut through all of Barack Obama’s claims about “creating jobs” with one plain and inescapable fact ? “there hasn’t been one day during the entire Obama presidency when as many Americans were working as on the day President Bush left office.” Whatever number of jobs were created during the Obama administration, more have been lost.

    – Thomas Sowell

    http://www.nationalreview.com/…..mas-sowell

  23. Eggers and friend sought contributions from “a wide range of cultural figures,” including … various unfunny comics

    Reason’s very own Friday Funnies wrote a piece for 90 Days

    … with names like My Morning Jacket and a gaggle of self-described “writers.”

    I’m even more surprised to hear Nick Gillespie wrote a piece for 90 Days.

    1. “Reason’s very own Friday Funnies wrote a piece for 90 Days”

      Was it a Bok cartoon with lots of labels?

  24. Fuck you man, that’s my honest opinion.

    Troll away.

    Have a nice time.

    1. Crimethinkers unbellyfeel Libertopia.

  25. Reason needs a new thread. This one is stale.

  26. HuffPo digs deep, manages to lower itself even further than normal:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..69328.html

    1. balko is huffpost’s ONLY redeeming feature.

      1. Watch his Twitter, though. He’s slowly going Wilkinson.

        1. i’ve actually never used twitter…

          mebbe some day

  27. Hmmm, let’s recap:

    Notorious spooftroll conjures vision of The Road -level moronpocalypse.

    I ask if he forgot to change his name preparatory to spouting spooftroll gibberish.

    But the joke’s on me; he apparently really does believe the only reason them darkies haven’t slit our throats as we sleep is because we have been paying them protection money.

    Tulpa concurs.

    Is that pretty much where we are?

    1. Where did Gojira bring up “darkies”?

      Jus’ askin’

    2. Dude, you seem to be reading a lot of shit into JJ’s statements that frankly isn’t there. Chill.

      1. I concur.

        Oh noes! MOAR GROUPTHINK!!1!

  28. Where did Gojira bring up “darkies”?

    I don’t buy the whole, “Everybody is a saintly hard worker being held down by entitlement mentality.” They have entitlement mentality because they’re lazy and don’t want to work and would rather steal from other people. That personality trait isn’t going to change when the checks stop coming.

    Maybe I just heard the wind whistling through the doorjamb.

      1. Damn, beat me to it by a minute.

    1. Maybe you’re hearing what you want to hear. I grew up in Kentucky, in Appalachia. If you think there aren’t welfare-dependent white people by the truck-load out there doing nothing with their time except drinking cheap beer and smoking American Spirits by the carton (including many of my extended family), I go back to my previous statement of accusing you of being a fucking moron.

      And since when am I a notorious “spooftroll”?

      Perhaps my minority wife will be interested in hearing about what a terrible racist I am.

      1. The fact that you require her to bang a gong and play this riff on the piano before entering a room, doesn’t speak well as to your racial sensitivity.

        Jus’ sayin’

      2. I, too, am puzzled by “spooftroll”. I may not agree with your assessment, but I find it was made rationally, and in good faith.

        I base my doubts on the absolute squalor people in parts of Chicago will live in, and only shoot each other rather than engage in general disorder. But I am willing to be persuaded, one way or the other, that I am wrong.

        1. I always did like light colonels. They got out before the serious political bullshit started to make it to full-bird. Made things easier on us enlisted men.

          1. I was an enlisted infantry guy for a bit over 2 years.

            I think everyone who wants a commission should have to have done some enlisted time first.

            1. You expect the perfumed princes to actually slog around in the dust and mud with the common soldiers?

              Philistine!

              1. Yeah, West Pointers etc.. grumble… I always was a small team or company level guy. I am skeptical of soldiers that are eager to get command of ever more people. Some actually want to make things better, but some get off on the increasing authoritay, and the ruffles and flourishes.

                I just wanted to be a shit umbrella for good men, so they could go do great things.

    2. Hmmm, I read it – still no reference to the melanin rich amongst us.

      If you hear dogwhistles…

      1. You know who else had dogwhistles….

        1. My first Iphone….

    3. Project much?

    4. And, btw, who’s the racist here? You read “lazy” and “entitlement mentality” and immediately assumed I could only be talking about black people. Sheesh.

  29. The bototm line is people voted for Obama because they were sick of Bush and the Iraq war. Now the Iraq war is over, so they don’t care.

    Everything else, health care, the economy, the financial crisis, had next to nothing to do with why people voted for him.

    Even in 2008, a large number of people voted for him while simultaneously professing themselves to be not part of the cult. They just thought the Republicans had to be punished and were pissed at Bush.

    But the surge, the timely withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, and Obama’s continuation of many of Bush’s foreign policies have now rendered that a moot point.

    Iraq is Over.

    1. I think the financial collapse put O! over the top – McCrusty Dustfarter paniced and the whole thing spiraled down from there.

      1. LTC(ret) John| 10.16.12 @ 2:50PM |#

        I think the financial collapse put O! over the top – McCrusty Dustfarter paniced and the whole thing spiraled down from there.

        This is commonly referenced as the main ‘turning point’ for Obama in ’08.

        I’m not sure I buy that. I was doing my own analysis at the time, and had called O as winning well before the Dem primary.

        (*although I will admit – I was prepared to vote McCain pre-Palin… and his promise to ‘put his campaign on hold’ while he singlehandedly rescued the financial system from collapse was both intellectually insulting as well as disturbing… a very ‘unpresidential’ sign of desperation … maybe even incipient senility)

        My main theory about an Obama shoo-in was based on an broad observation of people – liberals, conservatives, independents – being broadly “Bush-ed out”, weary of the social-con themes, weary of war, skeptical of the GOP ‘fixing itself’…

        …basically, Obama won mainly because he *had no track record*, being a blank canvas, people would project their best-assumptions on him. He constantly played on this by reminding people he “wasnt part of the old-guard”…

        and the race thing, obviously. I think that aspect was less a vote ‘for’ Obama than people wanting to feel good about themselves.

        I think his problem this time around is that he’s not a blank slate anymore. You can’t sell people the idea they’re “not racist” repeatedly.

      2. I don’t think it was a turning point for Obama as much as it was a missed opportunity for McCain. If McCain had stood there shouting “no, no a thousand times no!” while the bailout was being orchestrated that might have been enough.

        But of course that’s not really John McCain so…

  30. Take away the dogwhistle, and what are we left with?

    A giant pile of tedious concern troll dogshit. The great unwashed masses are:

    a) pathetic feckless boobs unable to feed and clothe themselves without the help and guidance of their benevolent betters

    b) depraved uncivilized beasts IN A RAINBOW OF COLORS who are one missed welfare check away from some sort of Law of the Jungle State of Nature dog-eat-dog savagery

    Take your pick.

    1. I think the Giant Lizard’s point was that people have been conditioned to take their govt checks for granted, and he believes taking that away, all the sudden, would lead to violence. I somewhat disagree, but it wasn’t trolling. You seemed to accuse him of being a bigot/racist on little to nothing other than an assumption on your part.

      Can’t we all just get along?

      /ducks and runs out of the room.

  31. Great column. I had never heard of 90 Days, but as soon as I read Dave Eggers here, I knew what we were in for. Back in the day, Might was extremely entertaining; Heartbreaking Work was meh; McSweeney’s – until I gave up on it – was both.

  32. This Eggers dork is clearly in favor of making fun of a person’s religion since he allowed Reggie Watts to talk about magic underwear. So I guess he won’t have a problem when Romney talks Islamaphobically.

    Unless he was a hypocrite or something….

  33. I think the Giant Lizard’s point was that people have been conditioned to take their govt checks for granted, and he believes taking that away, all the sudden, would lead to violence.

    Believe it or not, that argument (which is extremely popular amongst the lefty wing), pisses me off. Liberalism/progressivism is based on the definition of humanity as fundamentally helpless at best, and more probably definitively evil. Look, for example, at the wild tales credulously forwarded from New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina.

    1. So, no apology for the grossly unjustified and unsupported cries of “RACISM!” that apparently only you saw? Screaming “racist!” at everything you think is a dog whistle is also a popular lefty tactic.

      And yes, I do think that a large portion of society, as currently constituted, are feckless boobs who would not last long if left up to their own devices.

      You can feel free to disagree, and argue the point using facts or well-reasoned logic.

      Instead, you chose to fling mud and accusations of trolling, which, judging by the responses, other interested commenters are unanimous in not seeing. There isn’t a single post on here from anyone who agrees with your interpretation, or even sees what you apparently saw in my posts. So maybe you should start to wonder if that mean the problem is with you and your reading comprehension, and not with me.

  34. Re; Tulpa,

    So the question you’re asking is irrelevant to my point. Armed shopkeepers are not going to be sufficient to “solve” rioter problems.

    You haven’t said anything that would make a compelling case for the futility of armed resistance, T.

    Obviously it’s better to be armed than not armed in that situation, but that doesn’t mean arming up is a solution.

    You’re contradicting yourself. If arming up is better than not being armed, then how come that happens not to be A solution to the problem of rioting bands of disefranchised welfare recipients? You haven’t presented a cogent case for people not fearing armed shopkeepers the same way they would not fear UNarmed shopkeepers. It just doesn’t make sense.

    Also, the fact alone that a few people here and there during the LA riots shot back at armed shopkeepers does not make the case for the futility of armed resistance. It only makes the case for further study in the psychology of stupid people.

  35. #1: Obama responsible for the legalisation of gay marriage

    I’m awaiting the next post to proclaim we must vote for Obama since he’ll legalise medical marijuana.

  36. I was always highly amused at the blind faith given to a politician from the Chicago area. Obama has, in my view, lived out the stereotype of a (Democratic) Chicagoland pol. Why are his loyalists so surprised he’s turned out to be a self-serving liar?

  37. He is excited after the 2nd debate he have to answer these 90 days but everything is going good.

  38. It’s a tie game, folks: With the first of three presidential debates down and the vice presidential sideshow over, the two men at the top of the major party tickets will face off once again in yet another 90 minute debate, but putting on a carefully scripted show. cheap nfl jerseys positions. If either candidate started talking a good libertarian talk, even if only on a few subjects, they wouldn’t ever be trusted this late in the game. And the game here is not just this general election but the whole of their political careers.

  39. Let us hope the preceding paragraphs rouse the nation’s guardians from their torpid slumber, and alert them to the peril that threatens the very fabric of our nation. Let us hope. This insouciance seems ill-advised, when you reflect that Virginia’s Eastern Shore, where the chicken attack took place, is home to the Wallops Island Spaceport ? a crucial piece of the nation’s transportation infrastructurecheap nfl jerseys positions. I can’t tell if this article was Hinkle trying, poorly, to make a point about regulatory waste or Hinkle doing a rambling Andy Rooney schtick, poorly.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.