Election 2012

Elizabeth Warren Says Libertarians Should Vote For Her

|

BEVERLY, Mass. — With her us-against-them rhetoric and calls for a stricter regulatory climate, Elizabeth Warren does not appear to be a Senate candidate for libertarians. But after a packed rally in this seaside Massachusetts town the Harvard Law Professor talked briefly with Reason about why libertarians should vote for her over Senator Scott Brown.

Warren's response was unlike anything this journalist has heard when asking candidates of both parties across the country the simple question, "Why should libertarians vote for you?"

"I believe in contract law probably more than most people," Warren said in a small classroom in the basement of a Baptist Church.  

"I've taught contract law for 25 years and contracts are about private ordering, about parties and voluntary exchanges who engage in transactions that make all of us better off. I love contracts and I think it's a core part of the libertarian principles," said Warren.

"It is an important part. Libertarians believe in social ordering, right? That the social ordering is by private arrangement, so, that they ought to believe in contracts and in fact I think they do.

Warren had just finished speaking to a crowd of supporters about primarily veteran's issues with former Senator Max Cleland and Congressman John Tierney. Warren left after speaking with reporters for approximately five minutes for an event in Hopkington with Cleland. 

Brown campaigned with Senator John McCain and Tierney's challenger, Richard Tisei, in Melrose earlier in the day. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on America's Drone Terrorism

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. And nothing says private ordering like 50 new federal bureaucracies.

    1. I was living in MA in 2009 when Scott Brown was campaigning for Senate AND he was also campaigning, as a state legislator, to repeal the massively popular decriminalization of under 1 oz of marijuana that had passed in 2008.

      (How popular was it? It got more votes than Obama.)

      S. Brown is not in favor of fiscal restraint. He’s in favor of putting people in jail just because.

      I’ll take the White Indian over the Rick Springfield look-alike, thank you very much.

      1. then you’ll take Obamacare. Im no Brown fan BTW.

  2. Wow. That’s actually an excellent point.

    1. You’re supposed to have a link to something you’re selling after you write that.

    2. actually it’s not, and it belies exactly where Elizabeth Warren comes from.

      CONTRACTS are kind of libertarian. They’re really libertarian if there’s nothing backing them besides your good name. I.E. you draft a contract in public, and if someone breaks them it is a warning to the general public that the contract breaker is a shyster. There might be some legitimate reason why you have to break the contract, and it should be up to individual (i.e. the next individual that deals with the contract breaker) to decide if the reasons for contract breaking are a justifiable risk.

      CONTRACT LAW is basically the state butting into the process and arbitrarily deciding whether or not someone should be enjoined by the power of the state to fulfill the terms and conditions against their will.

      So, Warren is a statist. Nothing new here.

      1. I say kind of libertarian because the enforcement of contracts as a function of the state is a wedge issue for libertarians, along with abortion, intellectual property, and whether or not property rights are natural or constructed rights.

      2. Yeah, she’s supports contracts. Especially the Social Contract.

        1. She believes in ‘private’ contracts ummm ok. She is running for a government position, I have seen nothing in her deeds or words to let me believe she believes in the most important government contracts with the citizens, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. As a citizen of the USA my concern is her belief in those contracts!

      3. to be fair, you believe that the enforcement of private contracts is outside the proper scope of government, which basically makes you a fucking lunatic.

        1. So. You borrow some money from me. We agree on payment terms. Suddenly your daughter gets cancer, and the payment terms are no longer reasonable in light of medical payments. I take you to court, because I’m a hard-nosed bastard.

          Government sides with me (a contract is a contract), and garnishes your wages till I’m paid off. Is that right?

          1. If the alternative is a feudal economy where no one engages in commerce except their immediate family and neighbors because they have no enforcement mechanism, then yes.

            Can you really not follow this thread to its logical conclusion? replace “daughter has cancer” with “I decide I want a big screen TV” or “I want a new car”

            Who’s going to lend you money? Who would you lend money to? It’s bonkers.

            1. Why does anyone lend money to anyone with bankruptcy laws?

              1. I suppose the bankruptcy judge can still order garnishing of wages, but sometimes that doesn’t happen. Like, the how many times that Donald Trump declared banruptcy?

                Why does anyone invest in Donald Trump anymore?

                1. why would anyone go to a restaurant? There’s no written guarantee that the restauranteurs would give you any food at all!! We should make the write out contracts.

                  1. Umm, because I have eaten my food before I even pull out my wallet?

          2. In your fantasy world, here’s what would result: You wouldn’t be able to get a loan. If you had to make a big purchase you would do it in cash up front or not at all.

            Sticking with your example, if your daughter got cancer shortly after you made that big purchase (and were subsequently low on cash). You’re still fucked, since no one is going to lend you any money for treatment.

            1. “You wouldn’t be able to get a loan.”

              1) that’s completely untrue, because the risk of nonpayment is not zero. Yes, it is possible you will wind up in a situation where someone builds up his personal credit quite a bit and then says fuck you when it comes to the big one, but that’s fine.

              2) taking your statement to a lesser extreme, where you are essentially claiming that the economy will slow down because lending will *decrease* (vice grinding to a complete halt) perhaps that’s not so bad. After all, the Austrians like to say “real savings come first if you want to invest” – and there’s no reason for government to be subsidizing unsustainable lending cycles.

              1. sorry, should be the “risk of nonpayment is not one.”

            2. Wrong, you can still get a loan. Maybe not an unsecured loan, but you could still get a loan.

              Spooner suggested this system instead of either bankruptcy or debtors prisons.

              Any unsecured debt can be waived by the debtor at any time. It might not have worked in the 19th century, but in the 21st, with credit agencies, it would work just fine. You do that and you end up with a permanent mark on your credit. Try getting another loan.

              But, while unsecured loans would be HARDER to get, they would still exist. And, personally, I think making unsecured debt more difficult is a very good thing.

        2. “which basically makes you a fucking lunatic.”

          Citation please

      4. It’s what she doesn’t say: she never says she supports freedom of contract or association.

    3. Except that all she could possibly mean by “contract law” is “law(s) restricting the contracts you can enter into.” I’m not buying it.

      Apropos of nothing, I first lived in Beverly.

  3. Considering she actually has nothing to offer libertarians, I suppose that response was better than, “Fuck you, racists.”

    1. As opposed to Scott Brown who does?

      1. Be advised: When a reason commenter digs on a politician it doesn’t necessarily mean he is advocating for that politician’s opponent. In fact, from what I’ve seen, it’s seldom the case.

      2. Scott Brown has one thing to offer libertarians: the deciding vote to repeal Obamacare.

      3. False dichotomy alert!

  4. And if you love animals you should vote for someone who has worked with animals for 25 years… in a slaughterhouse.

    1. She loves contracts in the same sense that Obama is a constitutional law professor

      1. Joseph Mengele was a Doctor. So was Che.

      2. The contracts she most loves are the ones guaranteeing public worker pension benefits, and she’ll be expecting the taxpayer at large to pay for them in the coming years.

    2. Elizabeth Warren is yet another example of the class of lawyer who would bind every citizen with unintelligible legal mumbo-jumbo to the benefit of her and her professional colleagues. Saying “contract!” makes it all better? Sorry, Liz, not buying.

  5. “You like contracts, right?”,

    “Uh-uh”,
    “Well, so do I, so really you should vote for me?”,

    “Alrighty, well, what policies that you propose actually support your ‘social ordering’ via ‘voluntary transactions’?”

    “I’m sorry, I’m running late, thanks for your support.”

  6. So, basically if someone understands the Libertarian position I, as a Libertarian, should vote for them?

      1. Get out of here. He can’t possibly be serious.

        1. Goolsbee’s record seems spotty, at BEST. One of Balko’s points seems to be that blocking Goolsbee is a poor political move. I don’t know if that’s true though.

      2. I don’t see why having a free market voice in Obama’s ear would make any difference.

        Obama doesn’t have a free market idea in his head.

        1. Goolsbee’s free market bona fides were supposedly from osmosis through fellow faculty at UChicago.

          He is not a “free market economist” himself.

      3. I doubt that any top man is capable of being a free market advocate.

  7. I bet Chapman would vote for her. So there is that.

  8. I call shenanigans.

    How does she reconcile her respect for private parties and their right to contract with her support for and the administration of TARP, which used the government to force me as a private party to act as a backstop for hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts–that I never signed?

    How does she reconcile her respect for private parties and their right to contract with her championing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its essential function–in preventing private parties from making contracts with each other that might not be in the best interest of government?

    How does Elizabeth Warren reconcile my right as a private party to contract with her support for ObamaCare’s individual mandate, which is nothing but using the government to force me into a contract whether I want it or not?

    Actions speak louder than words. And everything Granny Cheekbones has done for the last four years says that she thinks my right to contract is less important than my right to be forced by the government to kiss her lily white ass.

    1. You did sign TARP through your Congressional representatives and President Bush.

      Warren was merely a bureaucrat who administered that contract.

      1. “You did sign TARP through your Congressional representatives and President Bush.”

        I consented to no such thing.

        A bunch of people got together and held a popularity contest and decided that I should get reamed–if that’s somehow what Warren was talking about when she says I have a right to contract?

        Then she doesn’t think I have a right to contract!

      2. Sarah must be eating bad fish, from the smell of her buttplug.

      3. You did sign TARP through your Congressional representatives and President Bush.

        Amazing how shriek confuses Democratic Centralism for Republicanism. But then, it’s not surprising when you realize how much of an idiot shriek is.

        1. You DID sign Defense of Marriage Act through your Congressional representatives and President Clinton!

          1. So THERE, homophobe!

            1. I wasn’t old enough to vote for the entirety of the Clinton Administration.

              Take THAT, ageist!

    2. How does Elizabeth Warren reconcile…

      Simple. She doesn’t. She doesn’t know the meaning of the word “inviolability” or “private” with respect to mutual, voluntary contract.

  9. I’m sure Warren, if elected, would make sure to vote against any bill that does not limit its effects only to those who have signed and explicitly agreed to the Social Contract, which is handily posted in every street corner for all to read and understand.

  10. I see two bright spots in Warren’s pandering.

    1) She has some idea of where libertarians are coming from. Which is an improvement over the typical leftwing view of libertarians as Rand cartoon characters.

    2) She tried to pander to libertarians to get their vote.

    1. #2 exists for entirely cynical reasons, i.e., that she needs the votes. For an explanation of 1, see 2.

      1. Well sure, but I can’t remember the last time any major politician even tried to make an libertarian appeal to libertarians voters.

        Hopefully it’s a sign that the number of libertarians is getting too large for politicians to ignore.

    2. “1) She has some idea of where libertarians are coming from. Which is an improvement over the typical leftwing view of libertarians as Rand cartoon characters.”

      I disagree that it’s an improvement.

      Most people on the left are oblivious to libertarian ideas, and if they oppose them, it’s often simple pandering.

      Warren opposes libertarianism on a principled basis. That is not an improvement.

      1. Well that’s not what she said.

        She’s trying to incorporate some aspect of them into her world view (or pretending to). That not a principled opposition that’s trying to co-opt the ideas.

        And it’s a lot better to have a discussion with someone that says I like contracts and voluntary exchange and private ordering make us all better off than with someone that using racist, you want children to starve as a mantra to keep their mind closed.

        1. I think I prefer empty criticism to principled heart felt attacks on private enterprise.

          This is Liz Warren about year before Obama made his “You didn’t build that” speech:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

          She hates private enterprise in her cold bitter heart.

          1. I’m not saying that Lizzie is anything other than a morally repulsive socialist.

            I’m saying that it’s a sign of progress that a politician is trying to appeal to libertarians on libertarian terms.

            And when she says that voluntary exchange and private ordering make us all better off the obvious next question is why does she support more federal intervention then?

            That’s an argument that libertarians will win every time. Especially because she embraced the premise of the superiority of voluntary exchange.

          2. Then so does Bill Gates who famously cited governmental framework for his building of Microsoft.

            You’re an idiot – I’ll go with Gates.

            Capitalism coexists with government. Capitalism needs government to enforce contracts.

            1. “Capitalism coexists with government. Capitalism needs government to enforce contracts.”

              You’ve been here all this time, and you still can’t tell the difference between libertarians and anarchists?

              1. You’ve been here all this time, and you still can’t tell the difference between libertarians and anarchists?

                What’s the point of arguing the distinction between minarchy and anarachy with it? It doesn’t even believe what it wrote. It stated a minarchist position, but in no way, shape, or form does it support minarchy.

                You know, kind of like Warren’s statement.

                “Captialism needs government to enforce contracts, therefore free condoms for everyone.” Yeah, makes perfect sense.

            2. P.S. I owe you nothing Shrike.

              Go get a job.

              Go make your own money.

              Stop trying to parasite off of other people’s work, you lazy bastard.

            3. Hey, look at that, a government rent-seeker singing the praises of government. Who’d have thought?

              (Just take a wild guess at who Microsoft’s biggest customer is…).

    3. Yes. She knows her enemy (of the state).

  11. I think she was just trolling.

  12. I’ll note that the crowd over at American Conservative seem much more sympathetic to Ms. Warren than the opinion I am reading here:

    http://www.theamericanconserva…..-vote-for/

    Also, here’s Warren making Tim Geithner very uncomfortable about the TARP bailouts:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7ruJw6byQ

    Just sayin’.

    1. Even if you believe that her heart is in the right place on TBTF (which I don’t btw) her policy prescriptions are idiotic. She believes that layering ever more regulations and bureaucracy on financial institutions will create competition at the expense of the largest institutions. The only problem with that theory is 150 years of experience in how regulations affect regulated sectors. So the best argument for her is that she’s a well meaning idiot.

      1. Whether or not it is…she’s still miles better than John Kerry. MA would be served much better by having both Brown and Warren as the Senate delegation than either of them and the Heinz idiot.

      2. The layer of regulations she wanted was merely an adequate capital reserve.

        It is not a bank without adequate capital.

        Really, I hate the old bromide but Somalia really is the place for you anarchists.

        1. The layer of regulations she wanted was merely an adequate capital reserve.

          It is not a bank without adequate capital.

          What does this bullshit even mean? From someone other than Warren’s Dildo, that is.

          Really, I hate the old bromide but Somalia really is the place for you anarchists.

          You’ve been here all this time, and you still can’t tell the difference between libertarians and anarchists?

        2. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

          The layer of regulations she wanted was merely an adequate capital reserve [for banks].

          Because, I guess, the adequate current reserve mandated by law is not adequate enough. There ought to be a new definition of adequate.

          It is not a bank without adequate capital.

          She knows just how adequate is adequate. She’s an adequate gal.

          Really, I hate the old bromide but Somalia really is the place for you anarchists.

          I prefer the Somalia-like U.S. before Wilson, Roosevelt, the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Act. Such a hell-hole…

        3. Adequate capital reserves? What, like the Basel III requirements? Is that “adequate”? If not, what would she change?

  13. Lawrence O’ Donnell should challenge Scott Brown to a fight for not letting a carpetbagging intellectual become O’ Donnell’s Senator.

  14. She’s terrible, but that was actually a pretty good answer. About an order of magnitude greater in quality than can usually expected from a politician: “Libertarians should vote for me because… THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!1!!eleven11!!!!”

  15. I don’t have an issue with Elizabeth Warren’s tax-the-rich rhetoric. In many ways, I feel that the ruling class–which is not necessarily the ultra-wealthy, but also those in positions of power in society–are wrecking the nation. The Buffet rule doesn’t bother me, especially not when we have the government to feed with it.

    What I do take issue with is Warren’s sudden rise to stardom among progressive circles because she wants to tax the wealthy. I have a feeling that, once elected, she would pass a bunch of bad legislation and end up going full-steam anti-freedom progressivism.

    But what do I know, I’m probably just racist against her Cherokee heritage or whatever.

    1. “The Buffet rule doesn’t bother me, especially not when we have the government to feed with it.”

      That’s supposed to be funny, right?

      1. We’re about to go to war with Iran. Might as well make a few payments on the credit card.

        1. You know it’s really hard to parody these crazy bastards.

          There are tons of people out there who really think this shit, for reals.

          It’s too soon! It isn’t funny yet.

          1. Raising taxes on the wealthy makes me a “crazy bastard”? Guess most of the developed world is cray-cray, then.

            1. Yes, they are.

              1. Yes, they are.

            2. “The Buffet rule doesn’t bother me, especially not when we have the government to feed with it.”

              Rich people don’t owe you anything, Buddy!

              You want other people’s money?

              Don’t vote! Get a job.

              1. I don’t want other people’s money, you idiot. I want to pay down the national debt.

                1. “I don’t want other people’s money, you idiot. I want to pay down the national debt.”

                  With other people’s money?

                  You can send in all YOUR money you want!

                  “The Buffet rule doesn’t bother me, especially not when we have the government to feed with it.”

                  Where to start? How ’bout with you treating other people’s money like your own–I guess you think that’s interesting? You not minding spending other people’s money?

                  If there’s anything interesting about it, it’s how you treat other people’s bank accounts like bible-thumpers treat other people’s sex lives. To the point that people aren’t supposed to even question–why you don’t mind spending other people’s money?

                  The other hilarious thing about your statement is the idea that spending the money on the government, specifically, somehow makes your wrongheaded prescription okay.

                  The solution to the president spending MY money like a drunken sailor–is NOT to find more money to give him. You MUST have been joking.

                  Either that or maybe you’re a government employee? And you’ve come to think you’re entitled to other people’s money? I’m just speculating, but if you’re serious, there’s gotta some kind of explanation–besides wanting to pay down the national debt. If you’re really interested in paying down the debt, the first thing you have to do is slash spending.

                  Not squander other people’s money. Go make your own money. Get a job.

                2. “The Buffet rule doesn’t bother me, especially not when we have the government to feed with it.”

                  Yeah, I’ve thought about it for a long time, and I really don’t mind spending other people’s money–as long as it’s going to the government.

                  Now give me a trophy.

              2. Rich people don’t owe you anything, Buddy!

                Technically? Really? They probably owe someone considering that they have benefited the most from the intentional creeping inflationist monetary scheme. But I personally, don’t want anything from anybody. All I want is for this fiat currency to come crashing down, and the Federal Reserve Blowed up. Oh wait……

                1. I think they’re already paying more than their fair share.

                  Despite what Obama and Warren say, those roads didn’t pay for themselves. Taxpayers actually paid for those.

                  I’m not sure a lot of people realize that the government doesn’t pay for the roads. But they don’t!

                  The taxpayers do. It sounds so simplistic, but I’m not sure it’s a point a lot of people get.

                  1. Blaaaaargh taxation is theft.

            3. Cray-cray? They’re made out of wax?

    2. Warren rose to prominence as bank haters glommed onto her after TARP.

      Which is why I dismissed her. Go to a progressive board – they hate Jamie Dimon more than Mitt Romney.

    3. I take issue with her gaming affirmative action, doing academic research so bad that there’s a good case it’s academic fraud, practicing law without a license, making big bucks while attacking the rich, and plagiarizing recipes. (Sure, Liz, your Cherokee ancestors were really into mayonnaise.) She’s Ward Churchill in a dress.

  16. Libertarians believe in social ordering, right? That the social ordering is by private arrangement, so, that they ought to believe in contracts and in fact I think they do.

    WTF?

    “But, you know, sometimes contracts aren’t fair, and those contracts need to be rewritten. I, as a Senator, will put my thumb on the scales of fairness, and make those contracts fair. Because I’m smarter than you, and I want to save you from your false consciousness.”

    1. I wonder how she feels about someone willingly selling himself as property to another man in order to pay off debt.

    2. Yes, libertarians believe in social ordering through survival of the fittest. Hell, I believe that and I scored only 94% on the LP purity test.

      1. Haven’t you beaten that strawman enough, PB?

        1. 1) Markets reward people for behavior valued by others

          1a) Market rewards allow for an increased standard of living

          2) Markets punish people for behavior not valued by others

          2a) Market punishment decreases standard of living

          3) You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish

          4) Therefore, markets aim to increase actions that are valued by society and decrease actions that are not

          I have to agree with Shrike on this one. It’s not “fittest” in the Darwinian sense but “fittest” in terms of providing what society desires. Market competition, like evolution, is uses systemic (rather than systematic) equality to determine what outcomes are optimal, and reward them.

          1. It’s the “survival” part where he goes off the reservation. I don’t recall anyone saying that people who don’t succeed as much in the marketplace should just be allowed to die, which is exactly what “survival of the fittest” means.

            1. Hey! You shouldn’t talk about “going off the reservation” in a discussion about Elizabeth Warren.

            2. Not only is everyone allowed to die, we all do it eventually. In evolution, not every inferior genetic development leads to immediate death; it is merely systemically removed from the gene pool as its chances for mating and/or eating are reduced. That’s what happens with a lowered standard of living, as well.

              The difference is that, since action is (generally) conscious and voluntary, being born to people who engage in non-valued behavior doesn’t doom you to the fate of your forebears and work to weed you out of the gene pool. In fact, you have every incentive not to follow in their footsteps, except insofar as they instill you with their counter-productive values.

              However, much like evolution punishes repeated matings with less-developed specimens, markets punish repeated instillation of less-beneficial values. The result either way is marginalization and death. Markets merely offer a way out through the profit motive; no one in a market is past redemption.

              1. I think there is a difference between natural competition and catallactic competition.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxInEVug4hk

        2. PB does seem to be strawman heavy today. Must have an extra few bales on his/her porch as a Halloween decoration.

  17. I wonder how she feels about someone willingly selling himself as property to another man in order to pay off debt.

    Ooh, GOOD QUESTION!

  18. This is the same woman who keep talking about how we all owe everything we have and are to the government, because society created us. So they can call in the debt whenever they want.

    I’m sure she can think of a way to frame that in terms of a “contract”.

    1. She said we owe “everything we have”?

      Link?

      Really, don’t make me defend her. I am on record for supporting Brown (who is about to get trounced for his recent foot-in-mouth disease).

      1. She said we owe “everything we have”?

        The gist of what she’s said, yes. I’m not going to go looking for dozens of quotes to put together for you. If you’re this ignorant, that’s your problem.

        Link?

        Don’t be retarded like that. Your normal way of doing it is fine.

      2. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

        She said we owe “everything we have”? Link?

        http://youtu.be/i-P-CoSNYaI

        You’re welcome. I found it on Mother Jones, by the way – they were very candid about what Warren implied:

        “But remember when Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren reminded voters about how America really gets built?

      3. Let me help you out, Obama’s Speculum:

        “You built a factory out there? Good for you,” she says. “But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

        She arguing for government-as-a-protection-racket, which verifies what I’ve said for years that government and organized crime are functionally no different.

        1. Obama’s Speculum. Thanks for the lulz, AC!

          1. I get a little wood on the ball every once in awhile.

  19. Capitalism needs government to enforce contracts.

    Of course it does. How could you possibly enforce voluntary mutually beneficial exchanges without government goons?

    1. Could do it the old-fashioned way and just go hunt down the guy who breached the contract with you and extract your consideration by force or cut his head off as warning to the next party.

      1. Or damage the reputation of the breaching party.

        1. And deny me the visceral satisfication of lethal contract resolution?

          You sir, are a monster.

    2. The only contracts that matter to Lizzie Bor…err, WARREN.

      SOCIAL CONTRACZ!!!!zomg!!!one!!eleventy!!!

      Oh, REASON, need I remind you that this fraudster was this admin’s top pick to head The Command and Control Central Economic Authority Board, otherwise known as the Consumer Protection Advisory Board? This reeks of being the ugly ducking really wanting love, affection, and recognition from any available source.

      Smells like Eau de Desperation to me.

  20. No love for the alt text?

    1. Needed more Epic Sax Guy.

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. thank you for that.

        and in return

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

      2. Needs moar thrusting.

    2. Is the alt text in some way related to Elizabeth Warren’s supporters being hateful, union-thug homophobes?

      http://bostonherald.com/news/p…..wn_staffer

    3. I think most of the commentariat is a bit too old for sexy sax man

  21. Last night I watched part of some History Channel show. The Men Who Made America, I believe it was called.

    What a heaping helping of vapid, substanceless nonsense. OMG Teh ROBBER BARONS!!!111!!! With random Ken Burns style snippets of commentary from “business luminaries” and academics. The best part was Alan Greenspan talking about financial bubbles. Talk about a guy who knows his shit.

  22. She tried to pander to libertarians to get their vote.

    She more or less explicitly thinks you’re such a drooling imbecile that you’ll ignore every other word she has ever spoken in your desperation to be “understood”. Is that about it?

  23. I’d like to hear Warren’s take on the GM pension and secured debt debacle due to the the bailout. The end-around that Obama did on normal contract/bankruptcy law there would be an interesting test of her commitment to the sanctity of contract.

    1. End around?

      Pure wingnut fiction. The bankruptcy court has long considered worker’s pension obligations in the settlement.

      See Eastern Airlines and the pilots union.

      1. The federal government doesn’t get involved in actual bankruptcies, let alone nationalize companies as part of the process. Don’t try to bullshit us, wingnut.

      2. hahaha. Tell the 20,000+ workers who just happened to not be represented by one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout how well those considerations worked out.

        Ass.

      3. “Pure wingnut fiction. The bankruptcy court has long considered worker’s pension obligations in the settlement.”

        The right wing Washington Post says Shrike’s Buttplug is playing stupid with the facts:

        “While the Obama administration has been playing hardball with bondholders, it has been more than happy to play nice with the United Auto Workers. How else to explain why a retiree health-care fund controlled by the UAW is slated to get a 39 percent equity stake in GM for its remaining $10 billion in claims while bondholders are being pressured to take a 10 percent stake for their $27 billion”.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02135.html

        Shrike’s Buttplug, as usual, is being willfully ignorant. We know this because Shrike’s Buttplug has had this very same point smashed in its face more than once, now.

        1. That’s right–the Obama Administration ripped off bondholders (not to mention taxpayers) for the benefit of the UAW.

          And by providing the funding, the Obama Administration assured that GM wouldn’t be liquidated. If GM had been liquidated, the senior bond holders would have been cashed out completely–and that UAW retiree health care fund would have gotten ONLY the $10 billion they were owed…not $27 billion.

          Actually, what would have happened is that the UAW would have been driven back to the negotiating table–to renegotiate their contract with a bankrupt GM. Obama bailed out GM specifically because his adminstration didn’t want the UAW to have to renegotiate their contract…

          And GM’s bondholders and working American taxpayers have been paying to keep UAW employees paid an average of $70 an hour to screw in lug nuts ever since! Subversion of the normal bankruptcy proceedings? Absolutely! And that isn’t even the worst of it.

          Oh, and they may not have avoided bankruptcy, anyway. It’s probably hard for Shrike’s Buttplug to believe, but the chances of a company owned and managed by the UAW and the U.S. government being successful over the long term?

          Those odds are pretty slim.

          1. The Volt will save GM. Obama said so.

      4. Pure wingnut fiction. The bankruptcy court has long considered worker’s pension obligations in the settlement.

        Obama’s Speculum, tell that to the Delphi employees who had their pensions unceremoniously pulled out from under them.

  24. I understand any candidate from either major party trying to appeal or find common ground with Libertarians, they want a wider base. Unfortunately, both parties are nearly identical and offer little difference. Individual candidates can represent more libertarian ideas, but that has nothing to do with the D or R behind their name.

  25. I for the life of me cannot see how someone who gave the original “you didn’t build that” speech could be a legitimate option for libertarians.

    That being said, as a MA resident I am indeed wondering if my vote will go to Brown or if I’ll just say screw it for this race.

  26. “That the social ordering is by private arrangement, so, that they ought to believe in contracts and in fact I think they do.”

    So would Warren repeal Obamacare since it violates the freedom of people to negotiate contracts for the health insurance services they are willing to have and offer because it dictates what the minimum terms are to be?

    I did not think so. Please go away, Warren.

  27. I’m going to say it: if you are a libertarian in Massachusetts you have a moral duty to vote for Brown.

    1. I’m going to say it: if you are a libertarian in Massachusetts you have a moral duty to vote for Brown.

      There’s an oxymoron in there somewhere.

      1. Not any oxymoron, just a moron making a fool out of himself.

    2. I’m going to say it: if you are a libertarian in Massachusetts you have a moral duty to vote for Brown.

      hmmm, should I listen to an enemy of freedom when he tells me to vote for someone who believes the government should be able to lock up anyone it wants on any pretext?!?

      Hmmm. This is a toughie.

      1. Silly tarran, Cyto’s only the enemy of OTHER people’s freedoms, not ours. And it will never come back to bite us. Ever.

  28. Contracts are weak libertarianism. Property rights are all that matter and contracts aren’t fundamentally related to property rights. If Alice signs a contract with Bob to fix his pool in exchange for him repaving her driveway then either one can renege without consequence. No property rights were ever transferred.

    Not that it really matters. Warren is stupid or lying, probably both.

    1. Doesn’t the renegger have to follow the reneggering clause of the contract? If any.

      1. Clearly, there is some racism here.

        /blink

        //dogwhistle

        ///snark (just to make sure)

        1. Reracesm in fact. And refried chicken.

    2. Doesn’t the renegger have to follow the reneggering clause of the contract? If any.

      Yes and no. No one has to follow any clause of the contract. If the reneggering clause of the contract states that some transfer of property occurs as a result of renegging, then so be it. But no one can be compelled to act by a contract, unless that contract transfers ownership of the person’s body. And the legitimacy of such a transfer is debatable.

  29. “It is an important part. Libertarians believe in social ordering, right?

    “Ordering”?

    You’re really on shaky ground if you can’t even state even in the more general terms what libertarianism means or entails.

    That the social ordering is by private arrangement, so, that they ought to believe in contracts and in fact I think they do.

    What I don’t think is that YOU, Elizabeth, really believes in contracts, otherwise you would not even entertain the idea of bamboozling your employers by telling them that you were Cherokee or Lakota or Laputa or whatever.

  30. Re: Palin’s Buttwipe,

    Yes, libertarians believe in social ordering through survival of the fittest.

    You arrived at this conclusion – how?

    Hell, I believe that and I scored only 94% on the LP purity test.

    That only tells me that your beliefs do not seem to match your poll answers. That’s all.

    1. Dude,

      You are arguing with the insane.

      Go make love to your wife instead… You will be happier spending your minutes on an act that isn’t futile.

      1. Re: tarran,

        Go make love to your wife instead…

        Funny that you said that… 😉

      2. You’re making a huge assumption that such an act by OM won’t be futile.

  31. Warren supported a law forcing all credit card contracts to be one page and to avoid certain features — that’s not the act of someone who believes in contracts as a guiding principle.

  32. who is she preaching this to? is there ANYBODY who has ever voted for somebody with the party affiliation (L) after their name, who buys this crap?

    elizabeth warren? a friend of libertarians? cmon

    weak sauce. chef boyardee trumps this crap

    1. She seems to actually be scared of losing.

  33. note: encephalitis does a body good. if by “doing a body good”, you mean “lose 30+ lbs lbw and 200+ lbs off your squat”

    ugh

    🙁

    1. Wow. That’s a lot to lose off of your squat. I doubt I could even squat 200 lbs ass-to-grass these days. Time to get my ass in the gym!

      1. “friends don’t let friends squat high”

        “if the bar aint bendin’, yer just pretendin'”

        seriously, though. it’s just good you SQUAT. keep at it, don’t cut your depth (do real squats, not power curtsies) and squats will pay you back in spades- power, strength, and … an ass to die for!!!
        🙂

        i remember when i started, i was a total cardio bunny – surfer, runner, etc. 135 was HEAVY. it’s just a matter of persistence and discipline and pretty soon – you’re squatting big weight.

        1. Squats are probably the single best activity you can do for your knees, at least according to my chiropractor.

          Knee pain and knee replacements ain’t fun.

          1. yea, the CW amongst the ignorati are that “deep squats are bad for the knees”. i always challenge them to come up with ONE peer reviewed study that supports that. crickets.

            one day, i’d like to squat like

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

            klokov with a 250kilo front squat (done with a pause at the bottom)

            ZOINKS!

  34. Palin’s Buttplug| 10.21.12 @ 10:36AM |#

    You did sign TARP through your Congressional representatives and President Bush.

    Warren was merely a bureaucrat who administered that contract.

    At first I thought this was some delicious sarcasm, from someone making the opposite argument through reducio ad absurdum, but then I belately noted the author. =P

  35. First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they pander to you, then you still get zero electoral college votes but maybe crack 1% of the vote for a change.

    1. But if we keep voting for them, someday they’ll treat our concerns seriously!

    2. If I just try a little harder, try to look a little prettier, remember to have the dishes washed before he gets home, maybe he won’t beat me as hard next time.

  36. Dude sure seems to be talking a whole lot of smack over there.

    http://www.Over-Anon.tk

  37. She supports your right to enter into contracts the govt approves She is fully in support of shooting you for entering contracts she doesn’t like.

    1. you have no freedom whatsoever to enter into contracts

      1. with credit card companies for terms she doesn’t like
      2. with a legal counsel who is approved by her.
      3. with a hairstylist to cut your hair in a state the requires licenses
      4. to insure specific health consequences a la cart
      5. etc. etc.

      1. She worked hard to make sure you can’t get a home loan unless the government approves.

  38. Wow obozo admin publishes 150+ pages of regs PER eAY. Can you say small bus “choke on it baby”.

  39. She believes in ‘private’ contracts ummm ok. She is running for a government position, I have seen nothing in her deeds or words to let me believe she believes in the most important government contracts with the citizens, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. As a citizen of the USA my concern is her belief in those contracts!

  40. Explain this obozo. I just read about Amb Stevens death: STEVENS WAS RAPED REPEATED AND HIS BUSTED RIBS PENETRATED HIS LUNGS WHICH WAS THE “MAIN” REASON FOR HIS DEATH…THE OTHER 3 (2 NAVY EX-SEALS) WERE “BEHEADED”….THE FAMILIES WERE “NOT” ALLOWED TO SEE THEIR LOVED ONES BODIES…CUT UP LIKE DOG MEAT IS THE REPORT I RECEIVED

  41. Warren had just finished speaking to a crowd of supporters about primarily veteran’s issues with former Senator Max Cleland and Congressman John Tierney. Warren left after speaking with reporters for approximately five minutes for an event in Hopkington with Cleland.

    Brown campaigned with Senator John McCain and Tierney’s challenger, Richard Tisei, in Melrose cheap nfl jerseys earlier in the day. Elizabeth Warren does not appear cheap nfl jerseys to be a Senate candidate for libertarians. But after a packed rally in this seaside Massachusetts town the Harvard Law Professor talked briefly with Reason about why libertarians should vote for her over

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.