Rand Paul

The Rand Paul Rorschach Test

Two liberals and a neocon interpret a Rand Paul speech.

|

For the writers here at Reason, the differences between the Rand Paul and Marco Rubio responses to the State of the Union address seemed pretty clear. But how did they look to observers outside the libertarian world?

The half-visible man.

Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon seemed more interested in the Rand Paul speech's sponsor, Tea Party Express, than the speech itself. (And to be fair, the efforts of a centralized operation run by Republican consultants to present itself as "the Tea Party" is a significant story.) But at the end of his article he recognized that Paul took more libertarian positions than rival Rubio on military spending and immigration. The article's odd omission is Paul's defense of civil liberties—the section of his remarks that begins with a pledge "to defend the entire Bill of Rights, from the right to trial by jury to the right to be free from unlawful searches," then goes on to denounce "secret lists of American citizens who can be killed without trial" and to urge Congress to "stand as a check to the power of the executive," among other points. That part of the talk doesn't seem to have made an impression on Seitz-Wald, who didn't mention it.

It certainly made an impression on Jennifer Rubin, the most reliably neoconservative voice at The Washington Post. In a blog post headlined "Rand Paul should get real," she attacked Paul's position on military spending (and, more positively, praised the senator's interest in immigration reform). But it's the civil liberties talk that really sent her over the edge:

Then, however, Paul seems to hint at another agenda, saying he is going to insist on trial by jury and search-and-seizure protection. Hmm. We have those things, right? Does he mean for Gitmo detainees? Terrorists on the battlefield? And he objects to "secret lists" of Americans to be killed "without trial." Does he think we can't kill an American-turned-jihadist on the battlefield?

Yes: Just what sort of stuff might Paul have been referring to with those words? Such a mystery!

And then there's Steve Benen at MSNBC's Maddow Blog, who doesn't seem to see any differences between Paul and Rubio at all. If you read his post about the Paul speech, you can search it in vain for a reference to drones, the Fourth Amendment, Pentagon spending, or any other area where Benen's liberal audience might prefer Paul's positions to Barack Obama's. Wouldn't want to complicate the narrative, I guess.

NEXT: Riverside Officer Slain by Dorner Memorialized

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. RUBIO DRANK SOME WATER! OMG WTF LOL

    1. That was the first headline I saw on Yahoo this morning. I guess ignorance is bliss for most people.

    2. RUBIO DRANK SOME WATER!

      and they call me glib

  2. The article’s odd omission is Paul’s defense of civil liberties… That part of the talk doesn’t seem to have made an impression on Seitz-Wald, who didn’t mention it.

    It’s not odd and I’m sure it made an impression. He doesn’t mention it because it makes his boy look bad.

    1. Or because he just doesn’t give a fuck about civil liberties.

      1. …especially when his TEAM is in charge.

  3. So if you don’t have a D after your name then the left hates you because you’re all the same and if you don’t tow the party lion then the neo-con establishment hates you. It’s almost like it’s a team sport or something. Who could’ve thunk it?

  4. Let’s have a campaign to praise Jennifer Rubin for her courageous defense of Obama. “LOL did you see Jenniver Rubin’s smackdown of Rand Paul’s terror-loving ideas about limited military spending and due process? Yea Rubin and Obama!”

  5. I made the mistake of reading the comments on the Maddow Blog article.

    The first one: Do any of these hacks realize that under Obama spending has decreased?

    It gets worse after that.

    1. That’s the first rule of the internet, dude: Never Read the Comments.

      1. Did you say something?

      2. Maybe it’s some kind Flagellant behavior: 10 Maddows and 50 Jezebels and you’ll be absolved of your sins.

        1. At least Jezebel has a laughing-at-tards-falling-down-a-set-of-stair humor factor. The Maddow Blog are the people who got Obama in the White House. That shit is just dpressing.

          1. YOU’RE DEPRESSING!! STOP PICKING ON OBAMA!!!!

            *cries for Youtubeville*

          2. Yeah. Jezebel is fun because they have spent so much time and brainpower making themselves stupid.

          3. Because Jezebel felt like making a point about how dumb it is.

            Also Kate Upton SI cover.

            I dunno whether I want to eat it or put my dick into it!!! Also, I am overcompensating because I’m insecure about my sexuality. BRO FIVE.

    2. Glad it was you and not me. It’s amazing people hear that and think it even makes sense.

      1. They simultaneously believe that Obama has cut spending while increasing funding for everything they love.

        These are the same people who think Obamacare is revenue neutral and simultaneously gives free healthcare to millions of people.

        They are literally retarded.

        1. This is the thing one must realize when dealing with these people. They are so fucking stupid as to be beyond any type of rational or realistic conversation. There is no reasoning with them. The only proper response is contempt. At least that they understand.

        2. Some people feel that money, value, and wealth are all the same thing.

          So if some rich person is worth X amount of dollars, then they have X dollars sitting in the bank that could be being used to feed poor people.

          Or if government prints X dollars, then X amount of value was just created out of thin air.

          Or if government spends X dollars, it just came from nowhere without any opportunity cost.

          It’s not so much that they are retarded, it’s that they don’t think.

          I understand. I once felt as they do. Now I think.

          1. They also display a lack of an ability to think beyond step one.

            The government needs more money. Great, we’ll take it from the people who have more money. Problem solved.

            No thinking about how taking that money might have other consequences.

            1. What step one? They start with the government spending money, skipping the step where it is taxed, borrowed, or simply printed into existence.

              Seen and the unseen. Spending is seen. Acquiring it and the associated opportunity costs are unseen and thus nonexistent.

        3. Well, all the excessive spending was be cause of Bush’s wars. Bush isn’t president, so that can’t be happening anymore. And as everyone knows, 99.99% of the budget is military spending. Therefore Obama cut spending. QED.

          I think that’s how the reasoning goes.

    3. That was probably Shriek.

      1. Shriek and Tony are paragons of reason and wisdom compared to what I just read on Maddowblog. Holy fuck.

        1. You’re a brave soul to stare into the abyss. I may not have returned.

        2. MY EYESSSSSS!!! THEY BURN!!!!

          Why oh why oh why oh why oh why oh why voh why oh why oh why oh why did i go there

    4. The worst thing about these kinds of people are their delusions of grandeur.

      Imagine a whole forum full of T o n y s that think they have a monopoly on facts and smugly repeat the same jokes over and over again about “there you go confusing the Republicans with facts” again.

      1. It is not so much that they are stupid and uninformed. It is that they have no awareness of it. And worse, they are so damned boring. God, life in the hive must be dull.

        1. Dull…but reassuring.

          1. Like that episode of VOY where Chakotay gets pseduo-assimilated by the colony of former Borg.

            1. THERE IS NO VOYAGER!

              1. THERE …. ARE… FOUR… STAR TREKS!!!

                1. So close to perfect. Should have gone with just “Treks”.

              2. I thought VoY was Vagina of the Year, and I was really upset that I’ve never watched it before.

            2. Or like that time you dressed up as Janeway and no one noticed anything different about you.

              1. [witty and memorable Janeway quote]

                1. [witty and memorable Janeway quote]

                  THERE IS NO JANEWAY!

                  1. C’mon, guys. I thought Janeway was plenty witty and memorable when she and Tom had hot salamander sex.

                  2. THERE IS NO JANEWAY!

                    ONLY ZUUL!

              2. Or like that time you dressed up as Janeway and no one noticed anything different about you.

                I thought that happened to you. And Seven still rejected you.

                1. DORK….LEVEL….REACHING….CRITICAL! CAN’T….Tak…rhaeof’;p[.?

                2. THERE …. ARE… FOUR… STAR TREKS!!!

                  And we all know Enterprise was the best one.

                3. And Seven still rejected you.

                  THERE IS NO SEVEN!

                  1. Dude–I mean, Dr. Dude–I think your hormone generator is out of whack.

                    1. Dr. Dude–I think your hormone generator is out of whack.

                      Dr. Podruga Groovova resolutely disagrees. (Spoiler Alert: SHE’S HAWT!)

                    2. Well, naturally, she’s Eastern European. One of the CIA’s greatest successes was promoting the babushka theory of Russian women.

                      Of course, I prefer Colombian women, like my wife.

                    3. babushka theory

                      DEVUSHKA, Pro’L Dib. If you call a younger woman (~50 years or less) “babushka” (grandmother), you will get a borshh pan upside your head.

                    4. I meant that the CIA wanted Westerners to think that Russian women all looked like grandmothers.

                  2. Yes there is. She was indirectly responsible for Obama.

        2. When communism and socialism’s collapse was too obvious for anyone but the most addled to abandon them, all pretense to scholasticism on the left went out the window. While I think that some aspects of libertarianism are rather utopian, at least there’s something to criticize — modern liberalism is about feeling and smugness. In some ways it resembles the milieu of radical center ideologies that percolated in Europe after the First World War.

          1. It’s actually been pointed out multiple times by scholars on the left and the right that all the interesting stuff is coming from the libertarian scholars. They say that then trash the libertarian scholarship, but it’s interesting, nonetheless.

            1. It’s basically true though, isn’t it? Socialists have had their scholarship in every area — history, economics, etc. — ripped to shreds.

              American conservatives have taken most of their domestic agenda and scholarship secondhand from libertarians; the last important conservative contribution to American conservatism was Edmund Burke and his notion of gradual, liberal reform.

              1. It is true to a large extent, but it’s interesting that some of them admit it.

                One thing that’s really hugely to our advantage–only libertarianism looks at individuals as individuals. And, at the end of the day, we’re all individuals and can only truly see things as individuals.

                1. we’re all individuals

                  I’m not. /man in back

                  1. Thought the same thing when I typed that.

      2. Seriously, if I see another liberal patting the himself on the back for being so clever that he skewed those knuckle-dragging Republicans, the punching mittens might have to be put on.

    5. It’s an abject lesson in never voting for any form of stimulus spending whatsoever. Bush and McCain panicked and backed a one-time 800-billion-dollar boost in federal spending in 2008. Obama said thank you very much, that’s my new baseline budget.

    6. Do any of these hacks realize that under Obama spending has decreased?

      The usual dishonest attribution of all of FY 2009 to Booosh the Eviler. I’ve even some some charts here that do the same.

      Over the last four months of Bush’s administration (post-TARP), outlays average about $292.5BB/month. For teh remainder of FY2009, they averaged $293.9BB/month. No reduction there.

      http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

      On fiscal year basis:

      FY 2008 – $248.5BB/month
      FY 2009 – $293BB
      FY 2010 – $288BB
      FY 2011 – $300.3BB
      FY 2012 – $300BB

      http://www.taxpolicycenter.org…..?Docid=200

      Where’s this reduction again?

      1. They didn’t say it permanently decreased. So 2011-2012 counts.

    7. Do any of these hacks realize that under Obama spending has decreased?
      ————-

      this has become an article of faith among the Obamarati.

    8. I, too, made this mistake.
      So. Much. Stupid.
      My head still hurts.

  6. Yeah, the Maddow Blog is pretty awful in terms its presenting an elementary-school level political narrative. It views things in the same uncomplicated terms that Sorkin viewed the White House in The West Wing.

    1. Umm, we libertarians maybe shouldn’t throw that particular stone from this here glass cathedral.

      1. Oh come on. We at least have a junior high level narrative.

        Boobs FTMFW!

        1. +2 Wooooooo!!!

        2. If we are at a junior high level, we’re the drunkest 8th graders I’ve ever met.

          1. So

            #WINNING

            amirite?

  7. The biggest difference between the two men is that Paul is a natural born Citizen and eligible to be the President while Rubio is not.

    1. Miami is in Florida, which is technically America. Even if it’s being overrun by pythons.

      1. Pro’L Dib and I have a plot to import more pigs to clean up that python problem. That, and, “How would you like your python burger cooked, sir?”

        1. Doesn’t that just incentivize raising more farmed pythons, who will eventually escape and make Florida less small child/toy poodle friendly?

          1. No, you simply capture and slaughter the pigs and offer sweet braised ribs and pork loin after the python problem is under control.

            Now the children, that is a legit concern; poodles, not really giving a crap.

            Disneyworld? How could you be any less kiddie friendly?

            1. Your plan sounds delicious, but I vaguely recall the whole introduce an invasive species to get rid of an invasive species has gone badly before.

              1. O ye of little faith! NEVER underestimate the public’s appetite for pork! It’s the other white meat. Didn’t I mention succulent slow roasted pork loin?

                Who are you, Adlai Stevenson?-)

                1. Argh, I’ve got half an hour until lunch and I’ve got a hankering for BBQ now. Jerk.

        2. The same way I usually like it, covered in bacon.

          1. so is it snaking the bacon or porking the snake?

            1. I’m going to tell my girl to pork the snake just to see her reaction.

              1. That’s a pretty creepy thing to say to your daughter – jes sayin.

            2. Snakon.

      2. Last I checked only 50 pythons were found in the last hunt.

        That could mean many things.

        According to the media it means that the snakes are difficult to find because population estimates, coming from government Top. Men., could not possibly be wrong.

        Or it means that the Florida climate is not as perfect for these animals as was once thought, and they are not as numerous as Top. Men. want people to believe.

        I’m inclined to believe the latter, especially after doing some research of my own.

        For example it can get cold enough to kill them at times, but they have no instinct to get underground since it doesn’t get that cold where they are from, so an unusually cold winter can decimate their population.

        1. You forgot a possibility, sarc. THEY’RE LEARNING. Snakes… In Your Drains.

          1. Maybe they hopped a plane. Maybe they hopped a motherfucking plane. Maybe the motherfucking snakes hopped a motherfucking plane.

            And maybe Samuel L Jackson is sick of them.

            1. Ok, there’s something really wrong with YouTube for me. The video I got was that same stupid rap video I got when trying to watch Rand’s video last night. Then it cut to the actual snakes/plane clip, then “ended” prematurely. If I keep fiddling with the clip time and refreshing the page, I can eventually get the normal clip. It’s really fucked up.

              1. After your complaint I tried the link and it worked fine…

        2. They are trying, but they can only catch the exceptions. Guido took care of the rest.

  8. That part of the talk doesn’t seem to have made an impression on Seitz-Wald, who didn’t mention it

    It’s possible, if not likely that Seitz-Wald is hostile to those civil liberties, as the modern progressive party is. They’re impediments to the total healthcare state.

  9. Then, however, Paul seems to hint at another agenda, saying he is going to insist on trial by jury and search-and-seizure protection. Hmm. We have those things, right?

    Actually not quite like we used to there Jenn. What a nitwit.

    1. If The Obama got rid of them, I’m sure it was for a good reason.

      1. It is not like he is a Republican. We can trust him. So why do we need such protections?

      2. No, she seems to hate Obama. If GW Bush got rid of them, though, it was for a good reason.

        1. Too bad the star of A Woman, Her Men, and Her Futon has to stoop to partisan wackadoodlery to make ends meet.

          1. Sadly this is not that Jennifer Rubin. That one is a serious babe.

            1. I liked her in Screamers, which is a highly underrated movie.

              1. And she wasn’t shy about getting her kit off either.

              2. She was the babe in NOES: Dream Warriors? Holy shit, I lusted for her.

                I met Dokken once at a metal event in the mid nineties. Likable if egotistical in an unassuming way. Well, I actually like that quality in people too. He asked me my favorite tune of theirs with the understanding, ‘besides Mr. Scary.’ I said the Dream Warriors theme tune. Lynch showed his rhythm chops were just as good as his lead on that one. He thought I was joking, and he appreciated the assholeness of the reply. I was serious!

                1. You should have said, “Breaking the Chainz”, just for the lulz.-)))

  10. And then there’s Steve Benen at MSNBC’s Maddow Blog, who doesn’t seem to see any differences between Paul and Rubio at all. If you read his post about the Paul speech, you can search it in vain for a reference to drones, the Fourth Amendment, Pentagon spending

    Again, if you don’t offer a vision of the total [healthcare] state, you’re “them”. People who cling to the constitution and quaint notions of civil liberties are dinosaurs. Their time is past. The right people are in charge now, and they plan to keep it that way.

    1. I can kind of understand Benen. I could never really tell the difference between Trotsky and Stalin. Too much ideological distance from me and too little in common with my beliefs.

      It makes sense that a Marxist can’t tell a Libertarian Republican from a more traditional conservative.

      1. That’s letting him off too easy. If you watched speeches by Lenin and Trotsky in response to the same event with an open mind, you could come up with plenty of differences.

      2. It makes sense that a Marxist can’t tell a Libertarian Republican from a more traditional conservative.

        If you only hear what you want to hear, any two speakers can sound exactly the same.

        1. Did you say something, Epi?

          1. You’re talking to Warty, doofus!

            1. Tim, I’ll slap the livin’ SHIT out of you when I want to hear from you, OK?!

              1. John, you couldn’t *type* “slap”, much do it!

                1. SO IN OTHER WORDS YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT IN RESPONSE TO MY KICKASS PIONTS…I MEAN WHAT?? IS SOMEONRE TALKING? CAUSE I DON’T HERE ANYWON TLAKING CAUSE. CAUSE!

                  /John

                  1. Shut up, Tony.

                    BURN!!!!

                  2. Wait T o n y, you’re telling me you’re actually Cytotoxic? Mind. Blown.

                    1. Mind. Blown.

                      sloopy, were you talking to me or Shriek?

                    2. And RC Dean misspellz his name thus proving Joe’z Law.,

  11. Yeah, imagine the nerve of a US Senator stating publicly that the Bill of Rights’ prohibitions on government power mean what they say! That “in all criminal prosecutions” (not just prosecutions of American citizens), the accused shall have the right to a public trial.

  12. Conservatives seem to want to focus on entitlements for future spending “cuts”, hoping no one will notice the bloated Pentagon budget. Rubin even (incorrectly) says that entitlements drove the 16 trillion national debt, when so far, SocSec and other entitlements have actually been looted to make the deficit look smaller than it is every year. Going forward entitlements may take a bigger chunk, but war and stimulus spending have caused most of the national debt accumulated so far.

    1. How dare you question the military!?! You pacifist peacenik!

      Every dollar of the military budget is sacred! Sacred I tell you!

      /conservatard

    2. No, that’s not true. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of military spending we can cut, but entitlements have been the bulk of the federal government’s expenditure for the last few decades.

    3. Well since 2010 SocSec has been running a cash deficit. Which is to say that the taxes alone do not cover the benefits paid out. Any talks of a SocSec surplus include interest payments to the fund from the bonds in holds from the Treasury (which is just accounting flimflammery).

      1. but the tax holiday????!!!?
        Amazingly, not even the alleged fiscal hawks asked WTF on that one.

        1. “Until relatively recently, these bonds only existed as entries in a record book. However, now when a new bond is issued, it is printed on a laser printer located at the Bureau of the Public Debt’s Martinsburg, WV office. The bond is then carried across the room and put in a fireproof filing cabinet. That filing cabinet is the Social Security trust fund.”-US Chamber of Commerce

          The country is being run by people who saw the movie Dumb and Dumber and thought the suitcase of IOUs was a clever idea for sound fiscal policy.

  13. (And to be fair, the efforts of a centralized operation run by Republican consultants to present itself as “the Tea Party” is a significant story.)

    Dare I ask why?

    I missed your jeremiad against the “Libertarian Party” unilaterally claiming to represent libertarians.

    1. I don’t think anyone has mistaken the Libertarian Party for the libertarian movement since…what, the ’80s?

      1. People conflate libertarianism with the LP all the time even today.

        And you’re moving the goalposts anyway; before you were concerned with TPE merely presenting itself as the Tea Party, not whether the audience actually conflates the two.

        1. People conflate libertarianism with the LP all the time even today.

          Yeah. Ignorant people.

          1. You mean like those who conflate the Tea Party and Tea Party Express?

        2. And you’re moving the goalposts anyway; before you were concerned with TPE merely presenting itself as the Tea Party, not whether the audience actually conflates the two.

          I don’t see any goalposts to be moved, frankly. At any rate, my interest in TPE’s efforts to present itself as “the Tea Party” is directly linked to the extent that the audience accepts it.

          1. Shhhh!

            *whispers*

            They’re not. That’s just Tulip projecting again.

          2. He’s so used to being called when he moves the goalposts that he thinks he can call others on it. Unfortunately for him it’s not a case of him learning what it is when someone moves the goalposts, but rather a case of ‘monkey see monkey do’.

          3. I bet Billy Cundiff denied the existence of the goal posts too.

            1. No, he’d have just moved them.

    2. Significant story doesn’t mean bad. It’s just interesting. What’s going on? Has there been a shift in the Republican Party? Are they trying to make nice with the Tea Party rabble because they’re afraid?

      All good questions.

      1. No, it’s not.

        TPE was founded in summer 2009, shortly after the Tea Party began. It’s not a new thing.

        TPE has funded campaigns to unseat established Republican politicians, so treating it as an arm of the party establishment is making an immediate mistake.

        1. TPE has funded campaigns to unseat established Republican politicians, so treating it as an arm of the party establishment is making an immediate mistake.

          And that wouldn’t be an interesting story?

    3. TULIP’S GOTTA DRINK!!!

  14. From the Rubin article:

    Paul’s style is deceptively effective, projecting a calm and almost sweet demeanor (albeit one sometimes wildly at odds with what he is actually saying).

    Because as we all know, ending wars or calling for civil liberties to be respected is wildly at odds with calmness or sweetness.

    1. Somebody light then Ken Shultz beacon!

    2. What a cunt.

      (Is this why there are no female libertarians?)

      1. Yes, it is.

        I move to call women we don’t like “sugartits”, to enhance our appeal among the womenfolk.

        1. Nice! Isn’t that what Mr. Personality Mel Gibson dropped on a female cop or something?

          therefore, perfect

          1. Well, Mel Gibson is a racist.

            I have it on good authority that if libertarianism is about anything, it’s about oppressing minorities.

            1. The only good minority is the one that works in our monocle factories.

              It’s in the libertarian manual.

              1. Hey, hey, hey – what’s this “our” stuff, Kemosabe?

                COLLECTIVIST!!!!

  15. Liberals have stopped talking about civil liberties because it is an incredibly embarrassing subject for them. Seriously, try pressing any liberal you know about civil liberties. They either get real quiet or respond with tons of irrational anger towards you. And this is because if they support Obama, they are one of two things:

    1) Wrong. They were wrong about Bush’s war on terror policies. Those were the policies that any sane President would pursue, they kept us safe, and they were good policies. This would mean that President Chimpy McHaliburton was not only right about something- every time they attacked him for those policies, they were wrong. And it gets worse too. If Bush was right about this, maybe he was smarter than the liberals who hated him, and maybe his people were smarter than the liberals who hated them. Which simply can’t be true, because Bush is evil and stupid, while as liberals they are automatically just and smart. So this possibility is out.

    Cont…

    1. 2) They are principless hacks. The only reason that they opposed the Bush era War on Terror policies isn’t because of the actual policy but because they didn’t personally like Bush. They are perfectly okay with civil liberties being fucked as long as it isn’t being done by someone who is overt about his Christianity and speaks with a Southern accent. But this is also unacceptable. Liberals aren’t unprincipled hacks. That’s conservatives, who only say what they say and pretend to stand for bullshit like “smaller government” to trick the poor and middle class into voting for polices that only help the rich and religious nuts. Liberals are principled defenders of “the little guy” in society, who stand against McCarthy-esque witch hunts and are for oppressed racial, religious, and sexual minorities.

      So, because of this, liberals have spent a lot of time desperately convincing themselves that there is no alternative voice. The Republicans are all so much worse on this issue that we have to vote for Obama!*

      *Voting for Jill Stein is unacceptable because if that asshole Nader didn’t have to have his moment in the limelight, we wouldn’t have experienced the utter and complete hell that 8 years of Bush was.

      I write this shit out, read it, and really wish I were making this mentality up.

      1. Mmmm hmmmm. OK, go on….

      2. They are principless hacks.

        Liberals do have principles. Or one principle anyway. Might makes right.

        The only reason that they opposed the Bush era War on Terror policies isn’t because of the actual policy but because they didn’t personally like Bush.

        Well, duh. The source of an idea is more important than the content.

        1. This. Also I imagine that the lefties are realizing that civil liberties are impossible in the Leviathan State they desire so they are ignoring it as well.

      3. I agree substantially with what you have written, and I believe that the greatest impediment to a responsible federal policy is the gross ignorance of people who consider themselves politically informed (see the Dunning?Kruger effect). I know old men who believe they understand politics because they’ve been reading the New York Times for 40 years. God help us.

        That said, Bush does not have a southern accent, nor does anyone who was raised a Texan. He has some weird hybrid of West Texas twang and the Black Speech of Mordor, which is, I believe, the native tongue of all denizens of Phillips Exeter.

        1. I made it sentient guys! Sentient and libertarian!

          I, for one, welcome our new Anonbot overlords.

    2. while ignoring civil liberties, they conjure up all sorts of rights – unions for public workers, free birth control, a living wage, and so forth.

      1. Talking about that isn’t embarrassing for them. Standing up for those rights just proves how good and compassionate you are and how much you care for “the little guy”.

        1. sadly, NOTHING is embarrassing for them. They are impervious to it. It’s dogma, worse than Westboro Baptist or the most radical Islamist.

      2. while ignoring civil liberties, they conjure up all sorts of rights – unions for public workers, free birth control, a living wage, and so forth.

        We agreed those types of ‘rights’ will now be referred to as privileges.

        1. These are referred to as positive rights because they impart a duty onto another person…. Of course this is just orwellian name changing but who gives a fuck the term kind of works.

          LearnLiberty did one on this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44, there are some positive rights libertarians do support like Trials, Representation, and any duties contractual relations impart.

          So i had this discussion with this girl, when i mentioned that Australia does not have a proper bill of rights and that we don’t even protect freedom of speech (this is a fact), so she agrees and then mentions that we should have a right to healthcare, to which i responded, “Healthcare is a right, not only is it a right, it’s become an entitlement” (we have a healthcare choice system here… too bad the choice of not having healthcare is off the table). What she later tells me is that she means that it should be in any proposed bill of rights.. to which i respond “A bill or rights must protect individual liberties, and not impart duties on any person, otherwise it becomes a bill of entitlements, you having a right to freedom of speech doesn’t mean we should give you a fucking radio program”. I gave up trying to explain the difference, she seemed to think that there was no difference between being allowed to do something and something be given to you.

  16. Shorter Jennifer Rubin: “CONSTITUTION NOT A SUICIDE PACT!! RAND PAUL SUPPORTS TEH TERRRRRRRSTZZZ!11!”

    1. Not bad. Now do your Jim Carrey impression for the crowd…

      1. I despise Jim Carrey

        *shoots self in head with a .45 hollow point*

  17. Nice rundown. I like your looking at what leftyworld thinks — especially in differentiating between Paul and Rubio.

  18. Oh My Fucking God, I just want to murder Rachel Maddow, i’ve never wanted to kill anybody, though i have wanted people to die… but in this case, i am really going to go out of my way to fucking murder this bitch….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.