Progressives

Throw Away Those Rush Limbaugh Caps, Dad, I'm Being Tolerant Over Here!

|

Madeline Janis. |||

Madeline Janis was once memorably described in these pages as

a crooked-as-the-Kickapoo activist responsible for Los Angeles' "living wage" laws, head honcho of the poverty-pimping L.A. Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), and commissioner at the City of Angels' Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).  She's one of about a half-dozen people who most deserve thanks for the fact that L.A.'s gross metropolitan product was in serious secular decline even before the recession hit. 

She is the progressive's progressive in my former home town, twice as influential on her city's affairs than any lefty I can think of in New York City. So when Janis makes an attempted display of cross-ideological comity, in the form of an L.A. Times column about her recently deceased Rush Limbaugh-loving father, we can fairly read it as representative of a certain category of progressive political tolerance. Scarequotes implied. Excerpt: 

On the day we were packing, with both of us understandably on edge, I came across a stash of Rush Limbaugh caps, maybe half a dozen of them, each with a different year printed on the front. I couldn't let it pass. 

"Can't we get rid of these?" I asked. "Rush Limbaugh is nasty and mean-spirited. He doesn't like women and, if he knew me, he would hate me and everything I stand for. Can't you at least stop wearing these caps?"

In fairness, it's not a lovely cap. |||

The dad, who Janis describes as "highly educated—a psychiatrist with multiple advanced degrees in science and medicine," understandably refuses. He also apparently demurs at her invitations to have screaming matches about politics:

I didn't want to get into arguments every time we saw each other, but sometimes I couldn't help challenging him. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance. Yet he had benefited from the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare. "Isn't it great that the government provides you with so much?" I'd ask.

He usually made it clear by his silence that he didn't intend to take the bait. And the truth was, as he told me regularly, he was proud of me despite our differences.

Eventually, her hectoring pays off: "[A]lthough I really like Rush Limbaugh," he tells her, "I love you more. So I'm going to give up the caps." Amazingly, Janis portrays this one-sided act of political bullying as a mutual kumbaya moment we can all learn from:

Our love for each other and our family helped my father and me transcend the enormous ideological divide between us.

It makes me wonder if there isn't something in these experiences that might help us, as Americans, transcend our political differences. Even if we don't have the same closeness as a family, Americans of all political stripes do share a love of country. And that could be a start, at least, at reaching across the gulf of ideology to work cooperatively and respectfully to solve the challenges facing the nation. 

Read L.A. Times readers letting Janis have it here. (Sample: "Note to Madeline Janis: You and your father did not transcend the ideological divide — only he did.") Limbaugh himself takes a whack here.

Hat tip to Josesph Mailander, whose writings on Janis are worth Googling.

NEXT: Australian Workers Must Give Massive Pay Raises to Apprentices, Says Government

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. Americans of all political stripes do share a love of country. And that could be a start, at least, at reaching across the gulf of ideology to work cooperatively and respectfully to solve the challenges facing the nation.

    Lot of assumptions packed into that statement.

    1. What you meant to say is, “No we don’t, kthxbai.”

      1. That’s what I meant initially, yeah, because that first sentence is a doozy. But the second one is also pretty dense with questionable assumptions.

    2. Love of country does not mean love of the State. Some us aren’t fascists who believe “everything for the State, etc.”

  2. The sickness that has consumed this woman’s soul has now leaked out into the world at large. We can’t even enjoy fucking vodka and chicken sandwiches thanks to vile creatures like Madeline Janis.

    1. Wait what? I’m still going to be enjoying chicken sandwiches.

      1. And I certainly do enjoy vodka.

      2. I’m going to assume that’s some sort of vulgar sexual euphemism.

      3. People like her are going to get in your face at Chick-Fil-A though. That’s part of the fun of eating there; I never get it to go anymore….

        1. One of the things I miss not working in OH any more. No Chick-Fil-A in MI (at least not where I am – I think there’s one at Oakland Univ)

          1. @Almanian!

            Seriously? I tried Chick-Fil-A once in SC, and it was terrible. Not having any Chick-Fil-A’s in Michigan might be the only positive thing about this state.

        2. Chick-Fil-A sells vodka?

      4. I think he is saying it is all John’s fault.

    2. …fucking vodka and chicken sandwiches…

      I’ve never had a vodka and chicken sandwich. Seems like the bread would get soaked.

      1. The vodka goes into the chicken, not the bread. Jesus, it’s like you just crawled out of a cave.

        1. Hey, I’m a guy. Cooking is for women and French people.

          1. Cooking is for anyone who likes to eat.

            1. You work. . .with your hands? How gauche.

      2. Can of spaghetti sauce, add a third of a cup of brown sugar for carmelization purposes. Spread in a pan, and let it dry out in a low heated stove. Once crusty, scrap out and blend it into a powder consistency in your Cuisinart. Add a stick of soft butter, blend once more. scrape it into a sauce pan on low heat. Add a half pint of heavy cream, and a cup of vodka. Raise the heat and stir, until it thickens nicely. Prepare your chicken or shrimp or other meat anyway you like. Pour over a bed of noodles. Yum. Yum.

    3. Yeah, one stupid bitch is not going to get in the way of me enjoying vodka and chicken sandwiches. As much as she wants to be, she is not the boss of me. Her old man was weak.

  3. We also see now how Mr. Janis failed as a father. If your daughter whines enough, you give in, even when she’s 60 years old. Pathetic.

    1. There’s probably something to this, actually.

    2. I placate my kids sometimes when I don’t feel like dealing w/ their shit nor being a good dad. He didn’t actually throw the hats away.

      1. Yeah, I’m guessing those hats were just shuffled around the attic.

        1. No, the skank was putting her father in an old folks home. They were packing him up for his last days. Bitch couldn’t even allow him that much.

      2. I never do. My sixth grade teacher wanted me to do something, I was perfectly willing to until she just had to add in a threat of punishment. She said I would have to sit alone for my lunch break if I didn’t comply. So I didn’t. It took three weeks of punishment before she broke, but it could have gone on the entire year as far as I was concerned.

    3. That’s how I was reading this. And you’re proud that she’s a shrill and intolerant harpy?

      I’m assuming he was throwing her a bone so she would STFU already.

  4. Some people can’t imagine what it’s like to be transgendered. I can’t imagine what it’s like to be completely consumed by my political/ideological identity.

    1. Be glad. Because it has to be horrible. Purely political scumbags are some of the most miserable people I’ve ever encountered.

      That’s probably why they are generally engaged in a campaign to make all of us miserable too. Without fail.

      1. Ain’t it the truth.

      2. While I often disagree with Limbaugh, he nailed this lady.

        Janis: “Everybody deserves a good job and a decent life. And that our government, our democracy has the tools to ensure that.”

        Rush: No, it doesn’t, unless equality equals misery spread equally, because that’s the best the government can do.

  5. “Note to Madeline Janis: You and your father did not transcend the ideological divide ? only he did.”

    Transcending the ideological divide is when the people who are on the side of evil admit it and repent.

    1. Hillary Clinton loves to repeat the tale of Lee Atwater apologizing for his years of political skulduggery when he was dying as if his careerist behavior was unique to Republicans. Hillary Clinton, of all people.

      1. The only difference between Lee Atwater and your average political operative is that Atwater never had any illusions about what he was and eventually apologized.

        Atwater wasn’t worse than most of those people, he was arguably better since he at least had some awareness of what a scumbag he was.

  6. Everything for the Tribe, nothing outside the Tribe, nothing against the Tribe.

    1. Their bullpen has been dragging them down.

  7. Compromise to the leftist is you coming around to the “correct” way of thinking.

    1. See, e.g., any gun control debate.

  8. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance. Yet he had benefited from the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare. “Isn’t it great that the government provides you with so much?, in their vast munificence allowed you to recoup a small amount of the money they took from you under threat of deadly force?” I’d [never have the intellectual ability or moral principle] ask.

    1. And I don’t know his biography, but the GI Bill means he served.

    2. At her father’s age, the GI Bill was most likely because he was drafted…

      1. Yep, the reparations part for forced service gets conveniently left out in most narratives. Without that justification, the extended benes added to the ‘contract’ would have been an impossible sell.

  9. “If I give this cunt a hat, maybe she’ll stop spewing crazy shit in my presence.”

  10. And that could be a start, at least, at reaching across the gulf of ideology to work cooperatively and respectfully to solve the challenges facing the nation.

    This wasn’t building a bridge across a gulf, this was a boarding party.

          1. + Rocket 455

  11. How does someone like who she describes her father as (assuming that this is rooted in any kind of reality) have a daughter like her? Seriously, if I had a daughter–as frightening an idea as that is–she wouldn’t be a socialist harpy. I can assure you that.

    1. Nah, she would be a crazed SoCon. From all your whoring.

      1. No, nicole. She’d probably be the worst, like you. Just to pain me.

        1. Aww, I pain you! That’s so sweet.

          1. You’re like the daughter I probably had by some skank but never met, nicole. And you turned out to be an anarchist. See? I was right. About what I have no idea.

            1. Epi and Nikki sitting in a tree,
              K-I-S-S-I-N-G…

    2. Episiarch, you cannot control your kids’ political beliefs. You can lead them to the water, you can urge them to drink, you can take of the reins and slap them on the rump to send them on their way, but you cannot force them to drink.

      This goes double for girls.

      1. Of course not. And I repeat: I can assure you that no daughter of mine would be a socialist harpy. This has nothing to do with controlling her political beliefs. It has to do with disowning any daughter who was a socialist harpy. Also, no women in my family are socialist harpies, so I have genetics on my side.

        1. Your mom accepts EBT cards, though.

          1. Sucker, she’ll take corn as payment too. You got played.

            1. Damnit!!! I tried corn syrup. I should’ve know she was watching her ‘beeties’.

              1. I was trying to formulate a joke involving Epi’s mom, her relation to Wilford Brimley, and DIABEETUS:

                “Hey Epi, your mom is fat, has a mustache, and diabeetus.”

                I failed.

      2. My girls are both to the right of me, although they’re intrigued by libertarian-ish ideas and might subscribe to a newsletter.

        Which I’ll take versus them being left-wing harpies.

        1. Well, it generally means that, eventually, your girls can be reasoned with. They won’t refuse to listen because “obviously you’re not caring and enlightened”.

      3. Re: Tarran,

        Episiarch, you cannot control your kids’ political beliefs. You can lead them to the water

        … and drown them, thus saving the world from their ilk. But not all have the stomach for it.

        1. “…thus saving the world from their ilk. But not all have the stomach for it.”

          Most people are selfish. Trouble with the world.

        2. I will never murder my children for any reason, let alone because I don’t like their political beliefs.

      4. you cannot control your kids’ political beliefs.

        Bullshit.

        Throw them out of the house at 18 or start charging them rent. Don’t pay for their college or co-sign any college loans. And let this be known to them at age 12.

        The day they stop getting handouts is the day they stop being stupid lefties. They may remain lefties, or they may remain stupid, but they won’t remain both stupid and leftist.

    3. Well, maybe it has something to do with the fact that he’s a huge fan of Rush Limbaugh. They are both TEAM partisans.

      1. I like Rush Limbaugh for the lulz, and I’m certainly no TEAM player.

        Of course, I guess I’m not a HUGE fan – I don’t own any hats or run around saying “ditto”…

        1. That’s my point.

          How can you expect your children to move outside the false RED/BLUE dichotomy if you are locked in it? Other than expecting your children to be more enlightened than yourself, which we all hope for as parents, of course.

          The guy served and seems to embrace libertarianish principles from third hand account, but let’s face it. You buy a bunch of Rush hats cause you are TEAM RED.

          1. OTOH, she notes that “he didn’t engage” and take her bait. It seems he DIDN’T push an agenda.

            Who knows fer sure? But looks to me like this is all from one direction, whatever his TEAM affiliation.

            Buying a hat doesn’t necessarily make him a TEAM player from where I sit. No one knew Cronkite’s views till after he retired…

            1. Whether or not he pushed an agenda seems moot to me. I think being able to argue from an intellectually honest position is important when trying to dissuade people of their intellectually dishonest positions.

              To put it another way, if you are a person who is willing to question and reevaluate your paradigms, to eventually transcend the simple black/white simplicity most people seem happy to settle for, you are more likely to have a kid who is willing to do the same.

              1. I understand. I just don’t have enough information to tell me that’s NOT what dad did (daughter CLEARLY didn’t), so I’m not assuming…just cause he buys Limbaugh Hats?
                But I understand your point – you may well be right.

              2. “Whether or not he pushed an agenda seems moot to me.”

                No. It isn’t. I don’t think anyone is horrified by the fact that this sow loathes Rush Limbaugh. It’s her treatment of her father to push her agenda that’s disgusting.

        2. I used to watch his TV show. I loved his ability to skewer liberals. I can’t imagine listening to him for hours on end between 10 minute commercial breaks.

      2. Well, I’d say Limbaugh is more a conservative than a Republican. There’s a big overlap but he’s not really a pure partisan.

        I’m just astonished that there’s a psychiatrist who isn’t a leftist.

      3. One difference. The father pushing his politics on his dying daughter. There’s team partisans and there’s team partisans.

    4. The “Greatest Generation” came home from fighting Nazi’s in WWII and Commies in Korea – then proceeded to raise a whole generation of worthless fucks like this woman.

      Maybe they were contaminated by FDR, or commies infiltrated the schools, who knows? But somehow a generation of hard-working, hard-fighting traditional people raised a giant generation of assholes.

      1. A big reason why is because the World War II generation grew up during the Great Depression. Many of those folks experienced firsthand the kind of poverty that makes what we call “poverty” in today’s America a joke in comparison.

        After the war, those folks determined that they didn’t want their kids to ever have to go through something like that if it could possibly be avoided, so many of them doted on their kids and gave them everything they wanted.

    5. Sometimes you cannot control outcome. Simple as that.

      My sons have mostly adopted my and my husbands beliefs/ideas, but we never pushed our opinions on them. They ask questions and we respond. If at some point they turn into neo-Marxists, so be it. Family is family.

  12. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance. Yet he had benefited from the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare. “Isn’t it great that the government provides you with so much?” I’d ask.

    I actually have a similar problem with my dad, with the added irony that he’s a retired public school teacher living on a cushy public employee pension. Yet he’ll still go from complaining about how Obama wants to steal everyone’s wealth one minute to bitching about the fact he has to way two more years before his social security starts coming the next, all without the slightest hint of irony. Although in this case he’s the one who won’t shut up about politics even though I’ve made it clear I have no interest discussing politics with him.

    1. I though public employees were exempt from SS?

      1. If he worked outside the public school system for 40 quarters over his lifetime, then he is fully eligible for social security.

      2. Well he wasn’t exempt from SS. Or at least he thinks he wasn’t. I don’t actually look at his pay checks, all I know is he talks about it a lot.

      3. Depends on the state.

        New York, no, others, yes.

      4. Looking online, there are 14 states where teachers do not pay into SS. The other 36 do. Specifically, Pennsylvania, where my dad lives, pays into SS.

    2. Well, Storms, he did pay into that social security. So, yeah, he’s entitled to get that back. Shame that the money he paid in is long gone, but that’s not his fault.

      1. he did pay into that social security. So, yeah, he’s entitled to get that back. Shame that the money he paid in is long gone, but that’s not his fault.

        Actually, no. While he may not have voted for SS, he received the benefits of his taxes as soon as they were paid. Huge amounts of what he “paid in” went straight to the general fund. So instead of paying for the “services” he received from the government, he “paid in” to a promise to steal from future generations.

        The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to rationalize it.

        1. Well, Marshall, if we are going to end SS one generation is going to have to take it on the chin. Nobody wants to be that generation.

          I’m not as doctrinaire as you. I think the closest thing to “fair” we could get is to let those who are collecting SS to continue to do so until they die. The younger people get a lump sum back for all the money they’ve paid in.

          People in the middle are the real problem in terms of financial liability. They deserve that money back.

          There’s no way to go back in history and collect back from people who received more benefits than they received.

          It’s easy to glibly say that SS should just go away. That’s not a position which will win any votes. Enjoy your purity of position; I’ll settle for a less unjust system.

        2. he received the benefits of his taxes as soon as they were paid.

          Makes no fucking sense. The only way he could receive full benefit of that money would be by hanging on to all of it from the start.

    3. The “logic” that one cannot criticize wasteful government programs if one has ever benefited from a wasteful government program is infuriating. If her father actually tried to stay away from every government program, he’d have to go live in the backwoods of Montana somewhere. In which case she would no doubt label him a right-wing paranoid anti-social extremist.

  13. Yet he had benefited from the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare. “Isn’t it great that the government provides you with so much?” I’d ask.

    Yeah, bitch, if he was as you described, this was just another way to show your father disrespect. The title of her column should have been:

    “How I was a mendacious cunt to my father and how he loved me anyway”

  14. “Isn’t it great that the government provides you with so much?” I’d ask.

    The father is a man of remarkable restraint (assuming he’s not in jail).

    1. Make that “was not in jail”…

  15. straight from his house to the old folks home. you can feel the compassion from here.

    1. Yep. She cares so much about others that she can’t be inconvenienced to care for just one person.

  16. Madeline Janis explains why abortion should be legal and retroactive to age 18.

    1. Make it legal until the 350th trimester, just to be sure.

  17. I looked at the picture and for a minute I thought the article was about Geddy Lee. Yeah, I went there.

    1. She should fly by night away from here…

    2. Beat me to it.

    3. I thought that the picture was of the Hagraven model from new Elder Scrolls game.

    4. I’m thinking about hatchet, axe, and saw right now.

  18. “Isn’t it great that the government provides you with so much?” I’d ask.

    I really despise this mindset. The government didn’t provide fuck all, you twit. The government stole things and gave you a portion.

    1. Yeah, I get the “but you got Social Security after your dad died…(till I was 19).

      My response….”So?”

      Whaddya mean I don’t support the system? I go to court when I have to…

      1. +1 Rattlehead

  19. What a cunt. Her dad should have beaten her more.

  20. Just like the Beatles song. We can work it out, as long as you see it my way.

    Always wondered if that was brilliant tongue in cheek or genuine blindness.

    1. The same folks that gave us “Taxman” – I think tongue in cheek.

      1. George wrote Taxman, Paul wrote most of We Can Work it Out.

        I think John agreed on “genuine blindness”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_can_work_it_out

    2. So I will ask you once again.
      Try to see it my way,
      Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.

      1. No. I’ll be dead by then.

      2. But if you see it my way, everything could be ruined, so I’d better see your way. But you don’t want to argue. Because that would be fussing and fighting. That can only end with me seeing it your way. We can work it out.

        Yeah, I think genuine blindness.

        1. Either that or I’m reading way to deeply into something they probably farted out in 20 minutes.

  21. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance.

    Indeed, people should rely on government who plunders idiots that rely on themselves and not depend on government. Don’t be an idiot, she says.

    Yet he had benefited from the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare.

    And ROADZ!(TM) Don’t forget the ROADZ!(TM) Why, people who want less government should not use the ROADZ!(TM) then.

    Never mind that if her dad was a veteran, the GI bill was meant as compensation for risking his fucking LIFE fighting overseas, and that S.S. and Medicare are mandatory programs from which you can’t opt out. Because of Medicare, there is NO insurance market for those 65 and older, so it is not like her dad has a choice.

    “Isn’t it great that the government provides you with so much?” I’d ask.

    Government breaks your legs, gives you crutches and then says “See? Without me, you would not be able to walk!”

    He usually made it clear by his silence that he didn’t intend to take the bait. And the truth was, as he told me regularly, he was proud of me despite our differences.

    He just does not want to call you a dishonest, slick little bitch. That’s all.

    1. I thought the same thing. Now, I think there are immoral aspects to the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare. They actually do have redistributive elements to them. But those programs also have at least some facet of people paying in or providing something in exchange for the benefit, and, as you note, some of them are mandatory programs.

      1. Social Security – Will never have the money to pay me back.

        GI Bill – For Draftees, it’s effectively wehrgild for kidnapping them and subjecting them to torments.

        Medicare – Why the *bleep* is this manditory? Why should people who can afford to cover themselves be paid for by those who cannot? (Nevermind the whole idiocy that is the insurance as pre-payment mentality)

        1. Medicare is mandatory because corporations made promises they didn’t want to keep. So they dumped their retirees on the government. You can work your whole life on the assurance that part of your pay is health insurance when you retire only to be told too fucking bad you are by law going on the dole like everyone else.

          The fact that medicare is mandatory and a lot of people are on it who never wanted to be puts lie to the whole “greedy geezer” rhetoric.

          1. That doesn’t make any sense.

            1. It makes sense when you think about it. The corporations were able to get Congress to make medicare mandatory. This turned their insurance from full insurance to medicare supplementary insurance and saved them a ton of money.

    2. It isn’t like her dad had any choice in joining those programs. That is a common leftist rhetorical tactic; point to your participation in mandatory programs like social security as a reason why you are prohibited from objecting to any government action. You see, since we made you join the collective and are getting all of these great things that you never wanted or asked for, you have lost your moral standing to object to the collective.

      1. I know some people who talk a lot of economic conservatism talk but who collect things like disability (for a ‘bad back’ or ‘insomnia’ as two examples). Now those people might deserve to be called on that. But mandatory programs? That is Orwellian.

        1. Wait – I could get disability for my insomnia? I thought I just had to suck it up and keep going to work.

          1. Anything that ‘significantly impairs your life routines’ or something you can get classified as disable for.

            1. That’s just stupid. I classify ‘disabled’ as unable to perform any useful function.

              1. unable to perform any useful function

                “See Also: elected officials and bureaucrats”

              2. Bo is right. I’ll admit it’s been tempting at times to go get on the SSI gravy train as a disabled vet.

                I feel bad enough using the GI Bill. I fear being hated by others for it because I kind of hate myself.

          2. “Wait – I could get disability for my insomnia? ”

            Almost certainly not, Bo is wrong. Usually, it’s a secondary symptom of a major problem, like a severely injured back, and is used as leverage to convince SS to accept your claim.

            1. Darn. Insomnia is my only symptom.

        2. I know some people who talk a lot of economic conservatism talk but who collect things like disability (for a ‘bad back’ or ‘insomnia’ as two examples). Now those people might deserve to be called on that. But mandatory programs? That is Orwellian.

          Disability insurance is mandatory, at least in california and the federal portion of your FICA deduction includes SS disability coverage.

          You cannot opt out.

      2. It isn’t like her dad had any choice in joining those programs. That is a common leftist rhetorical tactic; point to your participation in mandatory programs like social security as a reason why you are prohibited from objecting to any government action.

        Yes, John, he did have a choice. He could choose to reject theft via government. No one is forced to cash their SS checks and doctors will still take cash and credit cards from even people over 65.

        Two wrongs do not make a right. Wealth transfers at the point of a gun are wrong, even if others have stolen from you in the past.

    3. Here’s the deal. You can be opposed to these programs and work for their repeal, while cashing checks from them while they exist.

      And I don’t see any deepseated contradiction, any more than you can be opposed to privately owned toll roads (yes, I went there) and still drive on one. Or be a vegetarian and eat at a restaurant that serves meat. Or be a Democrat who thinks taxes are too low and not pay more than you have to. Or think Windows sucks and still use a PC.

      Now, if you really want to get out front, be a leader, get the moral cred to amp up your arguments, etc., you can pay extra taxes, boycott restaurants that serve meat, refuse to drive on the toll road, or never touch a PC.

      1. RC, does everyone, regardless of age, get to use roads? Why “pay extra taxes” instead of simply not being the recipient of government wealth transfers?

        I couldn’t give a shit what other people think of my morals. The only Hell that exists is the one I would experience just before my death when I realized that I had not even attempted to live up to them.

        I will eat a gun before I will take SS or Medicare.

    4. ‘Government breaks your legs, gives you crutches and then says “See? Without me, you would not be able to walk!”Government breaks your legs, gives you crutches and then says “See? Without me, you would not be able to walk!’

      There is a bumper somewhere that is looking for that very sticker.

  22. I get the same forwards that show up at the MyRightWingDad blog, even though I, too, have educated parents. I’ve reached a point where I just don’t even worry about them anymore, because I’ve seen some really stupid and patently untrue stuff pushed as KnownFacts by progressives, too. I also relax about it because, loathe as I am to admit it, there was a time when I knew the thrill of WorldNetDaily’s brand of yellow journalism. There really is an enjoyment factor that some people get out of that sort of thing.

  23. -His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance.

    This comment says so much about how far gone the left has gone. It is one thing to say that we might want government safety nets to help some people in certain situations (not a fan myself but even Hayek went there). But what in the world is wrong with thinking that people SHOULD take care of themselves and not depend on government (read: other people’s money taken from them). Do they really now believe that that as a general matter people should not take care of themselves? What in the world?

    1. Social contract!

      1. I took a philosophy class with a (surprisingly) conservative/libertarianish professor, and he would always say stuff to the class like, “You are a generation that thinks they’ll be getting stuff for free like healthcare but Barrack has just tricked you all too.” And when he objected to all the taxes he pays and all the people on the dole that he pays for, this one guy just couldn’t resist and had to challenge his position with a blithering dribble about how he has a social contract, never saw him again after that. Big kicker: the professor was black!!!!11!1!!

    2. Yes. It has gone from help the poor to “everyone must join the collective”.

      1. It is a literally mind boggling idea that someone would be opposed to the idea that people should take care of themselves if they can.

      2. And remember, anyone who refuses to join the collective is a wrecker and an outsider who clearly thinks they are better than the tribe, and is therefore a threat. And what do we do with threats to the tribe?

        1. I’m sure some of them would love to hear why I find religion and individual liberty in conflict, up until I tell them I don’t want to belong to their collective, either.

    3. If you’re self-sufficient, then you have no need of the tribe. Worse, your actions show that you don’t wish to be part of the tribe. If you are outside of the tribe, then you are a threat that must be destroyed.

      1. If you’re self-sufficient, then you have no need of the tribe.

        I wouldn’t confuse self-sufficiency with being self-supporting, which generally happens in some kind of social context.

        You need the tribe just as much as the tribe needs you. If you are a self-supporting member of a collective, the books balance and neither of you has a claim on the other.

        1. Humans is pack aminals, just likes wolfs. So yeah, we gots to cooperate, but that don’t mean all the wolfs are equal.

    4. Why can’t people take care of protecting their own property and resolving their own disputes without getting big government courts involved? Because anarchy is not especially desirable. It’s a spectrum. Some places have fewer social institutions and some have more. How much risk is put on the individual and how much is collectivized is the eternal debate. But it’s not a black/white thing and every single person advocating for the limited government they think they want has enjoyed the benefits of government far more than they acknowledge.

      1. Do you not think that people should in general, absent some special circumstance, support themselves?

        1. Special circumstances like being a child, perhaps? It takes a village. Social support networks are a more natural way of doing things than rugged individualism, which is the product of a specific cultural/philosophical context.

          This is why I argue that libertarians implicitly want to make far more radical impositions on people than socialists. People naturally band together to collectivize risk because it’s a really good strategy for survival and prosperity. You want to take that strategy away because, god knows why, but it sounds like some brand of Romanticism that got stuck in your head at some point.

          1. They clearly were not talking about children.

            Do you not think that as a general rule capable adults should take care of themselves rather than ask others to do it for them? That is hardly an insanely exaggerated version of rugged individualism.

            1. So we’re already making exceptions for a large portion of the population–children, which, by the way, everyone was at one point. So every single human already goes through a collective support system, and you’re fine with that. It does pose the question of why, then, would a more sophisticated system that includes adults automatically be undesirable.

              I don’t want the support system to be so generous that it incentivizes people to be layabouts. There is virtue in people being incentivized to better themselves. But I will note that this moral standard is entirely based on a collective measure of virtue.

              I just think the description is too vague. Take care of themselves to what extent? Should they have to take care of their own criminal justice? If not, then why is it a great leap to also collectivize other basic services when it’s demonstrated that it’s the more efficient way?

              1. I think it is clear we are not talking about people who can not take care of themselves (children, the actually disabled) or things that an individual cannot take care of by themselves (infrastructure). We are talking about whether adults who are capable of taking care of those needs individuals can take care of doing just that.

                I do not see why even a liberal would reject that. Yes, they may see the class of people who cannot take care of themselves as larger than I would, or the things that an individual could not do themselves to be larger than I, but once that is out of the way do liberals today actually still object to that basic principle?

                1. I don’t see why not. I only advocate for basic needs to be collectivized. And I don’t see why a sufficiently wealthy society (i.e., one that can afford it) isn’t morally compelled to do so. I have no interest in poking my nose into people’s lives and making sure they’re living up to some kind of work ethic. I’d rather they be liberated to be as productive and happy as possible by having their basic needs met.

                  1. But the problem with that is that once “basic needs” are provided by the government–and don’t get me started on how you determine what needs are basic–then the government (which is supposed to be “the people” as a whole) have a vested interest in providing those needs efficiently. So, decisions that you make regarding “basic needs”, which are inherently very personal decisions, are now the purview of the government. A government which has the final say on your basic needs is an inherent threat to liberty. Real liberty comes from the ownership of the means of meeting your basic needs.

                    1. Surely no one’s suggesting that a government that subsidizes access to basic needs (which are really quite easy to determine) should also prevent a private market in those same goods and services. That would be silly.

          2. Since when does it take a village? I seem to recall only needing my parents as a child, then ending my dependency as soon as I could. It didn’t help that the “village” I was in was a nest of Drug Dealers (most of whom collected government checks of one sort or another) we didn’t care to associate with.

            1. Indeed. If ‘the village’ decided it would force gay kids to live in the closet regardless of how open minded the parents might be I doubt Tony would get behind that.

            2. I suppose you paid for your own education, built your own civil infrastructure, etc.?

              1. Yes, the “schools” I was sent to taught to such a low denominator that I was effectively self-taught in order to even learn, the “roads” were a joke at the best of time, and we walked anyway.

              2. Tony,
                If I lock you in a cell and bring you food everyday would you say you owe me because I provide you with food. The money for infrastructure is confiscated and so there is no private option. If all land were private, the owners would develop the infrastructure as needed and connect to other private properties. Just because it is not allowed does not mean it can’t be done.

              3. Tony, they are clearly not talking about that. They are talking about once a person reaches adulthood, and if they are capable, shouldn’t they take care of themselves? We are not talking about providing their own infrastructure.

                I am stupefied that you cannot answer this question directly.

                1. Take care of themselves to what extent? Because you’re already exempting their transportation access, and presumably access to the criminal justice system and armed national defense. Isn’t it a spectrum? Defend your preferred point on the spectrum but stop telling me it’s an either/or situation.

          3. People naturally band together to collectivize risk because it’s a really good strategy for survival and prosperity. You want to take that strategy away because

            Are you really that ignorant of libertarian philosophy or are you just being mendacious? Look up concepts like “societies of mutual aid” and “agorism” before spouting your nonsense.

            The difference between us and you is that we believe in the freedom to associate peacefully without coercion. You on the other hand, believe might makes right and that the tribe is fully within its rights to enslave another village to “survive and prosper”. And if someone wants to leave your tribe, you’ll kill them, rape his wife, and enslave his children.

            How dare you attempt to take the moral high ground, you thug?

            1. Yes how dare I take the moral high ground when I want to rape, kill, and pillage, which I clearly advocate all the time.

              We already have free societies of willing participants; they’re called towns, cities, states, countries, and alliances. People peacefully associate as the norm, but for some reason you can’t see that getting large numbers of people (or even small numbers of people) to cooperate cannot be done without some measure of coercion. Anything from basic game theory to crawling out of your basement and looking around for a minute will make this clear.

              What you’re proposing is either completely indistinguishable from the society we already have or a fantasy based on bizarre misconceptions about human beings behave.

              1. I want to rape, kill, and pillage, which I clearly advocate all the time.

                When you advocate for taxation, that is exactly what you advocate. Opening a fucking history book would tell you that.

                People peacefully associate as the norm,

                That’s true, glad we agree.

                but for some reason you can’t see that getting large numbers of people (or even small numbers of people) to cooperate cannot be done without some measure of coercion

                No Tony, that’s your argument. Stop projecting your views on me. Do you deny that coercion is used to keep us as part of society? Can one give up one’s citizenship without having to go through a lengthy and expensive process where the outcome is not based on the fiat of a diplomatic officer?

                What happens if I choose not to pay taxes? First, I will receive warning letters. Then I will receive a court summons. If I chose to ignore the summons, the state will send armed officers to imprison me. If I offer even a modicum of resistance, violence or non-violent, these agents of the state are deputized to employ deadly force against my person. Even if I am not killed, my property and my liberty will be confiscated.

                Do you believe it is moral to use violence against a person who merely committed the non-violent act of not choosing to give a portion of his income to the state?

                Answer the question.

                1. Not paying taxes is tantamount to stealing, and a society has every moral right to react to that crime. It’s stealing because you’re still going to be using the things those taxes pay for. All you’re bitching about is the fact that you can’t conveniently exclude yourself from the already-built society you were born into. I’ll generously assume you’d stop using all public services if you were able and that you’d be perfectly happy being an ignorant, stationary subsistence farmer. (Why the rest of us should have to be is not clear.)

                  Otherwise I must turn the question around and ask you why you think it’s OK to steal from your fellow citizens.

                  1. Not paying taxes is tantamount to stealing, and a society has every moral right to react to that crime. It’s stealing because you’re still going to be using the things those taxes pay for. All you’re bitching about is the fact that you can’t conveniently exclude yourself from the already-built society you were born into.

                    Ah, the “you can always leave” fallacy. bitbutter absolutely destroys your argument in the linked video, so I don’t feel the need to expand upon that in this forum.

                    I’ll generously assume you’d stop using all public services if you were able and that you’d be perfectly happy being an ignorant, stationary subsistence farmer.

                    Actually, I do have a nice hobby farm, thank you very much. By the way, my wife was raised as a stationary subsistence farmer in rural Thailand. She only received an 6th-grade education. Does that make her a bad person, Tony? Why do you look down on her, Tony?

                    Again, you choose to ignore that anything that you claim can only be done by the state with funds appropriated by taxation under threat of force can be done by people voluntarily contracting with each other.

                    You stated down thread that you don’t believe it moral to employ violence against peaceful people, but here you state that it is moral to threat violence against people who choose to not pay taxes. You contradict yourself.

                    1. Surely even you agree that stealing should be discouraged and punished. Why should you get to use public services without paying taxes? Or do you believe you are entitled to form your own sovereign society, and presumably so is everyone else?

                      You are in fact physically entitled to that, but you better have a pretty large army. Someone did get there first.

                    2. I would be happy to pay for the government services I choose to use. That is not the system we live in. I play a large portion of my salary in taxes, despite being the very opposite of “wealthy”, for services I barely use. Therefore, money is being taken from me without my consent. IOW, theft.

                    3. Tax avoidance is perfectly legit while evasion is another matter. No one suggests no taxes be paid and a reasonable fine could be levied but don’t tell me someone should be in jail for it. People who evade are generally the ones the government rape and people like you cheer on. Get a clue.

                2. Actually HM, the standard history books essentially gloss over the issue of taxation choosing instead to (willingly or otherwise) under estimate the impact of taxes on civilizations. It’s not surprising (as a history major I speak – whatever that’s worth) then a gigantic slice of the population in North America don’t even compute the ruthlessness of taxes on their lives because it was never really taught.

                  They only see it through their pay checks and even then they’re unsure what to think or believe because all of a sudden their minds are racing wondering what they heck is going on.

                  They haven’t connected the dots and I’m afraid many won’t. As my friend said to me, “I’m not complaining.” He earns 200k and the government takes 55% and he’s not complaining.

                  He’s irrational.

            2. He’s a troll. Of course he knows libertarians argue for voluntary cooperative efforts, but pretending we don’t will get a rise out of everyone.

          4. It takes “a mom and a dad”, fuckhead. And sometimes just one, if that’s all you got.

            Fuck your “village”, Tonillary.

          5. Nothing in libertarianism stops voluntary association. If you want to pool your money, buy a farm and live in a commune that is perfectly acceptable. You just can’t force other people to do it. Libertarians don’t force people to not collectivise risk. It’s call private insurance and it works.

            1. So we’re allowed small private communes but not modern nation-states? Why? I don’t want to live on a hippie farm, I want to live in a modern civilized society just like everyone else. If that can be accomplished without strong centralized government, it hasn’t been demonstrated yet.

              And even in small hippie communes there will be conflict and hence coercion to mitigate it. It’s very difficult to discern just what you’re advocating, because it sounds like fantasy.

              1. You can have whatever you want as long as people are doing it voluntarily. You can have whole states based on whatever philosophy you wish. You just can’t use guns to force them into your system. If you don’t want to live in a commune live in a city or suburb, I don’t care. Move to a heavily regulated region or an anarchist region. It is your CHOICE.

                1. I have made the choice. I chose to live in the free, democratic society I was lucky enough to be born into. What, do you think these “voluntary” societies won’t have new people born into them? Can’t you see that the modern democratic world has already taken the form of what you are talking about, more or less?

              2. Maybe it sounds like fantasy because unless you’re a tyrannical fuckwad, people generally won’t willingly be enslaved for your benefit.

                Shorter Tony: “ME WANT! YOU GIVE ME WANT!”

                Face it dude, you’re just a totalitarian asshole trying to use bullshit as a fig-leaf.

          6. It takes a village.

            And as usual, Tony has nothing to contribute except meaningless talking points.

        2. BO, please do not feed the troll.

      2. Because anarchy is not especially desirable.

        Not especially desirable, to you.

        To you, because you are a physical, mental, and moral weakling who fears a world where one must stand on their own two feet and fully accept the consequences of one’s actions.

        1. I like that Tony takes the statement ‘people should generally take care of themselves’ and starts shrieking mindlessly about anarchy.

        2. I’ll have to take your word for it that you’re Very Special and self-reliant and that you don’t happily avail yourself of civilization at every opportunity just like everyone else, that being the rational and intelligent thing to do.

          Do I fear a form of society in which every action or set of circumstances presents far more risk to everyone than the one we have now? I dunno about fear, I just don’t see why it’s necessary when we have figured out how to minimize some of that risk.

          1. Government is not civilization.

          2. Re: Tony,

            Do I fear a form of society in which every action or set of circumstances presents far more risk to everyone than the one we have now?

            Government increases the risk. Think about that. When you rely too much on people you don’t know and could not care less about you – bureaucrats – you WILL take far more risks than if you relied on your wits alone.

            Who can assess the risks to you better than you can? Yet you are asking people to trust government to do that as a SALES PITCH for government. What a crock.

            1. That’s just patently stupid. Okay so maybe not having modern civilization there to back you up if someone robs you or if you have a health problem, etc., will make you marginally more attentive to your risks. But those risks will be much, much greater.

              1. Re: Tony,

                That’s just patently stupid.

                As always, I come to expect from you nothing more than obfuscation and false outrage. NO explanation as to why what I am arguing is “stupid” despite the fact that research on Moral Hazard backs
                it up.

                But those risks will be much, much greater.

                How would you know that, Tony? Were people living in utter fear in America during the 19th century, or wasn’t the country a vibrant and growing one when government was much, MUCH less ubiquitous?

                1. Life was much riskier for individuals in the 19th century than it is today by any sane estimation.

                  1. Re: Tony,

                    Life was much riskier for individuals in the 19th century

                    Either you are equivocating and confusing risk with peril, or you’re just showing your usual brand of ignorance. Life is ALWAYS perilous. I’m taking about risky behavior.

                    People in the 19th Century would not have grown this country the way they did if the risky behavior had been higher compared to payoff. The fact is that the men and women of the 19th Century were able to assess risk much better than people today, despite all the safeguards we “enjoy” now, imposed by government. People in the 19th Century saved their money; today, most people don’t. People risked bankruptcy much LESS in the 19th Century than today, despite the fact the government makes so many guarantees. Why? Moral hazard.

          3. I’ll have to take your word for it that you’re Very Special and self-reliant and that you don’t happily avail yourself of civilization at every opportunity just like everyone else, that being the rational and intelligent thing to do.

            Let me guess, you never were in debate club. For if you were, your coach would have beaten your love of fallacious tu quoque appeals out of you.

            Do I fear a form of society in which every action or set of circumstances presents far more risk to everyone than the one we have now?

            Likewise, your coach would have slammed you for your constant fallacies of equivocation and straw man arguments. Nothing in an anarchic society states that every action presents far more risk to anyone than what we have now.

            Again, you’ll never admit that the basis of our current society is threat of violence. That’s the crux, Tony, do you support violence against peaceful people or not?

            Answer the question.

            1. Nothing in an anarchic society states that every action presents far more risk to anyone than what we have now.

              That would seem to be unquestionably obvious. No police, higher risk of being assaulted. No public education, higher risk of being ignorant. No military, higher risk of being invaded. I don’t care if you want to advocate for a far riskier society, but at least own up to the obvious.

              Tony, do you support violence against peaceful people or not?

              No.

              1. Why there no police, schools or military in an anarchy. Police are private and paid by property owners to protect their property. Schools are private and paid by parents. Military could be a voluntary militia.

                1. Sounds like paradise.

                  1. If the government instituted ass wipers as a make work program tomorrow, tony would talk about how no one wiped their own ass prior to government ass wipers.

              2. No police, higher risk of being assaulted. No public education, higher risk of being ignorant. No military, higher risk of being invaded.

                Police, as we know them, are an 19th century invention. Are you saying that one had a high risk of being assaulted in the past? Again, even a basic survey of history shows that is ludicrous.

                Again, are you arguing that without public education people would choose not to educate their own children? That’s like saying without public supermarkets, there is a higher risk of starvation, which again is ludicrous.

                As for no military, Costa Rica abolished their military a long time ago. They’re still free and have one of the most stable democracies in all of Latin America. Oh, and as a bonus, Costa Rica is the only country that has ever elected Libertarians to national office. The Costa Rican Libertarian party currently has 9 out of 57 seats in their legislature.

                1. Gender reassignment might not be a mental illness, but arguing with a troll certain is.

                  1. I have no illusions that Tony argues in good faith. My labors are for the kids who are following along in the studio audience.

      3. Re: Tony,

        Why can’t people take care of protecting their own property and resolving their own disputes without getting big government [sic] courts involved?

        And yet you accuse ME of not knowing logic, when you just perpetrated a “loaded question” fallacy right in front of everybody.

        Who the FUCK told you that only BIG government provides courts? Who told you that courts HAVE to come from government only? Don’t you watch Judge Judy?

        Idiot.

        1. I think a justice system needs to be administered by some organization with a monopoly on the use of force, so a court system would probably only work through some type of government.

          That said, the court system costs virtually nothing compared to America’s overall spending. I like when liberals bring up courts and roads since those sorts of things could be provided for about 1/1,000,000 of what we’re currently spending.

          1. You could have private courts payed for by usage fees that contracts partie agree to at the start of a contract.

            “we agree to use courtco to resolve all disputes.” Or your court of choice based on reputation, cost, customer service etc

            1. That would work for contract disputes and litigation, but how would that work for criminal courts?

              1. Think about how alarm companies work. People opt in. You could have the same with police and courts. Imagine outside your subdivision you have a sign saying you are protected by X security and they use Y court. If you enter that division you know you have to play by those rules. If your subdivision is unhappy at the end of the contract use Z security.

                1. I can tell you right now that if I am there to commit a crime, there’s no reason to think I am going to really agree to “play by those rules”. You come make me play by those rules.

                  And this is why anarchy is impossible.

                  1. Except the police don’t care if you like the rules. You will be arrested and tried. Then punished. The punishment is just because you were aware of the laws and agreed to the terms by entering.

                    1. Police being security X and trial by court Y

                    2. That’s what a government is, Floridian.

                    3. Even then you’d need some sort of organization to enforce contracts. Let’s say we agree to go to Court X and they find against me. What’s to stop me from saying ‘fuck this, I’m not paying?’ The only way to handle that would be with an organization that has some sort of monopoly on force.

                    4. They can still use force. They have bailiffs, just you get a choice. If court X is known to be corrupt but court Y is honest you use court Y and X goes out of business. There is an incentive to be a good company. The difference between government and private courts is competition. If your security company has an 8 percent solve rate and another company has a 50 percent solve rate you can change security companies. I would also like to point out the penal code is not uniform now. Each city has it own ordinances. Same with private security hired by property owners.

                    5. Except you don’t get a choice in government. Private security and courts you get a choice. The competition lowers cost and improves quality of service.

      4. Tony!

        Wait. I have to go get my Limonata as is tradition. Hang on.

        Psh!

        Ok. Away you go.

        1. You idiots fucking enabled him again. Thanks bunches, guys.

          1. This.

            WHY THE FUCK DO YOU PEOPLE FEED THE PUPPET?

            1. It’s like feeding animals at the zoo I guess.

              1. One very plausible reason you guys are wrong about pretty much everything is that you clearly have no interest in listening to anyone outside your echo chamber.

    5. Do they really now believe that that as a general matter people should not take care of themselves?

      Yes. Because the existence of competent, self-reliant people is a threat to collectivism.

      Also, notice the glaring omission of private charities and social welfare organizations.

  24. This is what a totalitarian looks like. It is not that she doesn’t agree with or like Limbaugh. It is that she cannot tolerate even her own father expressing his agreement. If this woman is this relentless with her father, imagine what she is like with anyone else. This is why leftists own so many institutions. When a normal person sees something they don’t like, they leave the organization. When I leftist sees it, they feel compelled to infiltrate and transform the person or organization into what they want. In this woman’s world, no one is allowed to agree with Rush Limbaugh. No one is allowed to in any way deviate from the political hive. They are just terrifyingly awful people.

    1. I think many SoCons spend a lot of time noticing every aspect of every institution they find insufficiently deferential to their values and complaining about it too (example: the ‘war on christmas’ over how stores greet them during the holidays).

      1. That is a response to liberal cultural aggression. The only reason people say “happy holidays” is because liberals have bullied them into doing it. In fact, your example is exactly what I am talking about. Liberals couldn’t stand it that someone greeted another person in a way they didn’t like, so they immediately set about to change the cultural norms to conform to the hive. And SOCONS and a lot of other people don’t like that.

        1. -The only reason people say “happy holidays” is because liberals have bullied them into doing it.

          I do not buy that. Maybe they say that because some of their customers might be Jewish, or Hindu, or atheists, who are off around Christmas but do not celebrate it?

          It was the SoCons that went nuts about that rather innocuous social practice.

          1. No. It was the liberals who went nuts over a social practice that no one had thought about. You can and always could say happy holidays. But now thanks to liberals “merry Christmas” is a subversive act.

            1. I do not remember any liberal war on Christmas, but I do remember conservatives losing it over that.

              The demographics and culture changed such that it make sense not to assume everyone is a Christian. That freaks many SoCon Christians out.

              1. Why is it offensive to wish someone a merry christmas? I am not offended when people with me a happy new year around Rash Hashana. Working in the legal field that happens a fair amount of the time.

                And no liberal would ever find such a thing offensive. If it were a commitment to true religious neutrality, that would strange and sad and produce a boring society. But at least it would be fair. But it is not. Liberals only get pissed about Christian things. Other religions have third world multi cultural creed and are exempt. That is the part that infuriates SOCONS.

                1. Do you know many SoCons?

                  Try going up to them and wish them a Merry Satan’s Day. See how much they enjoy it.

                  I know a fair amount of conservatives who get upset over any acknowledgement of a Muslim holiday for Pete’s sake.

              2. I do not remember any liberal war on Christmas, but I do remember conservatives losing it over that.

                Then you are oblivious to actual events in history. John is absolutely right on this one.

                I don’t have time for “WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!11”, but I get why some people (mostly conservatives) DO have concerns. “YOU STARTED IT!”, libtards.

                Not the other way around. kthxbai

            2. No. It was the liberals who went nuts over a social practice that no one had thought about. You can and always could say happy holidays. But now thanks to liberals “merry Christmas” is a subversive act.

              This is pretty much bullshit. I don’t remember any liberal being as hardcore anti-Merry Christmas as Bill O’Reilly was pro-Merry Christmas. The War on Christmas debacle was an example of a demagogue taking advantage of social conservatives to drive his ratings.

              The only time I’ve ever had a liberal get pissed about Merry Christmas was when I said ‘Hey, Merry Christmas!’ to some girl in one of my classes and she got all haughty and whined about the fact that she’s an atheist. I just shook my head because if my atheist beliefs meant I couldn’t celebrate an awesome holiday like Christmas that would make me pretty miserable.

              That was just some fat girl in one of my classes though, not a major talking head like Bill O’Reilly.

              1. Yet somehow the practice almost stopped Irish despite the country still being like 80% Christian. I don’t think the fat girl in your class was alone.

                1. How did the practice stop? It’s true that networks say happy holidays because they know that a lot of people watching won’t be Christians, but when I’m going about my daily life I see people say ‘Merry Christmas’ to each other all the time. The Christmas cards I get say Merry Christmas. My friends say Merry Christmas to each other. When I go to my parents’ house they say Merry Christmas.

                  How on earth did the practice stop? The only people who stopped saying Merry Christmas are major corporate entities that have to appeal to a wide variety of faiths.

                  1. I think their calculation is that they’d rather be bland with “Holidays” than offend the small group of sourpusses who don’t like the term “Christmas.”

                    Of courses, either way they’ll get mad letters, but would you rather you get letters accusing them of being hypersensitive, or letters from some guy freaking out that OMG Christians killed Grandpa and you’re forcing it on me?

                  2. How did the practice stop?

                    Because the proggies who populate the cultural/media/State power centers decided that it was “offensive”. They banned it in their organizations, and pressured others to do the same. No laws were passed; this was pretty much a cultural shift implemented by a small, highly politicized minority.

                    1. Time out. What we’re talking about now is ONLY cultural and media organizations and various big corporations. Libertarians are fond of rightfully pointing out that government and society are not the same thing. Well, by the same token, elites in the media do not equal the whole of society. I hear Merry Christmas everywhere I go, every Christmas and I live in Chicago. This is a left-wing city not Texas, and I still hear Merry Christmas everywhere.

                    2. Again, you are reading political motivations into a situation where non-political ones can perfectly explain the behavior in question. Exactly what John started off complaining about.

                      There have been demographic shifts such that, especially in many areas, there are now significant numbers of non-Christians shopping places and in social networks, so it has come to be seen as odd to wish these people a ‘merry religious practice you may not practice or believe in.’

                      It is interesting. People say ‘why be upset over Merry Christmas?’ Turn it around. Why be upset over ‘Happy Holidays?’ Do SoCons have to have THEIR religious holiday preferred or else it is offensive? Merely wishing them happiness at the time of their holiday is not enough, one must acknowledge, institutionally, and specifically, their holiday?

                  3. And this isn’t even true. I remember back when O’Reilly was making first making hay about the war on Christmas crap, he singled out Target stores for having whitewashed any reference to Christmas.

                    It was a provable falsehood. I worked at Target at the time. Nobody ever gave us any instruction on what to wish people, ever. And every single receipt we printed had “Merry Christmas” on it.

                    I’ll further note that when working retail, I never saw anyone object to being wished a Merry Christmas. On more than one occasion, though, I wished someone “Happy Holidays” only to have them sternly correct me, “You mean Merry Christmas“.

            3. I don’t care whether people say Happy Holidays or Merry Christmas, as long as they’re sincere when they do. The thing that gets me annoyed is when people (on either side of the issue) say it like they’re mentally giving you the finger at the same time.

              1. I really don’t care either, and I don’t understand why anyone does. It seems to just be another field of the endless culture war, only this battle is even less substantial than most.

          2. If I’m in India/Jordan/Israel and someone tells me “Happy Diwali,” “have a blessed Ramadan,” or “bless you on these High Holy Days,” then unless it’s some kind of snark, why should I be offended? They’re *trying* to be nice to me in terms of the prevailing culture, they’re not trying to put me in a re-education camp. They’re just being *friendly!*

            I would love to know the proportion of non-Christians who really have a bug up their butt about MC v. HH.

            1. I think that our religious diversity and institutions are such that we might not want Jordan or Israel to be our examples.

              Again, if you do not think the same people who get upset over ‘Happy Holidays’ would be unhappy if they were regularly greeted with ‘Happy Ramadan’ I have a bridge for sale for you.

              1. I admit I may have a blind spot here. With some folks, I try to give both (eg) Hanukkah and Christmas gifts – I haven’t heard objections.

                Let me on 2nd thoughts confine my example to India, which is more comparable to the US in that there’s religious tension but not a govt-established religion.

                1. I wonder if in India how a Hindu wishing a Muslim a ‘happy Hindu’ holiday goes over? I honestly do not know, but I know how I would bet.

                  1. Most of the Muslims left India a generation or more ago.

                    1. It seems that there are over 160 million Muslims in India constituting more than one in ten of that nation’s population.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India

                    2. C’mon, Bo. This is the internet. No one is interested in your “facts”.

        2. The only reason people say “happy holidays” is because liberals have bullied them into doing it.

          Bullshit John. People say it because not everyone in this country is a fucking Christian and it’s generally a more conscientious greeting than the religion-specific one. It’s not liberals doing any forcing, it’s people being decent, which excludes pissypants FOX News conservatives, for whom this “controversy” exists ONLY as a desperate and pathetic political tool to make old morons angry enough to vote for the right party for absolutely pointless reasons.

          Of course the world must be a pretty ideal place for you guys to get worked up over such meaningless, petty bullshit.

          1. I’m offended when anyone wishes me a ‘Happy’ anything. I’m a miserable cur, and you’re trying to take away my right to be cussedly obtuse.

            1. In Britain they say Happy Christmas.

              Fucking Limeys.

          2. It is all petty bullshit Tony. That is why people saying “Merry Christmas” bothers liberals so much. Of course it is petty bullshit. But no detail in life is too small for liberals to crush it in the name of the hive.

            1. Are you really seriously claiming that it’s liberals and not FOX News talking heads who have their britches more in a wad over the Christmas thing?

              Some people have real grievances. Must be nice having only fake ones.

              1. Oh, I don’t know. In your last comment, you indicated that people who say “Merry Christmas” are indecent and unconscientious. That sounds pretty much like you’ve got your britches in a wad.

              2. For once I kinda agree with Tony (though I see where John is coming from). I think too much of it is made. BUT I wouldn’t put it past progressives to make Christmas all PC.

                1. Yeah, Bill, that’s another thing. They would get all huffy and claim it’s “inconsiderate” to say it to anyone so in a way they implicitly don’t want it said.

                  Like I have to guess who I say ‘Merry Christmas’ to.

                  It’s such a sad commentary on where things stand that this has become a debate.

                  1. No liberal made this a debate! This is entirely a hysterical fabrication of Bill O’Reilly’s ilk.

        3. The only reason people say “happy holidays” is because liberals have bullied them into doing it.

          Or maybe, you know, they believe it polite not to exclude those who have differing beliefs? Maybe they have deeply held beliefs to show hospitality and friendliness to religious/cultural minorities, for their own holy books admonish them that their spiritual forebears were once “strangers in a strange land,” so they should sympathize with the “strangers” in their land?

          1. I say “Merry Christmas” because I’m an atheist.

          2. It seems that John is doing something similar to what he is complaining about, finding the worst political sins lurking behind everyday social interactions that can be easily explained non-politically. People recognizing many of their customers or associates might not be practicing Christians and choosing to use more neutral language around Christian holidays? Why that could only be a liberal plot.

            1. No. People should say what they like. But I am not going to pretend that a lot secular liberals are assholes about this stuff. They just are.

              1. If by “a lot [of] secular liberals,” you mean the hobgoblins in your mind, then sure.

                1. It wasn’t the voices in my head who spend their lives suing over kids mentioning God in their valedictorian speeches HM. It wasn’t my imagination that atheists sued NASA because the Apollo 9 Astronauts read from Genius on TV.

                  You guys pretending atheists don’t have a bug up their ass about this stuff is like me claiming SOCONS are not fucking nuts when it comes to porn. Every group has their foibles.

                  1. I will grant that atheists have sued over governmental endorsements of religion.

                    But the conservatives War on Christmas was largely about places like Wal-Mart or NBC saying ‘happy holidays.’

                  2. It wasn’t the voices in my head who spend their lives suing over kids mentioning God in their valedictorian speeches HM. It wasn’t my imagination that atheists sued NASA because the Apollo 9 Astronauts read from Genius on TV.

                    What in the hell does that have to do with a cashier saying “Happy Holidays”?

          3. I honestly always thought it was also because of, you know, fucking New Years, which is right around the same time, and part of why it’s called the “Holiday Season.” I mean even Christians have multiple holidays. There’s all that Advent shit, and Boxing Day for some peeps, whatever it is some people do at the beginning of January with the cake filled with stuff, etc. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day are even like, separate things to some extent.

            1. But these aren’t happy holidays, they’re days of misery and torment.

              1. I always liked the George Carlin take on it. Maybe I don’t want to have a nice day. Now I have to go out and have a good time because of some loose lipped clerk.

              2. New Years Eve is always the most disappointing Holiday. Every year I convince myself that New Years Eve will be awesome, I go to whatever party I have lined up, and it is never as awesome as I predicted.

                1. Isn’t it though? I have had a couple of good New Year’s eves. But for every one of those, I had four or five that sucked. I have come to agree with my parents that it is just amateur night. I stay home and go to bed early. Usually go volunteer somewhere New Years morning since places have a hard time finding people that morning.

                  1. The problem is, New Years Eve is just a normal party night that happens to have the ball drop. That means that you’ll probably only have as much fun as you’d have on a normal Friday night, but for some reason everyone convinces themselves that the party is going to be great. It never lives up to expectations.

                    1. And it costs twice as much. Don’t forget that Irish.

                    2. But it’s a dandy excuse to kiss and feel up other guys drunken wives.

                      That may not fly on your average Friday night.

        4. I’m an atheist and I say “Merry Christmas.” If that offends liberals, then that’s their problem.

          1. I love it!

            Just like my Jewish friends seem to appreciate my “Merry Christmas” cards, and I their “Happy Hannukah” cards.

            Of course, we’re friends…

            For the general populace? Yeah, I just don’t say anything any more, because FUCK PEOPLE. One less thing I have to worry about…if someone wises me a “HappyMerryBlesses” anything? I return the salutation to them.

            1. I’m a fan of replying to “Merry Christmas” with “Don’t tell me how to feel!” and run away crying.

              1. I like that. Let them think your parents were murdered on Christmas or something.

            2. Yeah, I’m kinda honored when another religion wishes me well or blesses me. What’s the big deal about getting all huffy about it?

      2. I also know a few people so ardently opposed to immigration that they will boycott stores like Lowes that have signs in Spanish and English or any product with Spanish labels. One of them will not let his child watch Dora the Explorer for the same reason.

        But they tend to want to close out anything they do not agree with, I do not know they work to change them, so that is different.

        1. There is nothing wrong with boycotting. Your money. I think that is a stupid and overly political way to be. But it is not totalitarian. And not wanting to look at signs in Spanish is a preference and a rational if kind of petty reason to choose one store over another. The liberal response would be not “I am never going to that store again” but “we need to pass a law or go protest and harass that store to make sure that store does what I like”. there is a big difference between the two responses.

          1. I agree there is a big difference between the two, but I am not sure it is exclusive to the left.

            Conservatives often freak out and want to pass laws about what different people think and do that does not necessarily effect them directly. Think of flag burning laws. Or the old blue laws. Or sodomy laws.

            It is less of a left right thing and more of a statist non statist thing.

            1. They do on language first. But that is always about preserving the status quo more than anything.

      3. The ‘war on Christmas’ garbage starts each year with some media source reporting that some bureaucrat/ACLU functionary/rabid atheist has done X to stop some public celebration of Christmas(and it’s always Christmas–not Hanukkah, not Kwanzaa, not the Solstice–and these also get public displays in many places).

        That’s how it starts. And the socons respond.

    2. Once again Susan if you would stop reacting to the nonexistent liberal monsters in your head you wouldn’t be pissing your panties so much. I don’t think she wants to forbid people from liking Rush Limbaugh. This seems like a private family conversation to me. Granted she made it public.

      I promise you for the vast majority of liberals the idea of forcing people to believe anything is totally unthinkable. (Which can’t be said for religious conservatives.)

      1. The woman can’t tolerate political dissent from her own father, whom she admits she loves. That doesn’t speak well for her ability to tolerate and understand dissent from the rest of the world.

        I promise you for the vast majority of liberals the idea of forcing people to believe anything is totally unthinkable.

        Completely. They just will ensure they are not allowed to speak their views or in any way act on them. But they can think as they want. Damn charitable of liberals to let people have their own thoughts.

        You are comedy gold Tony. You do realize that your side is the side of speech codes, hate speech, and shouting down any speaker who you find objectionable? It isn’t the right who does that shit.

        1. I promise you for the vast majority of liberals the idea of forcing people to believe anything is totally unthinkable.

          That really is just an unbelievable statement from Tony. We may stop you from saying what you want, stop you from expressing your beliefs and destroy your life for having beliefs we disagree with, but we’d NEVER say you couldn’t believe something.

          You can believe what you want, so long as you are forbidden to make any actual difference in the real world.

          Tony sounds like he is basically advocating in favor of a world based entirely on the ending to Brazil.

          1. What on earth are you referring to? What liberal has ever forced anyone to believe or say anything, and when did it happen?

            1. Campus speech codes.
              Hate crime legislation.

              Shall I go on?

              1. I’ll give you speech codes because I don’t feel like arguing it. But hate crimes laws don’t punish thoughts. At least not anymore than other motives-based distinctions in laws.

      2. I promise you for the vast majority of liberals the idea of forcing people to believe anything is totally unthinkable.

        I hope you see the linguistic irony in that statement.

      3. Tony, that woman is an idiot and sounds like a petulant 12 year-old. And she’s on YOUR side.

        1. All of you sound like petulant 12 year-olds all of the time.

  25. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance.

    This is written like a right wing parody of what a liberal sounds like.

    1. THIS IS WHAT THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE!

  26. You made an old man throw away his hats. You must be very proud.

    1. A sick old man. That’s good for bonus points right?

  27. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance.

    What a fucking monster.

    1. What does “first principles” mean?

  28. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. The more hostile liberals are towards those who disagree with them, the more tolerant they consider themselves to be.

    war is peace
    ignorance is strength
    freedom is slavery

  29. So annoying woman bitches at male relative who eventually gives in, presumably to shut her up.

    What else is new?

  30. Your father dies, and THIS is the story from his life that you choose to share with the world? Wow.

    1. He’s dead?

      Well then, why not an uplifting story about what he did in the war, or the time he took the kids to the Grand Canyon, you know, something nice?

      1. I suspect her relationship with her father has been all about her since day 1.

        1. “Then he reached across the partisan divide and we agreed I wouldn’t have to eat my broccoli.”

          1. Good one, Eduard.

      2. Because she wanted to brag about her ‘moral’ vistory over a sick old man who was getting tired of her whining. She doesn’t care about what he did, if she even remembers.

        1. My parents’ political views can be a bit hit and miss. But I can’t imagine it being anything but a footnote to my memory of them. Jesus, they raised me. Who cares about politics?

      3. she couldn’t mention his service to the country (except obliquely) or even his name.

      4. The sad part is that I suspect that, to her, this is something nice.

    2. Again, this is what a totalitarian looks like. For her politics is everything. Even her father and closest family members are remembered by and judged fist by their politics.

      The fact that her dad may have been a great guy and done who knows how many cool and interesting things in his life or done any number of kind acts for her or her mother or the rest of the family doesn’t matter. What matters and what defines him to her is his politics. That is just fucked up.

  31. The column is a warning to all fathers who have daughters. If you raise your little girl as a narcissitic little princess, she stays one forever.

    1. Damn straigh

    2. But John Mayer says…something about your daughters! I only know that because my wife and daughters just LOOOOOVe all his mushy girlie songs.

      Whereas I only like John Mayer when he’s being a guitar God at Eric Clapton’s Crossroads Festival.

      But Mayer says SOMETHING SOMETHING SOMETHING about daughters…so…think about it.

    3. I mock mine frequently enough that there is no way she will ever turn out like this shrew.

  32. I hope my daughter doesn’t turn out like that. I’d hate to have to disown her.

    1. Then don’t tolerate that level of bitchiness now or ever.

      1. If can teach her to think instead of emote, then I should be able to save her from becoming a leftist.

  33. How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a thankless child, lol!

    spankthesassoutofyourkidswhiletheresstilltime.com

  34. This story really made me sad. I just traveled halfway across the country so that my 97-year-old grandmother (living in a care facility) could meet my infant son. Grandmother and I don’t agree on some things, but I cherish that both I and my son got to see her.

    When she passes away (hopefully not soon), I’m not going give a shit about our religious and political differences–I’m going to remember that I had a really nice grandmother and be glad that my son got to meet her.

    Ms. Janis is a monster for browbeating her ailing father into giving up possessions he obviously enjoyed as he was going into the care facility. What a stupid and horrible thing to do. I wonder if she has children? I kinda hope not.

    The mask is really slipping off progressives in the Obama era. They are being revealed for the shitty totalitarians they truly are.

    1. I have a friend who needed to use our car to go see her 97 year old grandmother. I loaned it to her and went along for the ride at her request. The grandmother was sharp as a tack. But also an original red diaper baby New York communist. I mean like a real communist from the 20s and 30s who was cheering on Stalin. You couldn’t get more appalling political views.

      But, she was also 97 and sharp as a tack and a really interesting woman. It was a fascinating afternoon hanging out with her and her grand daughter. In addition to being a disrespectful prick, I would have missed out on a delightful afternoon had I let politics define my interactions with her.

      1. My father is a committed leftist, so we talk about woodworking.

        1. And I bet the conversations are interesting. There is more to life than politics. A lot of pretty smart and interesting people think some pretty crazy political things.

        2. My mom has some pretty hippie, lefty beliefs, but she is far from the worst. I think she even gets marginal utility. I heard her call my nephew stupid once for some silly complaint about being gauged with a ‘product will only clear at what the market will bear.’ But she also owned a few of her own businesses (not dead, retired) over the years, so that explains that.

      2. It’s that complete inability to get past politics and ideology that bugs me the most about the progs. You see it in social conservatives, too, but not nearly to the same degree.

        When I get together with friends and family, the last fucking thing I want to do is sit around and argue politics all day. Life is too short and beautiful for that.

        I’m constantly amazed at how many of my liberal friends just have Facebook streams that consist of nothing more than progtard shit, day after day. Why do they think I care?

      3. My grandmother is an extremely religious and I’m extremely not-religious. Sure enough, she asked during our visit whether we take my son to church. Rather than debate the merits of atheism with her, I tried to find an answer that would comfort her and make our visit go well. I don’t know that I entirely succeeded, but I certainly wasn’t going to use that precious time to get into it about religion.

        It’s too bad Janis couldn’t see the bigger picture concerning her father.

  35. What a great example of the comparative political tolerance of progressives and conservatives.

    Progressive bully people into pretending to accept their viewpoints. Conservatives demure and just don’t talk about their political belief to progressives.

    Who is more tolerant?

    1. Worrying for the future of our country is that this tolerance has its limits (as it should). What then?

    2. Who is more tolerant?

      The firing squad. Well, more merciful is maybe the better word.

    3. A big part of this is also generational. People in the World War II generation were generally quiet types (of course there are always exceptions). Contentious subjects like religion and politics were usually considered to be personal and thus generally avoided in conversation for the sake of comity.

      This all completely changed with the Boomers, who were the first “in your face” generation who demanded that you know what they think about everything.

  36. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves

    The FUCK?!!! What kind of… cretin…

  37. Eventually, her hectoring pays off: “[A]lthough I really like Rush Limbaugh,” he tells her, “I love you more. So I’m going to give up the caps.” Amazingly, Janis portrays this one-sided act of political bullying as a mutual kumbaya moment we can all learn from:

    Our love for each other and our family helped my father and me transcend the enormous ideological divide between us.

    I’d have said, “Ok, I’ll get rid of the caps if you stop raping the people of Los Angeles.”

  38. Bottom line: while the skank was putting her father in an old folks home, she couldn’t be bothered to allow him the comfort of a collection that affirms his own beliefs.

    1. She wasn’t going to take care of him… that’s what other people government is for. Perfectly consistent with her philosophy.

  39. “I’ll get rid of the caps when you take the “coexist” bumper sticker off your car.”

  40. His political beliefs were rooted in the idea that people should take care of themselves and not depend on government for things like healthcare and sustenance.

    Collectivists do not comprehend the idea of voluntary collective action. They honestly feel (I say feel because I do not give them credit for thinking) that individualists oppose all collective action because we oppose forced collective action.
    I think this is why the left abhors corporations and churches. Those are organizations of people voluntarily working together towards a common goal. No force involved. So leftists hate such organizations. They go counter to the notion that force is required for collective action. So rather than reexamine their beliefs, they just hate. Pathetic.

    1. Corporations are legal inventions and as such have some measure of accountability to the society that pays for the goodies they get. Churches are inherently coercive institutions. Or is the threat of eternal hellfire not coercion in your book?

      Explain how we can have a modern technological civilization of hundreds of millions of people without a measure of coercion. Explain how 10 people can act collectively without some measure of coercion.

      1. Oh, what fucking moronic bullshit, Tony. Corporations do not hire employees at gunpoint. They produce the wealth and permits your precious mega-government to exist. Government produces nothing and exists ONLY to coerce.

      2. Corporations are legal inventions and as such have some measure of accountability to the society that pays for the goodies they get.

        What special goodies do corporations get, exactly, that justifies this accountability?

        Churches are inherently coercive institutions. Or is the threat of eternal hellfire not coercion in your book?

        Nope. I see no violence or threat of violence. A godbotherer can tell me I’m going to hell, and I don’t feel the least bit threatened.

        1. What special goodies do corporations get, exactly, that justifies this accountability?

          The guarantee of limited liability is the big one. They also get free access to an educated workforce, transportation infrastructure, etc.

          1. By “get free access to” you mean “pay a butt-load of taxes for” right?

          2. “Free access to”?

            So they don’t pay taxes that pay for infrastructure? And they don’t have to pay wages for those educated workers?

            Looks like I need to get into this corporation thing, sounds like you get tons of free shit with no cost and no risk at all!

            1. Damn phone didn’t refresh…

            2. Yeah that would be the social responsibility I was referring to.

      3. Explain how 10 people can act collectively without some measure of coercion.

        What a sad world Tony lives in, that he can’t even go out to dinner with a large group without violence (or the threat of it) breaking out.

        1. Well, some of his dinner friends could be married couples.

          Jus’ sayin’

        2. See, this is where lefties and libertarians truly split. For lefties, any measure of social pressure, like peer pressure, is “coercion”. So, if you’re in a small redneck town that doesn’t much care for gay people, and you’re a gay teen, your community is “oppressive”, “coercive”, and “forces” you to stay in the closet.

          All of those words mean (in reality and to us) very different things from how the leftist uses them. And he does it deliberately: the more places where Tony can make not-force look like force, the more comfortable he can get the hoi polloi to be in using *actual* force to alleviate it.

          1. For lefties, any measure of social pressure, like peer pressure, is “coercion”.
            Unless they agree with it.

            1. No. They still think of it as coercion, it’s just “righteous” coercion.

      4. Re: Tony,

        Corporations are legal inventions and as such have some measure of accountability to the society that pays for the goodies they get.

        One thing does not follow the other and you’re begging the question – again. A) Just because corporations are “legal entities” does not mean B) they get “goodies” from anyone and C) are thus accountable to “society.”

        Churches are inherently [sic] coercive institutions.

        You probably find that all those woodpeckers are insulting you personally in Morse code, as well.

        Or is the threat of eternal hellfire not coercion in your book?

        Is it in yours? That is what should matter, otherwise your assessment on churches is not a contention but an opinion.

        Explain how we can have a modern technological civilization of hundreds of millions of people without a measure of coercion.

        Because civilization is created by people acting in a voluntary way, through trade. Coercion is the antithesis of civilization.

        1. Re: Tony,

          Explain how 10 people can act collectively without some measure of coercion.

          In that, WE AGREE – we cannot have 10 SLAVES working collectively without some measure of coercion. That is the truth.

          10 people working to benefit each other do so cooperatively because it improves their own position individualy, through trade and production. But collectively? Only as slaves. History has proven that. We agree on something, at last.

        2. It also requires means for dispute resolution. Or do disputes never happen in your happy trade-based utopia, because you say so?

          1. How many times have libertarians acknowledged that providing courts so people can resolve disputes without resorting to violence is a legitimate and necessary function of government, idjit?

          2. Re: Tony,

            It also requires means for dispute resolution.

            Your lack of imagination is not my problem, Tony. There are many ways to resolve conflicts, be it through arbitration, town elder, private courts, public courts (yes, public courts), public shaming, losing of face, of reputation, etc. NONE of these require the type of coercion you wet-dream about: jack-booted burly men with guns.

            Or do disputes never happen in your happy trade-based utopia, because you say so?

            Don’t be ridiculous. Trade is no utopia, otherwise you would not even have a computer to spew your swill.

            1. Jack-booted men with guns is your metaphor.

              Most people here support only those functions of government that actually require men with guns.

              The IRS and the NHS don’t have guns.

      5. Churches are inherently coercive institutions. Or is the threat of eternal hellfire not coercion in your book?

        Has no effect on me.

        1. Churches are inherently coercive institutions. Or is the threat of eternal hellfire not coercion in your book?

          That’s the dumbest argument I’ve ever heard. If I choose not to go to church, they cannot legally send armed goons to my house and force me to do so.

          Yet another argument from Tony that free choice is coercive.

      6. Explain how 10 people can act collectively without some measure of coercion.

        I’m not much of a sports fan, but it seems that the members of the teams cooperate with each other just fine without coercion. And it seems that the thousands and thousands of people who go to watch the games manage to do so without being coerced.
        Unless I’m missing something.

      7. Tony, you’re such a sad person.

        “Explain how 10 people can act collectively without some measure of coercion.”

        I don’t. Try a soccer side down to 10 men?

        No, seriously. Sports tells many tales.

        1. ‘I don’t know. Try a soccer side.’

        2. Last I checked sports were pretty strict about their rules.

      8. Churches are not coercive because:

        If they are wrong, then it’s all empty threats, not coercion.

        If they are right, then they didn’t invent truth, they merely reveal it. Heaven and hell, if real, were created by God, not churches. The churches are not threatening us with their power. They are warning us about God’s power.

        If God is real, he is a valid moral authority.

    2. The thing that gets me is that Janis is aghast at this very basic notion and assumes her readers will be, too.

      You don’t have to be a raging Randian to believe that people taking care of themselves and their own families is a basic requirement for a functioning society.

      Janis obviously believes there should be no stigma attached to being an able-bodied person living on welfare. She’s dead wrong, and her belief will be the downfall of this country if widely shared.

      1. Why are you guys such moral busybodies? Stigma? What purpose does that serve? Can we not assume that people would prefer to have good paying jobs rather than be on government assistance? Even if that’s not universally the case, shouldn’t the poor get pity and political attention instead of stigma? I realize that in libertarian la-la land being poor is to be on the gravy train and not, you know, being by definition disadvantaged, politically powerless, and relatively much more vulnerable to everyday risks.

  41. “Our love for each other and our family helped my father and me transcend the enormous ideological divide between us.”

    lol, watch out when a woman starts talking about how “we” did something, espeically “we agreed.” You guys know what that *really* means, right fellas?

    okhoneywhateveryousay.com

  42. One way to “transcend the enormous ideological divide”? Maybe have the current President and party leaders of the left stop accusing the right of jacking off to the sight of old, poor, young, gay, female, and handicapped people die painful deaths in the streets.

    It’s hard to have a mature political conversation when one side looks at you as Satan’s right hand man rather than a person with a different opinion.

    1. “jacking off to the sight of old, poor, young, gay, female, and handicapped people die painful deaths in the streets.”

      Yes, libertarians woul rather jack off to their deaths in the privacy of their monocle factories. At least wring some profit from them before they croak.

  43. Yet he had benefited from the GI Bill, Social Security and Medicare

    I like how she said benefit.

    As if this guy will ever get the amount of money he put into SS and as if he has a choice other then being forced on medicare and as if he did not earn GI bill education money by being a fucking GI….hell for all we know the poor bastard was drafted. Thank god for government. It will make a you a slave soldier for a few years but if you survive they will give you a few bucks for community college.

    1. When I’m raped but then the perp throws me a dollar and a towel to clean myself up, it makes everything okay.

    2. Libertarians defending the GI bill, Jesus Christ.

      You can’t be absolutists and then start stuffing your hand in the grab bag of big government social programs and pull out the ones you like.

      1. I consider myself a “mostly libertarian”. I don’t see a problem with the GI bill. It is earned, deferred income. Why would a libertarian object to a contract that specifies deferred income?

        The current version of the GI bill requires current GIs to pay part of their current earnings into a GI bill trust fund, else they are not eligible to draw on the GI bill after discharge.

        1. Why would a libertarian object to a contract that specifies deferred income?

          It was a massive Big Government initiative that totally changed the face of American society. Why is that OK but the relatively modest Obamacare the devil?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.