NSA

Pissing off the Government Via Investigative Journalism Can Be Bad for Your Loved Ones: Glenn Greenwald's Partner Detained, Possessions Stolen Under UK Terrorism Act [UPDATED]

|

Via the Guardian, for whom Glenn Greenwald has done much reporting, including a lot of the best stuff on Edward Snowden's NSA revelations:

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National SecurityAgency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.30am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. Accordingto official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles…

Reason on Greenwald.

UPDATE: Greenwald on his experience:

At 6:30 am this morning my time—5:30 am on the East Coast of the US—I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."….

At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours….The official—who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654—said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done….

Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian's lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David….

According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders" (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, "most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour." An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours.

The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism….

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name…

UPDATE II: According to the New York Times, the targeting of Miranda–while still having nothing whatever to do with terrorism investigations, remember–was not random harassment either. They apparently knew that Miranda had Snowden-related documents on a thumb drive on his person, which they stole, ones that documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras had given him to bring to Greenwald.

Advertisement

NEXT: Hillary Clinton Said To Have Shouted Down Lawmaker for Calling Benghazi a Terrorist Attack

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. There’s also a commentary by Greenwald himself at the Guardian.

    1. “[T]ostart detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.”

      1. I find it somewhat amusing that even after his boyfriend is detained by his own fucking government, a British dude still can’t bring himself to place the blame on Britain, and instead it’s all a shadowy conspiracy whereby UK politicians are marionettes for the USA. Has Europe ever met a problem that wasn’t in some way or another caused by those meanies across the Atlantic? And they stereotype Americans as paranoid…

        1. Greenwald is American, and of course Britain detained him to appease/cooperate with the US. Snowden didn’t release anything related to UK surveillance practices.

          1. So? It’s the UK that’s doing the detention. Last I checked they’re a sovereign country, hence the hubbub about that royal hag squeezing a prince out.

          2. Greenwald wasn’t detained, his boyfriend was. I assumed the guy was British since I can’t imagine how the UK government would have any jurisdiction otherwise. And I suppose I was kind of putting Greenwald’s words in his mouth, but still, the point stands. When the American government bends its own citizens over, they don’t go about blaming some global shadow conspiracy for it – they blame their fucking government (well, all except the Jews Did WTC!! nutbags who think all roads lead to Jerusalem, but that’s a whole other thing). Even if the UK did do it at the behest of the US government, they are still responsible for their behavior, no?

            Snowden absolutely did release UK-related information, btw. Most importantly, the fact that GCHQ keeps a 3 day full-take buffer of all telecommunications that come through British networks.

            1. His boyfriend is Brazilian. The British government had jurisdiction because the Terrorism act allows them to detain anyone planning acts of terrorism (and you know anything the state doesn’t like is terrorism).

      2. “Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by.”

        Pffft, no.

  2. informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

    Is this some sort of “co-operative agreement” allowing the United States to globalize domestic thoughtcrime investigations?

    1. Yes, it’s called big sack of dollars.

    2. It was passed over a year before 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act which followed a month later, so if anything, the reverse would be true.

  3. David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.30am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

    Why would the Stasi detain Glenn Greenwald’s boyfriend for 9 hours? Oh, it wasn’t the Stasi, it was the British police. Well, that makes it all better, then.

  4. At the time the “security official” called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official – who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 – said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.

    I AM NOT A FREE MAN! I AM A NUMBER!

    1. Sort of a reverse POW.

    2. He was afraid to give is name because he doesn’t want his family and loved ones harassed. You know, like they were doing to Greenwald’s.

    3. At least the # did not start “00”.

  5. Glenn Greenwald is gay? Did not know that.

    The British armed-cops don’t exactly have a good history with Brazilians suspected of terrorism, though, so maybe Miranda got off easy.

    1. It used to be that the entire reason he lived in Brazil instead of the US was that he couldn’t get an entry visa for his partner thanks to DOMA.

      Now, of course, he’s got other reasons to stay the fuck away from a US border.

      1. If he can afford to live in Rio, then I wouldn’t be sad if I were him. Rio is awesome, I would love to live there if I were wealthy enough to live in a good neighborhood there.

        1. It’s weird. You think “developing country” so shit will be cheap. Not in Rio. Or at least, not in the parts of Rio I would feel safe in. It’s expensive as shit.

          1. People should riot over that shit.

  6. Pretty soon, we can all expect this type of harassment from the government. I mean those of us who do not worship the state. Not sure what took them so long.

    1. The UK doesn’t have a bill of rights, you know.

      Not sure how it’s going to play in Merry Ol’ England, but on this side of the pond cops/agents who did this would be in deep shit.

      1. Not sure how it’s going to play in Merry Ol’ England, but on this side of the pond cops/agents who did this would be in deep shit.

        HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        1. And people say that Tulpa has no sense of humor.

      2. deep shit = paid vacation

      3. The UK doesn’t have a bill of rights, you know.

        Yes it does. There’s was first actually. 1689. It even had (not has) a right to bear arms for personal protection.

        1. A bill of rights that can be pared down given the political expedience of the moment doesn’t deserve the name.

          1. The 2nd Amendment gives our Bill of Rights its teeth.

            1. If it comes down to enforcing the BoR via 2nd amendment, we’re fucked as a country.

              1. Maybe. Maybe not. Only one way to find out. Or as a great man once said “We’ll last longer then we will against that Death Star. And we might just take a few of them with us.”

      4. Care of Glenn Greenwald, circa 2010:

        In July of this year, U.S. citizen Jacob Appelbaum, a researcher and spokesman for WikiLeaks, was detained for several hours at the Newark airport after returning from a trip to Holland, and had his laptop, cellphones and other electronic products seized ? all without a search warrant, without being charged with a crime, and without even being under investigation, at least to his knowledge. He was interrogated at length about WikiLeaks, and was told by the detaining agents that he could expect to be subjected to the same treatment every time he left the country and attempted to return to the U.S. Days later, two FBI agents approached him at a computer conference he was attending in New York and asked to speak with him again.

        This shit is common and perfectly legal. The whole point is to intimidate people within the confines of the law. You don’t need to arrest someone, just hold them for as long as the law allows. Search and confiscate their stuff by yelling terrorism. Delay the attorney as much as possible.

        1. Don’t you love that part during TV procedurals when the cops concoct some bullshit plan to keep their suspect locked up/away from his lawyer for as long as possible, and the producers play it off as some heroic gesture by the detectives? Because innocence until proven guilty is a dead letter even in television dramas, right?

          1. Interestingly it was pro-cop shows like L&O, COPS, CSI, etc. that were an important component in turning me away from my default pro-law & order position.

            1. One of the few tolerable L&O episodes I can remember involved an allegation of rape and the back-and-forth as detectives unearthed unsavory details about both victim and defendant. The show ended with “We find the defendant?”. Definitely captured the ambiguity of criminal cases, a much-needed departure from the paper cut-out defendants and paint-by-numbers crime scenes.

              1. Yeah SVU got into ambiguity a lot better than the mainline show. Criminal Intent always showed the culprit during the episode, so it was more about the how and why then the who.

        2. Greenwald is getting wrong/leaving out several facts.

          Minor one that he gets totally wrong is that the conference was in Las Vegas. It’s also not a garden-variety computer conference but DEFCON, a hacker conference that is attended by FBI and other feds looking to learn about new exploits. If you read the CNet article on the same event, it’s clear the FBIers who wanted to talk with him were just attending the conference and not on duty. Also this took place after a talk he gave, when many attendees were probably asking to talk to him — not nearly as creepy as Greenwald wants to make it. When he said he didn’t want to talk to them they got lost.

          Nothing at CNet about the agents promising to harass him every time he comes back, either.

      5. Yeah, like that Libertarian Party treasurer who certainly wasn’t detained at the airport because he had a lot of cash with him.

        Like the woman who wasn’t detained because she had some 2-party checks and the agents *needed* to ensure that she hadn’t forged the second signature.

        Those BOR protections?

        1. Reasonable suspicion is a bitch.

          1. Gotta love how Tulpy comes back and corpse-fucks a dead thread just so he can get the last word in.

  7. The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this.

    /LMAO

    1. I’m sure the BO admin had everything to do with this, but expecting that it’s going to happen in the US is premature — until BO has a chance to stuff the courts full of Kagans.

  8. And in other news, my dumbass grandma just posted this picture on facebook.

    https: //sphotos-b-dfw.xx.fbcd n.net/hphotos-ash3/1173750_553542821379409_15 05708830_n.png

    What is with liberals and fracking?

    Space added due to reason’s dumbass character limit.

    1. take off the https:// and replace it with http://

      1. It still doesn’t work.

    2. Liberals need something to be sad about. Fracking must be bad, because, big oil.

      Liberals hate real issues and love imaginary boogeymen that are making them into victims.

      And the solution, is more government. Always more government. Because people are bad, and goverment(made up of people) is good.

      1. “A party whose mission is to live entirely upon the discovery of grievances are apt to manufacture the element upon which they subsist.”
        – Lord Salisbury

    3. Can you un-SF this?

  9. Fracking? MATT DAMON

  10. Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles…

    Brazil should arrest those British officials

    But I’m sure got what they wanted anyways. A reminder of what happened before:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..o-him.html

    “When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”

    (and why you shouldn’t use Skype either)

    1. *(arrest those British officials) for theft

    2. Brazil should arrest those British officials

      Maybe I missed something here… how is Brazil going to arrest British Officials, in Britain?

      1. If they ever travel to Brazil I mean. But hell, I wouldn’t mind a diplomatic breakdown where an arrest was somehow made in Britain for return of those items

        1. Oh, ok, I see.

          That aside… I always feel more welcome when entering Brazil than I do the USA, and I’m a US citizen, I was born here. Recently, I feel more like I am entering the USSR when I arrive here, than the country that I grew up in.

          1. Then why don’t you stay the fuck out?

            There’s a severe deficit of putting up or shutting up compared to the blabber around here.

            1. I had just gotten used to Tulpa being schizophrenic from thread to thread, when he decided to up his game and be schizophrenic WITHIN threads.

              1. Failing to be a partisan hack for one side in the debate makes me schizophrenic — got it.

                1. Failing to be a partisan hack for one side in the debate makes me schizophrenic — got it.

                  No. Swinging from “This is an outrage!” to “Fuck you, if you don’t like US policy, stay the fuck out!” makes you schizophrenic.

            2. Because as bad is it is, it still has some things going for it.

              Guns for one. My love of the shooting sports and my staunch belief in gun ownership makes moving overseas tricky. Plus taxes here are still better then most places.

              1. Which is fine — presumably you’re not considering the US to be like the USSR.

                1. Which is fine — presumably you’re not considering the US to be like the USSR.

                  Of course not. But it’s trending that way.

                2. Tulpa, have you ever heard of hyperbole or a simile?

            3. Because, I want to torment you, asshole, that’s why.

              Why are you and Cytotoxic never posting at the same time, you statist piece of shit?

              1. You’re not having much success with the torment, Hyper.

                Hint: if you want to get under my skin you’d have to slander me in a plausible way, not claim I favor murder-droning. You could learn a lot from SugarFree when it comes to how to troll me effectively.

                1. I’m not trolling you. You are always trolling me. Why? Because you hate foreigners and you know I’m married to one of the hated, that’s why, asshole.

                  1. OK, you’re getting a little closer to plausible now, but xenophobia is still waaaaaay off.

                    1. Yah, whatever you say, Cytotoxic.

                    2. You realize Cyto is in favor of open boarders, no? So you’re going to have to pick one or the other.

                    3. You and Cyto are one and the same. Fuck off, asshole.

                    4. Cyto is in favor of legal piracy? Who knew?

                      Tulpa, aren’t you the guy that said Latin Americans are so stupid that they pee in their drinking water? If I’m recalling that correctly, then I’d understand why Hyperion would not be a fan of yours

                      Although, I will say I don’t think you’re Cytotoxic. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen you guys arguing over foreign policy in the past.

                    5. ITT Hyperion is a cranky stupid asshole who can’t make a real point.

                      I swear at some point Hype you weren’t a retard but that was then I guess. Time to be all AMERICA IS POLICE NAZI STATE.

                      Remember, in bed by 9. Otherwise, you cranky.

                    6. What I would like to know, is when did I ever bring up the constitution and rule of law in the US vs. Brazil? I never did. I said I feel more welcome when I arrive there, than here.

                      My point is this. When I arrive back in my own country, I expect security here to smile, and welcome me home. I don’t expect a shit face retard to ask me why I am wearing a Ron Paul pin. You work for me, assholes, I do not serve you. Now, smile and thank me for paying your wages.

                2. Slander is spoken; libel is written, you pathetic lickspittle. And uncomfortable truths you dislike having pointed out isn’t libel, anyway.

                  I’m glad that everyone is finally seeing you for what I always knew you were.

                  1. Worse than Hitler? Worse than mecha-Hitler? Even mecha-Hebrew Hitler?

            4. Love it or leave it, right? Dude, you’re so deep I can’t even see you right now…

            5. He’s waiting around until we can throw all the nimrods like you out.

          2. Hey, you don’t how lucky you are.

        2. What they should do is declare the entire British embassy staff persona non grata and give them 24 hours to get the fuck out of Brazil.

          -jcr

      2. Send in a snatch team. We’ve done it before and (ours at least) the courts have pretty much said they don’t care how the suspect got back into their jurisdiction – if it was done illegally then the snatchee is perfectly free to file a criminal complaint but that won’t affect *his* trial.

    3. There was a time (before selling out to microsoft), when Skype was reliably secure. Seems to me that there’s a market opportunity here for a new VOIP application.

      -jcr

  11. We’ve always been at war with the terrorists.

  12. I wonder if Grunwald couldn’t wait to write a defense of this, either?

  13. Canada testing $620,000 stealth snowmobile for Arctic

    1. Are they prepared to meet up with By-Tor?

      1. +2112

        1. +1 Temple of Syrinx.

    2. No photo? What’s the point of linking to it?

      1. What the hell do you mean….it’s right there! Right in front of you.

  14. So one can only logically conclude that there is a jouro-terrorism case working against Greenwald, right? Fucking lovely.

    Could we please start a White House petition to require the government and it’s agents, domestic or otherwise, upon getting their thug on to declare their empowering legislation as “Fuck You, That’s Why” instead of the obvious bullshit fig leaves they are currently employing. For dignity’s sake.

    And the Children.

    1. I say we start a whitehouse.gov petition to get rid of whitehouse.gov petitions.

      They make a mockery of the president caring about what we want.

      He doesn’t give a shit what we want.

      1. There was a great one demanding a trite, unhelpful response.

        That was right around the time they raised the limit.

  15. This was completely predictable. I just thought they’d go after Greenwald, himself. I guess this is there way of letting Greenwald know that he better not fly anywhere anytime soon.

  16. “That’s a mighty big bag of PCP you got there, and quite a collection of child pornography, David. Is there anyting you would like to tell us about Glenn?”

    1. Unfortunately, this is the ultimate end game of all contraband crimes.

      1. It always has been and always will be a form of control. And not necessarily the type of control that is/was advertised.

        “Oh, you got some CP and CC fraud on your anonymous servers, Mr Freedom Hosting? Well, we’ll just take all of those Tormail anonymous emails you have stored there, too.

    2. I’m kind of shocked that they didn’t pull some shit like that on Snowden.

      Like maybe claim to have found a giant cache of kiddie porn on his work computer and indict him for that.

      1. “Like maybe claim to have found a giant cache of kiddie porn on his work computer and indict him for that.”

        But they didn’t have to frame Snowden, he’s a high school dropout and that’s so much worse.

  17. Every day that goes by I regret not working harder in my 20’s on accomplishing my goal of becoming a Bond villain with a volcano crater lair stocked with apocalyptic vengeance weapons.

    I really have to apologize you all. This is all on me, really. I just had to drink vodka and chase broads. Sorry, dudes.

    1. And now you see. We could have all worked for you, Fluffy, to rid the multiverse of evil. And now?

      Booshbama, that’s the fuck what.

      1. Not to rid the universe of evil – to get and maintain a *monopoly* on that evil.

    2. I regret not becoming an Evil Genetic Scientist.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SqC_m3yUDU

      1. That’s my job.

  18. Partner? That’s the way we refer to unmarried live-in couples now? What happened to old-fashioned “lover?” That’s more descriptive. “Partner” sounds like the person you co-own a jewelry shop with.

    1. Partner is an overly sterile response to the SoCon contention that just by bringing up being gay you’re explicitly including everyone else in your sex life (lover unfortunately evokes what happens in the bedroom as much as it does flowers and moonlit walks). Lover also implies quite a bit of frivolity or illicitness (one has a wife AND a lover).

      I’ve unfortunately gone down the rabbit hole of telling a SoCon that if me saying I have a boyfriend was an offensive invitation into my sexual habits then so was her showing off her wedding ring. The argument got heated (and completely insane) very quickly.

      1. I’m not sure how that squares with it being so commonly used in Europe

  19. I thought they only did that in the US?

    http://www.Prime-Anon.tk

  20. Apparently they no longer care about openly thuggish behavior. The dude is living with a currently prominent journalist. There was a time you didn’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.

  21. Anyone else find the irony in that the guys name is Miranda?

    1. It sounds like a girls name. Where is he from?

      1. It’s his surname, not his given name.

        1. Well

          Ah… nome de familia….

          My bad.

          1. Just like Brazilian (by way of Portugal) Carmen Miranda.

            But without the fruity hats.

            1. RACIST!

            2. HOMOPH?oh, I see what you did there.

    2. No, nobody did.

      1. And who says you speak for everybody you stupid fuck?

        1. Well, he does. And as our spokesman, he should know.

    3. Not irony, but I did find it mildly amusing.

      Who knows – maybe this will get Britain its own form of the Miranda Act.

      1. pssst. Miranda is a case, not an act.

  22. I’m surprised no one has posted this little bit of hilarious but awful authority-worship from CNN’s anointed very serious person and token female minority Democrat recruiter.

    We can perhaps relegate the “Slap Palin-Clinton-Obama” anonymous owner to the fringe. But what are we to say when a former administration official and current campaign consultant to one of the major parties promotes violence against public figures?

    It doesn’t matter if the website — or rodeo clown — encourages violence against a Democrat or a Republican, a male or female. It’s wrong. It’s vile. It’s one of the few true evils in politics.

    Those who promote or approve “slapping” or “shooting” or “running over by a bull” any public official should be shamed and shunned. Virtual violence needs to be denounced and never justified because it’s political.

    …Slapping women so hard their heads bobble is not a game, not even virtually.

    …Truman lit into the boy. Politics is a noble art, Truman said. It’s difficult to forge consensus and lead fighting factions for the common good. But this is what politicians do. They deserve respect. The boy was chastened, and apologized.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/16/…..=allsearch

    Also, Slap Hilary? Is there an app for that, because I want now.

    I think I’ll go give Hilary a slap now just for Donna.

    Give it a try yourself:
    http://thehillaryproject.com/games/

    1. And anyone capable of writing the sentence “Slapping women so hard their heads bobble is not a game, not even virtually.”, without laughing at themselves so hard their head bobbles has got to be the most humorless, uptight, authoritarian douche ever to walk the earth.

      1. Is that better or worse than playing a game where you blow a woman’s head across the room from her torso, anyway?

        And why isn’t she even pretending to not be a sexist pig?

        1. Is that better or worse than playing a game where you blow a woman’s head across the room from her torso, anyway?

          Also known as “Wednesday” at the US Marshals Service.

    2. Other than the singling out of politicians for homage (barf), what precisely is incorrect about that reasoning? Do you think it’s healthy to encourage people to commit/enjoy acts of violence against objects identifiable with real people?

      1. I absolutely encourage people to mock stupid politicians and policies in any way that is effective, and I fully trust individuals to be able to separate a computer game with reality.

        Similarly, I have no objection to games like Call of Duty or World of Warcraft, and this comes with the added benefit of political satire.

      2. Yes, because it’s cathartic.

        And because people need to lighten up

      3. I think statements like this: “It’s one of the few true evils in politics.” are far more dangerous than the game. Statements like that encourage people to view politicians as divinely ordained leaders whose authority over us is beyond question, whereas the game encourages people to view politicians as objects of ridicule, which is the correct view IMO.

      4. Do you think it’s healthy to encourage people to commit/enjoy acts of violence against objects identifiable with real people?

        No less healthy than actually committing acts of violence against real people (i.e. governing).

      5. Healthy? I don’t know, maybe not. There is some merit to the catharsis argument, though.

        Wrong? Nope.

      6. Do you think it’s healthy to encourage people to commit/enjoy acts of violence against objects identifiable with real people?

        Yes.

    3. “Slapping women so hard their heads bobble is not a game, not even virtually.’

      I wonder if this writer turns off the TV when the safe drops.

    4. I was just reminded of the game “Extradite Mugabe,” and was about to post a working link, but it uses Java, so I thought better of it.

    5. Donna is just jealous she’ll never beat Robin Givens as the all time slapped down champion. No man would feel enough emotion for or against her to ever bother.

    6. Judging from Bill’s behavior, I suspect that Hillary’s head hasn’t bobbled in about thirty or forty years.

  23. Mike Grunwald approves of this action. He is writing a defense of it as we speak.

    1. I wonder how difficult it is to write while you’re sucking statist cock?

    2. Game’s up, John. Hyper has discovered the grand conspiracy between you and me and Cyto. Despite the fact we’re always arguing against each other.

      1. I never mentioned, John at all. What the fuck are you talking about? LOL.

        I agree with John on almost everything.

        1. Hyp, why are you even engaging Tulpa? He’s a fucking troll.

          1. He’s also known as Cytotoxic, that’s the only reason, I’m trying to let everyone know that they are one and the same.

            1. What makes you think that?

              1. What makes me think that is that Tulpa hates me. Why? Because he’s a bigot that hates foreigners. No, I’m not one.

                And then, shortly after I had my first real fight with Tulpa, Cytotoxic started attacking me, and the style was so similar, that’s when I knew.

                And it’s always the same topic that provokes the hate filled attack. Say anything that is perceived as any country in the world being any better than the USA, in any way, and you will get attacked by either Tulpa or his sock puppet, Cytotoxic.

                1. It’s possible…..I don’t know.

                  Have they ever done the thing where one is tongue bathing the other like American does with his sock puppets?

                2. Wow we got a real inspector Clouseau here. I’ve actually been accused of being someone else before at least once! By Epiderp! So now you’re as stupid and butthurt as Epiderp was/is Hypeface.

                3. “And it’s always the same topic that provokes the hate filled attack.”

                  But Tulpa’s got the fuckbrain defense. …and the fuckbrain offense.

                  That way Tulpa takes whatever you said in some way it couldn’t possibly have been intended, and then insists that you prove either a) what you never said or b) something that’s actually a fact taken from the Reason post that started the thread?

                  That’s the Mark of Tulpa.

                  1. Oddly, the Mark of Hyperion is similar…

                  2. In the thread about the Feds threatening to go after an email provider for speaking to the media?

                    Tulpa insisted that I prove the Feds were threatening to go after someone for speaking to the media.

                    That’s the Mark of Tulpa!

                    Late in the thread when Hazel suggests the email provider should maybe flee the country and not stop in Russia? Tulpa takes her to task, apparently thinking she’s saying we should all flee the country!

                    Days from now, if it ever enters Tulpa’s convoluted mind, Tulpa will call Hazel a liar when she denies having suggested we should all flee the country, too!

                    That’s the Mark of Tulpa.

                    1. Tulpa insisted that I prove the Feds were threatening to go after someone for speaking to the media.

                      Here’s your comment, Ken.

                      Ken Shultz| 8.18.13 @ 12:02PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I think almost anybody that criticizes the Obama Administration in the media should be worried right now.

                      Journalists live in the public eye, so they get more of a pass, but criticism from people outside of that profession? The Obama Administration will not tolerate such criticism.

                      You’ve been warned.

                      How would someone interpret this as being only about a specific email provider? I have not the faintest idea.

                      Since we’re talking about people’s arguing styles, I’ll diagnose yours, Ken: you make broad sweeping statements and then when they’re shown not to be true, you move the goal posts and retreat to a narrower statement. And that would be OK in itself, any good lawyer would do so — but the irritating thing is that you then paint the person who questioned your original statement as the disingenuous one.

                    2. I have no idea what point you’re trying to make; in fact, I don’t think you’re trying to make a point.

                      I think you just troll for the hell of it.

                4. Cytotoxic and Tulpa have pretty different styles of argumentation. Tulpa’s an obsessive contrarian, I don’t think the same is true of Cyto. Also, Tulpa’s a closed-borders advocate, while Cyto is pro-open borders. And while Cyto is known for never seeing a US military action he didn’t like, Tulpa’s actually pretty non-interventionist. And I’m 99% sure I’ve seen them argue on foreign policy threads. I’m just not buying this theory

                  1. Tulpa likes to pile on, too.

                    I can see Tulpa piling on to somebody after Cyto was givin’ ‘im the business.

            2. Cyto and Tulpa just send a vey different vibe to me. Tulpa’s stuffier, and I can’t really see Cyto taking his ball and going home.

              1. I’ll chime in here. I really enjoy Hyperion’s comments and consider him a solid ally in the fight against the evil and the banal. I don’t have enough experience with Cytotoxic other than, IIRC, he is stridently anti-Christian and tends to write terse, yet confrontational things.

                Tulpa, on the other hand, comes off as hyper pedantic with his tedious comments that seem, at least to me, to be solely engineered to make us think he’s exceptionally reasonable while also very smart. The hallmark of Tulpa, as someone else pointed out on another thread, is that he will say something in agreement with someone like Hyperion and then immediately go on a tirade against that same person as anti-American, or something.

                But could two internet alter-egos be the same person? Of course. I always thought Tony and Palin’s Buttplug were the same person. Have you ever heard the expression “palin’s buttplug” before? I hadn’t. But if you Google it, the first site that references it belongs to a guy named Tony who has a fetish for almost-nude men. True.

                1. Tony and Palin’s Buttplug aren’t the same person, but they are both “Journolists” and fairly well known ones at that.

                  1. Do tell.

                2. The hallmark of Tulpa, as someone else pointed out on another thread, is that he will say something in agreement with someone like Hyperion and then immediately go on a tirade against that same person as anti-American, or something.

                  That’s because I consider arguments, without regard to who’s making it. If someone has been epic awesome in the past I’ll sometimes try to blunt the argument, but none of those people are left.

                  1. This place was so much better when Postrel ran it, right Tulpa?

                    1. H+R didn’t exist when Postrel was in charge, did it?

                      Tim Cavanaugh knew how to rule with a noncoercive iron fist, I will say that.

  24. Fucking outrageous. They should be marching on Downing Street over this.

    The irony of governments blatantly, flagrantly abusing their anti-terrorist powers in order to punish people who made them look like they might be abusing their anti-terrorist powers makes my fucking eyes bleed.

    1. “abusing their anti-terrorist powers”

      This isn’t abuse of anti-terrorist power.

      This is precisely the sort of thing for which anti-terrorist powers were legislated.

      Only the little people think otherwise.

      1. Certainly the all-seeing monocle understands this.

  25. Tulpa’s never inconsistent. He’s always a contrarian.

    1. Tulpa and Cytotoxic are the same poster. I said it first.

      1. I haven’t seen Tulpa argue in favor of killing of the weak.

        1. It’s Tulpas alter ego, or whatever, I am telling you man, they are the same poster.

          1. I don’t see it.

            Tulpa is just Tulpa.

            I go by prose style. That’s hard to consistently fake over time. The way people post has a rhythm. I can recognize a Tulpa post a mile away.

            If he’s tricking me then he’s damn good.

            1. He’s not that good. They are the same person.

              1. This is fucking hilarious. You can only compensate for your own butthurtidness with overconfidence.

            2. Coming in late, but Tulpa is definitely not his own person. I don’t know whose sockpuppet he is, but he is a sockpuppet. It’s the very definition of “Tulpa” that makes it obvious:

              Tulpa (Tibetan: ???????, Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: ??????? nirmita[1] and ??????? nirm??a;[2] “to build” or “to construct”) is a concept in mysticism of a being or object which is created through sheer discipline alone. It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.

              1. Tulpa is called Tulpa because of where he used to live, I believe. I think the Pa comes from ‘Pennsylvania.’

              2. Someone posted this in comments a few months ago… thought it was original, but anyway… Tulpa Creepypasta

              3. Or he just heard “tulpa” used in an episode of The X-Files and liked it.

                A tulpa is also known as a “hungry ghost.” I don’t really see that in our pet troll.

          2. THERE… ARE… FOUR…. TULPAS!

  26. All-Seeing Monocle| 8.18.13 @ 4:29PM |#
    “Fucking outrageous. They should be marching on Downing Street over this.”

    These are the Brits; free speech isn’t part of the universe over there, so a little detention by the King’s officers? So what?

    1. I’m sure you’re being sarcastic, but it’s not even about free speech in this case. The person who was detained was guilty of nothing other than association, and certainly not a suspected “terrorist”. I realize the brits are pussified, but surely some of those yobs can work themselves into a lather over blatant abuse of legal authority, can’t they?

    2. These kind of events in Britainland make America look really good. In America, there’s dissent. Britainland is the worst outcome for America.

  27. Actually, reading Greenwald’s piece, the striking thing is that the law under which Miranda was detained ONLY ALLOWS subjects to be detained if they are suspected of terrorism.

    So what terrorist act was Miranda suspected of being involved in?

    Because if they can’t name a specific act of terror the guy was involved in or planning, then the detention was illegal, even under the UK’s comical lack of a real constitution.

    1. If you oppose the government spying on everybody, you’re a terrorist.

    2. Exactly.

      I don’t expect to see any accoutability for this abuse, any more than I would here, but boy would I love to.

      The one thing they have going for them that we don’t — the Guardian still seems to be more than willing to give Greenwald his bully pulpit. And somehow I have a feeling that Greenwald won’t be letting this little incident quietly slip away by tomorrow.

    3. Giving aid and comfort to terrorists is tantamount to terrorism. You know what Attorney General Ashcroft said about those “those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty”: “My message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists.”

      The Brits are just the Mini-Me of American Awesome Powers.

    4. Well hey, British police executed a Brazilian guy after the 7/7 bombings because they thought he was a terrorist so why not detain another Brazilian guy because they think he’s a terrorist?

  28. So what terrorist act was Miranda suspected of being involved in?

    Crimes against the fascist militarized police state of the new Murika.

  29. 203654 is a fascist douchebag.

    -jcr

    1. “203654, why aren’t you at your post?”

      1. Signed –

        Oswald Mosley

    2. Hmmm, how long does it take to set up shop on cafepress? I think there might be some material here.

      1. I’m thinking a logo of a pig with that number stenciled across it might be a catchy symbol.

        -jcr

    3. You should meet 6079 Smith W.

  30. So what terrorist act was Miranda suspected of being involved in?

    Fomenting the breakdown of authority. Terrorism of the worst sort.

  31. The really funny thing is that after reading Greenwald for almost a decade, one thing I’m pretty sure about is that this is exactly the wrong thing to do if you want to get him to shut up.

    He has a kind of Alexandrine narcissism – he has a literary or poetic model in his head of the person he wants to be, and is sleeping with a copy of the Iliad under his pillow while he tries to bring that fantasy into reality in his daily life. He DESPERATELY WANTS to be Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or Colonel Von Stauffenberg. He WANTS an evil authoritarian government to destroy him when he waves his fist in defiance and shouts a defense of the press and of freedom in iambic pentameter.

    Doing this will only egg him on, and make him think he’s closer to his goal.

    1. Agree. If anything, Greenwald might now feel justified in releasing something he held back so far.

    2. Does he? Lots of people, and I certainly include myself in this, are quick with the fiery words of defiance. But there’s a reason that thuggish governments do things like arrest spouses: it works. Not on everyone, but on most people, it does.

      1. I think the risks he has already taken so far lend plenty of credence to Fluffy’s analysis.

        1. Uh, what risks? I don’t think we’re more then a few decades away from journalists being killed to cover up stories, but we’re not there now.

          If Greenwald was a Muslim living in Yemen who criticized the US government, he’d already be dead. But he’s not. He’s a leftwing journalist working for a leading light of the international left. There’s no way in hell Obama would drone strike him. Or ship him off to a secret prison. The nagging harassment of the bureaucratic superstate is a pain in the ass, can be financially ruinous, and is certainly unconstitutional and morally reprehensible, but Greenwald is not going to be killed or imprisoned.

          Certainly I’m not criticizing Greenwald. As I mentioned earlier, I doubt I’d have the courage to continue if I was in his situation. They clearly intend to harass him into silence. Next up will be the tax people I bet. But this is the first, not the last attempt to actually shut him up. I hope he stays the course, but it would not surprise me if he folded his cards.

          1. I don’t think they’d kill him to shut him up, but I don’t agree with you that imprisonment is out of the realm of consideration.

            Daniel Ellsberg was arrested, remember.

            He successfully defended himself, but there were still some limits then. Obama could just shout “State secrets privilege!” and a 2013 Ellsberg would disappear into supermax.

            1. See here’s where I think politics comes into it. McCain would have had Greenwald already locked up.

              But Obama is a member of the intellectual left. And the intellectual left loves the Guardian. Imprisoning an employee of the Guardian for practicing journalism would be out of the question for them. It’s a cultural thing IMO. Obama can’t treat a gay Jewish columnist for the Guardian the way he treats people like Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, because Greenwald is part of his political class.

              1. And the intellectual left loves the Guardian. Imprisoning an employee of the Guardian for practicing journalism would be out of the question for them.

                Every member of the intellectual left on Twitter wants Greenwald’s blood because every word he writes against Obama (in their view) threatens Obamacare and food stamps.

                If some journalist has to go to jail to protect the welfare state, they’ll just clap louder.

                1. “If some journalist has to go to jail to protect the welfare state, they’ll just clap louder.”

                  Just look at the way they trampled Bob Woodward a few months back.

          2. I don’t believe they’re on a path to drone-strike him, but I wouldn’t say imprisonment and/or financial ruin are remotely off the table. I would consider either of those to be a very substantial risk.

            1. Never discount the effectiveness of an unfortunate accident happening to Glenn Greenwald.

              I would recommend he check his brakes often and have someone else start his car for him.

            2. I think it will be financial ruin and regulatory harassment.

              It’s very important for the sensibilities of lefties that Greenwald is destroyed in a way that paints him as a wrecker and a saboteur. So it won’t be is revealing of civil liberties abuses. He will be set up as a tax evader, or an insider trader, something that paints him as a class enemy.

          3. but Greenwald is not going to be killed or imprisoned.

            I would not be surprised if Greenwald was accidentally killed in traffic by a hit and run driver who was never found, or was arrested and jailed for having certain verboten contraband found in his apartment, or other scenarios that scream “special ops”.

            OPENLY murdering him — not that. Not yet.

            1. Crashes Mercedes into tree, bursts into flames. Cremated immediately accidentally.

              1. And whatever the fuck it was that happened to Brietbart and his coroner.

              2. And I’ll remind you all once more. Every domestic spying fusion center is an independently operating fiefdom. Multiple disasters waiting to happen.

          4. I don’t think we’re more then a few decades away from journalists being killed to cover up stories, but we’re not there now.

            The ghost of Michael Hastings disagrees.

          5. “Uh, what risks? I don’t think we’re more then a few decades away from journalists being killed to cover up stories,”

            Openly, you mean? Because I’m pretty suspicious about Michael Hastings’ death.

      2. I know it’s dangerous to think that you can get inside the head of a public figure through their writing, but I’ve probably read hundreds of thousands of words by the guy by now.

        Could you understand Hemingway through his writing? Maybe, maybe not.

        But between every line of text Greenwald’s ever written, I see a desire for a particular sort of glory. And it’s a type of glory it seems the government of the US is willing to give him.

        1. His best virtue is his disdain for pettiness. That I pick up as a character trait from his writing.

    3. The article Greenwald’s already posted “Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation”, lays it out pretty clearly.

      1. So the State ups the ante.

        It’s one thing to have his partner detained. What if they arrest him and charge him with something that would put him in prison for years?

        Who here would honestly keep speaking out if it meant their spouse would spend years in jail? Going behind bars yourself is one thing, but condemning a loved one to it?

        Again, the bastards have done this all over the world for decades because it works.

        1. I agree that whether the state eventually ups the ante enough to make Mr. Greenwald back down remains to be seen. I have no idea how far the guy is really willing to go.

          I’m personally more curious about whether, in the course of doing so, the state will build up enough animosity towards itself that some level of changed will be forced — either heads rolling in the bureaucracy or actual changes to the legal framework. I’m certainly not betting on it, but this incident really does feel like an escalation to me. I think the public outrage may go up another notch over this. I’m starting to get curious what the effect will be of continuing to turn that dial up without providing the right amount of time in between consecutive outrages to allow everyone to forget and shift their focus to some other unrelated outrage-of-the-day.

  32. Politics is a noble art, Truman said. It’s difficult to forge consensus and lead fighting factions for the common good. But this is what politicians do. They deserve respect.

    Politicians deserve no more respect than a guy who pumps out septic tanks. Forging a consensus to find new and novel ways of depriving me of my liberty is not a noble cause.

    1. This septic tank guys perform an invaluable service. Politicians, not so much.

      1. Goddammit, *Those.

      2. Thanks for reminding me – we need to get the tank looked at before winter. Been in this house….6 years now. Overdue…

      3. Indeed.

        Politicians deserve as much respect as the contents of septic tanks, not those noble souls who process such materials.

  33. I’m sure someone, somewhere, sometime, has already said this, but…

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

    /fukkin Hillary

  34. Why do they even bother showing Scorsese movies on basic cable? If you have to censor every f-bomb it’s going to make the dialogue choppy as hell.

    1. which one are they butchering today?

      1. The Departed on AMC. Great movie, but I’d rather they just edit out the swear word entirely instead of trying insert a non curse word awkwardly into the dialogue.

        1. Yeah, Marky Mark in particular should punch in the face whoever edited The Departed for television.

          1. My sister and I were very disappoint they didn’t do more with his character. All the fighting and provoking…

            I propose a “The Depahted – Paht Two” what focuses on Marky Mark’s character and continues the story. MOAR KILLZ!

    2. This is what happens when you FIND A STRANGER IN THE ALPS.

    3. Dude, they made a for-tv version of Showgirls, which turns out to make it even more hilarious.

      1. Die Hard 2, best TV edit of all time.

  35. Fuck Scorcese. After sitting through that masturbatory abomination Gangs of New York, I vowed never to watch another Scorcese movie again.

    1. Gangs of New York was a bloated mess, but The Departed was great. Not as great as Goodfellas, but still pretty damn good.

      ‘Hugo’ was pretty good too, a nice little celebration of the beauty of cinema. Pretty sure it’s the only Scorsese movie not to use the word fuck and its derivatives over 100 times.

      1. Gangs of New York is a vehicle to confirm what we already know: Daniel Day-Lewis overshadows everyone else in whatever movie he appears in.

        1. The problem in that movie was Leo, he just wasn’t very interesting.

          Granted, I think lost of blame should go to Marty and the screenwriter for not giving him more to do since as you said, there was just no way he could hold the center of the movie (he couldn’t even keep his accent consistent throughout) while surrounded by great actors like DDL, Brendan Gleeson, and even John C. Reilly.

        2. I drink your milkshake.

      2. Departed is damn good!

    2. You made it past Casino, but Gangs of New York was the last straw?

      1. Never seen Casino, but apparently it did give the world this, so it can’t be all bad.

      2. Casino’s not that bad.

        1. Casino is Pesci over the edge and Sharon Stone screaming.

          1. True, but there are some good parts.

            I enjoy any part narrated by Deniro. It’s just a good character, and his obsession with operating the casino well is entertaining.

            The period depiction of Vegas is also well done.

            It goes off the rails in the third act, sure. But then again, so does Goodfellas.

          2. The sound of the shovel pinging off Pesci’s and the other guy’s heads while they buried ’em alive = unforgettable, disturbing movie moment (even though you “see” nothing).

      3. I enjoyed Casino. There, I said it.

    3. Boardwalk Empire is great.

  36. Wow. Just look at some of the comments on this story from Slate. They really hate Greenwald.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..throw.html

    nerdnam
    I would love to see Glenn Beckwald arrested. And I would love further to see just who’s paying him for what.

    Because at this point, I don’t trust one freaking word from this crackpot’s mouth. I am really starting to think this is all an attack on Obamacare from another angle. Particularly after that accused rapist, Julian Assange, saw fit to praise the Pauls.

    DANERTANT
    Ahh geezz.. Your boy you use as a mule, gets caught, the goods confiscated,,. Thanks for making it public tho. Now the world can see what kind of person you really are. You really are one for the books.

    Conan776
    So you actually think there is a terrorist plot here? Oy vey.

    nerdnam
    No. More like a libertarian plot, funded by wealthy persons unknown

    1. More like a libertarian plot

      Haha.

      I would love to see the comments from these idiots if Romney was POTUS.

    2. Wow. Peak Derp just keeps getting peakier.

    3. He’s publishing these NSA falsehoods to impugn the Great Leader so that Obamacare won’t work!!!

      1. A mad, conniving, gay, evil GENIUS!

    4. It really doesn’t take much for them to eat their own, does it?

      1. Is he one of their own? I’d say that even if he’s a left-winger, Greenwald is off the reservation. Most leftard “journalists” are doing all they can to make excuses for the Obama regime.

        -jcr

        1. Of course he is. The only difference between Greenwald and the prototypical left wing journalist is that he actually has principles.

          It would be like conservatives turning on Michelle Malkin en masse because she dared to criticize Bush’s domestic spending.

    5. I am really starting to think this is all an attack on Obamacare from another angle.

      That’s crazier than Hyperion!

    6. nerdnam
      I would love to see Glenn Beckwald arrested. And I would love further to see just who’s paying him for what.

      Because at this point, I don’t trust one freaking word from this crackpot’s mouth. I am really starting to think this is all an attack on Obamacare from another angle. Particularly after that accused rapist, Julian Assange, saw fit to praise the Pauls.

      I’m sure that dumbfuck votes.

      1. And that’s why everyone libertarian must vote.

        1. Why so you can have a 50/50 chance of voting for the same guy that that dumbshit idolizes, or maybe you could vote for his mirror image opponent.

          1. Strawman.

      2. Dude, that nerdnam guy really hates greenwald for some reason.

        He actually tries to claim that Greenwald is a false liberal because he never criticized bush. Really? Dude, really? Also, he can’t really be for civil liberties because he never says anything nice about Obama.

        It really is a team sport to these fucking people. Which wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t involve murder and robbery on the most massive of scales. Fuckers.

        1. HAHAHAHA I remember vividly the hatred the rightwing blogs had for Greenwald when he criticized Bush.

          How the fuck does someone brainwash themselves?

      3. Pretty sure Glenn is a big fan of socialized medicine.

    7. This guy’s on a roll!

      nerdnam
      Racist rich people love these stories. Distract, divide and conquer! No matter that it’s a load of BS, just like most of what libertarians have to say.

    8. nerdnam
      I would love to see Glenn Beckwald arrested. And I would love further to see just who’s paying him for what.

      Because at this point, I don’t trust one freaking word from this crackpot’s mouth. I am really starting to think this is all an attack on Obamacare from another angle. Particularly after that accused rapist, Julian Assange, saw fit to praise the Pauls.

      Clearly, Rand Paul is the bag man funneling KOCH dough to Greenwald in a devious attempt to discredit the glory of Obamacare.

      And it would’ve worked too, if it weren’t for that damn meddling nerdham.

  37. Daniel Day-Lewis overshadows everyone else in whatever movie he appears in.

    If “scenery-chewing muggery” = “overshadowing”

    I have never seen Casino from beginning to end.

  38. I am really starting to think this is all an attack on Obamacare from another angle. Particularly after that accused rapist, Julian Assange, saw fit to praise the Pauls.

    But what about the KOCHTOPUS?

  39. The sound of the shovel pinging off Pesci’s and the other guy’s heads

    “Here, boy, take this shovel and put it to some good use.”

    *Speaking of movies horribly butchered by AMC.

    1. We’ll always have “Roadhouse”. #GreatestMovieEVAR

      1. Richard Widmark was good in that one.

  40. OK, kids – since you probably didn’t get a chance to catch it live, results from today’s World Pipe Band Championship GR 1 Final:

    1) Field Marshal Montgomery (Northern Ireland) – 3rd year in a row!
    2) Boghall and Bathgate (Scotland)
    3) Scottish Power (Scotland)
    4) Simon Fraser Univ (Canada) – sorry Dagny!
    5) St. Laurence O’Toole (Eire)
    6) Inverary and District (Scotland)
    7) Greater Glasgow Police (Scotland)
    8) Shotts and Dykehead Caledonia (Scotland)
    9) Manawatu Scottish (New Zealand)
    10) Dowco Triumph Street (Canada)
    11) Canterbury Caledonian Society (New Zealand)
    12) Cullybackey (Northern Ireland)
    11)

    1. Looks pretty racist.

    2. I am still pissed from last year when they would not accept my recording of two neighbor cats going at it.

    3. They held it in Ireland though, I say home field advantage.

      Hope you caught the Dublin-Cork hurling as well, it’s a good way to kill time till the next shinty season.

  41. Ok, next election comes, after the primaries it’s Bernie Sanders vs. Chris Christie in the general. Considering our first past the poll system, one of the two is almost definitely going to be our next president.

    Which is the least worse to you? Which do you vote for (assuming you don’t write in Rand Paul or whatever)?

    1. *starts loading Glock with hollow points and writing suicide note*

    2. It’s *post. /pedant

      If I can’t write-in, I’d probably stay home.

      1. Now to be pedantic toward myself: If I *couldn’t…

        1. Yeah we all make errors when we’re in a rush. Should have proofread. Worse I think was the time I wrote equivocation instead of equivalence. Yikes.

          Can I get some *actual* answers? I’m actually curious about this.

          I had to hold my nose and vote for Obama last time. I am curious as to what libertarians would do in this situation.

          1. Honestly most of us would write-in or stay home if the choice is that bad. Unless those two options were outlawed, I really am unsure of who I would vote for. On the one hand I believe Sanders may be serious about defending certain liberties (anyone can set me straight if I’m wrong), while Christie comes off as a party hack. However, Sanders is a self-described socialist, and economic liberty is very important to me, so that really gives me a negative impression of him.

            1. Honestly most of us would write-in or stay home if the choice is that bad.

              See also: 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.

              1. See also 1996, 1992, and I screwed up in 1988.

          2. Honestly, I think either one would be terrible for economic policy. I’d say that Sanders probably couldn’t get too much done on the economic front that he’d like, especially if he had a republican legislature.

            Sanders would definitely be better on civil liberties.

            Here’s how I would rank the situations in increasing order of suck (P=president, C=congress):

            P Sanders, C republican controlled
            P Christie, C democrat controlled
            P Christie, C republican controlled
            P Sanders, C democrat controlled

            There are other variables, of course, but that’s basically how I call it.

            1. Yeah I’d vote for gridlock in that situation.

            2. Well, Obama can get the R congress to raise taxes just by stomping his feet. Don’t see much reason a socialist pres couldn’t get the republicans to nationalize an industry (besides airport security) or implement radical redistribution. Just yell a lot and give them an out to say they had to, because of terrorism.

              1. When did Obama ever get an R congress to raise taxes – this would be news to us!

                Are you referring to R’s not being able to get new tax breaks after the last ones expired? That’s not what “raise” means.

                Or is there a tax increase R’s voted for that I am unaware of? What was it?

                1. Not extending (temporary) tax breaks qualifies as raising them, I’d say. Especially when some are extended.

                  Yes, it suggests that temporary tax breaks are just a ploy to get permanent ones. I’m okay with that.

                  1. Well, if we have to go by your definition, then R’s raised taxes when they refused to extend the payroll tax cut as part of the negotiation. They even complained that it was “harming social security”! (Real buncha tax and spend liberals!)

                    See how silly that definition is?

                    In reality, Obama will never be able to make an R raise taxes. They just won’t vote for it.

                    But Obama will not accept all tax decreases. Although, if you want him to decrease taxes on the poor/middle class, he will and has more than any other president in history. Made permanent the lower tax rates (something no R was ever able to accomplish), he woulda extended the payroll tax cut, all his other tax cuts, etc. We’ve never had it so good!

                    He just won’t do so on people earning more than 250k.

                  2. “Yes, it suggests that temporary tax breaks are just a ploy to get permanent ones. I’m okay with that.”

                    Considering they do the exact same thing with tax hikes, I’d say this is fair.

                2. The tax rate went up you Team Blue shill. Jesus fucking christ you’re dense.

                  If the tax rate goes up, then taxes were raised.

                  1. We just went over this, I’m trying to have a civil conservation.

                    Reconcile the fact that R’s wouldn’t extend the (lower) payroll tax cut and D’s wouldn’t extend the upper tax cuts – so both raised taxes? Everyone raises taxes by your definition.

                    The only difference is who we raise taxes no then.

                    (But in reality, no one raised taxes. They cut them in january from the rates that were in effect at that time.)

                    1. I’m only civil to intelligent and honest people. You have repeatedly asserted that Obama has not raised taxes, and that in fact he has cut them. Either you are confused, or you are deliberately lying.

                      So which is it?

                    2. Dont forget the cigarette tax increase which was almost the first thing Obama did, which was a huge tax increase primarily on people making under 250k.

                    3. Oh I didn’t. He did that less then a month into his first term. That’s how long his “no tax hikes on the middle class” promise lasted.

                      Fuck him, and I hope all his supporters get sodomized by rapid ratels.

                    4. If we are talking about income/payroll taxes, obama has cut them.

                      I’m saying by your definition – that any not extended decrease is a vote to “increase” taxes, then EVERYONE has voted to increase them. Which is why I think your definition is silly.

                      In any case, the policies he was for would have resulted in lower income people (under 250k) owing less total in taxes than they do now – even if you include cig taxes, etc.

                      We all get that he wants to raise taxes on income over 250k. No one is arguing differently. But at the same time, no one can argue that R’s want lower taxes on people under 250k than D’s do, because we just settled this – R’s refused the payroll tax cut, whereas D’s wanted permanent rates AND payroll tax cuts – which would have resulted in lower rates. How many more times do we have to hear about “everyone should pay something” before we begin to believe they actually want that policy? I’m convinced.

                      The arguments over the semantics of “raise” and “cut” are ridiculous.

                    5. No one is arguing semantics but you shitstain.

                      Obama has raised taxes. Obamacare alone has 20 or so big tax hikes in it. So I don’t know the fuck you think you’re fooling.

                    6. He raises tax on incomes over 250k, lowers them under 250k.

                      We all know this is his policy.

                      Someone said he got republicans to raise taxes. That is incorrect.

                      No one said no taxes were EVER raised.

                      Calm down.

                3. Last year.

              2. Maybe I’m over thinking it, but I imagine a Sanders presidency would usher in some more Pauls and usher out some Boehners.

                Truthfully, I don’t think there’d be a whole lot of difference between the two administrations. I don’t think Sanders would actually be able to get congress to nationalize anything, but I also don’t think he’d be any better on civil liberties once he got control over the levers of power. You must remember that they can’t call you racist for opposing an old white dude.

            3. I am interested in the last two – i understand the other rankings. But:

              P Christie, C republican controlled

              is better than

              P Sanders, C democrat controlled

              ???

              When R and R is in charge, the spending continues/increases just like always – except its spent on absurd things like war that have no benefit at all. (And if we’re going to waste your money either way, wouldn’t you rather see some benefits around here?) Civil Liberties will be decimated as usual. I mean, patriot act? Medicare D? War+War? That was all R+R.

              Sure, under D+D the spending will not be to your liking, but objectively speaking, there is no difference between the amount of spending by D+D and R+R – just what you get for that money. Shiny new planes and bombs or some trains and R’s healthcare plan.

              At least sanders would veto these “patriot” acts and all that nonsense. Plus 40 republican senators shuts it all down anyways…not like anything would get done.

              So to the guy asking for gridlock, we’re going to have that until 60 D’s + prez-D get in power, or R+R get in power (dems provide no resistance, they tuck tail and don’t gridlock).

              1. except its spent on absurd things like war that have no benefit at all. (And if we’re going to waste your money either way, wouldn’t you rather see some benefits around here?)

                God I love it when some Team Retard comes in here to tell us why his Team is better than the other Team.

                1. Gun control.

                  No help in this scenario. Christie is Giuliani with 150 extra pounds. He and Sanders are probably pretty close on guns.

                  1. That’s why him with an R controlled congress won over Sanders with Ds.

                    He might not be that great, but as long as congress is R, gun rights are mostly safe. Though we must remain vigilant, whoever is in power.

                    1. I think you mean, as long as there are 40 R’s in the senate, or at least 30 + 10 rural D’s, guns are safe. Hell, the composition of the senate based on equal reps from 50 states ensure nothing will ever be done, regardless of the D or R after the name – the dakota’s aren’t turning into NY + NJ anytime soon.

                      IE, they will always be safe. It’s a non-issue.

                      Think about it. A whole kindergarten got chopped up and 50+ D’s couldn’t pass a law.

                      This isn’t the 90s anymore. Crime has decreased, no one cares about guns. I’m a liberal and I’m resigned to this fact.

                    2. Yeah you guys weren’t able to use emotion and propaganda to override reason on the gun thing. You know, like the playbook says to do.

                    3. You mean this gun control playbook?

                      Spiffy cover page it has, too.

                    4. This isn’t the 90s anymore. Crime has decreased, no one cares about guns. I’m a liberal and I’m resigned to this fact.

                      That’s what I heard right before the last election, but nothing like what I’ve been hearing for the last 8 months.

                      You’re out of your goddamned mind trying to feed us that horeshit about liberals not caring about guns. Unlike the low info pieces of crap that put your politicians in office, we actually pay attention and have a longer attentions span than a goldfish.

                      Don’t care about guns, that’s a fucking laugh. You fucking sicken me.

              2. Shiny new planes and bombs or some trains and R’s healthcare plan.

                Planes and bombs are at least legitimate functions of government. Trains and healthcare are not. There is your answer.

                1. If you build it, they will come.

                  More planes and bombs = more Iraqs.

                  They will find a use.

                  I know we all agree being an imperialist isn’t a legitimate function of government.

                  If we had a normal sized military, we’d think twice before using it.

                  I would think you would realize this – you all are aware of our “SWAT” teams now, yes? Invading homes for plants cause there really are no terrorists around?

                  How do you think the military is any different?

                  1. The correct size of the military is debatable.

                    That trains and healthcare are not legitimate functions of government, is not.

              3. objectively speaking, there is no difference between the amount of spending by D+D and R+R

                You really want to try that with Obamacare about to really take effect? Well, the parts Obama allows to take effect

          3. If you don’t mind me asking, did you/do you view voting for Obama as an endorsement of targeted assassinations of American citizens?

            Me? I’d stay home. Economic liberty is important.

            1. No, I have to engage in many things in life I find objectionable, if by “engage” you mean “unable to stop by my damnself.” By not living in a hut off the grid, I’m stuck paying for (and even personally contributing to) things like climate change, targeted killings, etc. All I can do is try to convince others to agree with me to get our leaders to stop while personally refraining from said activities in many different ways.

              What he is doing is disgusting. But I also know the other guy would be doing the exact same thing. (Plus, I know that D’s are pussies and will go with R plans, and then never end them so they don’t seem weak – but they don’t start these things as frequently as the R’s. It’s again, the lesser of two evils until we get an actual liberal – or an actual libertarian – to say “enough.”)

              We are never going to convince each other on economic issues, but I figured Obama was less worse when it comes to my goals than Romney was on economic issues. Which is why us liberals had to vote for him.

              Where we can do real damage is the same as you – in the primaries. I’d love to put a Sanders against any candidate of your choice and see what happens.

              1. But I also know the other guy would be doing the exact same thing.

                Bullshit. Most of the L presidential candidates in my lifetime wouldnt have done that exact same thing.

                1. I meant between the two choices I was given at the poll at that day. This is the system we use.

                  I don’t like it either.

                  But my voting for Obama is based on the circumstances I find myself in, not the circumstances I want to be in.

                  Hey, it’s fun to debate Sanders/Paul, but the levers are gonna say Clinton/Christie (or someone awful like him).

                  1. I meant between the two choices I was given at the poll at that day. This is the system we use.

                    I have never had only 2 choices, at least for President. In general, I have about 6.

                2. Most of the L presidential candidates in my lifetime wouldnt have done that exact same thing.

                  Neither would the homeless guy who eats rancid hot dogs out of the dumpster, and he has as much chance of becoming president as any L candidate.

                  1. I would vote for the homeless guy before most R and D candidates.

            2. But until then, I’m going to employ the strategy that conservatives has used to shift the overton window during the last few decades – kick the can a little bit at every chance. You guys are right, we accepted this ObamanationCare because its a step closer to single payer. So if that means holding my nose and voting D, so be it.

              Ok, my question to you: if R’s, when they are in power, are going to vote for the same volume of spending as the D’s (objectively true), why would you want anything but R’s + Sanders? This is the only time they actually cut spending! Gridlock is great for you guys!

              When was the only other time spending went down? Gingrich and Clinton? R + D?

              (Unless spending doesn’t matter, and only tax rates matter.)

              So, is it really about “economic liberty” or is it about R’s in power?

              (No proofreading, sorry.)

              1. Shorter from the shill

                *FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP * Obama! I love you.

                *tiny spurt of jizz leaks out onto ornately framed picture of Obama emerging from the waves on Vacation Number 412*

                1. My disgust for Obama isn’t apparent?

                  Do you appreciate when people assume you like Christie? Lookin’ forward to that in 16?

                  Hell, I’m gonna be stuck holding my nose for Clinton over Christie cause our desired Sanders/Paul matchup ain’t happening.

                  1. You voted for someone you are disgusted by?

                    So….what’s it like being so pathetic, so mentally broken, so utterly lacking in self respect or basic fucking dignity that you would support someone who disgusts you?

                    1. I wouldn’t vote for him in the primary.

                      But again, two roads. Pick one.

                      Or pick neither.

                      I just figured “least worse” was better than letting everyone else decide without my input.

                      I can only order what’s on the menu. Tomorrow I’ll write a letter and ask them to add new dishes.

                    2. I just figured “least worse” was better than letting everyone else decide without my input.

                      And this is why you are stuck choosing the lesser of two evils. You are unprincipled.

                    3. Sure buddy.

                      Hey, we got a step forward with some medicaid expansion.

                      How’s the libertarian project makin out?

                    4. How is stealing a step forward?

                      You are immoral.

                    5. PS. You seem to have some sort of rage issue.

                    6. I’d rather be intelligent and angry then stupid and calm. Or dishonest. Are you going to admit you were wrong about Obama raising taxes?

                    7. What was I wrong about? The contention was made that obama got republicans to raise taxes, I said that wasn’t true – and no one has proven differently.

                      No one disagrees that A) obama would raise taxes on higher incomes, and B) obama wants taxes lower on low incomes, even lower than republicans will accept – and even including cig taxes.

                      The rest is some sort of semantics game you’re hung up on for reasons beyond me.

                      We all know what he’s for – and in this case it’s the liberal desire. Higher total taxes on higher incomes, lower total taxes on lower incomes. It’s called “progressive.” Guilty as charged.

                      How about this: if we cut the tax rate under 50k to ZERO, but increased the tax rate on income over 500k so that we made up 90% of the lost revenue, it would still be a 10% overall tax cut. Would you be for that?

                    8. We all know what he’s for – and in this case it’s the liberal desire. Higher total taxes on higher incomes, lower total taxes on lower incomes. It’s called “progressive.” Guilty as charged.

                      Except the very first tax he raised hit lower income people harder. Do you not understand that or are you willfully obtuse?

                      Oh, and bigotry is always ugly. No matter how it’s directed, it’s a disgusting sight. Your envy and hatred of those who make more money then you is just as repugnant to me as homophobia or racism.

                    9. AGAIN, the TOTAL tax changes he asked for for poorer people SO FAR are a larger cut than the R’s position of no cig tax and no payroll tax.

                      Are you obtuse?

                      Will you admit now R’s are for increased taxes on the poor? They were against the payroll tax cut! That is worse than the VOLUNTARY cig tax! And will cost people MORE!

                      I have no hatred of those who make more then I do. And how do you know how much I make?

                      I’m for equality: tax everyone’s first dollar at the same rate, tax everyone’s 100,000th dollar at the same rate, and tax everyone’s 1,000,000th dollar at the same rate.

                      I don’t hear anyone screaming how unfair the FICA tax is, that it must be changed so that it taxes each and every dollar the exact same rate, etc, etc, etc. So why would I care if my first dollar is taxed at 0% and my 1,000,000th dollar is taxed at 50%? It’s fair because you all pay the same rate on each piece of your income.

                      Or should I scream that sales taxes are horrific because the “effective” rate is higher on poorer people?

                      I’m not worried about poor people smoking – they can quit. I don’t think it’s fair that we have to pay for their diseases – and if the ambulance shows up, they get treated.

                    10. PS. You have to love that the libertarians one great benefit to the poorest people in this country is cheaper cigarettes.

                      Not any social program that has shown to end poverty – cheap cigs.

                      Let them eat…er, smoke!

                    11. How about this: if we cut the tax rate under 50k to ZERO, but increased the tax rate on income over 500k so that we made up 90% of the lost revenue, it would still be a 10% overall tax cut. Would you be for that?

                      no

                    12. Ok, why not?

                      The government would be taking in less revenue – er, “stealing less by force” or whatever.

                    13. Your plan steals from one group and redistributes the loot to another, buying votes in the process. Your entire philosophy is immoral.

              2. Because P: Sanders + C: D’s = all out spending binge and regulatory overload.

                1. Regulations and spending increased under the R+R administrations did they not?

                  Everyone calls for stimulus when they’re in charge – see Bush, GW and Ryan, Paul. They vote for all the spending, etc.

                  It’s only when the other guy is in charge that they suddenly do an about face.

                  I get if L gets into office, all bets off. But we’re talking D and R in reality. Sanders ain’t winnin. Neither is Paul.

              3. When was the only other time spending went down? Gingrich and Clinton?

                Federal spending went up every single year during the Clinton administration, so Gingrich and Clinton NEVER teamed up to bring spending down. Not even a one year blip.

                1993 1409.39 billion
                1994 1461.75
                1995 1515.74
                1996 1560.48
                1997 1601.12
                1998 1652.46
                1999 1701.84
                2000 1788.95
                2001 1862.85

                1. Looking prior to Clinton:

                  1964 to 1965, spending went from 118.5 to 118.3 billion.
                  1953 to 1954 to 1955, it went 79.99 to 77.69 to 73.44.
                  And a long fall off from 1945 to 1948 for obvious reasons.

                  So not counting end of WW2, the only multiyear decrease in federal spending was early Eisenhower. And that turned around after 1955.

                  1. 1953-54 was de-mobilization from the Korean War.

                2. Talking the deficit, as a percent of GDP, etc. Or at least “increased more slowly.”

                  When has it ever happened besides R+Dprez?

                  Wouldn’t this be your idea situation in reality?

                  R+R is bad news for you guys. D+D too.

    3. Pretty sure Chris Christie won’t nationalize the nation’s banks and oil companies while jacking taxes up on everyone.

      So Christie.

      1. We have a congress, right? Enough with the theatrics. No one wants to nationalize banks/oil companies – even sanders.

        1. He is a declared socialist. So either he doesn’t know what that word means, is lying, or actually does want to nationalize companies.

          God, you are really really unclear on the meanings of common words, aren’t you?

          1. Damn squirrels. Short of it:

            Beck claims he’s a libertarian.

            I believe actions, not words.

            1. Which is not a rebuttal at all.

              Curious though, that you would refer to squirrels. Unless you’re a long time lurker, I think you just gave yourself away.

              1. That squirrels run the internet? That meme originated here? I thought it was common.

                Anyways, socialists laugh at sanders calling himself a socialist. He’s a liberal but uses “socialist” to set himself apart.

                Like Beck calling himself a “libertarian” instead of a conservative.

                Hell obama called himself a liberal/progressive. He’s a neoliberal.

                So labels – even if you pick one for yourself – mean nothing. Policies and actions only.

        2. We have a congress, right?

          The guy you voted for is working on eliminating that obstacle.

          Though I would agree that BO doesn’t want to nationalize banks or energy — just milk them for campaign cash and cushy jobs for his cronies. More of a fascist than a socialist, though the difference is minor in practice.

      2. With great reluctance, I must agree: Christie would tap hydrocarbon resources and not nationalize stuff. His SCOTUS appointments would be better. I think he’d cut foreign aid and take a hatchet to the Department of Education. That’s all the good I can get out of him but it’s more than Sanders.

        1. Weigh that against continued privacy abuses. Which is worse?

          Would you rather end the patriot act and drone strikes or the DOE?

          1. The DOE, since unlike the privacy violations that actually affects people in day to day life.

      3. Christie will never get the Republican nomination.

        1. Neither would Romney.

          1. Ok you got me.

            Christie might win the Republican nomination in 2020 after he loses it in 2016.

    4. I’d have to go with Sanders over Christie.

      Although the SCOTUS appointments give me great, great pause.

      1. Huh…I hadn’t thought of that angle.

        He’d appoint guys that were great on civil liberties, but not great for you guys on economics.

        But at the same time, how much room is there to expand? It’s been decided that gov’t can tax anything, make you buy health insurance, provide anything it wants, etc. Not much would change. I guess there just wouldn’t be any cuts.

        1. Why would Sanders appoint people good on civil liberties? Kagans and Sotomayors?

          In general, his votes in the Senate are fairly good in that respect, but I don’t see why that has any bearing on his appointments. Obama had a couple of decent votes on civil liberties, too, didn’t he? (besides “PRESENT!”)

          1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs

            God that Obama guy was going to be awesome wasn’t he? What happened to him?

            1. It’s gonna be great as soon as he gets inaugurated. He’s going to close Gitmo on day one, close the CIA prisons, stop raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, make sure the government isn’t assassinating people without due process, or spying on all our communications. He’s going to stop the IRS being used for political purposes, going to make sure we’re respected on the world stage, and that whistle blowers are protected. He’ll lead the MOST OPEN AND TRANSPARENT administration in history!

              Yup, just have to hold out until the inauguration! Then it all changes!

              1. Last week I saw one of those 1 20 09 Bushes Last Day stickers.

                Remember those?

                1. Next to an endless/end this war sticker?

                  1. Yep. Along with Kerry, Obama 08, and Obama 12 stickers.

                    No Coexist though…

                    1. So, given the age, it’s obviously not a Prius. I’m guessing no NPR sticker. So… Subaru Outback seems too… practical. I’m going with Toyota Corolla.

                    2. Nah Civic hatchback.

          2. Because he actually believes these things, much like libertarians. You share the same views on these issues. I understand presidents have to sign some legislation that they don’t agree with, but they can nominate anyone they want to the SCOTUS. Congress doesn’t get to write their personality.

            How is your criticism any more fair than saying Rand paul would nominate John Roberts?

            1. I understand presidents have to sign some legislation that they don’t agree with

              False.

              Again, you are wrong about basic facts.

              1. Imprecise language. A bill is made up of many smaller pieces of legislation wrapped into one – usually. So along with the shit they like, all presidents end up singing legislation they don’t agree with, if they think the parts they do agree with are more important.

                But yes, I guess he could veto everything and make all legislation pass with a 2/3rds majority.

                That would be one way to shut down the government and end you term in exactly 4 years while dooming your party to the woods for a few decades.

                Hell, I might vote Paul afterall!

                1. But yes, I guess he could veto everything and make all legislation pass with a 2/3rds majority.

                  That would be one way to shut down the government and end you term in exactly 4 years while dooming your party to the woods for a few decades.

                  Like noted one-term wonder Franklin Roosevelt, who vetoed 635 bills, and caused the destruction of the Democratic Party?

                  1. Different situation and world.

                    But I hope y’all give it a try this time around.

                    1. Goal posts moved.

    5. LP candidate (assuming it’s not someone like Barr) in that scenario. If I had to vote for either one or die, I would go based on GBN’s different scenarios. Sanders with a Democratic Congress would be absolutely awful, but I think a Republican Congress would block the worst of his positions, and I think he’d be a better executive on things like civil liberties than Christie would

      1. Voting R or D in CA for a presidential election is a huge waste of time and energy.

        1. Ditto in every single state.

  42. Because the threads are a mess up there…

    He WANTS an evil authoritarian government to destroy him when he waves his fist in defiance and shouts a defense of the press and of freedom in iambic pentameter.

    I don’t know if you intend this to sound like a negative attribute for Greenwald, but dammit we could sure as hell use 10 more like him in the mainstream media. With the bullshit the universities preach about journalism, every kid that graduates from j-school should come out with this sort of attitude.

    1. I don’t know if you intend this to sound like a negative attribute for Greenwald

      No, I see it as a huge positive.

      Narcissism, like greed, works.

      Narcissism might just save the USA.

      With the bullshit the universities preach about journalism, every kid that graduates from j-school should come out with this sort of attitude.

      Agreed.

      It’s telling, after all, that “egomaniac” is also what they call Snowden. And the Pauls.

  43. Holy fucking shit. Glenn, I hope you go after them with all the force rage gives you. Fuck those goddam fucking thugs.

    Fuel.

    RAGE* salsa:

    3 large (slicing) tomatoes
    1/2 large white onion
    2 raw habanero peppers, capped and seeded
    Pinch of fresh cilantro (or to taste)
    2 tsp cumin
    1 tsp Cayenne pepper
    1 tsp Ancho chile powder
    1 tsp Dave’s Ghost Pepper sauce (optional)
    Juice of two fresh limes
    Coarse (coarse!) non-iodized salt to taste
    1/2 cup white vinegar
    1/4 cup blue agave syrup (or your preferred sweetener)
    1 shot premium tequila

    Place all ingredients in food processor and pulse ten times or to desired consistency. Serve with toasted tortilla chips and limed bottles of Corona while drowning in desert sun. Savor. Feed your rage.

    *Do NOT put garlic in my fucking salsa. Garlic is gay.**

    **NTTAWWT

    1. sweetener in salsa? hellz to the no.

  44. Since P Brooks’ ghost has successful de-threaded the thread: Scorsese is teaming up with De Niro and Joe Pesci to make another mob movie next year about Jimmy Hoffa, The Teamsters, and the mob.

    1. a mob movie about mobsters you say?

      1. No, that was Danny DeVito, who did an amazing job, IMO.

  45. It’s amazing to me that the Brazilian government gave a huge shit about this. Does Greenwald have some sort of special influence that allows him to marshal them to his or his partner’s defense? Can any resident of Brazil get this sort of service from the government? I think if anyone else had called them and told them that someone they love is being detained in another country, I can’t imagine much being done about it.

    1. My guess is political opportunism. The Brazilian foreign policy is generally anti-American/anti-Western; it just so happens that an America ally is on the wrong side this time.

    2. It’s amazing to me that the Brazilian government gave a huge shit about this.

      huh?

      Pretty sure every South American country salivates at chances to shove its finger in the face of England.

      Here is a map of every nation Britain has invaded:

      http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/med…..477456.jpg

      1. Uhhh…when did England invade Canada? Note: anything before Canada existed as a nation doesnt count.

        1. Well by that logic then the British conquest of India doesn’t count, because when they invaded it was a punch of different political units.

          1. Exactly.

            They invaded whatever they invaded, which wasnt India.

            1. This is stupid. Just because the British forcibly centralized what was previously not just one country doesn’t mean they didn’t invade the place.

              1. Place != nation.

                1. Nor does nation = country. At this point, you’re arguing semantics. The point of Corning’s map was to show all the places where the British Empire has invaded over the years – not necessarily just places that Britain has invaded since that place has been a unified nation-state – and how the people of those places might not like the British as a result. As such, it’s irrelevant whether or not India was one country when the British conquered it. Ditto for any of the places they conquered in Africa and many other places.

                  1. you’re arguing semantics

                    Yes, and?

                    He said nation.

                    1. Nation and country are not the same thing. There , but was no country of India prior to British invasion, but you could definitely make the argument there was a nation. Not to mention, down below, you make the argument that “proto-Indians and proto-Canadians can rightfully bitch, but India and Canada can’t.” There are no proto-Indians or proto-Canadians around anymore. You’re essentially saying Indians and Indigenous Canadians today can’t bitch, even though they’re descended from the people invaded by the British, because those places were not called “India” or “Canada” at the time. That is ridiculous.

          2. The proto-Indians and proto-Canadians can rightfully bitch, but India and Canada cant.

            The USA, on the other hand, has 1776-1781 and 1812-1814. We have been invaded by the Brits.

            1. I think the Native Canadians (they have some other PC term, I forget it) and the Quebecois can bitch, but not the Anglo Canadians.

              1. Don’t forget Cajuns in New Orleans, they’re actually the descendants of Acadian settlers forced out of Canada by the British.

            2. The Indians (in India) of today are the descendants of the Indians at the time of the British invasion.

              Most Americans of today are not descendants of the Americans at the time of either British invasion.

              1. Not sure what that has to do with nations being invaded, however.

                I expect a first generation american citizen to acknowledge his american history back to 1776, regardless of his heritage.

                1. Not to mention, Kentucky wasn’t part of the US when it was invaded by the UK in 1776. Of course in 1812 they only invaded after the US invaded their territory in Canada….

            3. To be fair, the U.S. started the whole War of 1812 business. For totally legitimate reasons (British disruption of American trade with Europe and their funding of Indian raids) but you did invade their colony first.

        2. The British conquered the French colonies of New France, as well as the more independent Acadian settlements in the Seven Years War. The settlers of New France were known as ‘Canadiens’ and are seen as the beginnings of Canadian nationalism.

          Also, ‘Canada’ has historically been used to both describe the nation and, much earlier, the region. ‘Canada’ comes from Kanata, an Iroquois term that means ‘village’ but European explorers assumed that was the region’s name. Hence why later colonies were called Upper and Lower Canada, Canada West and East, etc.

      2. If I recall well my History classes, Brazil has never been invaded by Britain. Portugal has always been a strong British ally, as a matter of fact; they even helped the Portuguese kick out the Dutch, unfortunately.

      3. Considering all the invasions of the British Island that have occurred, I think the Brits have a legit “I learned it from watching you” argument.

        Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Vikings, Normans, Spanish (failed), Dutch.

        Im sure I missed a bunch too.

        Everyone with the ability to float a boat has invaded that island.

        1. Uh, every region with a decent amount of arable land (and a lot of them without) has been invaded many times in human history.

          1. Uh, every region with a decent amount of arable land (and a lot of them without) has been invaded many times in human history.

            Exactly my point.

            1. So you wouldn’t mind if Virginia invaded Kentucky? How bout Illinois invading Kentucky?

        2. well this has gone off the rails.

          Legit question:

          Are Portuguese Hispanic?

          1. No. Hispanic comes from Latin Hispania=Spain.

            1. It takes a lot of education to be that stupid.

  46. They’re setting up a countermeme that Greenwald is a monster because he “put his loved one in harm’s way”.

    They’re completely oblivious to the fact that Miranda was only in harm’s way if you assume Obama is evil.

    If Obama’s not evil, Miranda was just on a plane flight, and not in harm’s way at all.

    1. Hints of the Zimmerman caused the incident by getting out of his car.

  47. Just seeing this now, while the nightly news is on in the background. Nothing. An update on Princess Diana, though! That’s much more important.

    1. I heard she’s still dead. It it true?

      1. Why did Princess Diana cross the road?

        She wasn’t wearing her seatbelt.

      2. God I hope so.

        1. So you want babies to die from land mines?

          Monster.

          1. If we get to bring somebody back from the dead, I vote Norman Borlaug before some titled British twit with a giant schnoz.

  48. They’re setting up a countermeme that Greenwald is a monster because he “put his loved one in harm’s way”.

    What do they say about the First Wimminz jet-setting all over the bloody globe? Shouldn’t the Paternalist-in-Chief be keeping them locked in the White House basement in proof of his love?

    1. Yup, remember Bubba sending Hillary directly into sniper fire in Bosnia?

  49. So I’m visiting Berkeley today where Occupy’s big issue is post office privatization. That’s not a joke. Well, it is a joke, but it’s also true.

    1. Occupy loves the Post Office because they pay $60 grand a year to drive around (for half the day, tops – the rest of the day you hang out at the park) and place mail in receptacles.

      That’s the reward-to-value-created ratio they think all unskilled labor should command.

      1. Well, McD’s pays 40k a year in other countries (minimum), so why is 60k unreasonable in the richest country the world has ever known?

        I just can’t believe that you guys think it’s reasonable to pay people $5/day, to live on that.

        Ever been to a country where you make 40k minimum? Nice places (except for the weather). Didn’t see people crying in the street about socialism. Or anyone lying in the street for that matter. They all just seemed…happy.

        I guess we just have different worldviews.

        1. Every single McDonalds worker, including the ones with special needs, contribute more to the economy then the entire US postal service.

          1. What economic analysis are you using to determine this?

            So, if mcdonalds shut down tomorrow, we’d be worse off than if the post office shut down tomorrow?

            Why is it the public is against the USPS changing its operating hours but no one cares that McD’s gets to choose their own hours?

            1. If people love the Post Office so much and want the postal workers to earn a lot more, then why don’t people pay a lot more for the service?

              1. We do every time they increase their prices. I would pay more for everything if it meant higher wages for all.

                I’ve been to countries like this. Shit is expensive in Denmark! But it workers better than this mess.

                1. We do every time they increase their prices. I would pay more for everything if it meant higher wages for all.

                  Bullshit.

                  1. Pretty sure this is opinion, so you can’t call bullshit.

                    I would pay more for everything.

                    In fact, to conserve resources, I moved to a place where food, gas, housing, insurance, healthcare, and everything else is more expensive.

                    I put my money where my mouth was. My housing cost has more than tripled (desirable but efficient area), gas and food are 10% higher, etc.

                    But our co2 consumption has dropped dramatically. At least in half from what i can figure.

                    And we would pay more if that meant decent wages for everyone.

                    Literally, go see how much a burger is in Europe. Big Max Index. Economist. Google.

                    1. You are free to pay more for things if you wish. You are not free to make me pay more for things against my will.

                2. The ironic thing about the Denmark comment is that both the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute rank it as having a freer economy than the US

                  1. Does not compute.

                    What you guys “think” freedom means isn’t what the rest of the world “thinks” freedom means.

                    Just because I cant pour chemicals into the water out back doesn’t mean I’m a slave. Just because I have other fellow citizens who might have different desires (ie, not hear music at 3am) doesn’t mean I’m not “free.” Just because I can’t stick my healthcare or poverty costs on others by neglecting to prepay them when able doesn’t mean I’m not “free.”

                    But this is what it comes down to. It’s not about economic efficiency or any of that – this is about what you guys think is “freedom.” And it sucks, but we live in something resembling something like a democratic society (hey no ones perfect right?) and we kinda agree that it’s not “slavery” to pay taxes.

                    1. The studies I’m talking about are from pro-free market institutes. I’m not talking about studies from leftist outlets that view government healthcare as increasing economic freedom. My point is that you’re trying to argue that the US is some sort of libertarian capitalist ideal state, and then contrast that to your preferred vision, and I’m pointing out that some of the countries you’re talking about have economies closer to the libertarian ideal than the US does. Denmark may have higher taxes than the US, and universal health care, but there are other areas where the Danish government does not burden the economy as much as the US (and state and local) government does, which makes up for that.

                3. Your biggest issue is you get cause and effect backward: Greater productivity creates higher wages, not the other way around.

                  1. Prove it.

                    Prove it doesn’t work both ways.

                    Have you read the studies? Where higher wages causes less turnover which leads to less time training new employees which leads to more actual work being done by previously trained employees?

                    Where happiness leads to higher productivity on the job? Less sick days, less theft, etc?

                    You ever think it’s a two way street? Or more accurately, two paths that go to the same place?

                    Seriously, go read the studies. Google them. You’ll see what I mean.

                    Let me give you a thought experiment: imgaine all labor was free. Do you think we’d have tractors? Just get a million guys to dig with their hands – remember labor is free. And unlimited. Why try to increase productivity with tools, etc? There are a cost to those.

                    When labor costs more than a tool, you get someone to use the tool and they become more productive.

                    Again, the economics here are not good.

                    1. Prove it doesn’t work both ways.

                      WET STREETS CAUSE RAIN!!!!! PAUL KRUGMAN AGREES!!!! SUCK IT LIBERTARDIANS LOL

            2. See, it’s very simple. Try to keep up with it moron.

              2012 Profits

              USPS -15.9 billion
              MCD 5.5 billion

              Then we divide profits by employees.

              USPS 522,144
              MCD 1800000

              So the USPS “earns” -30451 dollars per employee, while MCD creates 3055 per employee.

              1. Ugh…this is so bad.

                If you want to talk about productivity per employee, ok, go right ahead. Divide revenue per employee. Not that that would be useful – government policies admittedly distort every market, so it’s not like we have the “true” price of anything. Labor policy, externalities, protectionism, regulations, etc. So we can’t even determine who is more “productive” – otherwise you’re going to be up here arguing how productive lawyers are!

                But profit is different. A dollar after other costs either goes to labor or to capital – ie, wages or profit. How that distribution is set up by each company, by each industry, etc, etc, etc, distorts how much each person “earns” – once again, not a good idea.

                How about you look at a start-up – they lose money every single year at the beginning – which in your world I guess means they aren’t productive? Meanwhile they could be employing capital to come up with productivity enhancing processes which will pay dividends to society for years!

                Listen, let’s not start with the bad economics here. This isn’t going to go well.

                1. But profit is different. A dollar after other costs either goes to labor or to capital – ie, wages or profit.

                  I am actually laughing aloud here. My roommate just asked what was so funny.

                  Every single word you just typed is wrong. Then you tell me not to start with bad economics?

                  1. It’s telling that you couldn’t explain anything…i’ve seen ignorant people laugh at things they didn’t understand before, you’re not the first.

                    Econ is hard to understand. Keep your heads down, work hard, ask enough questions, and you’ll eventually get it…i hope.

                    1. You can’t explain Insane Troll Logic.

                      Just for one thing, you claim that profits are capital. This is incorrect. A dog is not a cat, and profits are not capital.

                      You don’t even know what the words you are using mean.

            3. So, if mcdonalds shut down tomorrow, we’d be worse off than if the post office shut down tomorrow?

              correct

              1. I imagine people will still find fast food.

                You think all mail delivery is worthless I take it.

                Then why does anyone use it?

                Be careful of the catch 22…

                1. Correct. Worthless. Why would anyone need it?

                2. Uh, because USPS holds a public monopoly on mail-carrying protected by federal law? You think Fedex couldn’t handle the highly complex task of mail delivery if it wasn’t a federal crime for them to do so?

            4. “Why is it the public is against the USPS changing its operating hours but no one cares that McD’s gets to choose their own hours?

              Maybe because paychecks, bills and time sensitive materials don’t get passed along with fucking Big Macs.

        2. Hmm, haven’t seen anyone lying in the street here, for that matter, because of capitalism.

          If you are actually interested, you should read the volumes of libertarian works on the subject of labor and its worth.

          1. I see people with mental diseases lying but a few blocks from my house that are of no use to a capitalist system. Literally, they are unemployable – even at full employment, even beyond NAIRU, and as such capitalism has made them homeless.

            What makes you assume that I haven’t read any/all of them, but just have determined that there are flaws in the reasoning they provide?

            1. WTF good would a $40,000/year min wage do for the mental?

              1. My point was the capitalist system does not provide for everyone – as opposed to what I was told here. Its just objectively not true.

                Now that we can agree on that, we can begin to discuss the fact that IQ is a range, and a million other factors go into determining how much people earn, and that it’s not all proportionate to their skill, nor does capitalism “necessarily” provide for everyone. There are the working poor – who would still be the working poor if we removed all the regulations, the minimum wage, etc, etc, etc. There is a reason that things were worse before we had those labor protections, and why no where in the world are things better without them. Yet we can find places in the world that are even better off with these regulations.

                I mean, have you even been to these (not actually) socialist hellholes? Pretty damn nice…

                So even if people were paid exactly in proportion to their “productivity” or “usefulness” I would still disagree with the system. And so would the gross majority of our fellow citizens.

                Which is why you guys won’t win the economic argument. No one wants to go back to child labor and scrip for the company shop.

                1. My point was the capitalist system does not provide for everyone

                  Sure it does, everyone gets in proportion to their production.

                  And if I want to nit-pick, which I do, no economic system provides for anyone. People provide for people, either for themselves or for others. And sometimes God provides, but that is hard to measure, as its usually not in the obvious form of manna.

                  1. But that’s not true either. There will always be distortions in the market – public and private, even in anarchy – that ensure people don’t get exactly in proportion to their production. That’s objectively false.

                    So now you’re stuck determining how far from “exactly” we actually end up. I’d say, “pretty far” from what I’ve seen.

                    Do teachers get paid in the exact amount of their production?

                    I’ve run a sorting machine faster than everyone else in the building, yet was paid the least because I had the least seniority. The company didn’t “have” to pay the others more. But if it such a discrepancy could exist in my firm, what leads you to believe that it doesn’t exist economy wide?

                    I mean, what you said is just silly.

                    You’ve never met a lazy employee?

                    Firms can effect wages. Unions can effect wages. Government can effect wages. Chance effects wages. Unknown biases internalized in individuals effect wages.

                    Let’s not get into bad economics please…

                    1. Everyone gets in proportion to their production. I was going to point out not necessarily the same proportion, but I thought that was obvious and didnt need to be stated.

                      I guess not.

                    2. But even that’s not true. Or i guess, it’s true in the sense that everything is a “proportion” – ie, 1/10, 1/100, 2/1, etc – all “proportions.”

                      But not what is usually meant when one says “in proportion to their production.”

                      In “varying” proportions to their production maybe? In that case you sentence is meaningless. It would also be correct to say people get paid varying amounts that are in no consistent way related to their production.

                      People get paid based on supply and demand – and in many cases it has nothing to do with their production, but instead factors like government or private intervention, etc.

                      My point is still the same – the capitalist system does not guarantee a position for each person to even meet a minimum standard of living. And no one that understands capitalism would argue that.

                    3. “I’ve run a sorting machine faster than everyone else in the building, yet was paid the least because I had the least seniority.”

                      Uh, yeah, welcome to “Organized Labor”, jackass.

                      Come back and whine the same bullshit at me when you’ve worked that same amount of time busting your ass in unsafe warehouse conditions to earn lazy teamster assholes their paychecks for them while they sit around and look at their cellphones.

                2. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 8:47PM |#
                  “My point was the capitalist system does not provide for everyone – as opposed to what I was told here. Its just objectively not true.”

                  OK, you must have found a blue-light special on the straw men. No way you could afford them without the specials.

            2. If there are people who care so much about those who “are of no use to a capitalist system” (your words, not mine), then what’s to stop them from pooling their time and resources to assist them?

              1. That’s called church.

                And it doesn’t work.

                Considering it exists now.

                And doesn’t work.

                Have you been places where they have solutions that work?

                I mean, we can all agree that not everyone is an amazing person. Why haven’t we stopped global warming – when there are activists who care?

                1. That’s called church.

                  And it doesn’t work.

                  Yes it does.

                  There is a reason nearly every hospital in my city has a (currently nominal) religious affiliation. Of, at least, a name that reflects that former affiliation.

                  1. Plenty of hospitals don’t.

                    Is that really your argument?

                    There are still homeless people and people without healthcare. Even with churches and people who care.

                    If charity would solve the problem, it would be doing so at the time when our country was wealthier than it ever has been in the history of the world.

                    It is not.

                    But democracy works in other places.

                    You should visit.

            3. Socialism tends to hide it’s consequences, like with the warehousing of the mentally ill in Sweden.

              http://mises.org/daily/6476/

              1. Who is talking about socialism?

                I’m talking about capitalism and democracy. Like other countries have employed.

            4. …”capitalism has made them homeless.”…

              No, they did that themselves.

              1. There are plenty of people who are not valuable enough to our capitalist system that they would end up homeless. I guess I should put that in the present tense…

                Unless you consider living under a bridge a house. Tell me, why do you guys assume that everyone would be useful enough to our economy to afford a home, even if we got rid of building codes? I mean, the house with the lowest cost is called a “tent” or a “bridge.” And I’d consider that “homeless” as we are discussing it.

                1. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 9:00PM |#
                  “There are plenty of people who are not valuable enough to our capitalist system that they would end up homeless. I guess I should put that in the present tense…”

                  No, you should put that in the irrelevant tense.

                2. Have you ever given thought to the effect minimum wage laws have on keeping people from being able find employment?

                  Assuming these homeless people would rather work for a wage than pan handle, if minimum wage laws did not exist, they would have a much better chance of finding employment. If no one wants to hire them, that means they do not offer a value to a business which outweighs the minimum wage they must be payed plus other regulations a business must follow when employing somebody.

                  1. Yes, it has no effect, because minimum wages laws don’t have an effect on employment. Again, see the meta-studies on this issue.

                    Not only that, empirically, look at countries around the world with higher minimum wages – through either labor law or union agreements – and you can see many that have lower unemployment than countries that have lower minimum wages or even NO minimum wage.

                    By definition, if the minimum wage is constricting employment, that means the wage paid to these people would be below the current minimum wage. So now we’re talking about people trying to live on even less than 7/hr. And many of those people are already homeless and without healthcare, etc.

                    No one wants to hire them right now not because the minimum wage is too high, but because we face an aggregate demand shortfall.

                  2. One other logical conclusion – if there was no minimum wage and you could hire two people to work for 3.50/hr, why would you? If there is only enough work for one person to do right now, why hire a second? Why not just cut the pay of the one you have down to 3.50/hr and pocket the difference?

                    Employment wouldn’t increase at all. You only hire someone when you need more help – ie you will receive more revenue than the person will cost. The problem right now is that demand is so low, no one needs to hire because there aren’t any more customers coming in. And cutting wages for employees now and taking the difference as profit is only going to make it worse – ie, the marginal propensity to consume.

                    Places that have tried grinding wage deflation – which is what you’re asking for – haven’t had better recoveries. In fact they’ve been worse. Again, all this knowledge is available on google.

                    I get that you guys have this alternative view of econ that doesn’t exist in reality because it wouldn’t be compatible with your philosophy, so I don’t expect you to understand a word of what I said.

                    Which is why you guys really shouldn’t be discussing econ here.

            5. I see people with mental diseases lying but a few blocks from my house that are of no use to a capitalist system. Literally, they are unemployable – even at full employment, even beyond NAIRU, and as such capitalism has made them homeless.

              Then why don’t you help them?

              1. The same reason I cannot stop global warming.

                Do you not all realize that there would be no homelessness if you were correct? That individuals would just help them? But that’s not what has happened.

                Have you been to countries that do not have homelessness like we do, but still have capitalism? It’s not the churches or random individuals…

                I’m worried about the world I live in. If we ever get to the perfect society with all useful, brilliant individuals where no one has any bad luck, I’ll admit, your philosophy would be perfect.

                Ron Paul 2096!

                1. Then why don’t you help them?

                  It would rather press-gang us and others. That’s what it exists for.

                  That individuals would just help them? But that’s not what has happened.

                  That’s exactly what happened when the government stayed out of the way. Major cities were chock-a-block with help organizations. Everyone could get the healthcare. Then cunts like you started taking power.

                2. What is it with leftists thinking that other countries have no poverty or social problems of any kind? Many of these countries they hold up as some sort of ideal (UK, Sweden, etc.) have had far more social unrest from the underclasses than the US has is recent years

                  1. The UK has three times the violent crime of the US, as another example.

                    Fact is, leftists are people who think that the semester they spent drinking and fucking in a European city makes them experts on the whole country that city is located in.

                    1. I’ve been hanging out on a forum based in Finland, and it’s funny to read the ne arrivals to the country bitch about the way Finland does things and then accuse the Finns of racism for saying that’s Finnish culture.

                      There are quite a few who really hate the idea of foreigners ending up on the social welfare system, too.

                    2. 4X

                  2. At least European countries have common sense gun control that prevents mass shootings of helpless children.

                  3. The UK! Who said the UK! That place is awful. Because it is just like the US in way too many ways.

                    I have specifically said Denmark is one example. Have any of you been?

                    1. Many liberals do view the UK that way. So is Denmark your only example? As I have stated several times, Denmark’s economy is actually freer than the US’s. The US is not a libertarian capitalist ideal, and Denmark is not a totally socialist state. Quit talking about stupid stereotypes and actually make a coherent argument. What is it about Denmark that sets it apart from other countries with high taxes and universal health care? Why aren’t they all that prosperous?

                    2. “As I have stated several times, Denmark’s economy is actually freer than the US’s.”

                      Which is why i don’t understand what y’all are complainin about! I am not against markets! Neither is denmark! They just use a little democracy to correct some of the inefficiencies in the market instead of relying on demonstrably false dogmas.

                      And whaddaya know, they end up with better outcomes than we do!

                      This is why they are more prosperous than others – they educate their people to the best of their abilities to make them productive (free college if you get in), they pay mothers to stay home and raise kids (poverty isn’t productive), they have a high level of unionization so that people who work aren’t poor (minimum wages end up $20/hr, poverty isn’t productive), they have universal healthcare and a safety net (poverty isn’t productive), they retrain you when you are unemployed (better than taking your food and cutting you off – poverty isn’t productive), etc.

                      Basically, you don’t get blamed for being out of work, and you they help you get back to being productive. And they made sure you don’t have to “overcome” poverty from birth just to get back to the starting line.

                      And they end up being the happiest people on earth. With low unemployment.

                      Except the few libertarians that would rather live in mexico because FREEDOM.

                    3. None of the things you mention are the reason for Denmark’s prosperity. There are plenty of other countries in the world that offer free education, free health care, etc. that are less wealthy than Denmark. Denmark was a wealthy country before they adopted all these policies. On Heritage’s Index, Denmark scores higher than the U.S. on property rights, freedom from corruption, investment freedom, financial freedom, trade freedom, monetary freedom, and business freedom. The U.S. scores higher on government spending (meaning it spends less) and fiscal freedom (lower taxes), and has slightly more labor freedom (meaning fewer regulations regarding labor – but as indicated by the scores in other areas, Denmark’s economy has less regulation overall).

                      Also, by any objective measure, the standard of living in Denmark is not vastly superior to the standard of living in the U.S. Human Development Indices, Quality of Life Indices, etc. are flawed, but they all put the U.S. pretty close to Denmark. It’s also pretty stupid to assume any difference is purely due to difference in policy. Denmark is a small, homogenous country of less than 6 million people. The U.S. is a large, diverse country of over 300 million people. Wisconsin alone has a larger population than Denmark.

                    4. Huh, I just read that Denmark actually has the freest labor market in the world, and that more workers are wanting to bargain individually rather than collectively.

                      Interestingly, their current unemployment level is 7.4%.

                    5. Also, what libertarian holds up Mexico as some sort of model of liberty?

                    6. The UK! Who said the UK! That place is awful.

                      WAHHHH!!!! My cherry picked example is the one you have to rebut. No fair bringing up counterexamples I can’t refute. WAHHHHHH

                3. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 9:04PM |#
                  “The same reason I cannot stop global warming.”

                  “global warming” is so 2010!
                  There’s a reason it’s no longer called that. And there’s yet to be demonstrated a reason why it should be ‘stopped’, as if it could be.

                4. The same reason I cannot stop global warming. Do you not all realize that there would be no homelessness if you were correct? That individuals would just help them? But that’s not what has happened.

                  Wow. That’s incredibly…lame, lazy and inhumane. This definitively proves you and your progressive/liberal kind DO NOT CARE AT ALL about actual people. You only care about more government power (provided it’s in your hands, oh, the irony) because you think you don’t have any yourself to do any good — of course that’s giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a malevolent despot. Just like how you hate guns but you love them when they’re in your agent’s hands!

                  Of course you won’t be personally paying for this “war on [blank]” program because odds are your income puts you in the lower-to-zero tax bracket, meaning I have to pay for it. And you completely ignore how utterly ineffectual all these government programs have been no matter who ran them and no matter how much money and leeway they were given. Politicians are your god. And you have more faith in them than I think many Christians have in Jesus despite Jesus never failing to honor his word and politicians ALWAYS proving themselves to be liars and failures.

                  1. What are you talking about? I realize that all the steps I have take to personally reduce my consumption are not going to reduce global warming – someone else is going to just buy my share of everything because the price is now lower (supply/demand again).

                    Why is it that if we want a nice world it’s all about “government control”?

                    This country would still be infested with obnoxious levels of pollutants, the crime rate would be much higher due to lead exposure, etc, etc, etc, if it wasn’t for collective action to solve collective problems. Citizens in CA weren’t just gonna “clean up the smog” on their own.

                    Literally, coordination through the government has made the country what it is today – not some free for all philosophy which doesn’t pass the laugh test. I don’t assume you all want anarchy – I assume you just have a preference for being left alone and don’t much care what the consequences to your actions are to others and to society as a whole. You are more important than everyone else. Government takes that from you by leveling the playing field – ie, you have to play well with others. Just like you can’t burn garbage in your backyard in the city, neither can your neighbors. Just like you neighbor can’t build a nuke in his basement, neither can you.

                    1. “I assume you just have a preference for being left alone and don’t much care what the consequences to your actions are to others and to society as a whole.”

                      This is so stupid.

                      Comes in all loaded for libertarian bear–but doesn’t now shit.

                      It’s both stupid and typical.

                  2. You’re acting like an anti social troll, ignorant of how the wealth around you “appeared”. It was hard work by progressives which dealt with the rough edges of capitalism.

                    No liberal wants government intervention for the sake of “government power” or whatever. In fact, i want no taxes and the government out of my life. Except there will be obnoxious people like you poisoning my offspring, my friends, and the world i live in if no one stops you.

                    Keep telling each other about your silly principles (which as dismissed as soon as you find them inconvenient), but leave any discussions about economics or how wealth is actually created out of this. You philosophy’s goal isn’t to make everyone wealthier, it’s to keep power in your hands, at any expense.

                    And the rest of us just don’t see it that way. Stop selling your crap as the “get rich scheme” – because it doesn’t work. We know this. And you have to sell it that way, because no one is buying what you’re actually selling.

                    1. Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded ? here and there, now and then ? are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
                      This is known as “bad luck.”

                    2. Is that some sort of joke? A small minority make everything great?

                      Holy crap, you people have low self esteem.

                5. So the stance you uphold as moral is this: Rather then spend your own time and voluntary will to help your fellow man, you would rather lazily grant the government the right to steal from other people to THEORETICALLY help these people, while actively undermining any chance they’ll have of advancing out of their economic state.

                  If you’re going to argue that as a pragmatic stance, go for it. But don’t act like your inability to empathize and actually HELP people is moral. I loathe the laziness of this welfare state argument. You project your own unwillingness to voluntarily help people onto others, ignoring the fact that some of us are actual moral actors.

                  Sincerely,
                  A Libertarian Who Has Voluntarily Been Working With the Homeless Since 2010.

          2. Let me say, an “unregulated” capitalist system – because every country I am talking about uses the capitalist system.

            1. Bullshit. If it’s regulated, it’s not a free market, it’s a mixed economy. That’s basic fucking poli sci.

              Are you like 14 or something?

              1. That’s my point. Unless it’s anarchy, there’s regulation. There is no “free” market.

                And even if we had anarchy and there was, there would still be distortions.

                1. Even in an anarchy, there is regulation. There is not state regulation, but there is regulation.

                  Again, you use words you appear to not know the meaning of.

                  1. I was speaking of state regulation.

                    But I want to thank everyone for admitting the problems with libertarianism.

                    1. You should be more precise in your terms shithead. If you want to be taken seriously, you should use a dictionary and look up the meaning of the words you throw about.

                2. Unless it’s anarchy, there’s regulation. There is no “free” market.

                  If you define laws against theft, extortion, murder, etc as “regulation”, then yeah. (and in anarchy you wouldn’t have a free market either because there would be non-state coercion in the marketplace) But that’s not what most people think of.

                  A free market is assumed to have some dominant enforcer enforcing laws against those kinds of coercion.

                3. Unless it’s anarchy, there’s regulation. There is no “free” market.

                  Incorrect.

                4. “That’s my point. Unless it’s anarchy, there’s regulation. There is no “free” market.”

                  The “regulation”, if that’s what you want to call it, consists of contract enforcement. Contacts are, thus, people regulating themselves…

                  And the more people are free to make choices for themselves, the better off society is as a whole–and that’s a general rule.

                  When people’s rights to make choices for themselves are infringed by other people, that’s called “crime”. The government’s legitimate function is to protect our rights from, among other things, crime. That’s also “regulation” of the free market–if that’s what you want to call it. A “free market” is a market where the participants are free to make choices for themselves.

                  But you’re playing funny with the word “regulation”. When you write “regulation”, you don’t mean the government protecting people’s freedom to make choices for themselves from breach of contract or crime…

                  You’re talking about the majority of voters inflicting themselves on other people’s choices by way of politicians. That’s a game of semantics–and it’s dishonest. It’s also bullshit to say that no market can be free.

                  Complete bullshit.

            2. Can regulation only come about from top-down legislation.

        3. Ever been to a country where you make 40k minimum? Nice places (except for the weather).

          Name ’em. If they’re Scandinavian, ‘nice places’ = prone to rioting and poorer than America.

          1. Denmark?

            1. See above link. Great place if you like to be poor and put in your place.

              1. See link below.

        4. why is 60k unreasonable in the richest country the world has ever known?

          It’s easy to make 60k if you produce the equivalent of 60k a year in value. You only need the assistance of the state to get that wage if you don’t produce the equivalent of 60k a year in value.

          It’s per se unreasonable for someone to get 60k if they aren’t producing 60k in value.

          Because for them to get it, it has to come from somewhere.

          1. Slaves didn’t get their value. Undocumented workers don’t get their value.

            Or everyone else is overpaid.

            Still don’t see how silly this line of reasoning is?

            You guys talk like Marxists – linking labor’s “production” to labor’s “value.”

            It’s a market – labor is a commodity. Supply and demand, not production and value. And the market is distorted – by government, firms, etc, restricting supply or demand. It’s all about how we distort it.

            Take doctors for instance. We have some great doctors because of government distortion – regulations on who can become a doctor, immigration restrictions, etc. And therefore they get paid 2x what equivalent doctors in the rest of the world get paid. And it’s not because that’s what they “produce” – it’s government interference.

            But I get why the government interferes – otherwise you have people who aren’t as skilled literally killing people, like you hear about in plastic surgery occasionally. So I don’t think we should cut doctors salaries by deregulating the market and letting people try to figure out if a procedure is medically necessary, etc. There is a reason we train doctors in the first place – so society is better off with more productive citizens.

            However, I see no reason why we should let them keep all of their distorted earnings – it’s not completely their “skill” that got them those earnings, it’s government interference.

            Again, let’s not get into the bad economics.

            1. However, I see no reason why we should let them keep all of their distorted earnings – it’s not completely their “skill” that got them those earnings, it’s government interference.

              One wrong occurred so we must ‘fix’ it with another.

              1. It’s not one “wrong” – economics isn’t a morality play. There was an inefficiency in the market, government corrected it, but caused a smaller inefficiency. So they corrected that one too. If we end up better off, what’s the big deal?

                You guys would rather put up with huge inefficiencies in the market that end up wealthier, because “government evil.”

                And worse, you pretend that’s not true because no one will buy what you’re really selling. Instead you rely on nonsense like pretending markets are “perfectly efficient”, government can only mess up efficiency, etc, yet have no response for things like pollution, disease, or global warming – which are all costs that subtract from our net wealth.

                In fact most of you believe in patents and other government constructs and imposed monopolies because you don’t believe the free market is innovative enough without government intervention!

                I probably want more freedom than most of you on this issue!

            2. You wouldn’t know bad economics if you got cock slapped by it. You literally are typing gibberish here. So I think you’re either a regular with a troll handle, or Mary back off her meds, or you’re a high school junior who just finished reading Howard Zinn.

            3. “You guys talk like Marxists – linking labor’s “production” to labor’s “value.””

              You need to read more; one of those straw men is going to beat the crap out of you.

            4. Supply and demand, not production and value

              Why would any employer pay an employee more than that employee creates in value? No business can possibly survive with such a business model and likewise no economy can survive when such a model is dictated.

              As the good British lady once said…

              The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

              1. Who said they would?

                But again, explain how you determine “value”? What is this gibberish about “production”?

                In a startup phase, people are paid even if there is no revenue. Sure there is “production” – but it is not being sold on any market. How do you determine value vis a vis production?

                I thought we all agreed that in capitalism, supply and demand determined the price of commodities. And that labor is a commodity.

                Are you all marxists now?

                The problem is this simple fact doesn’t square with the way you see the world. You can’t explain why a surgeon in the US gets twice as much as one in europe, trained the same amount, doing the same surgery. They are producing the same thing. You can’t explain how people in startups are getting paid without revenue. (You just told me they’d be fired by the way.)

                You can’t even tell me how to “value” anything.

                You all need to stop.

                1. But again, explain how you determine “value”? What is this gibberish about “production”?

                  It’s not how I determine value dipshit, it’s how whoever is signing the checks determine value. There are people who pay hundreds of dollars an hour for physic consulting. I wouldn’t pay a nickel for it.

                  In a startup phase, people are paid even if there is no revenue. Sure there is “production” – but it is not being sold on any market. How do you determine value vis a vis production?

                  Do you not understand how capital enables entrepreneurs to pay their workers and startup costs before they actually begin to generate revenue?

                  And that labor is a commodity.

                  Commodities are uniform. 87 octane gasoline is the same no matter who sells it. Labor is not uniform. Some people are worth more then others. A skilled IBEW electrician with 20 years experience is not interchangeable with a journeyman.

                  1. “Do you not understand how capital enables entrepreneurs to pay their workers and startup costs before they actually begin to generate revenue?”

                    I absolutely do!

                    Now that I finally have YOU thinking about this, can you stop with the “production” and “value” crap?

                    Wages are determined on supply and demand. Period.

                    “87 octane gasoline is the same no matter who sells it. Labor is not uniform. Some people are worth more then others.”

                    There are different types and blends of gas – octane, ethanol, etc. Labor is still a commodity.

                    And much like oil could be refined into 87 or 94, humans can be refined into electricians or plumbers. Maybe two new electricians are as fast as a 20 yr electrician – so there are substitution effects, etc.

                    But AGAIN, supply and demand determines what labor is paid. SUPPLY AND DEMAND. Not production. If you need a job done and there is only ONE guy that can do it, he can take his sweet ass time and rake you over the coals – low supply. If there are a million electricians out of work, you can get someone to rewire you house for less – high supply. Labor is a commodity. Supply and demand.

                    1. There are different types and blends of gas – octane, ethanol, etc. Labor is still a commodity.

                      *stares*

                      You’re either retarded, or trolling. Either way, I’m done playing. Night everyone, I’m going camping on the river tomorrow. Gotta go pack up, and I can’t forget all the chemicals I’m going to dump in the water supply to poison it in order to further my nefarious libertarian conspiracy.

                2. Let’s go back to McD’s.

                  Labor in the US gets ~30% of revenue. Labor in Europe gets about ~45% of revenue.

                  Looking at the Big Mac Index..in the US, $4.56. Denmark, $4.91. Not $6.84 based on 50% higher labor costs. Not $13.68 based on almost a tripling of the minimum wage there.

                  So, what happens? Well, profit margin is a little lower – but they still profit. Employees are a littler more productive – you get more revenue per employee. Prices are a little higher. Demand economy wide picks up – marginal propensity to consume. There are some other adjustment channels, etc.

                  So, when you study REALITY, you realize that the minimum wage has virtually no effect on unemployment. Literally, they study these things. Economists write papers, others review them, etc. They then look at things from other angles, and study those. And that is what they found.

                  You guys hate it when politicians only look at first order effects – politician takes money, you have less to spend. They need to look at second order effects!

                  But then you commit the same error by refusing to look at any second order effect which doesn’t fit your worldview.

                  You people are just as bad as your despised politicians.

                3. You all need to stop.

                  Shut up you ignorant fuck.

                  I thought we all agreed that in capitalism, supply and demand determined the price of commodities.

                  Idiot. The price of labor affects supply.

                  Startups are being paid upon their value towards future revenue, idiot. It’s called a loan. You cannot operate in the red and sustain a business.

                  Doctors are paid differently because their overhead differs, usually as a result of regulation and that price is passed to the customer.

                  1. You’re arguing with the wrong guy. Take these issues up with the people above who think that “production” and “value” (whatever that is?) determine the price of labor.

                    Supply and demand determine the price of labor. If the price is high in one area, over the long run the supply will increase, bringing down the price.

                    Just like every other commodity.

                    Supply and demand.

                    There are distortions in the market for doctors which restrict supply, so the price (also known as “their wages”) go up.

                    We could remove the distortion (remove medical licenses; or train more/immigrants), or we could capture some of the distortion.

                    Some of those are more efficient than others. I’d go with training/capturing, because there are costs to unregulated doctors – it’s inefficient.

            5. So you admit government interventions are largely responsible for massive inequality.

              And of course your solution is more government interventions.

              Leftists love shoving their beliefs down others throats. “We’ll get it right this time, we promise!”

              1. It’s no different to me than private individuals shoving inefficiencies down my throat.

                And when I look around, I see inefficiencies removed by government, both in this country and others, that have made us better off than countries where inefficiencies were not removed.

            6. Slaves were forced to provide labor against their will. How is that relevant to a discussion on an economic system based on voluntary exchange?

              1. Cause they were not paid their “value.” I was told ALL labor was.

                1. If you count not being beaten and burned alive as pay, they were.

                2. I think it was pretty clear to anyone with an IQ above 70 that we were not talking about a slave-based economy.

                  1. we’re talking about a wage-slave based economy

                    1. We’re talking about self-contradictory terminology…

        5. Maybe they all seemed…happy…because they didn’t know any better?

          http://dollarvigilante.com/blo…..state.html

          1. Have you been there?

            You think they don’t travel?

            They get to vote on these things. They don’t vote for Mexico.

            I like the weather in Miami. Denmark is better in every other way.

            My favorite part however, was the climate denialism. But I get that, if you guys admit science is right, there isn’t anything libertarianism does to provide a solution to the worlds most pressing need long term. An inconvenient truth, no? (Drink!)

            1. They don’t vote for Mexico.

              Uh the Mexican Constitution was one of the first leftwing constitutions to be ratified in the world. Ever heard of the Cristero War?

              Once again, he pontificates and gets his facts wrong.

              1. Ok, they don’t vote for $5/day minimum wages, to cut their taxes to mexico level, cut their maternity leave, charge college tuition – or to become a developing country.

                Now tell me why a libertarian would tell us that leftist country would be better than denmark?

            2. …”there isn’t anything libertarianism does to provide a solution to the worlds most pressing need long term.”…

              Tell it, Brother! Yeess! Tell it!
              Evangelists don’t get a lot of sympathy here.

            3. There has been no significant warming trend over the past 15 years. What solution do leftists offer that wouldn’t cause far more harm than what ever small amount of good it would produce? There is absolutely no reason to think that present day temperatures are sacrosanct and perfectly tailored to human survival. Humans have survived and even thrived in temperatures different from today’s, for eons with virtually no technology.

              1. Yep, no significant warming even while CO2 levels have skyrocketed.

                That at least calls the correlation between the two variables into question.

              2. Oh wow…see…you have to deny science when your philosophy offers no answers.

                I’m sure you could also pick a year to year change that showed a HUGE reduction – and then pretend that will continue forever! It’s getting colder. But we get what you’re doing here.

                http://www.skepticalscience.co…..12_500.gif

                Instead of looking at all the data, you’re cherry picking a few years to determine a “trend.”

                I like living in miami. Humans can’t have orderly civilization with an increase of 4-6C.

                You should stop until you understand the facts.

                1. Notice how small the gap between the last two blue lines are? And that the end points are cherrypicked? Where are you getting 4-6 degrees? We’re nowhere near that.

                  Our historical temperature data is pathetically small on a geological scale. I don’t deny that human activity can have an effect on the climate. Ascribing any increase (not to mention the inevitable blaming of “climate change” for every hurricane, tornado, or even earthquake) purely to human activity is not scientific. The data to compare it to is just not there.

                  1. Holy shit this is too complicated to describe in 1500 characters.

                    4-6C is where we’re headed this century. And at some point, it’s irreversible.

                    Scientists have reviewed the data and disagree with your “analysis.”

                    I get that you have to deny science because you have no response.

                    Other things I’ve heard from the anti-science types: smoking doesn’t cause cancer, pollution doesn’t cause disease, etc. How come you are always wrong? Is there something to this science thing?

                    We understand the method in which co2 creates a greenhouse effect. We understand how much co2 we’re released. We know how seas were the last time there was this much co2 in the atmosphere. We’ve already locked in 50+ ft of sea level rise over the long term. Our only hope now is to slow the rate of increase and pray we don’t get a runaway effect.

                    We understand that the currently existing species aren’t going to live in this hotter world.

                    Maybe something else will. But it’s not going to be millions of the current species, and the disruptions and costs to humanity are going to be massive.

                    1. “Other things I’ve heard from the anti-science types: smoking doesn’t cause cancer, pollution doesn’t cause disease, etc. How come you are always wrong? Is there something to this science thing?”

                      Or leftist idiocy like vaccines cause autism or GMOs are poison?

                      “4-6C is where we’re headed this century.”

                      And these projections are based on what exactly? Your own graph shows a 30 year warming period from 1970 to about 2000, and leveling off since then (and not even at particularly close to 1C). Did the alarmists predict that?

                      I’m not saying humans or CO2 has no effect on climate. I’m saying that the alarmists do not have the evidence of impending catastrophic doom caused by humans that they claim to have.

                      Regardless, even if we accept it, let’s talk solutions. What exactly is yours? Invade India, China, and the rest of the developing world? Good luck with that. The US has reduced emissions levels to 1992 levels, without cap and trade or some other government mandate. If you really want to reduce fossil fuel usage, and replace it with an effective method of producing energy, you should support nuclear power. But of course leftists aren’t ok with that either.

        6. Let’s put it this way, ProgressiveLiberal: Would you pay $100 for a cheeseburger? What if someone offered to serve you a cheeseburger for $50? For $25? For $5?

          You would need to pick the most expensive offer if you really believe the one who serves you is worth as much as you claim he/she should be paid.

          1. Food is supplied on a supply/demand basis. It is not immune from market forces. It’s cost isn’t derived from the cost of labor.

            McDonald’s is only slightly more expensive in Europe. It isn’t 3x as much in countries that pay wages 3x as high. People will only pay so much for a shitty burger.

            I ate at restaurants that costs a lot more than that. My wife worked at one in miami where a burger was $45. What’s your point?

            It takes less time on the clock to earn a burger and healthcare and a decent retirement in europe than it does in the united states for the majority of people.

            You guys realize they could dismantle their system and go with ours tomorrow, right? If they’re so miserable, why don’t they?

            Why instead do we have all these libtards over hear votin’ for healthcare and minimum wage increases.

            We just have to different visions – and more people prefer ours. The world doesn’t have to be survival of the fittest – half of people are below average by definition. They’d prefer a “can’t we all get along” society and vote that way when (clearly) presented with the alternative.

            You’ll just have to accept that. I accept that you guys exist in this country and stay here although the quality of life in many ways would be better elsewhere.

            1. “You guys realize they could dismantle their system and go with ours tomorrow, right? If they’re so miserable, why don’t they?”

              You idiot, it’s because they’re still borrowing for all their ‘free shit’.
              See Greece for pete’s sake.

              1. Ugh…the debt was declining until the global crisis, now it’s declining again. And it’s low and sustainable in any care.

                You guys don’t know what you’re talking about.

                And denmark is much nicer than greece, yet lower debt. So it has no relation to the amount of “debt.”

                Plus denmark controls it’s own currency, and greece screwed up by joining the euro. You can find out why that’s bad elsewhere.

            2. “Food is supplied on a supply/demand basis. It is not immune from market forces. It’s cost isn’t derived from the cost of labor.”

              Driving up the cost of inputs can definitely affect what the profit-maximizing price is.

              “McDonald’s is only slightly more expensive in Europe. It isn’t 3x as much in countries that pay wages 3x as high. People will only pay so much for a shitty burger.”

              What country has average real incomes 3x America’s?

              “It takes less time on the clock to earn a burger and healthcare and a decent retirement in europe than it does in the united states for the majority of people.”

              Europe is not a monolithic entity or single country.

              “You guys realize they could dismantle their system and go with ours tomorrow, right? If they’re so miserable, why don’t they?”

              There are a lot of places where shitty governments get elected over and over, for various reasons. This is a really stupid argument. And wouldn’t it apply to America just as easily? I don’t think Europe is “miserable.” The standard of living in most of Europe is relatively high compared to most places in the world. Where liberals go wrong is assuming that Europe’s relatively high standard of living is a result of social welfare policies. It isn’t. No European country became wealthy through socialism. The socialism came after they had become prosperous through capitalism.

              1. The minimum wage in fast food joints denmark is almost 3x that of the US. Profits are lower, but they still profit. And people can live off that wage. In an apartment! With health insurance and college for each kid!

                Other countries have higher minimum wages and do just fine too.

                It’s not “socialism” – it’s democracy. And it developed hand and hand with capitalism – instead of letting the larger share of productivity go to the wealthiest while others had stagnating wages, they “spread the wealth around” through tax and social policy.

                And now denmark has the happiest people on earth and this country is a disaster for millions.

                But Lebron James is doing great! Tradeoffs!

                1. You can’t cherrypick one country, and from there cherrypick a few policies of that country, and then ascribe that the objectively small differences in standard of living and quality of life compared to another country are solely due to the policies you cherrypicked.

                  What nominal wages are means nothing. What is the wage adjusted for COL? Nor is minimum wage some sort of proper standard. The vast majority of people in the U.S. don’t earn minimum wage, and most people making minimum wage are not primary breadwinners for their families.

                  Democracy is a political system, not an economic system. I don’t know why I’m arguing with someone who can’t grasp such a basic concept.

                  “And now denmark has the happiest people on earth and this country is a disaster for millions.”

                  Yeah, Denmark is Paradise and the U.S. is North Korea. We get it already. And since when is happiness purely a product of economic policy and not affected by other factors, like culture?

                  1. Calidissident –

                    Yes! Exactly.

                    It’s even worse than that – take your wages minus your tax burden, factor in COL – add transfers and government policies (free health care? pay for it? how much? 2x as much as other country for same care? free college? how many weeks off maternity?), etc. Whats the safety net? Retirement? It’s not as easy as just dividing GDP by people.

                    What percentage of people get minimum wage? Who are they? Does increasing that have a ripple effect so that all wages increase?

                    What is the middle class like – median wages and all that…

                    How many are in poverty? What is poverty there?

                    No one is saying democracy is an economic system – its “shorthand” for electing people who will regulate the economy to reduce (some) inefficiencies and market failures and provide social services.

                    The US isn’t NK – but there is no reason that there is poverty in the richest country in history other than we choose policies that will allow poverty to continue. It’s not hard to figure out how to reduce poverty – its just not very libertarian. And I wouldn’t call the differences “objectively small.” They seem huge and devastating to millions to my eyes.

                    1. “How many are in poverty? What is poverty there?”

                      I don’t know. You tell me. You’re the one going on and on about Denmark. I will say though, that there is virtually zero absolute poverty in either the US or Denmark. Even the worst off in those countries have a far higher standard of living than the average person in a third world country. You still completely failed to respond to my point – Even if we assume Denmark has a vastly better quality of life than the U.S. why should we automatically assume that the difference is because of the specific policies that you’re crediting, and not any of the other possible factors, such as: Other economic policies where Denmark does better from a libertarian perspective than the US does, demographics, cultural factors, historical factors, geography, etc.

                      “The US isn’t NK – but there is no reason that there is poverty in the richest country in history other than we choose policies that will allow poverty to continue.”

                      As I said above, there is virtually zero absolute poverty in the US. Poor people in the US today have a higher standard of living than the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived. There will always, by definition, be relative poverty. Simply transferring money isn’t going to change that.

                    2. “It’s not hard to figure out how to reduce poverty – its just not very libertarian.”

                      Oh really? Is that why we saw a massive drop in the poverty rate in the decades prior to the Great Society, when the federal welfare state was almost nonexistent, while the poverty rate has stagnated since the War on Poverty was launched? Poverty is the natural state of man. The places where it has been reduced the most have been those that have adopted policies of economic freedom. Capitalism has been the engine that has driven the masses (of these countries) out of poverty over the last two centuries. Fuck, even Bono admits this.

                      “And I wouldn’t call the differences ‘objectively small.'”

                      Take it up with the people who study these things. I mean, even the UN (not exactly some libertarian-biased organization) has the difference in inequality-adjusted HDI between the US and Denmark as only half the difference between Denmark and Norway.

                      “They seem huge and devastating to millions to my eyes.”

                      Did Virginian have you pegged perfectly when he talked about leftists spending a semester in the nice parts of a European city and then thinking they know everything about the entire country?

            3. “The world doesn’t have to be survival of the fittest – half of people are below average by definition. They’d prefer a “can’t we all get along” society and vote that way when (clearly) presented with the alternative.”

              What makes you think capitalism is “survival of the fittest?” Or that socialism is a “can’t we all get along” system? Unlike any other economic system, capitalism is based on the principles of voluntary exchange. It is responsible for the vast majority of poverty reduction and elimination in the history of the world.

              Lastly, what makes you think the US is some sort of capitalist ideal, and that European countries are all ideal social democracies? People who actually study economies and their level of economic freedom rank several countries commonly considered by both leftists and rightists to be socialist (such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and even Denmark) as having a higher level of economic freedom than the US.

              1. Again, I’m not against capitalism – but it *is* competition. And people who aren’t as well equipped for it do poorly – there is no provision for someone with a 50 IQ in capitalism. Which is why we need government.

                There is no provision for companies minimizing their costs by polluting common resources – which is why we need government.

                And just as I don’t have time to become a doctor – millions of other don’t either. And they’re also not intelligent enough to determine if the procedure described it the best one for the situation.

                And it’s not very productive or efficient for each and every one of us to test each and every bit of sustenance we put in our mouths.

                And some of us don’t have time to read about every drug trial and determine their efficacy or risks.

                There are many problems “voluntary exchange” doesn’t adequately deal with. And that government does deal with better – maybe not perfectly, but better.

                I’m always amazed that we hold government to a standard that if we held the private market to, we’d ban it from the face of the earth.

                But some of us are calm enough to realize that neither is perfect, but we can instead have a mixed economy which is better than one or the other alone.

                All of you telling me that Denmark is more free than the US are proving my point. Denmark is what I want. If it was as warm as miami and they’d have me, i’d move tomorrow.

                But under your philosophy, you’d never agree.

                1. I’m always amazed that we hold government to a standard that if we held the private market to, we’d ban it from the face of the earth.

                  Hence the expression “good enough for government work” and expectations of excellent service at the post office and DMV.

                2. “Again, I’m not against capitalism – but it *is* competition”

                  There’s competition in every economic system. No system can eliminate scarcity. The beauty of capitalism is that its competition is not based on violence (or the threat of violence) and that if someone loses a competition, they have other options. It’s not like you die if you lose out on a job you apply to.

                  “And people who aren’t as well equipped for it do poorly – there is no provision for someone with a 50 IQ in capitalism. Which is why we need government.”

                  Non sequitir. Capitalism does nor forbid people from helping out those who can’t help themselves. And please spare me the standard leftist propaganda that government is just there to help out cripples and the mentally retarded.

                  1. “There is no provision for companies minimizing their costs by polluting common resources – which is why we need government.”

                    Not in the sense you think. If you actually bothered to read libertarian arguments, you’d realize that libertarians do not support corporations dumping toxic waste into drinking water.

                    “And it’s not very productive or efficient for each and every one of us to test each and every bit of sustenance we put in our mouths.”

                    You realize the government doesn’t do that either? Do you have any idea how food safety regulations actually work?

                    “And some of us don’t have time to read about every drug trial and determine their efficacy or risks.”

                    So because you don’t have the time to read up on every drug trial, people who are dying must be prevented from deciding whether they want to take that risk for themselves to give themselves a chance to survive? Any lives the FDA saves through the lengthy approval process are far outweighed by the number of people who die because they couldn’t get access to drugs because they hadn’t been approved yet.

                    “There are many problems “voluntary exchange” doesn’t adequately deal with.”

                    “Adequately” is subjective, but the same is true of government force. Citation needed for the rest of that paragraph.

                    1. “I’m always amazed that we hold government to a standard that if we held the private market to, we’d ban it from the face of the earth.”

                      What standard is that? Any double standard people hold regarding the market and government generally favors the government.

                      “All of you telling me that Denmark is more free than the US are proving my point.”

                      Denmark’s economic freedom and prosperity has little to nothing to do with the things you go on and on about. There are plenty of places with those things that have less economic freedom and prosperity than Denmark or the US. The difference almost always lies in the other areas that Denmark also beats the US at.

                    2. So it isn’t prosperity that we’re looking for? We’d rather be poor and your definition of “free”? I don’t think many would agree. That’s not going to get many votes.

                      As for the “standard” government is held to – it’s called perfection, and if it doesn’t happen, we never hear the end of it – how we need to dismantle the program that lifted more people of poverty than any other in history (when capitalism wasn’t helping these people), but ONE PERSON defrauded it this one time, so damn it all to hell and end it. Oh and a guy got some food stamps, so end that too. Someone cheated medicare, end that too.

                      No cost-benefit analysis, don’t weight the good and the bad vs. a world where it doesn’t exist – just look at the one bad thing and get rid of government cause it’s all fraud and blah blah blah.

                      It’s such a piss poor argument. There is more fraud and inefficiency in the private market, but no one is ready to ban that from the face of earth – because the NET BENEFITS are larger than the costs. The same with many government programs and regulations.

                      And if there was all this waste fraud and abuse, it would be the first to go instead of cutting meat from the bone like they are now. How is it no one can find any substantial amount considering everyone is on the case? Why don’t we just cut half a trillion in WFA instead of the sequester?

                    3. “As for the “standard” government is held to – it’s called perfection, and if it doesn’t happen, we never hear the end of it – how we need to dismantle the program that lifted more people of poverty than any other in history (when capitalism wasn’t helping these people), but ONE PERSON defrauded it this one time, so damn it all to hell and end it. Oh and a guy got some food stamps, so end that too. Someone cheated medicare, end that too.”

                      This is absolute bullshit. What program has lifted more people out of poverty than any in history? Capitalism, not food stamps, is responsible for the massive reduction of poverty in recent history. You want to talk about double standards – in the decades leading up to the War on Poverty, the poverty rate saw a steady, substantial decline. Since the start of the War On Poverty, it has stagnated. Had the opposite occurred – had we seen a massive reduction in poverty with government social programs, and then a stagnation in the poverty rate when those programs were eliminated – what exactly would the leftist narrative be? The fact that you think the government gets the short end of the stick on double standards is laughable.

                      “There is more fraud and inefficiency in the private market”

                      Oh really?

                    4. “And if there was all this waste fraud and abuse, it would be the first to go”

                      Why? The mere existence of these things implies that the government either doesn’t know people are ripping them off, or they don’t care.

                      “instead of cutting meat from the bone like they are now.”

                      Yeah, the federal budget is so lean these days. I mean, they only doubled it since 2000, and increased it by a trillion dollars in less than five years, but reductions in future increases are savage cuts?

                    5. One imperfect contract – hell, one perfect contract that allows it, and there is nothing you can do about pollution. There is nothing you can do about air pollution (for some reason you care about the fluid of water, but not the fluid of air). I get that you don’t “want” corporations polluting into the water – but that’s your little liberal in you overruling your inner libertarian. There is NOTHING in actual libertarianism to prevent it from happening in reality. Not theory, but actual reality where people won’t act the way you want them to.

                      Do you believe in capitalism? Do you believe in the benefits of division of labor? What is the point if you have to be a mathemetician, scientist, economist, doctors, pharmacist, etc, etc, etc, just to get through each day.

                      The amount of people saved by the FDA, including prevention of misallocation of resources, outweighs the number that have died from treatments which usually do not pan out anyways. You have to weigh all the factors – not just one like you are doing. Maybe some tweaks would improve their processes. But again, no one expects perfection from the FDA – but if we held the free market to same standard, we’d ban if from the face of the earth.

                    6. That is an army of strawmen you’ve constructed there. Tony would be jealous

                  2. Capitalism also allows us to all quit and go live in the woods – but that’s not what happens, is it?

                    It allows one to pollute the world while others try desperately to do the opposite.

                    And a whole lotta other shit. Including helping people out.

                    But relying on charity is a failure. Nothing is precluding that from happening now. Removing safety net programs doesn’t suddenly make it “legal” to help.

                    We are wasting people who would otherwise be productive. I don’t believe for one second that americans are inferior in some way to other countries where they have lower unemployment or their lower workers are “worth” so much more.

                    These are all conscious decisions of policy. We allow poverty here so that others may have more. We allow people to be born into poverty, having profound effects on the distribution of outcomes this group achieves.

                    Some of us thing this is wrong and that we’d be better off if this wasn’t the case.

                    I understand some people don’t think this is a problem and that it should just be left alone.

                    And then there’s those in the second group who are disingenuous because they know the majority won’t vote for that, so they lie about the obvious outcomes of their policies, trying to convince others that less government will make them better off, when there is no basis for this – theoretically or empirically. Those are the worst.

                    1. It allows one to pollute the world while others try desperately to do the opposite.

                      The only reason someone can get away with polluting the property of others is when there are no stakeholders because the polluted land is “public” or when there is no recourse because the government does not respect private property.

                      But relying on charity is a failure.

                      Indeed. Hence why every government charity program is such a massive boondoggle whose only purpose is to shovel stolen money to favored constituencies.

                      We are wasting people who would otherwise be productive.

                      If they were productive, they wouldn’t “need” the government programs in the first place. You are now contradicting yourself; productivity begets valuation in capitalism. If they are not being paid the wage they have earned by the fruit of their labor, then they are not productive.

                      These are all conscious decisions of policy.

                      And this is why you fail. This is the central fallacy underpinning your worldview. You believe in a benevolent, all-powerful entity whose job it is to guide and direct society. God, if you will. Except your god is a deity of narcissism, borne of your belief in the greatness of your own mind and the firmness of your own will.

                    2. We allow poverty here so that others may have more.

                      We do not allow that which we cannot control.

                      We allow people to be born into poverty

                      We allow birth, now? You really believe yourself to be god, don’t you?

                      Some of us thing this is wrong and that we’d be better off if this wasn’t the case.

                      Every single person arguing against you on this board believes that the best thing for every human being, every single one, is to step out of the shackles of true and abject poverty.

                      The only engine to accomplish that is the model of voluntary association in economic capitalism.

                      I understand some people don’t think this is a problem and that it should just be left alone.

                      No you don’t. You don’t have the first fucking clue why people who really and truly know what capitalism is come to a belief in it. All you know is the Hollywood fiction of the careless robber baron.

                      We are the true enemies of the robber baron. He seeks to preserve his status through the use of theft and force. Sure, you might kill him in your glorious revolution. But then your politburos and party committees will be staffed with his heirs and successors, if not in blood than in deed.

                    3. And then there’s those … who … lie about the obvious outcomes of their policies ….

                      I will not lie to you or to anyone to advance my goals. Some people will not be better off under a capitalist system. Those people are leeches. The suckle at the public teat and survive only through the theft of the earned property of others. They deserve to have their trough of ill gotten gains taken from them.

                      But that does not mean that they must suffer forever. Capitalists aren’t moral crusaders. If a leech can learn to earn his wage, rather than steal it, then he has that right, the same as anyone.

                      The difference between a capitalist revolution and a socialist revolution is no one has to die. Some people may die, those who survive only because they take what is not theirs. But we do not advocate killing them: if they die, it is because they have forgotten how to live.

                      You, on the other hand, would advocate for the wanton murder of your perceived enemies. First, the “rich”, those who have prospered greatest from the previous iteration of your failed ideology. Then those, like me, who peacefully advocate against you. Then lastly to sustain your power you will kill anyone who comes to the realization of its inherent evil only after suffering under its yoke.

        7. Well, McD’s pays 40k a year in other countries (minimum), so why is 60k unreasonable in the richest country the world has ever known?

          First, the US is not the “richest” country the world has ever know. The US is the biggest debtor the world has ever known. I’ve filed hundreds of bankruptcy cases for poor families. A family cannot spend more than they make. Neither can a country/society.

          The GM plant where I grew up paid the forklift drivers $60,000 a year. That was one of the lowest paid jobs there due to the union. That company is now out of business. If you increased McD’s average wage by 50%, then prices charged to the customer would go up by at least that much. So you’re saying you want poor people, which are the ones who mainly eat at McD’s, to pay at least 50% more for their meals?

          What you and your ilk are refusing to confront is that there are absolutely no free lunches in the universe. Just like your illusory “free” healthcare agenda. Doctors and nurses and hospital staff don’t work for free. Somebody has to bear the cost of those services. And since government doesn’t consist of doctors and nurses, only middle managers, your solution is literally to add a vast middle management system onto an already- over-managed healthcare bureaucracy. And you will see healthcare savings how? I know, you don’t really want to think through your world view too much lest it be totally shattered.

          1. *2nd paragraph mine, shouldn’t be in italics.

            1. No one is asking anyone to work “for free” – my point is, in other countries, doctors still go to work for half as much and McD’s workers go to work for twice or thrice as much, and unemployment is still lower than here. Capital doesn’t get as great of a return (although McD’s makes more profit in Europe than here, even with the wages) but less people suffer through life.

              Listen, the government is going to intervene one way or another.

              And we’ve found that libertarian ways have worse outcomes for the majority of the population. I’m not asking for protectionism here or an end to markets – in fact I embrace them! Let doctors compete against the best and brightest from around the world. Let our automakers compete on a level playing field with a competitive dollar. Let unproductive businesses go the way of the dodo and let new productive ones thrive and provide their workers with a decent wage!

              You see, the only thing that makes us more wealthy is increases in productivity. And higher wages do this – less turnover, higher happiness, etc.

              It’s just not necessary that people are starving or homeless in the richest country the world has ever known.

              1. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 9:45PM |#
                “No one is asking anyone to work “for free” – my point is, in other countries, doctors still go to work for half as much and McD’s workers go to work for twice or thrice as much”

                Which is why there’s no medical progress in Denmark and crappy big macs in France.

              2. “And we’ve found that libertarian ways have worse outcomes for the majority of the population.”

                We have?

                There are three major faults to your argument:
                1) The false assumption America has some sort of ideal libertarian capitalist economy, or that America is vastly more capitalist than the countries you’re comparing it to
                2) You’re ignoring that even if the case can be made that certain European “social democracies” have a higher standard of living than America, there are many others that either certainly or arguably do not.
                3) You’re ignoring the possibility of other factors that may explain differences in standard of living besides the current level of capitalism in each economy

                1. Ironically, you’re also ignoring the fact that maybe something other than capitalism is responsible for this countries wealth.

                  How can you have it both ways? We’re not that libertarian/capitalist but we’re rich anyways?

                  Again, I’m not attacking capitalism. It works – but has obvious flaws, and needs some regulation around the edges.

                  Considering Denmark has capitalism and is nothing like libertariansism with all their taxes and government programs, what could it be that’s making them well off?

                  I will agree, I’m taking the fact of multiple social programs not precluding the existence of wealthy, happy countries as evidence that social programs are good things. OTOH, I know of no place that doesn’t have these programs that is as nice as the social democracies, so there’s that.

                  So maybe it’s just a coincidence. I will wait and see for the rest of my life to determine if I am wrong.

                  1. “Ironically, you’re also ignoring the fact that maybe something other than capitalism is responsible for this countries wealth.

                    How can you have it both ways? We’re not that libertarian/capitalist but we’re rich anyways?”

                    We are relatively libertarian and capitalist compared to the rest of the world. Both the US and Denmark are in the top 10-15 freest economies in the world. The US has also been higher in the past. Current levels of wealth didn’t arise in a vacuum. The past obviously has a huge effect on the current situation. The same goes for Denmark and all the other European “social democracies.” They were all wealthy countries before they became social democracies. Continued economic growth is due to the fact that they are still relatively free economies. Nobody here seriously thinks Denmark, Sweden, etc. are just one step away from becoming Cuba or North Korea.

                    1. From what I hear here about their tax rates and social policies….are you sure about that?

                      They’re about to be Greece i tell you, GREECE!

                    2. Yeah, you can look it up if you want.

                      If Denmark had the corruption, lack of property rights, and lack of business/labor/investment freedom that Greece has their economy would be just as bad, regardless of all the free shit they give out

                  2. “I will agree, I’m taking the fact of multiple social programs not precluding the existence of wealthy, happy countries as evidence that social programs are good things. OTOH, I know of no place that doesn’t have these programs that is as nice as the social democracies, so there’s that.”

                    As I said earlier, you have the causation backwards. Wealthy societies can afford to have social programs and remain wealthy. Denmark didn’t become rich through free day care and health care. If you don’t consider the U.S. a “social democracy,” then we definitely have a superior or comparable standard of living compared to many social democracies, as much as you pretend otherwise. There are also some places in Asia, like Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea, that have low levels of government spending compared to the U.S. I doubt those places have no government social programs, but not much compared to most places in Europe, and if you don’t consider the U.S. a social democracy then you can’t consider those places one either. All four places have high standards of living, especially considering they were very poor compared to the West until very recently (Singapore does have really shitty authoritarian social policies, however), before they adopted policies of economic liberalization (and I mean that in the classic sense)

                    1. Countries that have universal healthcare systems that vacuum half the GDP that countries with inefficient systems give them more capital to invest in more productive activities than repairing diseased bodies. Countries that pollute less have more labor and capital available to invest in more productive areas of society than repairing damage done by pollution (broken windows theory). Countries that have children who are able to become more productive through free schooling, who don’t have to “overcome poverty” just to the get to the starting line, are more productive.

                      It’s not just that “wealth leads to benefits.” It’s a two way street.

                      There are inefficiencies in markets. Social democracies attempt correct some of these. No one is saying their perfect, but its better than the alternative in many cases.

                      Again, no one is denying that capitalism creates wealth. But I don’t see how anyone can deny that there are inefficiencies in capitalism. And why you can’t understand that it could be capitalism “plus” if we corrected some of those. And there are plenty of examples of this.

                    2. “Countries that have universal healthcare systems that vacuum half the GDP that countries with inefficient systems give them more capital to invest in more productive activities than repairing diseased bodies.”

                      The US doesn’t have, even pre-Obamacare, a free-market health care system. The reason for the inefficiency is due to all the interventions that spike up health care costs (regulations and mandates regarding what health insurance must cover, lack of interstate markets, CON laws, licensing laws, all the various government health programs that account for a very large portion of health care spending, etc.) with none of the price controls that other countries with universal health care use to keep costs down.

                      Based on your posts tonight, it seems like you visited Denmark, loved it, and credited its awesomeness with the policies you advocate. I’ve never been to Denmark. I have been to Argentina. Great place in many ways. Lovely people, charming culture, beautiful scenery, etc. Horrible political and economic system. And Argentina has most of the things you mention. They have free universal health care. They have free college education. They have social welfare programs. Despite all that, their standard of living is far below that of the U.S. and Western Europe …

                    3. … This is despite the fact that they used to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world, in the days before Peronism. I’m not saying that Argentina’s fall is due to free college or health care. What I’m saying is those things don’t matter when wealth is not allowed to be created. In spite of their high taxes and spending, Denmark allows far greater freedom to do business and does a much better job of protecting property rights and limiting corruption than Argentina does. That is the reason why Denmark has continued to prosper while Argentina hasn’t, even though both countries have adopted many of the same social welfare policies.

              3. No one is asking anyone to work “for free” – my point is, in other countries, doctors still go to work for half as much…

                Now I know you are 14. I represent doctors in my law practice. Every damn one of them wants to be a multi-millionairre. I’d pay for front row tickets to see you propose a nationwide mandate that all US doctors must make no more than German doctors. Seriously, I REALLY want you to have the platform to propose this so I can watch the UD doctor lobby run your ass out of town on a railcar.

                1. Everyone wants to be a multimillionaire in this country. What’s your point?

                  Cause my point is that they’d still show up for work if we didn’t let them keep the half of their salary that is due to government intervention. Cause it still beats diggin ditches all day.

                  You’re also supporting a lobby that is for massive government intervention to keep their wages high – through protectionism both foreign and domestic.

                  Why is it they aren’t pining for some good ol fashioned libertarianism?

                  1. Cause my point is that they’d still show up for work if we didn’t let them keep the half of their salary that is due to government intervention. Cause it still beats diggin ditches all day.

                    No, no they wouldn’t. You are truly delusional. Doctors are quitting or changing their practices entirely to avoid Obamacare and Medicare/Medicaid. You haven’t actually answered anyone’s points they’ve made. Rather, you spew bromides like “hope” and “change” without evidence to back up anything. If you like Denmark, move there. But their tax rate is the highest in Europe, their suicide rate is the highest and people are miserable there. I just read an article about it. The bottom line is that your complaints are childlike. You flog strawmen and propose non sequiturs. You don’t actually understand the world or cause and effect.

                    Countries became rich through either conquest or industrialization/innovation. And many have been squandering those riches through social programs to the point of turning into Greece. You have everything backwards. You cannot EVER become rich by starting off as a spendthrift. But many rich people become spendthrifts because they did not earn the wealth in the first place and are lazy. Just like you.

            2. No, the prices don’t go up proportionally.

              This place is bad with the econ.

              Denmark pays 3x as much at McD’s but the burgers are only a few bucks more. Look up the Big Mac Index in the economist.

              The price of burgers is determined by SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

              You see, part of wages comes from profits (labors share of revenue is higher and capitals share is somewhat lower, but they both still make money). Part of wages are offset by higher productivity (the real goal here – less turnover, faster employees). And part of wages are slightly higher prices.

              GM was forced to compete with slave wages in mexico and other countries. Also, our high dollar policy provided a subsidy to other countries and killed million of jobs reliant on exports here – GM needs to compete with BMW on price, not quality – and they can’t.

              German autoworkers get paid twice the wages of US autoworkers. (Ironically we are Germany’s mexico!) They don’t have trouble with unemployment.

              There is nothing wrong with businesses or plants closing. That’s capitalism, right? I’m worried about the entire economy – if GM or Walmart didn’t exist in 10 year but we had full employment at high enough wages to keep people out of poverty, why would I care?

              1. The price of burgers is determined by SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

                And supply is largely determined by the cost of labor.

                1. “And supply is largely determined by the cost of labor.”

                  Maybe.
                  In the case of Micky D’s, not a whole lot. The price is determined by the market clearing price of burgers, resulting in an ROI which is compared to the options available to French small-fund private investors.
                  Hollande is doing his level best to make sure that returns ain’t any better than the rotten bond returns.
                  So our newest brain-dead is correct that raising pay *in France* doesn’t really affect the price of a big mac, but like brain-deads everywhere, s/he’s completely at a loss to explain why.

                  1. The price is determined by the market clearing price of burgers

                    which is determined by the supply and demand functions, supply being partially determined by the cost of labor. The market clearing price doesn’t just fall out of the sky written on tablets.

                  2. Whatever you think.

                    You know, no one complains that elevator operators don’t exist anymore. Nor the poor pinsetters. They used to be so fast resetting the lanes!

                    And i’m sure in a hundred years no one is going to complain that it isn’t cost effective to pay workers to hand out burgers anymore, and some investment fund has to invest in a robot company that makes burger dispensers instead.

                    So if raising the minimum wage reallocates some (labor and capital) to more productive sectors of society, so be it.

                    (Note: no one is talking about raising the minimum wage to a point where it is above the increases in productivity we’ve had since the 60s so as to actually produce unemployment. But look around the world – we ain’t even close to that point.)

                    I’m a liberal, but I ain’t a luddite.

              2. Let’s go back to Econ 101, PL.

                Supply = number of units that sellers are willing to sell at a given price
                Demand = number of units that buyers are willing to buy at a given price

                The market clearing price is the one for which supply and demand are equal.

                For a given price, higher labor costs will lower supply. Therefore, higher labor costs drive up prices.

                1. No one said it wouldn’t. Did you miss where we said that burgers were more expensive in denmark? Read the whole thread.

                  The point was, doubling or even tripling the wages doesn’t mean a double or triple in prices. It just ain’t so. There are several adjustment mechanisms – including reduced (but not eliminated!) profit, higher productivity, and higher prices.

                  The equilibrium of supply and demand will lead to a slightly higher price, but nothing a few burger flippers couldn’t afford with their new wages!

                  See: still exists, the rest of the world.

              3. …if GM or Walmart didn’t exist in 10 year but we had full employment at high enough wages to keep people out of poverty, why would I care?

                This statement singularly underscores your total lack of economic understanding. You must also believe that if everyone were given $1 million, then they’d all be rich, just like you believe printing fiat money improves the economy.

                But you miss the most basic principle that all economics rests on: scarcity of resources. You cannot just raise wages and expect living standards to go up anymore than you can take all the dollars in America and redistribute them equally and expect poverty to go away. The value of money is that not everyone has it. And you totally (and willfully) refuse to confront that hard fact of life. If your assumptions were correct, then we could simply pass a law requiring full employment, print money to fund new government programs to hire anyone the private sector didn’t need, raise taxes to 70%, double all wages, and sit back and watch all our economic problems disappear.

                1. What are you talking about? Denmark isn’t fully equal. There are still millionaires! Burger flippers don’t make doctor wages!

                  But you miss the point that there doesn’t have to be poverty for an economy to function. The worst jobs can pay a decent wage that would allow for a decent life.

                  $15-$20/hr isn’t “giving everyone a million dollars.” Stop with the hyperbole.

                  I already stated that labor costs at McD’s in the US are ~30% but are around 45% in Europe. And that some of that comes from profit – ie, “wages” paid to capital.

                  All increasing the minimum wage will do is decrease inequality by some small SMALL amount. But it will lift millions out of poverty.

                  Living standards will go up for some – the poorest – and down for others – the richest. But the richest will still be rich. Maybe they’ll have to skip one of those 10k tables at LIV in miami once a year and the bottle girls won’t make 250k – only 200k.

                  Are you ignorant of the rest of the world?

                  1. Are you ignorant of the rest of the world?

                    Nope. You’re ignorant of Jesus’ words: “For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.”

          2. No, the prices don’t go up proportionally.

            This place is bad with the econ.

            Denmark pays 3x as much at McD’s but the burgers are only a few bucks more. Look up the Big Mac Index in the economist.

            The price of burgers is determined by SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

            You see, part of wages comes from profits (labors share of revenue is higher and capitals share is somewhat lower, but they both still make money). Part of wages are offset by higher productivity (the real goal here – less turnover, faster employees). And part of wages are slightly higher prices.

            GM was forced to compete with slave wages in mexico and other countries. Also, our high dollar policy provided a subsidy to other countries and killed million of jobs reliant on exports here – GM needs to compete with BMW on price, not quality – and they can’t.

            German autoworkers get paid twice the wages of US autoworkers. (Ironically we are Germany’s mexico!) They don’t have trouble with unemployment.

            There is nothing wrong with businesses or plants closing. That’s capitalism, right? I’m worried about the entire economy – if GM or Walmart didn’t exist in 10 year but we had full employment at high enough wages to keep people out of poverty, why would I care?

            1. …”GM was forced to compete with slave wages in mexico and other countries.”…

              Yep, all those Toyotez, right?

            2. German autoworkers get paid twice the wages of US autoworkers. (Ironically we are Germany’s mexico!) They don’t have trouble with unemployment.

              More productive. Unless they’re simply getting government subsidies to “boost” their pay.

              Gotta get value from somewhere.

              1. Is a gold miner more “productive” than a silver miner?

                One builds BMWs and Mercedes. The other, GMs. They use unions to restrict supply – like doctors use the AMA here. And better than unions do here.

        8. Well, McD’s pays 40k a year in other countries (minimum), so why is 60k unreasonable in the richest country the world has ever known?

          Have you ever given any thought?even fleetingly?to why that might be?

          1. No one here is against capitalism.

            Some of us think we can correct some inefficiencies and market failures with some regulation. We have plenty of evidence this is true.

            1. You are absolutely, 100%, undeniably and without any question against capitalism if you advocate for people who are not part of a transaction to dictate its terms. You do not understand the point: you are not smarter than the people who you are trying to control. You only think you are.

    2. I linked to a socialist web site the other day that had this as a story.

      I guess it’s a conspiracy between the banks, the koch brothers and rand paul to put a bunch of well-paid, minority, union members out of a job. And the whole inefficiency thing is a ruse to take credit for all the wonderful things the government does really well.

      Why do you hate a living wage, Citizen?

      1. I could see a good argument for the Post Office mandate back in the day, to ensure everyone had communications.

        It’s an anachronism in the Internet age though.

        1. Here’s that article I mentioned.

          Have a blast with that VA, and CN.

        2. Common carriage shouldn’t be an anachronism.

      2. What’s so bad about taking the Post Office as it is now and just cutting it away from the government? No more special mandates just on them. Also, though no special subsidies, but I don’t think they were really getting all that much besides no rent on post offices.

        1. Bingo. The USPS doesn’t even want most of those post offices.

          Also, they’re required to fund their pensions 75 years out… and guess where they have to put that money? Into yet another trust fund managed by Congress, which gets raided every year to pay for goodies.

        2. …but I don’t think they were really getting all that much besides no rent on post offices.

          And congress making up the revenue shortfalls that result from their mandate and granting them a monopoly on mail delivery. But other than that…

    3. It’s not actually post-office privatization, it’s the privatization of an archaic and virtually unusable old post office building. They could probably make it into a gallery/museum, or restaurant and shops, while keeping the building as is. Even most old hippies in Berkeley are having a hard time figuring this protest out. There’s not a lot of good reason to force the Post Office to keep the building except, I guess, for keeping it out of the hands of capitalists.

    4. Are the occupiers out there still young like they were originally? Or has it been replaced with used-up hippies?

      No excuse for anyone under 30 to give a shit about the post office.

      Fire them all, hire 3% of the carriers as actors, have them put on the uniform to drop off fake birthday cards to the old folks home. It’s a service you sell to the homes. “Twice weekly visits from the REAL post office!”

    5. I have a question – do you guys support removing all the laws congress has come up with that prevent the USPS from competing against others to foster increased competition in the marketplace, which would provide more consumer choice and decrease prices overall?

      Even if that ensured the USPS’s survival?

      1. You mean the law that prohibits private companies from delivering mail? That law?

        God you have mastered Orwellian doublethink. The law that put Lysander Spooner out of my business, in your feverish mind, is now a law that restrains the juggernaut that is the USPS from expanding its market share.

        You sir, are nearly as funny as Archer.

        1. You sir, are nearly as funny as Archer.

          You better not be talking snide about Archer.

        2. I have no problem removing the PES if we can also remove all the punitive pension and healthcare laws – but you also have to let the USPS compete evenly with UPS and Fedex and others without congress throwing a fit every time it does. Right now, both sides are getting strangled, with the USPS taking the worst of it.

          But I do understand the PES – the main point was to ensure mail delivery to everyone, considering the easiest way to trim costs for competitors would be to deliver to fewer people. The postal delivery service of a “free market” would look like that of our current healthcare system – millions would go without. The USPS would have been bankrupt immediately, unable to fulfill its mandate.

          Just like other public utilities and quasi-public goods, there is a reason for regulation. But in this case I agree, let anyone compete against them, as long as they will deliver to every address in the country. Let everyone play by the same rules.

          PS. Don’t push me too far – I live in a city. If I had no empathy I’d let conservatives wallow in their own shit out in the boonies. Let your kids pay $20 to send you that christmas card or get your refund check.

          1. Don’t push me too far – I live in a city.

            Ooooo look out in Internet Tough Guy here.

            Do you honestly think us po’ hicks couldn’t survive without the Post Office? Dipshit, I only go to the store for groceries. Everything else comes to me through UPS or FedEx. If the Post Office closed tomorrow, I wouldn’t fucking notice it.

            My tax refund is direct deposited. Why the fuck is a “progressive” stuck in the fucking 50s?

            1. I’d notice if the post office closed tomorrow. I wouldn’t have any junk mail to start my grill with.

              ProgressiveLiberal, make sure they put you in a home served by Monocle Heavy Industries REAL Postmen.

            2. It wasn’t the city folk that had a conniption when they were going to do away with the 6th day of service…

              ….or did you miss that?

              1. “….or did you miss that?”

                Yes, since your point had nothing to d with that.
                ….or did you miss that?

          2. millions would go without.

            UPS and FedEx deliver everywhere.

            1. Fedex uses the USPS and I’m sure they will deliver letters everywhere…for a price.

              But then we’ll listen to people bitch about $8 stamps.

              Again, not that I’m against this, I live in a city. We already subsidize the rural folk on everything else. We’re not opposed to this issue too.

              We have to decide if it’s important to have low cost delivery to EVERY person in the country. And if we agree to cut millions off, then fine. So be it.

              It’s going to happen eventually anyways.

              1. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 9:52PM |#
                “Fedex uses the USPS and I’m sure they will deliver letters everywhere…for a price.”

                Correction, idiot. USPS worked out a crony deal with Fed Ex in the hopes of saving its ass.

              2. Fedex uses the USPS and I’m sure they will deliver letters everywhere…for a price.

                Have we not established that nothing is free?

                When the USPS LOSES money each year, who do you think pays for the delivery of those letters? The Post Fairy?

                No it’s the taxpayers. And thanks to a progressive tax structure, that means the wealthy taxpayers. In your immoral system you want certain groups to receive benefits at the expense of others. YOU ARE IMMORAL!

                1. USPS doesn’t “lose” money except for being subject to arbitrary laws that their competitors are not. The core business would have been profitable the last decade.

                  It’s not my fault R’s didn’t think this through with their pensions and healthcare expenses.

              3. The USPS also delivers everywhere . . . for a price.

                And stamps already cost $8 – 50 cents at the post office and $7.50 out of your taxes.

                At least FedEx is up front about the total price of mailing something. The USPS hides that and so people mail more than they would if they bore the real price.

                That’s why you get negative externalities like scads of junk-mail.

                1. But making people pay for the services they use is icky and gross. If you put a gun to someone’s head and make them pay for your services, that’s called altruism!

                  Youse guys don’t know nothin’.

                2. Blah blah blah, their competitors aren’t required to prefund 75% of ANYTHING or invest only in government bonds (again, capitalism works, the market would pay more).

                  It’s arbitrary laws that are killing them.

          3. “The postal delivery service of a “free market” would look like that of our current healthcare system – millions would go without.”

            Which is a lie.

            1. How do you lie about reality? This is the actual state of affairs in this country.

              No one is going to charge 50 cents to deliver to alaska – just as no one is going to provide healthcare to the poor for free. Sure, anyone can get healthcare in our free market – just like anyone “can” get a ferarri. And anyone will be able to get mail – as long as they’re willing to pay for it.

              1. Why should someone who lives in Alaska have the right to force someone living in California or Texas to subsidize his or her decision?

                1. Why should someone who lives in Alaska have the right to force someone living in California or Texas to subsidize his or her decision?

                  Because all citizens are equal you moron

              2. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 9:54PM |#
                “How do you lie about reality?”

                Uh, a lie is a lie; assertions from brain-deads are irrelevant.
                It’s a lie, brain-dead.

              3. Why should people in Alaska get their post for the same price as people in New York? If they want cheap post, live somewhere post is cheap.

                You are immoral.

                1. That wasn’t the subject of my response. This was:
                  …”our current healthcare system – millions would go without.”

                  Which is a lie.

          4. The postal delivery service of a “free market” would look like that of our current healthcare system – millions would go without.

            FedEx and UPS already deliver to pretty much everywhere ( yes there a few super remote areas that they don’t, but so what).

            1. And you are assuming that letter deliver is some vital service – which is laughable in the 21st century.

          5. The postal delivery service of a “free market” would look like that of our current healthcare system – millions would go without.

            Others already pointed out this isn’t true, but I’ll rebut it with a reason. Network effect. Just like facebook, a postal service increases in value with the more people you can reach via it. If you can’t reach everyone with an address the value of that drops substantially, and I’d assume, the amount you can charge to reach them.

            A higher charge to reach, say, Alaska might not be the end of the world either. Plus, you can open up new services, like paying not to get junk mail. Or pay to have your mail scanned and delivered to you electronically, with the paper shredded. Oops, now we’ve solved the issue of not wanting to deliver to everyone.

            1. millions would go without.

              Bullshit.

              And that is in regard to health care.

              Millions go without health insurance, but health insurance is not health care.

            2. “A higher charge to reach, say, Alaska might not be the end of the world either.”

              See C. Anacreon, below.
              Bay Area lefties are trying to re-start the ‘stack-a-prole’ housing developments that failed after the mid ’50s urban renewal.
              You’re think our newest brain-dead would favor getting people to jam together where delivery charges are low.
              But NOOOOOOOOOOO! Anything that threatens wasted government action is anathema to brain-deads.

            3. Ok, did you know the USPS wanted to get involved in internet delivery a long time ago – but congress blocks them? This is the point – its not the USPS that’s the problem. I agree, the government needs to get out of the way and let them compete. They ran ads touting their overnight service – until UPS and Fedex talked to congress. Because they can do it more efficiently!

              Like i said, they will deliver everywhere, just like they do now – for a price. Is that worth the inefficiency? Different rate zones, no more one prices stamps, some address actually won’t be eligible for first class mail, etc?

              What I said is absolutely true – everyone can have healthcare if they can afford it. But they can’t. And everyone can get a letter on their birthday, if a company can do it for a reasonable price. Right now cities subsidize the boonies, like we do in everything. Let that subsidy end, stamps won’t be under 50 cents for many addresses.

              These are just facts. We need to decided if we’re better off the other way.

              1. What the hell is internet delivery? You mean e-mail?

              2. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 9:59PM |#
                “Ok, did you know the USPS wanted to get involved in internet delivery a long time ago – but congress blocks them? This is the point – its not the USPS that’s the problem.”

                Real argument for more government involvement right there!

          6. You are completely insane. I live in the boonies. The only interaction I have with the USPS is when a business chooses to send packages I order through the mail rather than Fedex/UPS. The USPS could dry up and blow away tomorrow and I’d never even notice.

            UPS/Fedex both deliver to my door and as far as I know, no one is forcing them to. God you are stupid.

          7. “The postal delivery service of a “free market” would look like that of our current healthcare system – millions would go without”

            Really, then explain how I get my mail and packages without having to go to the local post office – USPS doesn’t do home delivery in my town.

            Oh yeah, I get them through email, UPS, and Fed-Ex. The USPS *may* have had a purpose, back in the old days, but its obsolete now.

            And anyway – if you CHOOSE to live in the boonies, why are others forced to subsidize your mail and phone service?

            You guys like to talk about ‘public goods’, or use terms like ‘externalities’ when it suits your ideology.

            1. Apparently the opportunity costs (as well as the financial costs) of government never factor into the externality debate for leftwingers.

      2. Uncle Glen? Is that you?

        C’mon sock puppet. You can come up with a better handle than “ProgressiveLiberal”. That is just too overstated. How about “Friend of Marx”?

      3. Even if that ensured the USPS’s survival?

        nice straw man.

      4. I have a question – do you guys support removing all the laws congress has come up with that prevent the USPS from competing against others to foster increased competition in the marketplace, which would provide more consumer choice and decrease prices overall?

        Yes

        Even if that ensured the USPS’s survival?

        Yes

        Congress should privatize the USPS, hell even just give it to the current employees, and also remove the mailbox monopoly and the mandate to deliver everywhere.

        1. Only thing I’d add is a nice, explicit “It shall be unlawful for the federal government to provide monetary aid to the postal service” or something along those lines.

          Try to keep it from becoming a Fannie Mae.

      5. ” . . do you guys support removing all the laws congress has come up with that prevent the USPS from competing against others to foster increased competition in the marketplace. . . ”

        Yes, if those laws actually existed.

        Congress has created laws that hamper *private companies* from competing with the USPS, not vice-versa.

  50. Also-

    RAGING BULL SUCKED.

    1. Dude, no.

      Just no.

  51. You never would have guessed dept:

    Plan Bay Area, the statist movement to try and force people out of suburbs and cars, and into high-density ‘stack-and-pack’ apartments around San Francisco, was approved last month despite community outrage at every public meeting. Those against the Plan at meetings outnumbered those in favor by 20-1. But now it appears that the bureaucrats behind Plan Bay Area actually provided grants to local extreme-left NGOs to protest in favor of the plan. (Otherwise likely no one would have been on their side at the public meetings.)

    The link is from a Marin newspaper which leans hard left themselves, and the reporter has a very difficult time with the story, grasping at any straw he can to minimize the issue, saying only “critics” have a problem with this use of tax money, and then, well, still derides the other side as “pro-capitalism, and against health and environment”.

    1. The fact that there are people who consider pro-capitalism to be a slur really makes me wonder why the fuck we bothered winning the Cold War.

      1. Why does pro-capitalism mean you must hate health and the environment?

        Maybe if you like the state you hate health and the environment, given the bang-up job the Dept. of Ag. and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers have done for health and the environment, (dis)respectively.

      2. Because commies are really bad, at the very least as bad as Nazis.

    2. still derides the other side as “pro-capitalism, and against health and environment”.

      What could be healthier or more environmentally conscious than building giant concrete and steel hives where people can live on top of each other like rats?

    3. “Plan Bay Area, the statist movement to try and force people out of suburbs and cars, and into high-density ‘stack-and-pack’ apartments around San Francisco, was approved last month…”

      I can see a protest parade of BMWs around Marin Civic center…
      Seriously, how in hell do the planners hope to ‘force’ people into the things. It’s not like it hasn’t been tried; SF has demolished a couple of failed vertical slums over the past 15 years or so.

  52. Nice to see that same-sex partners are harassed by the British government just like opposite sex ones!

  53. “The list of Christian churches, schools, institutions, shops torched by the Muslim Brotherhood in the last three days

    “The following list of 58 looted and burned buildings (including convents and schools) has been verified by representatives of the Christian Churches.”

    http://bit.ly/1bH8Nf4

    Three days…three days…I seem to recall some symbolic significance here, but I can’t seem to put my finger on it…

    1. Mass in a burnt-out church in Egypt

      http://bit.ly/13KGGX9

      lol, when Israel was in Egypt land, let my people go!

      ifyoucantcryyoumayaswelllaughamiright.com

      1. Bear in mind though that the Copts are basically the descendants of the ancient Egyptians.

        They’re Christianized, sure, but Coptic is to Ancient Egyptian what Italian is to Latin.

        They’re like the Zoroastrians of Iran, or Yezdis of Iraq – persecuted minorities in their own home land.

        1. Most Muslim Egyptians are primarily culturally Arabized descendants of ancient Egyptians as well

    2. You expect Reason to care about Christfags?

      1. “You expect Reason to care about Christfags?”

        Fights between sects really have little to do with libertarianism.
        Bleevers find all sorts of causes to kill each other; can’t do much about it.

        1. “fights between sects”

          Ah, yes, the old moral-equivalence argument. Those Copts need to stop being so Christian, and stop voting for other parties, and maybe the MB will stop attacking them.

    3. “The list of Christian churches, schools, institutions, shops torched by the Muslim Brotherhood in the last three days”

      For a while, I thought that’s what the Progressives in San Francisco wanted to do to Mormons after Prop 8 passed.

      It wasn’t us! It was the [insert minority]!

  54. “SF fire chief bans helmet cameras in wake of crash”
    For reasons of “privacy”! And, well, there’s that little matter of the kid run over by the fire truck, so a lot of people are catching the smell of coverup in the air.
    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/…..741338.php

  55. Why are people talking to progressiveliberal? I’m pretty sure it’s a new sockpuppet. The fact that he said ‘don’t mess with me, I live in a city’ should have been a give away that he isn’t a real person.

  56. In honor of ProgressiveLiberal:

    Hitler vs. Stalin. Who would you approve of?

    Santorum/Peter King ticket vs. Schumer/Warren ticket?

    1. I choose to kill it with fire.

    2. I think I might prefer the former matchup to the latter — and I’m Jewish. At least the first two are honest about what their goals are.

    3. If I had to vote, Schumer/Warren.

      I would vote for Warren/Schumer first btw.

      He’s an asshole no doubt. But better on policy.

      If I had to vote Hitler/Stalin? Holy crap…this is tough! I really can’t come up with anyway to decide. I’d leave the country. I guess that’s what I’d do if it was really to the point that my citizens decided these were my two choices. I’d have no place here, because over 50% of the citizens were bat-shit crazy.

      I just don’t think Christie or Paul are on that level…not everything is “hitler or stalin” you know.

  57. You know Who Else directed his wrath against the loved ones of his opponents?

  58. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfn9NMCSU9k

    Here’s a little Meshuggah for you tonight.

  59. After a few cancer surgeries, a couple brain surgeries, a couple back surgeries, this guy is out in front of an abortion clinic trying to lovingly persuade women to change their minds…so far he’s saved 1,000 babies:

    http://bit.ly/19mWrb3

    The Holder Justice Department keeps losing cases it prosecutes against preaceful prolife protesters – almost as if the choicers in the Obama administration find such protesters threatening to their agenda:

    http://bit.ly/17Sw6yA

    But remember – prolifers are totally insincere and ineffective!

    1. so far he’s saved 1,000 babies:

      How does he even know that? Or does he ‘know’ that in the same he ‘knows’ God is real?

      a couple brain surgeries,

      That clearly led to brain damage.

    2. You all still have libertarians against choice? Yikes.

      That’s like liberals against medicare.

      1. Yes. Some people think differently. Shocker.

      2. Yes. And unlike you, their reasoning is based in principle.

      3. ProgressiveLiberal| 8.18.13 @ 10:06PM |#
        “You all still have libertarians against choice? Yikes.”

        Look at that again.
        I am opposed to government making abortion illegal, depending on how “abortion” is defined. I guess in our newest brain-dead’s fantasies that makes me “pro choice”, which is one more bit of lefty propaganda.
        Of the people I know, some of whom have had abortions, there isn’t a single one who is ‘pro abortion’; every one makes it clear that it was a difficult decision and no one was happy making it.
        But rely on lefties to trivialize such a matter; brain-deads know what’s best for all of us.

        1. Are you serious? What you describe is EXACTLY how liberals think of it. We know its a deeply personal and difficult decision that the states shouldn’t be involved in at any point in any way.

          And it’s “pro choice” because no one i know is “pro abortion.”

          Why is it you reflexively hate “the left” even when you agree with us?

          Anyways, someone explain how a libertarian is “pro life” (talk about “propaganda”!). Once the state starts telling you you must carry a pregnancy to term…suddenly its “no smoking, no drinking, you get depressed and fail at suicide we’re jailing you forever” etc.

          And these are real effects to people – which is why i can’t understand for the life of me why any of you would support anyone who would vote for R’s to choose the speaker of the house.

      4. Eduard van Haalen, is admittedly not a libertarian, although he does have some libertarian leanings. That said, one’s position on the legality of abortion usually comes down to whether or not one views the fetus as a person with rights. Libertarianism doesn’t answer that question. If a libertarian does not view a fetus as a person, then he/she will be pro-choice. If a libertarian does view a fetus as a person, they will most likely be anti-choice on that issue

        1. So one is founded in reality and the other is not? Interesting.

          Again, y’all are supposed to be principled and logical.

          The next step is government telling you not to drink and smoke or try to kill yourself…cause you know, “murder your child” and all that. “Child abuse.”

          Yikes. Conservative city.

          1. “So one is founded in reality and the other is not? Interesting.”

            Well, yeah, I think everyone on each side of the abortion debate feels that way.

            “Again, y’all are supposed to be principled and logical.”

            How are we not? People here have differing opinions on the matter, but the vast majority on both sides hold principled and logical stances on the issue, to a much greater extent than the average liberal or conservative.

            “The next step is government telling you not to drink and smoke or try to kill yourself…cause you know, ‘murder your child” and all that. ‘Child abuse.'”

            I don’t really get how any of those laws would logically follow from an anti-abortion law, but ok.

            “Yikes. Conservative city.”

            Because a minority of posters here are anti-abortion? Yeah, I guess that makes us the same as RedState or Free Republic

  60. Why are people talking to progressiveliberal? I’m pretty sure it’s a new sockpuppet.

    I’d say old troll / new handle.

    Just asking questions.

    1. I think its a funny handle considering my recent diatribe about the differences between Progressives and Liberals.

    2. New troll, new handle.

      Last time I was on this site was a couple years ago, before the whole signup thing.

      But I was wondering if anything has changed now that both the neoliberals and conservatives are all for incessant violation of privacy, targeted killings, etc. Shit is getting bad out there.

      As long as we’re voting for D’s and you’re voting for R’s (at least those who vote for R speakers of the house who set the agenda) we’re not going to put an end to this any time soon.

      And as soon as R’s take over, I’m sure they’ll ratchet this up a few more degrees, like always.

      1. As long as we’re voting for D’s and you’re voting for R’s (at least those who vote for R speakers of the house who set the agenda) we’re not going to put an end to this any time soon.

        I sleep soundly at night knowing someone, somewhere, isn’t passing laws.

      2. As long as we’re voting for D’s and you’re voting for R’s

        Let’s take a quick poll: who all here voted Republican in the last election?

        *crickets*

        1. Also, who voted D?

        2. No one votes for Rand Paul? No one votes for Ron Paul? No one?

          Really?

          At least Sanders is an I. What is their excuse?

  61. Sew, a story about a faggot getting arrested and it turns out his faggot partner is a journalist and can make a stink about it? A stink such as that which pervades the home of every faggot due to the trace amounts of poop everywhere? It’s like this story was designed to draw me out.

  62. What’s the evidence that Progressive Liberal is a real persoN?

    1. I’d say it passes the Turing test, but only barely.

      1. The writing style seems extremely Tony-esque, which is to say, a lot of “why can’t you guys admit D’s are the lesser of two evils” mendacious bullshit.

    2. It’s onviously Mary Stack back and off her meds.

      1. Wait a minute, I thought I was supposed to be “Mary Stack” off her meds? That’s what Hyperion and a few others have said repeatedly.

        Can’t you cock-sucking retards even keep your own conspiracy theories straight? I mean holy fuck, it’s not that hard.

        Protip: When the man offers you a sugar-covered treat, that’s not a dip’n stick. They don’t make those anymore. It’s his fucking cock, and you’re sucking it.

        1. Like you don’t know that we know that you go all Sybil when you’re off your meds and post under a zillion handles, Mary.

          1. Marriage Redefined is a sockpuppet of a “regular”.

            1. It’s bad enough just being a regular. Can you imagine the magnitude of loser you’d have to be to invent multiple personalities here?

              1. No multiple personalities, but I do have to change handles constantly to keep in front of the bans.

                Tonight was a record. Whoever is watching banned a new one like 10 minutes after I created it.

                Kudos to you, unseen monitor. That’s efficient work.

    3. Progressive Liberal is Tulpa, Cytotoxic, joe from Lowell, White Indian, Hobie Hanson, Dan T. and everyone else one doesn’t like.

      1. I miss Dan T.

        1. Dan T was a disingenuous jerk. I’d rather argue with people who at least believe what they say they believe, not people posting inane bullshit just to see what kind of reactions they can get.

        2. Don’t say that. Don’t EVER say that.

        3. Who was the guy (I didn’t post when he was here, but I read the comments for a few months before registration) who would always make random comments about sucking “Ron Pual’s dick?”

          1. Edward?

          2. That was Max. Not to be confused with Mad Max, who was that era’s Eduard Van Halen, Catholic Avenger.

  63. Perhaps the only chance of any sort of pushback against the post 9/11 police state is the NFL’s recent policy of banning bags at stadiums, because you know, terrorism.

    Women are upset with it, and as middle class white women seem to be rule the US these days, if they get upset enough, perhaps we will see an end to the hysteria over terrorism.. Or at least aim at it the people who are likely to cause terrorism (you know, Islamists) as opposed to the average person.

    1. “Women who are passionate about going to live NFL games” — I think you might have actually identified a political constituency smaller than libertarians.

      1. You might be surprised. A rather good friend of mine is a ~100 lb college history professer of the female persuasion who is THE most-passionate NFL fan I know. Just moved to WI, so now a packer fan – previously an Indy/Denver (Peyton Manning slappy) fan.

        She starts talking defensive schemes, and people just shut up and listen, in wonder…she’s quite knowledgeable.

        Also, my wife…

        there are others 🙂

        1. I believe it — I didn’t say they didn’t exist.

          I’ve accidentally stumbled across other libertarians in the wild as well.

          I stand by my completely baseless assertion that that particular constituency will not be the one to turn this tide.

        2. She’s a passionate fan who switched her team allegiance? What?

      2. The real question is why are there any libertarian football fans?

    2. Bitchez gonna bitch, yo

      1. I don’t think I’ll ever get the hang of this PUA stuff.

    3. Or stop voting for R’s and those who would vote for their speakers?

      You all realize that if R’s weren’t in power, there’d be no patriot act, all this drone shit, etc. It just wouldn’t have come into existence.

      Sure, D’s are pussies – but that’s the opposite of “leaders” – they don’t come up with this shit. None of them said “Iraq” – they said “yeah, me too!”

      I’m not excusing their disgusting behavior of continuing the policies…but cmon…the other day we had a vote and the D’s ALMOST put an end to some of it! If it wasn’t for all the R’s, which many libertarians default too and then elect as speaker, we could make a change.

      Hell, join our primaries and vote for privacy loving liberals! Help us out!

      1. “You all realize that if R’s weren’t in power, there’d be no patriot act, all this drone shit, etc. It just wouldn’t have come into existence.”

        One word: Bullshit

      2. None of them said “Iraq” – they said “yeah, me too!”

        “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” ? From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

        “Saddam’s goal ? is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” ? Madeline Albright, 1998

        “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” ? John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

        “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” ? John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

        1. Thanks for proving my point.

          Pussies, the whole lot of em. Until Bush started that nonsense they didn’t know where Iraq was on a map.

          Those people in 98 weren’t talking about a military invasion. And none of them are liberals.

          I won’t blame you for the sins of conservatives, even though the pauls both ran as R’s.

          1. “Those people in 98 weren’t talking about a military invasion.”

            To start with anyway.

            “And none of them are liberals.”

            No true Scotsman, eh? We’re talking about R’s and D’s, anyway, not liberals and conservatives.

            Seriously, the fact that you’re making a case for voting Democrat that basically boils down to “If you don’t give the Democrats a majority they’ll be pussies and roll over while Republicans do bad things” is pathetic.

            Democrats had the presidency, a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a large majority in the House a few years ago – what the fuck was stopping them from reigning in the War on Terror or civil liberties abuses? And it’s revisionist bullshit to ignore the fact that plenty of Democrats (Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, etc.) were just as enthusiastic about the Patriot Act as Republicans were

      3. …”join our primaries and vote for privacy loving liberals!”…

        Uh, s/he really posted that!
        Ms. Pelosi, Ms Feinstein and Mr. Obama would love to have a discussion with you. Well, sort of a “discussion”; prolly more like a re-education session.

      4. I’d believe that if the annointed one had used his political capital to repeal the patriot act instead of taking whatever steps he could to nationalize health care. But he didn’t. Because all that civil liberties crap is jus BS he uses to reel in suckers like you. Because it works.

        1. Or maybe he’s a neo-liberal and had no interest in removing the patriot act?

          No one here believes he gives a shit about civil liberties. What gave you that idea?

          1. You can’t make arguments based on partisan labels, and then try to play ideological semantics when you get called on it

  64. Off Topic:

    http://www.newsobserver.com/20…..brown.html

    North Carolina SBI agent manufactures murder confession from man with IQ of 54. Man spends 14 years in prison for crime he didn’t commit. State pays $7.85 million settlement. SBI agent still on the job.

    1. Obviously, the agent never received training on how NOT to frame retards for crimes.

      Underfunding, few bad apples, procedures were followed, totally unforeseeable, medals and commendations all around.

      1. Needs workers’ comp to get training!

  65. Tonight I was driving behind a Nissan Cube.

    Why would someone pass that as a design and why would someone else buy it?
    Disqus.

    1. “Why would someone pass that as a design and why would someone else buy it?”

      Irony.
      A car that looks like it’s standing still when it’s running at 60MPH!
      Most cars are “statements”; this one is a statement of ‘I’d rather not go anywhere, and here’s the proof’.

    2. I think auto styling is going the same way as architecture…designers seem to be designing cars not for the customer, but to raise their standing among their colleagues. And since a great many art people believe that they are on a higher level than your average person…you get the Qube.

  66. Why would someone pass that as a design and why would someone else buy it?
    Disqus.

    The design guys at Nissan need to either lay off the drugs, or get some better ones.

    There’s one SUV sort of thing which looks like the designer’s dog took a shit on the drafting table, and he traced around it and called it good.

  67. You all realize that if R’s weren’t in power, there’d be no patriot act, all this drone shit, etc. It just wouldn’t have come into existence.

    Speaking of people who need to lay off the drugs.

  68. Seriously, what fething good is Netflix? They have this huge streaming platform and all they have available is crappy sitcoms and movies that are under two years old.

    I signed up because of ‘Arrested Development’, watched ‘The IT Crowd’ and now have cancelled my membership because every time I want to watch something, its only available on disk.

    1. I actually cancelled my account for the exact same reason.

      I did some searching about it, and found several news articles. Apparently the vast, vast majority of their customers only used the streaming service for TV shows. And crappy sitcoms are incredibly popular. You’re talking about a nation that put “Two And A Half Men” at the top of the charts for the better part of a decade.

      So they decided to just focus on that and newer released movies. I used to love the selection of old forgotten gems and cult classics they had on there, but they ditched them all.

      Market-driven decisions are great, unless you happen to have a niche interest, then you’re SOL.

      I still remember the last movie I watched on there: “Food of the Gods”. Great example of the 70s “nature on the attack” film.

      1. What new released movies on Netflix? Are you talking about those straight-to-dvd features with B actors? Because I don’t see anything on Netflix which is under two years old that I actually wanted to see at the theater.

    2. How long is it until everything is permanently on-demand?

    3. Awesome for kids’ shows. Enough so that you can safely cut the cable TV cord.

  69. I’m really looking forward to robot burger flippers and fry cooks.

    1. Where’s my robo-wanker?

  70. Fairfield police say they received numerous 911 calls about a cable outage that hit parts of southwestern Connecticut on Sunday night.

  71. ProgressiveLiberal’s MO in this thread can be summed up as: 1) Post an argument 2) Wait for that argument to be destroyed by another poster 3) Repost it elsewhere in the thread, while ignoring the fact that it has already been discredited.

    1. YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND NUANCE!

    2. That would lead to Purgative Liberal probably being Krayewski.

      1. Literally?

      2. SIV, is that you?

      3. Or is it Lyle?

    3. It’s one against a million here, but i’m doing my best to answer each and every one.

  72. Lotta troll-feeding tonight. Don’t waste your time.

  73. Western Democracies aren’t even trying to hide their slide into tyranny any more. Arm yourselves.

  74. To those of you still awake, please read and consider signing this petition to request the Obama administration condemn this action by the UK.

    Thank you for your time.

    1. Why would he condemn something he likely asked them to do?

      1. He wouldn’t. The purpose of the petition is for him to reject it and once again demonstrate his contempt for law.

  75. Long live the queen. She ain’t a human being.

  76. Wait. He was carrying stolen documents which the state confiscated and this is all HitlerStalin because journalism?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.