Ron Paul

Rand Paul Taking Libertarians Mainstream Possible Because Ron Paul's Gone, Politico Misguidedly Claims

Rand Paul's political career would be impossible without Ron Paul

|

future imperfect
Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Politico ran a piece yesterday that argued that libertarians were ascendant in the Republican Party because of the receding importance of social issues and the growing importance of fiscal ones in the eyes of the electorate, and that libertarian Republicans had a chance to "rebrand their governing philosophy" with Ron Paul's "ride into the sunset". Yet even the article itself seems to present evidence to the contrary:

Perhaps the biggest opening for libertarians comes in foreign policy, where the traditionally muscular GOP doctrine is undergoing a sea change. Fritz Wenzel, who has polled for both Pauls, said the electorate has little appetite for international adventurism in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"There will not ever be a single Republican Party ideology," he said. "That said, there's no question that the libertarian spirit of the Republican Party is growing in influence. That's because [voters] feel there is a greater threat to freedom – to their individual freedoms and the freedoms of future generations."

"They're coming back to core values, and a lot of these core values are reflective of what has come in the modern era to be libertarian values – an emphasis on freedom, security and privacy," he added.

This crew believes demographics will work to their advantage. They see a generation coming of age that was too young to fully experience the Sept. 11 attacks yet saw the effects of a major recession and two wars.

The libertarian message of self-reliance resonates with younger voters," said another Republican strategist who has worked with the libertarian forces. "Ron Paul tapped into that."

Ron Paul, of course, was for years not only the most prominent, but one of an exceedingly few number of anti-war voices on the right. He was one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the Iraq War; by 2006 nearly two-thirds of Americans opposed the war. Brian Doherty has written about the next generation of Ron Paul-inspired Republicans in Congress.

Ron Paul's departure from Congress arguably leaves more air in the room for other libertarian candidates to galvanize voters, but the post-Ron Paul evolution of libertarian Republicans is hardly a "rebranding" away from the messages Ron Paul espoused but a wholesale adoption of them. As Doherty chronicled in his book Ron Paul's rEVOLution, Paul hasn't changed his tune since first entering politics in the 70s. Libertarian ideas have become mainstream in the GOP partially/largely because of the success of Paul's last two presidential campaigns in bringing those ideas into the mainstream. There wouldn't be a Rand Paul to bring libertarians into the mainstream if there wasn't a Ron Paul to build momentum for ideas that are increasingly relevant to the political and economic situation we find ourselves in.

Advertisement

NEXT: Social Security Petition Sent to the White House

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. “Sea change” is very tired and needs to go to Scottsdale to recuperate. Please send your business to other words until further notice.

    1. Changes within changes within changes?

      1. It’s changes all the way down

    2. Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

      1. +1 reset

      2. It’s “Tide comes in, Dirt goes out.” Get your detergent commercials straight.

  2. It will be hard to overlook the same GOP who called us “appeasers” and “unpatriotic” back in the 2003-2006 timeframe while the Iraq disaster was their reason for being.

    1. And by “us” you mean you and the other brain-dead liberals?

      1. Quite a few real conservatives were banished by the Israel Firsters who controlled the GOP in 2003. “Traitor” was one word they used.

        1. “Quite a few real conservatives were banished by the Israel Firsters who controlled the GOP in 2003.”

          Israeli leaders were outspoken in saying that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. But I guess that just proves how crafty Jews and their minions are, right?

          And who are these “real conservatives” who were banished? Social con lunatics? Paleocon anti-Semites? Seriously, fuck off. The GOP consists of two halves: the party of eternal war and the party of religious isolationism. Which class of statist a-holes do you hang with?

  3. I suppose Republicans being stupid and pacifist is better than being stupid and warmongering.

    1. Being stupid and warmongering doesn’t seem to have hurt you much.

      1. Take a lot of brainpower coming up with that one?

        1. Clearly your initial post was so witty that you threw him off balance, Tony. I mean, you called Republicans stupid twice in the same post?!?! You’re like a mixture of Oscar Wilde and Dorothy Parker, you’ve got such a wit on you.

          1. It’s tough to know how to respond to such an intellectual giant sometimes.

          2. I thought it was a succinct explanation of the alleged choices at hand (alleged because they won’t stop being warmongering).

            1. It’s a sockpuppet, people. It is not interested in a real debate, it’s interested in griefing threads to make them less enjoyable. The only response it should be: “Shut the fuck up asshole” or something similar.

            2. Shut the fuck up asshole!

              Or something similar.

              1. +1 Midas Mulligan

                1. Thanks. You totally inspired me with it months ago.9

            3. “because they won’t stop being warmongering.”

              Vietnam? Serbia? Libya? Are you referring to the Democrats?

              Oh, that’s right, I forgot. Your boy Obama took us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whew! I’m glad that’s all over!

              Idiot.

        2. Just a reasoned assessment of your posting history. Your bilge makes shreek seem shrewd and coolly analytical.

          1. Hahahahahah coolly HAHAHAHA

            1. Well only in comparison. Shreeky is still a tard but he plays for the junior varsity team.

        3. Tony| 4.9.13 @ 7:21PM |#
          “Take a lot of brainpower coming up with that one?”

          More than your inventory, shithead.

    2. “Round up any denier with a microphone and shoot him. Then declare a state of emergency, have Obama crowed god-emperor for life, at which point he can personally eliminate polluting industries by fiat and direct as many resources as necessary to develop clean energy tech and convert energy production and consumption to it nationally.”

      Oh look, a blast from Tony’s past.

      Fuck off fascist.

      1. I like to imagine Tony was joking when he said that.

        He’s certainly a fascist, but that seems more like Tony showing off his terrible sense of humor than anything else.

        1. Not so much as joke, though he left off the punchline: that such a radical action would, in fact, be less radical than maintaining the status quo on climate policy.

          1. So you’re serious in saying you’d prefer that policy to our current one?

            1. That status quo that’s kept temperatures flat for 16 years is a real bitch.

              1. A mind capable of filling itself with anti-science bullshit talking points is, in theory, capable of filling itself with actual facts too.

  4. Of course the problem with Ron Paul was not that he was anti-war, but that he went out of his way to express his views in a way that piss off your average right-winger and which made him sound simpatico with the absolutely loathsome regimes that we’ve had the tendency to scuffle with.

    Plus he had serious Ross Perot Syndrome, where you’d find yourself nodding along to the first three points he makes and then the fourth point comes out of nowhere and makes you wonder why you were giving this clown the time of day to begin with.

    1. Rand has the good sense to not peddle that anti-Fed crackpot weirdness.

      1. Actually Rand has been working on that and knows fiat money is doomed. As does anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex. I’m sorry sucking Obama’s cock has clogged your brain with O-jizz.

        1. I think the hip way to write that would be oJizz.

          1. It does look hip and trendy.

          2. How dare you show such disrespect to the O!

        2. Yeah, I know.

          HYPERINFLATION! BUY YER GOLD DOUBLOONS NOW! BECK KNOWS ALL!

          You idiots have been wrong, are wrong, and will always be wrong.

          1. I’m more of a monetarist than anything else in the context of government-owned currency, but one does not need to be an alarmist to be a goldbug or vice versa (e.g., Krugman).

            Free banking is, however, where it’s at.

          2. HYPERINFLATION!

            I love when leftists attack conservatives and libertarians for being wrong about hyperinflation after the stimulus, even though the reason we’ve had low inflation is our total lack of economic growth. It’s hard to have inflation with no growth.

            In other words, leftists were wrong about the stimulus working, and then they attack their opponents because their own stimulus failed.

            1. But you goldbugs wrongly claim that QE alone will bring down the Dollar. And we HAVE had economic growth since 2009 – an average of 2.3%.

              Yet since QE began in 2008 the USD has gained 15% in value while energy prices (in USD) have fallen.

              Ron Paul is a nice guy but an economic illiterate.

              And why didn’t he do a fucking thing with his 2-yr stint as House Chair on Monetary Policy?

              He failed, his beliefs failed, and we will see the gold bubble pop within two years.

              1. Dipshit posted this:
                “Ron Paul is a nice guy but an economic illiterate.”
                I’m sure there is someone stupid enough to find dipshit’s advice worthwhile, but I’m having a hard time imagining where’d you find such an ignoramus.

                1. Dont forget, shitstick claimed that Obama is an ardent defender of the 2nd amendment.

                  What comes out of his mouth is equivalent to what comes out of his ass.

              2. Who was it that sounded the alarm about the housing bubble well in advance? It certainly wasn’t the monetarist clowns at the Fed, since they were busy creating it and propping it up.

              3. I’m not a goldbug! I’m just pointing out that your side was also wrong about the impact of the stimulus. If both sides were wrong about the impact of the stimulus, then how can you attack Paul and goldbugs when the progressives were just as wrong.

                The point isn’t that I’m a goldbug, which I’m really not. The point is you’re a hypocrite.

                And the 2.3% economic growth hasn’t been the result of production or consumer spending. It’s the result of artificial growth spurred by QE Eternity, in addition to increased oil and gas production.

                Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, and you also can’t argue without assuming things about me which are not true.

                1. That 2.3% growth is every bit as illusory as the growth at the peak of the housing bubble was. It’s propped up by eye-watering, unsustainable levels of debt.

                2. I am not a progressive – I am a classic liberal.

                  I never supported either stimulus – Bush or Obama’s.

                  I support Milton Friedman – tax cuts (Bush or Obama’s) without spending cuts are in reality future tax hikes.

                  Obama spending sucks but is dwarfed by the new spending programs of the Bushpigs (NCLB, Iraq, Medicare, Home Mortgages, TSA/DHS, TARP, AIDS in Africa, etc)

                  Bush caused our outrageous deficit by himself.

                  1. I am not a progressive – I am a classic liberal.

                    And I’m the pope.

                    Anyone else smell urine?

                  2. Has Obama done anything to change any of that? Didn’t he vote for TARP? Didn’t most Democrats support most of those initiatives?

              4. How many times does Shrike have to be told that raw price inflation is not the primary indicator that Ron Paul and other Austrians are talking about when they talk about inflation and the effects it has? Seriously, the guy has no idea what his opponents are even arguing

          3. A little ditty going out to a little boy who says he didn’t do “anything good today”!

            This ones for you shreeky.

            Glenn Beck loves you! This I know,
            For the Bible tells me so;
            Little ones to Him belong;
            They are weak, but He is strong.

            Refrain:

            Yes, Glenn Beck loves you!
            Yes, Glenn Beck loves you!
            Yes, Glenn Beck loves you!
            The Bible tells me so.

            Glenn Beck loves you! This I know
            As He loved so long ago,
            Taking children on His knee,
            Saying, “Let them come to Me.”
            Glenn Beck loves you still today,
            Walking with me on my way,
            Wanting as a friend to give
            Light and love to all who live.
            Glenn Beck loves you! He who died
            His broadcasting kingdoms’s gate to
            open wide;
            He will wash away my sin,
            Let His little child come in.
            Glenn Beck loves you! He will stay
            Close beside you all the way;
            Thou hast bled and died for me,
            I will henceforth live for Glenn.

            1. Use of that song was so creepy in Bioshock.

          4. All of you guys are wrong and stupid. Shriek is a fucking financial genius.

          5. “BECK KNOWS ALL!”

            Yes, because this site (and the comments) are such fans of Glenn Beck. Except when they’re not.

            Which is always.

            If you’re gonna name-drop, at least pick someone viewed favorably by more than 1% of the people you are attempting to criticize. Just sayin’.

    2. Good summary. I’d also like to add that Ron Paul did indulge in genuine kookiness in his NAFTA = North America Union nuttery. Opposing NAFTA is also no good. FTAs are how free trade is going to happen for the time being.

      1. No don’t you see, supporting FTA is like supporting gay marriage.

        See, we’re expanding government involvement in trade and furthering its institutionalization, just like expanding marriage to gays further entrenches the govt. monopoly on marriage.

        /robc

        1. Well done ‘Tim’. I will use this.

        2. See, we’re expanding government involvement in trade and furthering its institutionalization, just like expanding marriage to gays further entrenches the govt. monopoly on marriage.

          How is this incorrect? FTA will make the recipients likely to want to end their favored status?! If you give Tyson and ADM some special treatment then they will favor ending it? Is there ANY chance I can get some of what you are smoking?

    3. Of course the problem with Ron Paul was not that he was anti-war, but that he went out of his way to express his views in a way that piss off your average right-winger

      Exactly this. There are two main strains of anti-interventionism in American politics. The old strand is one rooted the values of our framers, and in the belief that the quarrels of other nations are not the business of America. We are blessed with wide oceans and only two neighbors, both of whom are friendly. Why ask for trouble?

      The newer strand was created essentially in service to the Soviet Union. “Anti-imperialism” as practiced in the Cold War was simply a way to hamstring and block any effort at countering Communist expansion. The Cold War is over, but the GOP remembers how the left did their best to sabotage the American effort.

      If you want to reach right wingers on interventionism, it is important to talk more about George Washington, and less about Israel. Bring back the Old Right, don’t speak to the current right with the ideas and language of the radical left.

      1. Speaking as someone who self-identifies as conservative (well, sort of), you can make conservatives real happy by doing three things:

        Characterizing evil things that other nations do as above all evil, and not “misguided”, “different culture”, or a rational response to US/capitalist/Christian aggression.

        Being strongly in favor of the idea of America.

        Saying that you only want the US to intervene militarily when US lives, liberty, and property are at stake.

        Ron Paul was only good at communicating that last point, and only kind of since you were never really clear on what Ron Paul would see as a threat against those things. His son is very good at communicating all three.

        1. Immaculate trouser, I agree that those are generally good tips for appealing to conservatives, but ultimately it’s still difficult because so many seem to think that constant invasions and occupations are a good way to combat terrorism, and completely forget their skepticism of government when the subject changes to foreign policy

          1. Difficult? Sure, but Rand Paul has managed pretty well so far.

            1. I would agree, but it remains to be seen exactly how much success he will have. I think he’s done a better job of simply not pissing off conservatives rather than making them happy. In any case, I feel like he would be the hands down favorite in 2016 if his foreign policy views were mainstream GOP. The fact he isn’t says something

          2. completely forget their skepticism of government when the subject changes to foreign policy

            Keep on flaying that strawman. As a rhetorical device, it’ll never die. It’ll never win you an argument, but it’ll also never die.

            1. Sensitive much? Since when are you a conservative anyways?

              And it is completely true. Without talking about you or other Objectivists (though I feel like most of them here don’t agree with you on the subject), I’ll simply say that conservatives totally change their tune of the efficiency, moral character, and competence of the federal government whenever the subject is foreign policy. That’s not even debatable, really. Not to mention, on foreign policy, conservatives have a habit of falling into the fallacy of “government=society” that liberals always use on domestic issues.

              1. I’ll simply say that conservatives totally change their tune of the efficiency, moral character, and competence of the federal government whenever the subject is foreign policy. That’s not even debatable, really.

                Nothing, and I mean nothing, is more inane than claiming you know the positions of those with whom you disagree and declaring your opinion of their positions as being beyond debate.

                Calidissident is a murdering, sheep fucking child molester and that’s not even debatable, really.

                See?

                1. STFU Marshall. I’m sorry for not making it clear that I was making a general statement, and that I was not literally talking about every conservative. I’ve had plenty of debates with conservatives on foreign policy, and it is totally true that GENERALLY SPEAKING, they are a lot less skeptical of government competence and efficiency on foreign policy. And GENERALLY SPEAKING, they don’t question the morality of the people making the decisions to the same extent they do on domestic issues. Do you really disagree with those GENERAL statements?

      2. I think Ron Paul is of the former variety not the latter. Where he pissed off conservatives was when he would suggest that some people might be motivated by actions of the USG to commit violence against Americans (even though he’s right)

      3. Not that friendly. We fought with Canada 200 years ago.

        And Mexico much more recent, Pancho Villa and all that? That was about a 100 years ago.

    4. Plus he had serious Ross Perot Syndrome, where you’d find yourself nodding along to the first three points he makes and then the fourth point comes out of nowhere and makes you wonder why you were giving this clown the time of day to begin with.

      +1000. I remember sitting, watching the primaries nodding my head in agreement for the first 80% of anything Ron Paul said, and then the last 15 seconds thinking “wait, what?” as he went off into crazy town.

  5. Non-libertarians have this incredible gift for completely distorting the principles of libertarians, especially the Rand’s. For instance, self-reliance apparently means you are selfish according to the media’s view of libertarians, but breathing is selfish if you look at it that way.

    It’s almost like they do it ON PURPOSE. And that is no fair. No fair at all I say.

    1. Is it your fault if libertarianism is inherently incapable of explaining itself coherently because it doesn’t make any goddamn sense? Well nobody forced you to be one.

      1. PROJECTION LEVELS SUPERCRITICAL

      2. Not at all. Intentionally distorting the views of a group so that the don’t get a fair hearing in the first place, on the other hand, is on the person who is willfully distorting said views.

        If you can’t express the viewpoint of your philosophical opponents in a way that they would recognize, then you have no business talking about that philosophy.

        1. Well Tony, I didn’t ask you to give me an example of my point but I appreciate you providing one anyways. Well done champ.

        2. I know you might beg to differ, but it seems unlikely that I’d be so incredibly dense as to not understand what libertarians believe after years of spending time reading libertarian writing and engaging with adherents. Problem is you guys don’t want to face the horrific implications of your beliefs, so you hand-wave them away. If we don’t have universal education, healthcare, and a safety net, we get all the predictably negative social outcomes. You can’t defend against that claim except by invoking magic or asking us to just trust you.

          1. Look Tony, the problem is that you never argue the points without using straw men, which was my point above.

            To take it further, I steal from PJ O’Rourke-
            “Individual liberty is lost when government stops asking “What is good for all individuals?” and starts asking “What is good?” To ask the latter question is to abandon a system in which all people are considered equal and to adopt a system in which all peo ple are considered alike. Collective good replaces individual goodies. Government will make life fair. But since limited government is hardly suitable to a task of this magnitude, the role of government will need to be expanded enormously. Government will have to be involved in every aspect of our lives. Government will grow to a laughable size. Or it would be laughable except for our experience in this century.

          2. I’ve never seen you express libertarianism in a way that would be recognizable to someone who is familiar with the ideology, or argue libertarianism on its own terms rather than your silly strawman constructions of same.

          3. it seems unlikely that I’d be so incredibly dense as to not understand what libertarians believe after years of spending time reading libertarian writing and engaging with adherents

            And yet, you’re demonstrably so incredibly dense as to not understand what libertarians believe after years of spending time reading libertarian writing and engaging with adherents.

            1. Yes, the leftist mental shield is dense enough to block even the most penetrating illumination.

            2. No I’m pretty sure it’s because your philosophy is fundamentally incoherent as I have amply demonstrated.

              You could just try explaining it to me like I’m a child. That should work for any viable political philosophy.

              1. A child is generally smarter than you. If I were going to try to explain a complex subject to you, I think I’d have to try to explain it like I would if I were talking to a tree or a rock.

              2. You could just try explaining it to me like I’m a child.

                Been done hundreds of times fuckstain. Most straightforward philosophy in the world. You are too stupid, have no desire to understand or are simply a mendacious cunt.

              3. I love the irony of a progressive calling libertarianism “incoherent.” Modern progressivism (or modern liberalism) and conservatism are laughably incoherent to anyone who would actually look at them objectively.

              4. “as I have amply demonstrated”

                There’s only one thing Tony has amply demonstrated. And I don’t think he wants to know what that is. The fragile self-esteem of statists must be protected from principles.

          4. Except you’ve proven time and again that you ARE that fucking dense.

            You don’t know square one about libertarians or libertarianism. I would tell you to sit down, shut the fuck up, and you might learn something but you never do so all you get is:

            $

      3. Yeah, liberty, individualism and self ownership are such whacked out ideas. Any fool can look back and see what a boon to humanity collectivism and central planning has been. Those whacked out libertarians and their endless fretting about a few hundred millions lives. They just can’t wrap their feeble minds around that whole eggs/omelette thing.

        1. I’m not entirely sure calling all liberals the equivalent of authoritarian systems they by definition reject makes your case in the best way.

          1. Liberals reject authoritarianism?

            So….no liberal supported Hugo Chavez?

            1. On-time-Trains are what matter in the big picture VA.

              Food jobs and housing are like so bourgeois.

            2. So….no liberal supported Hugo Chavez?

              Or Stalin, Castro, Che Guevara, state run socialism, strict gun laws, control of food, government monopoly on education…yeah, when are they ever in favor of authoritarian governance?

            3. By definition. Liberals supporting Chavez are in error with respect to his not winning elections legitimately (not that he was without support in his country), but leftist policies alone don’t make him an autocrat, as the American right would like everyone to believe.

              1. So you’re busting out a textbook example of “no true Scotsman”

                1. Chavez killed fewer people with deliberate action than a recent US president I can think of so let’s not throw stones.

                  1. You know what the Platonic idea of terrible arguing is? Using a tu quoque on someone who doesn’t actually support the stance you claim they have.

                  2. Yeah, libertarians were just gaga about Bush.

                    Why don’t you go troll Red State if you’re just going to pull out nonsense about George Bush?

                  3. Chavez was active duty military who led a coup against his government and attacked villages in his own country — and as President of Venezuela, he provided funding and training for FARC terrorists, you idiot. Bush sucked, but it’s not comparable.

                  4. Tony| 4.9.13 @ 7:41PM |#
                    ‘Chavez killed fewer people with deliberate action than a *current* US president I can think of so let’s not throw stones.’

                    Fixed, shithead.

                  5. Chavez killed fewer people with deliberate action than a recent US president I can think of so let’s not throw stones.

                    Or possibly even a current president.
                    So it’s the body count that matters and not the intent?

              2. I’d say that shutting down all media outlets except the state-run media, out and out stealing (“nationalizing”) 100% of the assets of business owners, and harassing minorities is by definition authoritarian regardless of the legitimacy of an election.

                One notes that the root word of authoritarian is “authority”, after all.

              3. By definition.

                You use this phrase very frequently, but you have yet to use it correctly.

              4. Tony| 4.9.13 @ 7:37PM |#
                …”but leftist policies alone don’t make him an autocrat,”…

                Yes, shithead, they do.
                The polices of the left are structurally at minimum authoritarian and when not limited, rapidly evolve to totalitarian.

      4. Tony| 4.9.13 @ 7:20PM |#
        “Is it your fault if libertarianism is inherently incapable of explaining itself coherently…”

        It is your fault that you’re entirely too stupid to understand it.

      5. Is it your fault if libertarianism is inherently incapable of explaining itself coherently because it doesn’t make any goddamn sense.

        I understand that you are confused. You have my sympathy if not my understanding.

        You are stuck in a familiar context. That is bound to make a different context seem confusing.

        1. The different context is one in which it’s morally acceptable to let millions starve or otherwise die early because “principles.” Yeah I don’t have a hard time wrapping my mind around it, I have a hard time not bursting out in laughter when you guys talk about the superior morality of it.

          1. So when you don’t send your money to Africa, and you allow people there to starve to death, how is that any different?

            When you post here instead of going out and doing charity work, doesn’t that make you responsible for other people’s poverty, based on your logic?

            Please, explain it to me.

            1. If I can reasonably be expected to act, then not acting is roughly morally equivalent to acting negatively. You can be expected to pay taxes to fund a safety net. It’s worked for many decades now. You’re of course free to advocate for a much riskier society, but you’re not allowed, intellectually, to claim that it would be better for everyone, because it wouldn’t be.

              1. There’s nothing unreasonable about expecting you to volunteer your free time and money. It’s very easy to do so. So you’re a murderer, by your own definition.

              2. “If I can reasonably be expected to act”

                Define “reasonably be expected”? And how does that not apply to Irish’s examples?

                “not acting is roughly morally equivalent to acting negatively.”

                No it isn’t. And that’s not even what we’re talking about. We’re talking about forcing other people to act.

                “You can be expected to pay taxes to fund a safety net.”

                What? I mean, yeah, given the alternative, most people will pay taxes rather than face the wrath of the government. But I don’t think that’s your point. Why does the safety net have to be based on compulsion? Why is the moral question based on what the tax rate happens to be? If you can afford to pay more taxes, shouldn’t you donate more, by your logic?

                “You’re of course free to advocate for a much riskier society, but you’re not allowed, intellectually, to claim that it would be better for everyone, because it wouldn’t be.”

                Strawman

              3. but you’re not allowed, intellectually, to claim that it would be better for everyone, because it wouldn’t be.

                Special pleading, much?

          2. Tony, I realize that the horrors of millions of *hypothetical* people dying on the streets due to free markets is a concern of many leftists, but can you name a real-life situation where this actually happened as the direct result of the application of libertarian principles? Because from where I’m standing, the only places where such scenarios are even plausible as an occupational hazard of governance are places that 1) are ruled by hard-left regimes, or 2) are Third World countries feted by leftists.

            1. There’s never been a famine or legitimate starvation in a free market, regardless of their level of welfare. Leftists like Tony would rather live in their fantasy world where free markets create starvation, instead of acknowledging that modern starvation is always the result of government.

              1. “…modern starvation is always the result of LEFTIST government.”

                I dont usually fix stuff, but I couldnt let that one slide.

                  1. “Food insecure.” Didn’t this get discussed here recently? The people it refers to are not exactly dying of starvation.

                  2. Food insecure…please.

                    1. Why do you mock what you don’t understand?

                    2. What I don’t understand? I’ve seen poverty, my friend, and none of it’s been in the US.

                    3. I’d say more of these people need to get out of the US and see real poverty but poverty is like porn to many of them so I’m not sure it will help.

                    4. I’m actually glad Dortmund won. I posted my assessment before the game was officially done.

                    5. It was a cracking good finish. I’m glad to since I’m all in for ze Germans the rest of the way and obviously Dortmund over Bayern after that. I sure hope the draw doesn’t produce intra-country semifinals (assuming Barca wins). If it has to be Spain then a Classico final is preferable to a semifinal.

                    6. If Madrid, Dortmund, Barca, and Bayern make the Semis, what is the rule for the draw?

                    7. RULE:

                      no teams are seeded and clubs from the same national association can be drawn against each other.

                    8. Yep the only round that has restrictions on the draw is the first round after the group stage.

                    9. What’s new is that previously the quarterfinals and the semifinals were drawn together so you knew the matchup ahead of time.

                    10. I’m still hoping for an all German final

                    11. Eh as a neutral I prefer to avoid a matchup that has occurred multiple times already. They haven’t even had their 2nd Bundesliga match yet and with the title already completed that’ll be a boring affair. If it has too then El Classico is about as good as it gets and I’ll feel quite comfortable cheering for Madrid.

                    12. Yes, we talked about the fact that food insecurity means virtually nothing and is basically used as a sliding scale by governments in order to claim there’s ‘hunger’ when there actually isn’t.

                      Tell me, if these families are so food insecure then why do people making $13,000 or less spend 9% of their income on lottery tickets?

                      Or what about this? The bottom 20% of US households spend money on the following things.

                      $1,099 for food away from home.
                      $981 for entertainment, including $522 for “audio and visual equipment and services.”
                      $316 for tobacco products, compared with a national average of $351.
                      $170 for alcoholic beverages, way below the national average of $456 and the $994 spent by the top 20%.

                      If they have trouble getting food, then why do they spend an average of over $1,100 eating out, which is more expensive? What about $1,500 on alcohol, tobacco and entertainment? By my count that’s about 23% of their total spending, spent on things they really don’t need. Why should we subsidize them?

                    13. Because there is no decent source of healthy food in poor neighborhoods. Fresh produce and raw ingredients are available in the high scale areas and suburbia, but not inner cities. Inner city stores have pre-packaged and fast food options, but little else.

                    14. So it’s not that there’s not enough food. It’s that the food is not good enough.

                      Those poor bastards. They aren’t eating filet mignon, and are forced to survive like I did in school.

                      THE HORROR!

                    15. No, they can’t buy fresh fruit and veggies.

                    16. You’re making the argument all wrong Chet. Watch and learn:

                      Because of failed families and failed schools in poorer neighborhoods home ec skills aren’t being passed on. Many people don’t know how to prepare food and feel that it is very time consuming. As such they purchase prepared food, which further enhances their financial independence and reinforces the cycle. The only solution is to raise all children in state run institutions where they can be taught the basic life skills that their families have failed to impart.

                    17. No the answer is to provide incentives to let proper grocery stores to operate in lower income neighborhoods.

                    18. Is that seriously your argument? It’s still much cheaper to buy food in the store than to get takeout. This is always true, because you don’t have to pay the additional cost of service and food preparation.

                      Even 40 years ago people used to only go out to eat a few times a month. Now people go out to eat multiple times a week, which is far more expensive. This is true even of the poor.

                      You could save quite literally hundreds of dollars a year by buying food at the store instead of going out. How healthy the food at the store or the food at the restaurant happen to be is of no relevance to this issue.

                      That’s not even getting into the fact that food is basically the poster child for an item that’s provided very easily through charity. I’ve worked at food pantries, and they always have so much food that most of it goes to waste. Hell, if people with low incomes got more of their food from charities, less of that food would go to waste and it would actually probably be healthier food.

                      We’d simultaneously cut spending and make people living in the inner cities healthier! Two birds with one stone!

                    19. Charity! That’s demeaning.

                    20. Charity! That’s demeaning.

                      GOOD! That’s what you must endure for living at the expense of another. Incentive to not be a shitbag.

                    21. Incentive to not be a shitbag.

                      So someone who has a mental/physical disabilty and is unable to work a regular job is a “shitbag”? You’re sick.

                    22. So someone who has a mental/physical disabilty and is unable to work a regular job is a “shitbag”?

                      No, those people should be cared for.

                      AND giving to charity is the right thing to do, to allow those truly down on their luck a hand up.

                      But, by God, they should feel goddamned beholding to those keeping them alive and should be working their asses off to rectify their situation. AND they should feel ashamed they have fucked up their lives to the point they require someone else to take care of them.

                    23. feel ashamed they have fucked up their lives to the point they require someone else to take care of them.

                      someone born with a mental/phsyical disabilty have fucked up their lives?

                      You are sick.

                    24. Look assfuck. I think you need to reread my last post.

                    25. I quoted your last post. How has someone born with a mental/physical disability fucked up their life?
                      How has someone injured at work or in an accident fucked up their life? Just admit you’re sick

                    26. So someone who has a mental/physical disabilty and is unable to work a regular job is a “shitbag”?

                      No, those people should be cared for.

                      If you are receiving charity other than physically/mentally disabled, you have obviously fucked up your life.

                      How’s that reading comprehension course working out for you?

                    27. You said:
                      No, those people should be cared for.

                      followed directly by:
                      But, by God, they should feel goddamned beholding to those keeping them alive and should be working their asses off to rectify their situation. AND they should feel ashamed they have fucked up their lives to the point they require someone else to take care of them.

                      WHAT DID I MISS

                    28. Um…

                      AND giving to charity is the right thing to do, to allow those truly down on their luck a hand up.

                      Meaning, you give charity. Even to those shitbags who are not mentally/physically disabled. But the ones who aren’t should feel like shit having to accept it.

                      Goddamn.

                    29. Francisco, why are you talking to a moron?

                    30. You are right, I’m done.

                      Too many G&Ts;.

                    31. Ohh, which gin?

                    32. Just Tanqueray. I am a simple caveman.

                    33. I’ve been working through a bottle of St. George’s Terroir Gin. It has too much backstory, but makes a great G&T

                    34. No need to waste good Gin on a a G&T and it’s not like Gin has a huge price range anyways.

                    35. I’ve tried cheaper stuff for mixing, but I haven’t found anything cheaper than Tanqueray that’s worth a damn. Even for G&Ts;.

                      I spend the big bucks on bourbon. I love bourbon.

                    36. what bourbon do you like?

                    37. My favorite is William Larue Weller (133.5) followed by Stagg (141.4). The wife bought a Parker’s Heritage (133.2) a few weeks back, which is pretty damn good as well. These are for sipping.

                      When I just want a buzz I drink Weller (90). It costs about as much as Jim Beam Black but tastes about 69 times better.

                    38. I’m a Bombay Sapphire man myself but I’m hard pressed to see any value in spending more on Gin, even for on the rocks.

                    39. Sapphire was always my go to gin, but now it’s more likely hendricks. The Terroir was just an impulse buy.

                    40. So not only do you want to put disabled people at the mercy of private charities (which would not be able to keep up), you want to stick your ridiculous, superior little nose into everyone’s business to make sure they’re living just how you think they should live or else be shamed. Chet’s right. You, like all Randists, are sick.

                    41. $

                    42. Charity is demeaning, but welfare isn’t?

                      That exemplifies so much of what is wrong with this country

                    43. “Because there is no decent source of healthy food in poor neighborhoods.”

                      They can spend money on all those things Irish mentioned, but can’t spend money to go to a grocery store to get healthy food? Which isn’t necessarily much more expensive than unhealthy food. If a store isn’t carrying healthy foods, it’s because there isn’t sufficient demand in the area. And in any case, I live in a low-income neighborhood and there are plenty of healthy food options, at an affordable cost, in the grocery stores nearby. And there’s still a good number of obese people around.

                      In any case, we were arguing about hunger, and to be more specific, starvation. How is the health quality of the food relevant to that?

                    44. Plus, if they didn’t eat out they’d have more cash in hand which would allow them to buy healthier food at the grocery store.

                    45. Fifty million Americans are “food insecure,” meaning they literally don’t know where their next meal is coming from. Half of all U.S. children need food assistance at some time.

                      Rep. Lois Capps and actor Jeff Bridges presented the film A Place at the Table Saturday night, March 23, in Santa Barbara to highlight this reality.

                      The film mixes appalling statistics with the actual lives, up close, of real American families struggling to eat. And most of these families are working families.

                      What many forget is that U.S. hunger was once almost eliminated. By President Nixon, following the CBS Reports program Hunger in America in 1968. We know how.

                      President Reagan made deep cuts in Nixon’s successful programs. His answer: Charity. The result: Tens of millions of hungry Americans.

                    46. Anything can pop back into existence if you redefine it sufficiently. And food stamps spending has skyrocketed since Nixon was in office

                    47. I tried to help you there Chet, you’re missing the point:
                      grocery stores supply the foods that are likely to sell well. They’ll generally continue to carry some basics in other categories but much of that goes to waste and is a loss to them. If people are unwilling to cook, or feel that the time spent cooking is better spent elsewhere then they will not buy food at grocery stores. You can’t fluff demand for aubergines by piling them up in a grocery store, they will just rot.

                    48. I tried to help you there Chet, you’re missing the point:
                      grocery stores supply the foods that are likely to sell well. They’ll generally continue to carry some basics in other categories but much of that goes to waste and is a loss to them. If people are unwilling to cook, or feel that the time spent cooking is better spent elsewhere then they will not buy food at grocery stores. You can’t fluff demand for aubergines by piling them up in a grocery store, they will just rot.

                      Quoting this in full because I agree completely, except for the fancy pants word “aubergine.”

                      Dammit, words mean things. Next thing you know Jesse will be trying to redefine “marriage.”

                    49. So your evidence to all the actual statistics I provided is a propaganda film from Jeff Bridges?

                      And where did these mythic Reagan cuts occur? People always say it, but they can never actually point to the magic Reagan cuts that caused all this poverty. This is particularly true of food stamp programs, which have become much more widespread since Reagan.

                      So how did Reagan cut something which grew throughout his presidency and has continued to grow to this day?

                    50. Conservative Republican President Nixon talked about the need for full employment and food for all.

                      This is how serious your article is, Chet. Richard Nixon, archconservative. The same one who wanted to ban handguns.

                    51. HAHAHAHA!

                      Here’s spending on food stamps. See if you can spot the cuts.

                      Reagan is elected in 1980, we spent $8,720.9 million
                      Reagan leaves office in 1988, we spent $11,149 million

                      Spending per recipient increased by more than a third, well above the rate of inflation. This means the average recipient was getting more benefits when Reagan left office than when he came in.

                      SAVAGE CUTS!

                    52. In 1981, the Food Stamps Program experienced severe budget cuts during the Administration of President Ronald Reagan. This reduction in program funding was associated with a subsequent rise in hunger in America during the 1980s.

                      In 1981, nutrition education, now termed SNAP-Education (SNAP-Ed) in the Food Stamp Program was established as an optional program in the states. States could apply for matching funds from the federal government to deliver nutrition education to eligible persons (all persons at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level who may or may not be enrolled in SNAP). In 1992, seven states established nutrition education programs (SNAP-Ed). By 2004, nutrition education was being conducted in all 50 states.

                      Some funding was restored to the Food Stamp Program in 1988 and 1990 in order to combat the hunger crisis in America. During this time period, efforts were made to streamline administration of the Food Stamp Program (including the introduction of an early form of the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card) and to expand access for eligible participants. The growth of the program in the early 1990s was countered by a pull-back in the program in the late 1990s, as funds were converted into block grants to the states and stricter requirements were placed on food stamp usage and eligibility.

                    53. Does the article also mention that government funded “nutrition” recommendations were incredibly grains heavy with no qualification that they be whole grains until very recently, and that foods covered by government programs tended to be crappy, which helped contribute to worse health metrics in the poor?

                      Out of curiosity have you ever been on food stamps?

                    54. See above. You don’t give any numbers about what the cuts were. Look at the numbers. There were no cuts.

                      Simply saying ‘cuts happened’ is not evidence without numbers. The numbers say cuts didn’t happen.

                    55. Considering he’s citing from a “virtual town hall” devoted to justifying SNAP, I’m assuming that by cuts they mean did not receive the increases requested.

                    56. It’s awesome. I’m looking around the internet and keep finding sites claiming ‘Reagan substantially cut food stamps!’ So then I look at the numbers, and none of the numbers actually show cuts. Not a single one of the sites claiming he cut food stamps offers any numbers to substantiate that claim.

                    57. Chet, be a good troll and make a chart showing families requesting food aid from say 1970 to 2010, and then show the budget. Use an area graph.

                      Return to us when you’ve completed this project.

                    58. Aritcle:

                      During the first two ears of the Reagan administration, the food stamp program underwent cuts of close to $2 billion a year, or approximately 13 percent. About one million recipients were purged from the rolls

                    59. Look at my numbers, big guy. Spending increased by billions of dollars between 1980-1981. Reagan’s supposed ‘savage cuts’ actually brought the numbers somewhat closer to the level of 1980, although still higher in real terms.

                      Fewer people were getting foodstamps, but per person they were getting more money. A million people got off the rolls but that was only 1/21 of the total people getting foodstamps. Which means that these dipshits trying to claim that Reagan was at fault for “OMG 50 million starving children!” are filthy liars since the only thing that could even kind of be considered a cut knocked a total of 1 out of every 21 recipients off the food stamp rolls.

                      Even that wasn’t really a cut since by the end of Reagan’s presidency they’d brought the spending back above the level it had been at before.

                    60. Look at my numbers,

                      WHERE?

                    61. Why are ya’ll arguing with this troll?

                    62. He’s dumb.

                    63. Hey, I’m trying to improve troll for us. The most recent shipment has been lame.

                      Irish is doing it because he’s a hypocrite and a whore.

                    64. I’d do more, but I’m out of beer

                    65. “I’m out of beer”

                      That sounds like extremely poor planning on your part.

                    66. he’s a hypocrite and a whore.

                      That’s rich coming from THE GAYZ.

                    67. Why are you calling him a whore like it’s a bad thing? You’ve just insulted about everyone here. I respect that.

                    68. you’re all a bunch of meanies.

                    69. Apatheist: THE GAYZ sleep around as a community service, since there isn’t an exchange of money, THE GAYZ are sluts, not whores. It is a noble calling.

                      JB: I think it’s great that he’s a whore. It’s the oldest profession, and a beautiful expression of his devotion to capitalism.

                      Chet: Yes, yes we are.

                    70. Some kind of libertarian you are. The exchange of money makes it more noble.

                    71. Also, because money is fungible, someone getting food stamps doesn’t mean they’re eating more food necessarily. They can just use them to free up money to spend on other things

                    72. In fact they can and do sell their food stamps for straight up cash.

                    73. Fuck you are stupid.

                      I take it you’ve never been to Walmart or Fiesta.

                    74. I’ll leave you with this:
                      Golf shirts are never flattering.

                    75. Golf shirts are never flattering.

                      When you’re right, you’re right Chet.

                    76. addendum: on men

          3. The different context is one in which it’s morally acceptable to let millions starve or otherwise die early because “principles.” Yeah I don’t have a hard time wrapping my mind around it, I have a hard time not bursting out in laughter when you guys talk about the superior morality of it.

            So perhaps you’d care to explain to the rest of us how it is possible for something to be morally acceptable (or unacceptable)without having “principles” by which to abide?

  6. OT: Headline from CNN Online — “Texas college stabbing: 14 injured, 2 in critical condition”

    WHEN ARE WE FINALLY GOING TO HAVE COMMON SENSE KNIFE CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THIS COUNTY? BAN ASSAULT KNIVES NOW!

  7. OT: so where are my 3D printer plans for this?

    http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ckin-cool/

  8. Blowback? We’re forgiving and forgetting racist newsletters but instead hinging palatability on foreign policy? WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO?

    1. We’re forgiving and forgetting racist newsletters

      Cosmotarians never forget.

  9. Rand Paul Taking Libertarians Mainstream Possible Because Ron Paul’s Gone

    There wouldn’t be a Rand Paul to bring libertarians into the mainstream if there wasn’t a Ron Paul to build momentum for ideas that are increasingly relevant to the political and economic situation we find ourselves in.

    these statements can both be true. And I think they are.

    1. Well the difference is that Ron was the professor. Here are the facts whether anyone likes them or not. This is what your government is doing and this is why they’re wrong. Rand is the politician. Trying to move the debate in the right direction, not letting perfect be the enemy of good. It’s the same incrementalist tactics politicains on the left and right use to forward their agendas.

      1. It’s the same incrementalist tactics politicians on the left and right use to forward their agendas.

        Not sure if that’s good or bad.

        1. Well from our standpoint it’s not ideal because it takes longer, however, the more important thing is that it works. We are not going to get the rest of the country to agree to radical change overnight but we can use incrementalist tactics to move them to our positions over time. That’s really what I mean by not letting perfect be the enemy of good. We can pontificate all we want, but if we’re making no actual progress politically what have we done. Not a damn thing.

          1. I’m not saying you don’t ever take a stand on principle. I’m just saying if Rand Paul gave our wish list to the media, no one would ever hear his name again because he would be ignored completely going forward.

  10. I am hoping Reid carries out his threat and brings a gun control bill to the floor.

    A 13 man talking filibuster would be something to behold.

    1. Reid will do it. He wants the thing to blow up to avoid putting swing state Dem Senators on the line.

    2. I thought the current buzz was that they will skip the filibuster, and let the Dems hang themselves by voting on the bill?

      1. I believe Fatty’s right and now the question is what bill comes to the floor and how much of a squeeze will it put on the Red State Dems.

      2. That would be awesome. I’ll wait for the Reps to fuck it up somehow.

  11. OT:
    New congress-critter makes name by…………………
    making sure TSA keeps stealing your fucking knives.
    “Eric Swalwell raises profile in knife fight”
    “Swalwell has taken a lead in fighting Transportation Security Administration administrator John Pistole on his decision to lift the ban on pocketknives at airport security,”
    The worst sort of cynic.
    http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/

    1. If any crazy people are reading this can you please started running down politicians with prius’s. thx.

      1. Ya know, slapping them silly with plastic forks might make a bigger impression.

        1. Those things can put someones eye out!

      2. Or one of those Nissan Leaf’s

  12. VICTORY! The Canadian government is reducing danger pay for Canadian military personnel who are currently serving in Afghanistan on training missions, saying that the country is not as dangerous as it used to be, according to Radio-Canada.

  13. More OT:
    Seoul Airport over-run! Five people storm the gates!
    “NKorea urges foreigners in SKorea to evacuate”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/wor…..419612.php
    The rest go the the DMV and moon Lil’ Kim.

    1. you expect me to believe you care about the slanty eyes?

    2. Oooh! Look here:
      “How Obama is Creating a Crisis on the Korean Peninsula”
      “One does not have to look very far back in time to discern what is troubling the North Koreans. In recent months, the Obama Administration has taken a number of steps…”
      http://www.counterpunch.org/20…..h-koreans/
      Yep, there are apologist sites for that thug.

  14. The fact is that libertarianism will never be popular in this new “America.” It is a simple matter of looking at opinion polling. Libertarian attitudes on trade and immigration are deeply out of step with a large majority white Americans. Libertarian views on economics are deeply opposed by black and Hispanic “Americans.” Rand Paul appeals to those who already know the libertarian truth. He isn’t going to convince Joe Six pack sharing the market for his labor with the entire rest of the world is good for him. Nor is he going to be able convince Jose Fruitpicker that he “cares” about him.

    1. “with a large majority white Americans.”

      Yeah, well, do you presume they’re all bigots like you?

  15. I am curious to hear the commentariat’s view on the Ron Paul Newsletters. It is a strange contradiction.

    1. Old News troll brings up Old News.

      Film at…a decade ago. And pre-retirement.

      Next!

      1. When is the NCAA Troll Tournament?

        1. Damn, wrong place.

    2. Rand’s opposition to the 1964 CRA is the New old news. Don’t you subscribe to JournoList or Cato’s secret newsletter?

    3. I hear they were printed. On paper.

      Scandalous, I know.

  16. shorter Tony:
    I sneezed but it came out my butt.

  17. So a “Commission” in SF fires a guy for general incompetence *and* racism, but decides to hand him his retirement benes anyhow, since he might bring suit.
    “Commission terminates Housing Authority director’s contract”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/cityins…..-contract/

    Did I mention he’s not Caucasian?

    1. Did I mention he’s not Caucasian

      Well, then he clearly cannot be a racist, only whites can be. The science is settled. Everyone in the super enlightened SF should know this. The person that fired him, is clearly the one who needs firing.

      1. Clearly.

  18. Politico wouldn’t even know what libertarian was if it bit them on the ass.

    I think that Reason writers should be well aware of the fact that you cannot take anything seriously that is written on Politico.

    To quote articles from Huffpost, for comment, is one thing. But you are really scraping the very bottom of the barrel when you have to go to Politico looking for comment worthy material.

  19. Re: Tony,

    Problem is you guys don’t want to face the horrific implications of your beliefs,

    Like, for instance, making your mediocrity that more obvious if having to fend for yourself. That’s scary shit – for you.

    If we don’t have universal education, healthcare, and a safety net, we get all the predictably negative social outcomes.

    Like people having more money on their pockets, being less dependent on the government… Mon Dieu! Scary shit, I’m sure.

    You can’t defend against that claim except by invoking magic or asking us to just trust you.

    Au contraire, mon petit cheri! It is you who invokes magic by ascribing to “universal education, universal healthcare and safety net” the magical power of denying scarcity.

    1. Tony isn’t worthy of your time.

      Honestly, I have posted on political sites all across the internet spectrum, even on HuffPo and Politico. And Tony has written some of the most incomprehensibly insane shit that I have ever read. And that’s saying a lot.

      Someone mentioned upthread that he even makes Shreik look smart. That’s an understatement. Compared to Tony, he’s a genius.

      1. He’s changed in the last few days. More militant, somehow. Still just as stupid, of course, but his claims have become even more incomprehensibly absurd.

        1. More militant, somehow

          I still remember the post he made a while back, where he linked to pictures of the latest military weapons, telling us how they were going to use them on us crazy libertarians soon. He was all hysterical, truly some of the funniest idiocy I have ever witnessed.

        2. Tonight, at least, he appears to be seriously hammered.

      2. Re: Hyperion,

        Tony isn’t worthy of your time.

        One hones his skills by shooting at easy targets first…

        1. I admit, that for a while it seemed fun to fuck with him, and then watch him slowly descend into slobbering incoherence, but it becomes old rather quickly.

  20. Re: Tony,

    If I can reasonably be expected to act, then not acting is roughly morally equivalent to acting negatively.

    Expected by whom? Morally equivalent for whom? Why would you subordinate your actions to what others think of you? Are you really that lacking in character?

    You can be expected to pay taxes to fund a safety net.

    Who the fuck cares what you can be expected to do? Do you want to, or don’t you? That’s what matters.

    1. I want to get civilization for free. Can I have that?

      1. Re: Tony,

        I want to get civilization for free. Can I have that?

        Yes! You can! Just don’t steal(*). That’s it. Nothing else is required.

        (*) If your limited mind does not understand what’s being implied, let me enlighten you: What makes civilization possible is division of labor and trade. Not stealing, and certainly not government.

  21. I was just perusing a (somewhat) political discussion between a Mensa group that I participate in. I was momentarily heartened when I realized that almost a third of the people in the discussion were self-declared libertarians. But my elation was short lived when I realized with horror that the most vocal libertarian (whose every statement I found agreeable) was named Steven Smith.

    1. AWESOME!

      Did you escape unmolested?

    1. I was just having this discussion with a conservative friend today. I said that I believe that the US is somehow covertly antagonizing the hell out of lil Kim.

      Why? Because there is nothing more the political establishment would love than another military conflict.

      This of course, got eye rolls from my friend.

      I’m not defending NK, but I stopped defending US foreign policy, years ago.

      1. Remember with TEAM RED America is never to fault, and with TEAM BLUE America is the only one at fault.

        For all the talk about “nuance”, it always comes down to those simple truths.

        1. No. Team Blue thinks non-Americans can be at fault so long as they’re western enough. Europeans can be at fault. Israel can be at fault. Japan can be called out once in a while. This is because they’re all successful and relatively western.

          The only people you’re allowed to attack are the successful. That’s the liberal way.

          1. Let’s also remember that America is not at fault since our lord and savior Barack Obama has taken office

            1. Yes, that perfect being has finally been realized, and it’s so important since the rest of us are so flawed that we can’t be trusted to even go take a piss without government supervision.

      2. This of course, got eye rolls from my friend.

        Rightly so. Unless you’ve got evidence your pushing some truther-level garbage there.

  22. The next most important legislation of our time:

    Teeth Control!

    1. The limeys are completely insane, so you can’t judge anything by their example.

      They need another good hard ass kicking, of the type that they haven’t had since the US revolution. Maybe then they can get their heads removed from their own ‘arses’.

  23. The Politico piece is right on the big point, that the departure of Ron Paul does offer Libertarians a chance to improve their public reputation. For all the fierceness of his support, Ron Paul struck a lot of folks as extreme, with the “coming race war,” and soliloquies about the gold standard.

    Rand Paul, as much a Republican as a libertarian, might benefit and he might not. The problem is that a lot of the surge towards libertarian beliefs is on social issues, particularly gay rights and drug liberalization. No Republican is in a good position to cash on those shifts.

    1. Ron Paul built something but he can’t be the one to drive it. He’s done just about all he can.

  24. LATE?
    Werner Herzog on Ebert
    and on
    Les Blank

  25. Sometimes man, you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.AnonNow.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.