Nanny State

Beverly Hills City Council May Blanketly Ban E-Cigarettes Tonight

|

Beverly Hills City Council has an urgent matter at hand! At tonight's meeting, the council will consider an "interim urgency ordinance" that will declare a "moratorium of the establishment and further operation of any electronic cigarette retailer." Remarkably, they are giving retailers two weeks notice:

"In order to allow retailers to amortize any investment in e-cigarettes made before the adoption of the ordinance, retailers who purchased e-cigarettes for resale prior to the date of adoption of the ordinance will be able to continue to sell such cigarettes for a period of two weeks after the adoption of the ordinance. Selling e-cigarettes beyond the two weeks is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both."

Along with the suggested moratorium on vape shops, there is a separate agenda item that will extend all present smoking regulations to electronic cigarettes. Read the rest of the proposed ordinance here.

Proponents of e-cigarettes fear that rash, local legislation like this will set a precedent that will severly impact the industry as a whole. For all the reasons that e-cigarettes shouldn't be regulated, watch E-Cigarettes: Second-hand Smoke, Vaping, and the Price of FDA Regulations.

NEXT: Vatican Sends Survey to Dioceses

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. OT: DC Council Votes For Redskins Name Change

    May I suggest the Maryland Redskins, or perhaps the Landover Redskins?

    1. The Rockville or Reston Redskins has nice alliteration

      1. Richmond Redskins, if that new practice space is open.

        1. It is, and I would be fucking ecstatic if they moved the whole team down here.

          HTTR.

    2. Does the DC Council have jurisdiction over this?

      1. No, it’s just one of those finger-wagging official statements. They can’t force the Landover Redskins to do anything.

      2. Same jurisdiction they have over Indian-apolis.

      3. Ever heard of eminent domain?

        The Mayflower trucks would never make it out of the District at 3am — still too much traffic.

        1. What does the District have to do with Landover?

    1. Libertarians make their own election threads.

      1. MSNBC calls it for McAuliffe. If the outcome is different in the morning, they will call it voter fraud.

  2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “I haven’t washed my hair in four yearsAt the end of the day a-a-a-a-a-Americans we-we-we-we-were not not not no-not only not m-myzzled by the president…”

    That’s pretty much a word for word transcription.

    1. ~13 seconds of that shitbirds inane ramblings causes brain aneurysms in lab rats…

      /The more you know…

      1. Just read L. Ron Hubbard quotes if you want to learn how to lie poorly.

        1. Dunno. Obo’s been doing pretty well.

          1. Two solid terms as prezidente don’t lie.

    2. She is detestable.

      And I’m so sick of both sides that say “BECAUSE THE GUY ON THAT TEAM DISAGREES WITH ME HE WANTS TO LITERALLY BEAT YOUR GRANDMOTHER TO DEATH WITH A WOODEN SPOON, SO YOU CANT REALLY TRUST HIM.”

      Team Blue has the media cheering them on more, but they both do it.

      1. The Republicans haven’t been as bad lately because they don’t control the presidency or the Senate. The out-party doesn’t usually fall into that horseshit quite so easily.

        Whenever I start thinking that Republicans aren’t equally prone to vile arguments like that, I just remind myself that anyone who wasn’t cheerleading the Iraq war in 2003-2006 was an evil unpatriotic pacifist who probably would have let Hitler take over Europe.

        1. Yeah, it doesn’t take much to tip the scales back. There is plenty of shit to choose from for examples from Team Red.

  3. Change.org starts petition for Victoria’s Secret to hire a transsexual model

    “RuPaul’s Drag Race” season three favorite Carmen Carrera made history when she publicly transitioned after the show’s conclusion.

    Since her “Drag Race” days, Carrera has been making headlines as a show-stopping part of W Magazine’s “Showgirls” and a voice for transgender women through outlets such as GLAAD.

    Now, following her appearance in the Marco Marco runway show, a new Change.org petition is calling on lingerie giant Victoria’s Secret to reach out to Carrera and invite the trailblazing icon to become the brand’s first transgender model.

    The petition notes:
    “This petition is for Victoria’s Secret to seriously consider taking Carmen Carrera on as an angel. By making Carmen the very first trans supermodel, you will help to end femmephobia within the LGBTIQQA community but also it will show the entire trans community that you embrace them as your patrons.”

    1. Change.org doesn’t start petitions; it hosts them.

      On that note, yesterday I learned that besides being home to a gajillion moronic petitions, Change.org isn’t even a nonprofit.

      1. “Change.org isn’t even a nonprofit.”

        The SPLC is, but sometimes you have to redefine certain words:
        “The SPLC builds for the future by setting aside a certain amount of its income for an endowment, a practice
        begun in 1974 to plan for the day when nonprofits like the SPLC can no longer afford to solicit support
        through the mail because of rising postage and printing costs.

        TOTAL ENDOWMENT FUND ASSETS
        $245,280,476”
        Seems they’re planning on some really large USPS rate increases.
        http://www.splcenter.org/sites…..12_web.pdf

        1. Even more awesome, ’cause all they do is solicit donations and write articles to scare people into donating.

          1. It sure must work! They ought to consult for other ‘charities’.

    2. I don’t understand why these people feel the need to force this issue.

      On the day that transsexuals/transvestites are a major source of customers for VS they will gladly start shifting their marketing to cater to this demographic – all without any outside coercion or shaming needed.

      Also, simply being a VS model doesn’t automatically put you in the supermodel category.

      1. The most powerful petition signature on the planet is the dollar in your pocket. Withhold it and watch how fast people change their behavior.

    3. Why is that a petition? Shouldn’t they just email someone at Victoria’s Secret and say “Hey this MTF would make a great angel and could make you edgy for a minute before everyone goes back to jerking off to the internet again.” and see where that goes?

      Wait I fully support this. The reaction in some of the more extreme religious conservative circles will be EPIC. I want to know what Bryan Fischer thinks about this.

      1. So wait, if I jerk off to her and then later find out she used to be a dude, does…does that make me gay?

        1. No, it just means you played the crying game.

        2. No, what you did with Warty and Epi last night makes you gay.

        3. I think that’s actually a step below getting blown by a dude on the gay scale.

          NTTAWT

        4. Yes.

          No justification required.

    4. Interesting fact: many of the SoCon anti-porn organizations that I have posted about count Victoria Secret’s ads and catalogs as pornography.

    5. LGBTIQQA community

      Jeebus, they’ve added EVEN MOAR letters. Why not just call yourselves Fanny Bandits? It’s less ridiculous.

      1. The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Inter-sex, Queer, Queer-Queer, Asexual community?

        1. The second Q stands for “Questioning” but otherwise, spot on. I think it means that your sexuality could be best described as agnostic.

          God, I hate that I fucking know that. Fuck you, college.

      2. Intersex, Queer, Questioning, Allies. How do I know this? My very progressive employer had a celebration of National Coming-out Day last week, and as I walked brusquely past the table where they were distributing rainbow T-shirts, one of the women manning the table chased me down and forced me to take a shirt. “We need you to be an ally!” she demanded as the elevator door shut.

        I’m planning on wearing it to the range one of these days to gauge the reaction.

        1. What’s the difference between trans and inter-sex? Sorry to be such a moron, it’s hard to keep up sometimes. Are inter-sex people hermaphrodites?

          1. Basically. Intersex means you were born with both testes and ovaries.

            1. I thought that was called a Hermaphrodite.

          2. SCMT is correct about the medical terminology, but in this context I believe it refers to people who do not feel either male or female in a pure sense, regardless of which genitalia they have.

        2. I usually turn down giveaway t-shirts, their graphics tend to be awful and plastered with company logos. T-shirt fabric does not make for good rags, either.

          By the way, you should have taken a shirt. I heard you’s a bitch.

        3. OH, so she wasn’t “womanning the table”?????

          SEXIST!!1111!!11ELEVENTY-eleven!!!

        4. “We need you to be an ally!” she demanded as the elevator door shut.

          If they need allies, who are they going to war against?

      3. I think we should start a counter movement. Just because I am straight doesn’t mean I always like to do it exactly the same way with the same female&human; partner. Sometimes I like to do other stuff too – why am I being othered by the LGBTIQQA’s? I demand to be recognized for not being straight exactly like all/most/many other straight guys. The fact that I like to do something different with my junk should become an issue that everybody else has to deal with too!

        1. I like this. BDSM is the obvious addition, but I think we should also add BJ, FF (foot fetish), RS (rough sex), S (spanking), HJ, HH (high heels), and ILIWTBO (I like it with boot on). Oh, and we definitely need one for those who like threesomes with two women and one man.

          1. ffm is the term for those

            1. So, it will from now on be LGBTIQQABJBDSMFFRSHJSHHILIWTBOFFM.

              Oh, and isn’t there that porn called BBM? Let’s add that. So, it will be:

              LGBTIQQABJFFBDSMRSHJSHHILIWTBOBBMFFM

              AND IT WILL DEMAND THAT THAT IS ALL SAID BY GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, OR ELSE THEY ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST MY IDENTITY!

      4. LGBTOMGWTFBBQ?

        1. BYOB!

  4. Official Election Results here.

    The rural districts get their tallies in first, so it will look like Cuccinelli is winning until the NOVA results start coming in.

    Sarvis is just over 6% currently (06:30 CST)

    1. Thus far, Sarvis seems to be drawing from both equally in close districts and “none of the above” in solid red districts.

    2. If the good people of North Colorado vote to secede, then South Virginia might be inspired to do the same.

    3. Here’s an interesting bit of putty: Cuccinelli persuaded the state party boys to not have a primary. Apparently, it rubbed some people the wrong way.

    4. At 31% reporting:

      Cuccinelli: 51%
      McAuliffe: 41%
      Sarvis: 7%

      1. McAuliffe is probably going to win. Nova’s going to go huge for him.

        1. 50K votes won’t be enough.

          1. They’ll start checking car trunks in the morning…

            1. Sorry, I was unclear. Being up by only 50k votes isn’t nearly enough for Cuccinelli. There’s no mystery why the big counties report last. That’s where the fraud is easiest to hide. Er, I mean, where the votes are.

              1. Right on..

              2. “Er, I mean, where the votes are.”
                And the CEMETERIES!

              3. -There’s no mystery why the big counties report last. That’s where the fraud is easiest to hide.

                Or, perhaps, it is harder to count more votes?

                Besides, not much fraud needed to defeat Cuccinelli. When the representative of less intrusive government is a supporter of transvaginal ultrasounds the proverbial shark has been jumped.

                1. “When the representative of less intrusive government is a supporter of transvaginal ultrasounds the proverbial shark has been jumped.”

                  “Cuccinelli’s office confirmed that the attorney general supports lifting the mandate…” I don’t get it, how is he a supporter of transvaginal ultrasounds?… what am I missing here?

                  1. Your missing that Bo is a troll

                  2. Nice try.

                    -Cuccinelli’s office confirmed that “there were conversations” with Northam’s office last week in which the attorney general “offered conceptual support” for Northam’s bill, which would essentially repeal the ultrasound mandate.

                    Instead, Northam was told on Sunday night that the committee had scheduled an early meeting Monday in a new location to discuss the bill. Cuccinelli’s attorneys were not present at that meeting, and the committee voted 6-3 to toss the bill without a hearing.

                    “His political epiphany must have somehow evaporated over the weekend,”

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..75994.html

                2. Don’t ghe doctors already perform a TVU to find out where the fetus is before they vacuum it out?

              4. There’s no mystery why the big counties report last.

                The People’s Republic of Fairfax County, one of the wealthiest counties in the country, has ballots consisting of 8.5×11 pieces of paper that you fill in the bubbles on with blue pen. Yeah, I’m totally trusting that.

        2. Mother Jones isn’t very happy:
          http://www.motherjones.com/pol…..r-virginia

        3. On the bright side, it looks as though McAuliffe isn’t likely to get to 50%. John’s going to have an epic shit fit thinking Sarvis cost Cuccinelli the election.

          1. I am not mad. Funny how all libertarians can talk about how mad republicans are supposed to be. So I guess they are happy McAuliffe won?

            Hey I won’t be throwing any fits on raining on libertarian joy over their side in the culture war winning. They should be happy.

            1. Don’t really care who won, think both were terrible, think Virginia deserves what they get for having two such awful candidates. VA GOP has nobody to blame but themselves for the loss. They’re the idiots who thought Cuccinelli would make a good candidate.

              1. The bottom line is that libertarians and socons both would rather fight the culture war than do something about the size of government. If the republicans had run some the libertarians liked the socons would have bolted.

                The interesting thing is the libertarian guy supported expanding Medicare to get in on the Obamacare gravy train and a mileage tax. Other than the culture war he didn’t seem to be very libertarian. But that is the important part to most people.

                McAuliffe is going to be a disaster. Not sure that will be a good thing for the national dem party.

                1. Please define what you’re calling the “culture war”.

                  1. Gay marriage and abortion Francisco. That is pretty much the only things Sarvis was that different from Cuccinilli. Take those two away and Sarvis might be worse considering his views on medicaide.

                    1. There is no libertarian position on abortion. Split right down the middle.

                      And gay marriage is a big deal. Your party thinks it needs to dictate to others who they can marry. Fuck off slaver. I’m not going to sacrifice my principles to elect the lesser of two evils. You can either adapt or lose.

                    2. It takes two to tango John and maybe the socons should stop trying to legislate their brand of morality* on the rest of us if they want more people to work with them.

                      *It’s perfectly ok to have socon views as long as you don’t try to force them on others.

            2. Just like last year they insisted all summer that Johnson had a chance to win, and then started celebrating when it looked like Romney would only get 48 times as many votes as Johnson.

              I hope the Sarvis voters enjoy higher taxes and an AWB.

              1. I hope the Sarvis voters enjoy higher taxes and an AWB.

                If the Dems try for an assault weapons ban in Virginia they’ll succeed in turning a purple state red again. Hell, the Republicans look poised to retake the state Senate in Colorado entirely as a result of a fairly minor gun law.

                Colorado is more Democrat than Virginia. If the Dems want to commit suicide over this issue one more time, I say let them have a go at it.

                1. Does Colorado have an entire region full of federal parasites and their associated “private sector” parasites that’s continuously expanding?

                2. I dunno Irish…. I saw a lot of commercials here bashing GOP candidates for being pro-gun. Supposedly Ohlenshank or whatever his name was, voted against a “one gun a month law” and therefore wants criminals to buy guns in bulk.

                  1. You’re in the NoVA media market Tulpa, if memory serves. Things that play to the transplanted Yankees and bureaucrats in Fairfax don’t play so well south of Occoquan.

                    1. I’d imagine so…. unfortunately we’re growing and you’re not.

                    2. unfortunately we’re growing

                      Like cancer. Like cancer.

                      My boss today, stupid cunt, was going on and on about how awful Cooch was. Complaining about VA.

                      I came so close to telling her if she didn’t like it here she should go find a job in her hometown. Which has been run into the ground by Democrats.

                      That’s what I hate so much: they move here for the jobs and then vote for the ones who killed their home states.

                    3. See Californians moving to Colorado, for why the Bicentennial State is now purple, instead of the solidly red is was for decades.

    5. 61.1% reporting

      C: 48%
      M: 44.7%
      S: is back up to 7%

      1. Not looking good for Cooch. I can’t imagine McAuliffe won’t pick up 3.3% in the remaining 39% outstanding.

    6. The Lt. Guvnuh race looks to be going to the Blue Team.

      1. And with no major libertarian candidate that result will hopefully belie the usual bellyaching from Republicans that the third party LP candidate tossed the election to the Socialist candidate.

        1. Did you brush your teeth with non-sequitur today? Jackson is getting fewer votes than Cucinnelli is.

          1. You misunderstand. Cuccinelli is doing better than the other Republican even though he’s in a race with a “none of the above” option. In theory, both Cucinelli and McAuliffe ought to be doing worse than their respective ticket-mates in the Lt. Gov. race.

            1. Yes, he misunderstood, but I am willing to cut him some slack as he seems pretty upset about the GOP’s losses in what appears to be his state.

        2. Not only that, but Cuccinelli is getting a higher percentage than the TEAM RED Lt. Gov. candidate.

          1. Call me reverse racist, but I suspect a darker-than-redskin candidate was pretty much doomed down in the southwestern scoop.

      2. The GOP candidate won the Atty General race too… making Bo’s silly claim even more obviously silly.

  5. “Selling e-cigarettes beyond the two weeks is a misdemeanor and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or imprisonment for up to six months”

    Is it just me or is anyone else really uncomfortable that *city* councils can create laws backed by imprisonment?

    Personally, I would think that the stuff that’s important enough to throw someone in jail for should be handled at the state level.

    1. Interesting stance, what is your view on federalism in general?

    2. Also, that whole “six months in prison for selling a single e-cigg”

      What would a single joint get you there?

  6. How the Tea Party dies in Texas.

    Of course, it’s not Jerry Jones who is footing the nearly $70 million bill for Katy’s new football stadium; it’s the taxpayers, as part of a $100 million bond package. And that has some local Tea Party members, like Cyndi Lawrence, angry, according to the Houston Chronicle

    I’m pretty sure Woodforest Bank Stadium (at a cool $49M) is where my alma mater plays its football. We had a pefectly fine field whose stands were rarely full adjacent to the HS in my day.

    1. Showed up to vote just to vote against all the damn bond proposals. We didn’t have that one but was glad to vote against wasting $200mil+ fixing up a goddamn old broke stadium. WTF? Seriously $217 mil on a 50 year old stadium.

      1. Woooh! It’s losing for now and our rugmuncher in chief is headed to victory.

        1. Haha. That’s the Houston I know. Fuck the Astrodome! Gay Mayor? Ok.

  7. Downloading material from this website is as effortless |as clicking the mouse rather than other blogs which transfer me here and there on the pages.

    http://farrdesign.com/jerseys/?id=839

    1. Like 24/7?

    2. Hey, verleigh, are you working on the HealthCare.gov project?

      1. Naah.
        That website works.

  8. Christie has already been called to win big, Cuccinelli’s staffers are saying ‘it doesn’t look great.’

    Get ready for a whole lot of ‘GOP needs to be more moderate/pragmatic/bi-partisan/less confrontational’ punditry for the next couple of days (weeks?).

    1. Until the 2014 midterms.

    2. To be fair to the Cuch, Bob McDonnell’s problems have certainly tarnished the GOP brand in Virginia.

      But there’s really no excuse for not beating a crook like McAullife.

      1. A commenter here, John Thacker, who says he is from Virginia has said that McDonnell’s popularity there remains quite high, so I am not sure he torpedoed ‘the Cuch.’

      2. But there’s really no excuse for not beating a crook like McAullife.

        According to last week’s polls, 2/3 of McAuliffe voters disapprove of McAuliffe. The War on Women and other assorted scare campaigns have been turned up to 11 the past couple of weeks, at least here in NoVa.

        1. Cooch got killed by the government shutdown, plain and simple. That’s all the scare plan you need to get the government titsuckers of NoVa to vote D.

          1. Yeah, that too. Goddam idiot Cruz.

            1. Tulpa, I just don’t think you can blame this one on Sarvis. First off, not every single Sarvis voter would logically switch to Cooch. Secondly, this kind of result is becoming inevitable in Va., with the explosion of money and power in D.C. Thirdly, I would say that the Dems scare tactic go to, in an area super dependent on government, has always been, “Elect a Republican? The same people who took away your checks for a few weeks made you get a free vacation and then collect back pay?!”

              1. If McAuliffe turns out to be as bad of a governor as even his supporters seem to think he will be, that won’t help Hilary in 2016. He is the Clinton’s doppelg?nger and virginia will be seeing what a Clinton presidency will lookike first hand

                Also if sequestration continues, Nova won’t be so rich in a couple of years.

                1. “Also if sequestration continues, Nova won’t be so rich in a couple of years”

                  hahahahahhahahahhahaha…yeah because a very small decrease in the rate of the increase of the Federal Government will soon impoverish the Citadel of Statism ….
                  OMG I will assume you are being sarcastic, because otherwise you must be completely naive about how the federal budget really works!

          2. If sticking virginia with McAuliffe is the price of the shutdown, I will take that.

            1. Aren’t you in VA yourself?

              1. No maryland which is even worse. I am actually happy to see the nova liberals get the ass fucking they have been asking for for so long.

                1. You guys had the chance to vote in Dan Bongino, don’t make us suffer because you failed.

                  1. Bongino never stood a chance in a statewide race. He’s got a shot to take the 6th district seat in Western Maryland next year though.

            2. Yeah, John. I sadly don’t see how the Acela corridor and politics don’t slowly expand south to Virginia, simply as an outgrowth of government expansion. For what it’s worth, those areas are only doing well in a handful of cities- D.C., NYC, and Boston. And deBlasio is going to turn NYC into little Cali (no middle class except for government workers, an uber rich upper class, and a substantial, subsidized lower class). Unlike California, though, NYC is going to be totally dependent on Wall Street. The minute the next bubble bursts, even if the government swoops in after a few weeks (and good luck selling another TARP in the next, oh, say, decade) NYC is going to FUCKEEED. deBlasio had better learn how Yellen likes her snatch licked, and soon.

              Actually, here’s what I don’t get- given that Atlanta is super big and very black, how is Georgia so solidly Republican?

              1. AuH20 thinks bailouts need to be approved by Congress. How quaint.

              2. Atlanta’s burbs are solid Red unlike the NOVA burbs that are filled with gentry liberals.

          3. Would they have voted differently had the FedGov not shut down?

      3. Oh, I don’t know, the Libertarian candidate snaffled enough votes from Cuccinelli to move the vote count from “close” to “pretty much even or Cuccinelli wins by a nose”. Who needs voter fraud when you have Libertarians to help your cause, perfectly legally?

        Heck of a job, Sarvis and whoever funded him.

    3. I wonder why they say this. With 70% reporting he is still up 48% to 45%. I haven’t seen a map, though, so not sure what precincts still need to report.

      1. 76% in now – no results from Fairfax County yet.

        1. Ah, that will be a big chunk for McAulife. Happy to see Sarvis getting almost 10% in Albemarle.

        1. Thanks for the link

  9. I realize that it’s a foregone conclusion, but it amuses me that CNN called the NYC mayoral race for de Blasio with 0 votes counted.

  10. Man, Detroit mayor gets no love on any of the sites (specifically the plug’s huff post link above)

    Both candidates come from the Wayne county Dem machine, both corrupt. Duggan appears a little less so immediately.

    Real decisions for now are with the EM and court, big question is if the next mayor works with it or fights it.

    1. The only good thing to say about Detroit is that it is shrinking.

    1. Woo-hoooooo, me and the boss are thrilled that we can now go a few miles south and enjoy some gay butt sex without worrying about that mean SOB Cucinelli (the most evil man in world history) sending the Virginia State Police to break down the door and arrest us!!

      Honestly though, it sure would be nice if I could get the day off once in a while. This job is really exhausting!

    2. This site has 93% reporting & McAuliffe up almost 18k votes.

      http://electionresults.virgini…..WR&map=CTY

      However, right now it is less than 1% of the votes counted and that’s the margin for a recount.

      http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in…..n_Virginia

      1. Sarvis’ percentage is going down as the bluer regions’ votes come in. I wonder what that means?

        1. You mean there isn’t a flood of liberaltarian votes to put him over the top? We’ll knock me over with a feather.

          Let’s see a divided right and a united left. How is that going to work out?

        2. Down from 6.7% to 6.6% == It’s all Sarvis’ fault Cuccinelli lost!

          1. No it’s Cuciniis fault Sarvis lost. Isn’t it kind of a problem that he can’t get 10%? What is your goal if not to win?

            1. When you’re shut out of the debates, that’s a pretty big obstacle to overcome even in getting to 10%.

              As I’ve pointed out before, I favor instant runoff voting.

          2. cavalier973|11.5.13 @ 8:37PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

            61.1% reporting

            C: 48%
            M: 44.7%
            S: is back up to 7%

            You were saying?

            1. Tulpa, those early calculations are often rounded. For example, the Washington Post had McAuliffe ahead 47-46% but noted on their live blog that McAuliffe was actually more like .5% up. So early reports of Sarvis at ‘7%’ and ultimate results of 6.6%, well, you get the rest I imagine.

              1. He reported McAuliffe as 44.7%, so he’s not rounding. Keep trying.

                Sarvis had ~5% in Fairfax and Loudoun, and ~4% in Prince William. That’s where the social liberals in VA live.

                1. Stop being disingenuous, he and you were talking about Sarvis and him ‘losing votes as the blue counties votes came in.’ He reported him at 7 and he ended up with 6.6

                  1. Quoting facts is so disingenuous!

                  2. And counties where Cuccinelli dominated but Sarvis underperformed are not hard to find (example, Washington County where Sarvis got 3.6% of the vote to Cuccinelli’s 69%).

                    1. Or Lee County, where Sarvis got 2% of the vote compare to Cuccinelli’s

                    2. BCE suddenly discovers the importance of all those counties at the bottom of the Virginia poop scoop.

                    3. What’s the vote total in WaCo, 300 or so?

  11. So, does Sarvis have a chance of getting 10%? It looks like he’s stuck at 7%- still an amazing showing, but sadly not enough for ballot access, which yes, is bullshit.

    1. Yep. The LP gets no ballot access and an AWB supporter in the governor’s mansion.

      1. Oh, Tulpy-Poo, you’re not going to be super butthurt about this, are you? Because I keep telling you to stop buying that cheap astroglide shit and get some good lube off of amazon.

        1. You guys are bitching constantly about the political landscape, and have the temerity to claim I’m butthurt? My ideology is closer to fruition than yours.

          1. My ideology is closer to fruition than yours

            That’s what we’re afraid of you, you mendacious copsucker.

            1. You made me angry enough to stutter! In text form!

      2. I counted 62/100 Republicans (maybe more in one or two very close races) in the House of Delegates. How is gun control getting through that?

    2. At 6.7% with 93% of precincts reporting, not a chance.

      In New York, a much bigger state, I believe the figure for ballot access it 50K votes. Sarvis would have beaten that easily. πŸ™

  12. OAKLAND, CA POLICE HAVE ARRESTED A 16 YEAR OLD STUDENT FOR LIGHTING A MAN ON FIRE ABOARD A TRANSIT BUS

    1. Police investigators are still sorting out a motive, but Debbie Fleischman said she is torn about whether the fire was a prank or a hate crime. “It’s something I’m worried about,” she said.

      Sheesh, lady, no wonder your son is, um, confused.

  13. Aaaaand McAuliffe is now ahead by 0.3% with 91% reporting. Fuck.

    1. I wonder what the commute from Harpers Ferry, WV is like?

    2. Virginia’s libertarian moment is at hand!

  14. Cnn’s title box keeps asking questions like- “What does the NJ race mean for 2016?” and “What does the VA race mean for 2016?”

    I can already tell you what CNN THINKS they mean- the Republicans need to nominate a “moderate” Republican like Christie and line up all Tea Party members against a wall to be shot.

    1. Well that analysis is more realistic than any nonsense about some Libertarian Era approaching.

      1. I think there will be an opportunity to make progress on a libertarian agenda on certain issues. But it really requires a great candidate who can either focus on the pragmatic benefits of libertarianism without getting too bogged down in the philosophy. Either that or change the perception of the philosophy to something other than “more power for rich white people”.

        1. There is also the problem that until libertarianism becomes a mainstream ideology it might throw races to the Dems which make libertarianism even less mainstream!

          1. That’s my favorite. You can’t vote for Liberatarians until they have a chance of winning. Of course they can’t have a chance of winning until people vote for them…

            1. Then you have to ditch libertarian purity and become all pragmatic. And if you become too pragmatic then you might surrender on all ideology you used to stand for.

              This strategy did work for the Socialists but not the Socialist Party.

            2. You tell me Tim. How does a divided right equal anything but total dem control? You are not getting all of the republican votes. A lot of them are socons and libertarians hate socons more than they hate liberals. Unless you can convince the socons to vote libertarian in return for nothing, why would they vote libertarian? And most libertarians wouldn’t want them to anyway. It would embaress them too much.

              1. Socons will vote R regardless. If you want the libertarian vote…run libertarian candidates.

                Until the …FUCK YOU!

                  1. I liked your first version better.

                1. No they won’t fransisco they will stay home. They stayed home with Romney because he was a Mormon. They will go third party. They have come close a lot of times. Run an r cultural lib and you would see a huckabee third party candidate.

                  I get it you hate them and think they have no right to any representation. But they think they do. And fuck you makes you feel good and makes your liberal friends like you. But it is only going to get you a win in the culture war and nothing else.

                  You don’t like that. But it is true.

                  1. I don’t understand what the “kulture wor” is John. The reason I’m not a Republican is because I value liberty. I value everyone’s right to do as they see fit, provided they aren’t hurting anyone else.

                    Republicans have absolutely no problem shitting on liberty when it comes to social issues. THIS IS THE REASON I’M NOT A REPUBLICAN AND I DON’T OWE YOU MY VOTE! And you will not have my vote until your party stops with trying to tell people how to live their lives.

                    I don’t HAVE any liberal friends. I like your party slightly more than the Democrats only because you stray from libertarian principle slightly less than they do. That’s it. Get over it. You can do as we wish, or you can continue to lose. Your choice.

                    1. I don’t understand what the “kulture wor” is John.

                      Is social issues and you know it. And all of the SOCONS I know tell me the exact same thing. If the Republicans want to back down on gay marriage and abortion, then they can lose.

                      Yes, people like you and the SOCONs hate each other. And as a result of that, the Dems are probably going to win a lot.

                      You can do as you wish too. And you can go to bed knowing that you stuck it too those evil fucking SOCONS. Get over it dude. The SOCONS are just not that into you and they are not going to vote for you candidate because you told them to shut the fuck up. So you are going to lose and the Dems are going to win.

                      I don’t care bout any of that shit. But somehow it is my fault.

                    2. Yes John. Social issues are what make libertarians NOT Republicans.

                      The difference is, you need us. We don’t need you. As things stand, we lose either way. We can have the Progs incharge taking away fiscal liberty or we can have the likes of you taking away social liberty.

                      FUCK BOTH OF YOU! We’ve already lost. You want our vote? EARN IT!

                    3. They need the SOCONS too. There are a lot more SOCONS than libertarians.

                      In the end, you hate SOCONs more than you hate liberals. And as a result we are going to live in a liberal country. I don’t know what to tell you. You care about a bunch of shit I don’t care about.

                      Ever occur to you that perhaps you could compromise a bit? But no, you are perfect and everyone else wrong and they are supposed to cater to your every whim. And if they don’t, then they haven’t earned your vote. Only your opinion is legitimate.

                      I don’t agree with the SOCONs. But I refuse to be a arrogant prick like you. Really. You honestly think that your the only person in the world who deserves any sort of representation or accomodation. I agree with you on most things and find you loathsome. I forget sometimes why the L party never cracks 10 percent despite being right about a lot of things.

                      Thanks for reminding me why.

                    4. n the end, you hate SOCONs more than you hate liberals.

                      Completely untrue. I hate socons less than progs. That doesn’t mean I’m willing to sacrifice my principles for them.

                      Ever occur to you that perhaps you could compromise a bit?

                      Yeah. Did that for the first 30 years of my life. What did it get me? Republicans telling me where I can stick my dick or what I can ingest. So NO, John, no more compromise. Your party needs to learn to be moral before they get my vote. If you don’t like it, tough shit.

                      they are supposed to cater to your every whim.

                      They don’t cater to ANY of my whims. We agree on fiscal issues, that’s it, and fewer and fewer of those every day. You don’t compromise at all, but you expect me to. Your principles are shit. You stand for nothing. You have a bunch of issues that are exactly the opposite of your primary opponent’s issues. No guiding philosophy. Just politics.

                      You honestly think that your the only person in the world who deserves any sort of representation or accomodation [sic].

                      Yes, John, I do. I am right. You are not. When you become right, you get my vote…NOT UNTIL. I don’t care how much you stomp up and down and throw temper tantrums. Libertarians don’t owe the Republican party their votes.

                  2. Romney got more votes than McCain, even though overall turnout was lower.

                    1. Romney won big among independents. And the reason why turnout was lower is because the SOCONS mostly stayed home Tim.

                      Amazingly enough Tim, the Francisco approach of “fuck you and die you lousy ignorant fucks” might not work with them.

                    2. Who’s “Tim”, Joe?

                  3. They stayed home with Romney because he was a Mormon

                    They stayed home because he wasn’t a conservative.

                2. SOCONs are probably 30% of the voting population Fransisco. They are not going to just take being told to fuck off. But it is going to be hard to stop the Dems as long as they are around and voting.

                  One idea would be to ally with the Dems and take their franchise. Another would be to deport them to say Africa or somewhere in Latin America.

                  Pretty much the entire country and culture hates white social conervatives guts. So it really shouldn’t be that hard to find some kind of solution to the problem. If you don’t let them vote or you round them up and lock them up, they can’t muck things up anymore. I am sure the Democrats would have some ideas and would welcome the Libertarian support. Liberaltarians could finally happen. It would be a win all the way around. The problem is finding someone to take them. If not, you can always gas them. That is tough and the country would feel bad and have a lot of guilt. But they would get over it in a decade or two just like Germany got over the Holocaust. And once that happened, there still wouldn’t be anymore white SOCONs.

                  Food for thought.

                  1. -If not, you can always gas them.

                    So all it takes to move you to longwinded Godwinning is for a SoCon to lose the governorship of a neighboring state? Interesting.

                    Here is a thought: instead of berating libertarians here for rejecting the intrusive government proposals of the SoCons, why not convince these desired allies of yours to stomp on liberty a little less?

                    1. Gay marriage has zilch to do with liberty.

                    2. Fuck you Tulpa.

                      Gay marriage has EVERYTHING to do with liberty.

            3. Of course they can’t have a chance of winning until people vote for them…

              Not true. If Sarvis was getting 25-30% in the polls I would have had to admit he had a chance of winning, and I don’t give a rat’s ass if people opine for Sarvis as McAuliffe winning an opinion poll matters not at all.

        2. The libertarian Moment has Arrived on the culture war and not much else. If you get a republican it will be fatso or someone like him. But hey your abortions and gay sex will be free. That should make a few people happy.

          1. Well, John, the last moment we had a libertarian moment economically speaking, it came after the Winter of Discontent in the UK and stagflation in the US. Now, Brits want to undo Thatcher and I would seriously not be surprised if, with the right framing, a poll could show Americans clamoring for the return of wage and price controls.

            Sadly, socialism is like a hot stove. We only stop touching it after it burns us, and every few decades, we for some reason forget that it burned us the last time, and touch it again.

            1. The problem is that the libertarians will not come out and vote for anyone who isn’t pro abortion and gay marriage. So it won’t matter. The culture war will keep that from happening even though a majority want it. The culture war is too important to libertarians. They might vote for Paul but won’t vote for anyone else unless they are totally culturally liberal. And that kind of person isn’t getting the GOP nomination.

                1. Gay marriage Francisco. But really it is more about using discrimination laws to make objecting to homosexuality illegal. That is what the end game is. And Libertarians will say “well we need to get rid of all these sorts of laws but since we can’t do that I guess we will have to live with this” and move on.

                  Libertarian means gay sex, abortion and ending the drug war. That is about it. Yes, they have a lot of economic positions. But they don’t vote on those issues. They vote on the three above.

                  1. There are hundreds of issues libertarians differ from Republicans on.

                    gay marriage
                    preemptive war
                    gambling
                    prostitution
                    profanity
                    Patriot Act
                    interventionism
                    drugs
                    goverment spending
                    pornography…

                    Stop trying to make it sound like you aren’t just as statist as the left.

                    1. not a libertarian issue
                      not a libertarian issue
                      you disagree with dems on it too
                      you disagree with dems on it too
                      what the fuck? who’s banning profanity?
                      you disagree with dems on it too
                      not a libertarian issue (and you’re repeating)
                      you disagree with dems on it too
                      republicans don’t favor spending
                      no one’s going to ban porn

                    2. republicans don’t favor spending

                      Hilarious.

                    3. Last I looked even an evil SOCON like Cuccinilli was pretty good on the drug war. In fact the SOCONs are about the only people even talking about prison reform in this country. But they are the scum of the earth and not even worthy of your support right?

                      And there are varying degrees of things. The Republicans are not good on spending. But they are better than the dems.

                      The only thing on that list that the Dems are better at is maybe porn. But that is a pretty minor issue.

                      And please don’t use stupid meaningless terms like “statist”. I think Libertarians have raped that term enough.

                    4. Porn isn’t even a minor issue. There’s less chance of porn being outlawed than abortion being outlawed.

                      It’s a thing the leftists and their big-L palsies throw out there to drive a wedge between us and the socons.

                    5. -an evil SOCON like Cuccinilli was pretty good on the drug war

                      Pretty good? By that you mean an offhand comment given at a talk with some college students about how perhaps it should be left to states? He has been Attorney General for quite some time, what did he DO that was ‘pretty good?’

                  2. That’s how it seems to be at least for movement type libertarians, i.e. those who have a fair amt. of activism in them. They’re at great pains to distinguish themselves from “conservatives”, so they weight most heavily the least popular issues in determining whether a candidate is worth backing. So, for example, until very recently being against pot prohib’n would attract their att’n much more readily than, say, being for tax cuts, because tax cutting was popular and being anti-prohib’n was not. Now that anti-prohib’nism on cannabis is a lot more popular, you’ll see that libertarian activists won’t weigh it as heavily in determining whether a candidate is worthy.

              1. I honestly don’t think abortion is as much of a litmus test as gay marriage. And the gays have a really good point about marriage. It isn’t JUST about shared assets- there is also spousal immunity, for one. So, maybe, I dunno, the Republicans should just drop the goddamn issue, and stop butting their heads against a wall because they find the idea of gay people holding hands to be icky?

                I mean, the anti position is just as cultural warrior as the pro position, John.

                I think the Republicans would actually gain quite a bit of legitimacy if they were to concede gay marriage, but not the protected class stuff. I actually think that it isn’t 1964- a lot of people would be okay with the idea of, “Well, yeah, if you’re a cake designer, and you don’t want to make a gay couple a cake, I can just boycott you or whatever.” But the Republicans simply refuse to admit that they are fighting a losing battle, even amongst traditional religious types like young evangelicals, in the gay marriage battle.

                1. “Republicans would actually gain quite a bit of legitimacy if they were to concede gay marriage, but not the protected class stuff.”

                  I think the polling shows even more support for ENDA-type laws than for SSM.

                  “Nearly all recent opinion polls indicate that a large majority of the American public ? more than 70 percent ? supports efforts to make employment discrimination against gay men and and lesbians illegal. Of course, these national numbers are not what the senators are likely to care about. However, when we use national polls to estimate opinion by state, we find that majorities in all 50 states support ENDA-like legislation (note that in 1996, majorities in only 36 states supported ENDA). Today, public support ranges from a low of 63 percent in Mississippi to a high of 81 percent in Massachusetts.”

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..-for-enda/

                  1. Sorry, to avoid being a hater you have to be like the cool kids and support protected class status. Endorsing SSM won’t be enough.

                  2. Eddie, that is insanely depressing, but EDNA is different from public accommodation. EDNA logic has, sadly, been around so long that it is largely accepted, but I think that there has always been something that has rubbed Americans the wrong way about not allowing people to be wrong.

                    Even the Boston Brahmins weren’t so enlightened about forced integration when it became THEIR children who had to be the ones integrated.

                2. Seriously, I’m pro-life and there’s no chance in hell I’d vote for Cooch. If the complaints about Sarvis around here aren’t exaggerate I would just not vote at all. No way either big party candidate would have got my vote. How many of the Sarvis voters would have just stayed home if Sarvis wasn’t running?

                3. But the Republicans simply refuse to admit that they are fighting a losing battle

                  Yet you are made that the GOP gave up on losing battles like opposing Social Security, Welfare and Medicare.

                  1. Yet you are made that the GOP gave up on losing battles like opposing Social Security, Welfare and Medicare.

                    It’s laughable isn’t it?

                    Reason ripped the GOP and told people not to vote for them all summer last year, because there was no diff between BO and Romney… then turned around and bitched all spring and summer this year because the GOP wasn’t fighting BO hard enough.

                    1. Putting up an empty suit New England liberal republican isn’t exactly the way to fight BO.

                4. I actually think that it isn’t 1964- a lot of people would be okay with the idea of, “Well, yeah, if you’re a cake designer, and you don’t want to make a gay couple a cake, I can just boycott you or whatever.”

                  Which doesn’t matter, because the gay lobby would go apeshit if they repealed antidiscrimination laws and starve Dem candidates of campaign funds, which are more important than voters.

                5. Yeah Goldwater. Both sides are culture warriors. Yes, they should have enacted gay marriage by statute long ago so that the courts couldn’t use it to make being gay a protected class. They totally blew it. Most gays don’t want to get married. And if the SOCONS had taken up the issue as a way of making gays respectable, gays would have hated the idea. It would have defused the whole pointless fight.

                  1. John, I can’t tell if your sarcastic about the “Gays would have hated it” idea… but in the 70s, when Gay Liberation was intimately linked to the New Left and a whole scale rejection of bourgeois ideas like marriage, it could have weirdly worked. Seriously, the New York Times did a story a few years ago about how some gays on Fire Island HATE the idea of gay marriage, because they feel that that is the gay’s way of giving in to the man.

                    This alternate history I just dreamed up is hilarious. “We’re here, we’re queer- and we refuse to accept your patriarchal notions of marriage!” Some of the lesbian feminists types… actually still believe that type of stuff.

              2. Also, I think abortion would hurt Republicans less if so many of their responses to legal abortion didn’t seem so much like sour grapes in response to legal abortion. A 24 week ban, I think, a lot of people support. And you can make a very good argument for surgical standards at clinics. However, transvaginal ultrasounds, or having to listen to your baby/fetus’s heartbeat before an abortion I think strikes many people as paternalistic and mean. Legal abortion may be, polling wise, a hotly contested, 50/50 proposition, but no one likes a team that shows no sportsmanship after it has lost (even if in this case, the battle is in the courts and can be relitigated). On abortion, I think Republicans could win a lot of people back by just being able to show some fucking class.

                1. Then dipshits like Matt Welch and Brian Doherty would lay into them for being philosophically inconsistent, as they already have when pro-life candidates allow exceptions for rape and incest.

                  A 24 week ban, I think, a lot of people support.

                  People who aren’t on SCOTUS, you mean.

                2. Also, I think abortion would hurt Republicans less if so many of their responses to legal abortion didn’t seem so much like sour grapes in response to legal abortion. A 24 week ban, I think, a lot of people support.

                  This is very true. Almost none of the opposition here in Texas to the new abortion regulations was about the 20 week ban, it was all about the regulations on how abortion clinics operate. This was even among the young progressive women I know who cared enough to go to the capital to protest.

                  The american public’s views on abortion are far more mushy than committed warriors on either side of the debate want to admit. I think the best strategy is for state to slowly lower the permitted time period until medical technology gets to the point where that mushy middle doesn’t see why the life needs to be killed instead of putting it in an artificial womb.

                  1. I think that is very true about abortion. But that compromise isn’t possible with this Supreme Court. And I don’t think doing that would attract any Libertarian votes to the R side and would alienate a lot of SOCONS, whose votes count too as much as Libertarians hate that.

                  2. Apatheist, I also think that humanization is key. It is very easy for pro choice types to tell sob stories about X woman who got raped and had to carry the baby to term, or had to drop out of school where she was going to become a doctor or something. Its shitty, bit fetus’ are essentially voiceless, and voiceless people need a human face to be considered people. Its the same reason Fredich Douglas was such a boon to the abolitionist cause. He gave slavery a human face. It was no longer a grim statistic- now you were enslaving the very eloquent and humane Douglas, if that makes any sense.

                    1. Good point, and I think that sonograms may may make the point prolifers have sought to make for years. It’s one thing to tune out some placard of a baby sitting peacefully in the womb, it’s another thing to watch your own baby (or baby sibling) in the womb.

                    2. A forced medical procedure is an abhorrent method of educating people on the subject. Pro-lifers have science on their side, theirs no need to use coercion to point this out.

                    3. Free market supporters have science on their side too… how’s that going?

                      If people don’t see something with their eyes, the shysters on the other side are going to stomp your science like an overweight cockroach.

                    4. Well, I dunno. Science shows that blacks, Jews, Ibos, ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, “kulaks” in the USSR, etc. etc. are fully human, but that doesn’t stop the killers of people in these groups.

                      On a more manageable level – science shows that coeds are humans, but that didn’t stop Ted Bundy.

                      There’s always going to be people who are unclear on the science or ignore it. They need to be restrained. That doesn’t preclude persuasion so that as many people as possible don’t *want* to kill other people.

                    5. -it’s another thing to watch your own baby (or baby sibling) in the womb.

                      That fact that at early stages it resembles something not that similar to what most call ‘a baby’ might belie that claim.

                    6. The vast majority of abortions are perpetrated after the fetus has assumed a recognizably human form.

                    7. -The vast majority of abortions are perpetrated after the fetus has assumed a recognizably human form.

                      False.

                      -Eighty-eight percent of abortions occur in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy

                      http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs…..rtion.html

                    8. non sequiturs your specialty? they look humanish before 12w.

                    9. Do you meet many people who look like this?

                      http://www.google.com/imgres?r…..&ty=138.75

                3. Sportsmanship? This isn’t a game.

                  In 2011, the public supported the horrible ultrasound idea 50-46.

                  64% wanted to ban partial-birth abortions, though the pollsters are careful to put the term in scare quotes and distance themselves from the phrase.

                  87% supported warning women about “certain possible risks” of abortion

                  71% wanted to require parental consent for minors having abortions

                  While voters still supported abortion for rape, incest, or mental or physical disabilities in the fetus, 61% *reject* legalizing abortion if the family can’t afford to raise the child – which is the charitable interpretation of the vast majority of abortions.

                  In sum, most voters oppose the abortion status quo and want to make the laws more prolife. Yet it’s the *Republicans* who are extreme for challenging the status quo.

                  http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx#2

                  1. Eddie, all politics is a game. That may not be nice to admit, if you view it as people’s lives at stake and real pekple effected, but its a game. That’s why the guy whk gave that book to Sebelius was so brilliant- it wa like a grea chess move. The sooner you can start seeing it as a game, the sooner you can start winning.

                    For example, want to know what’s a dumb move? Screaming at women who go into abortion clinics. Makes you seem like fire and brimstonr assholes, even if that is half of one percent of the pro-life movement

                    1. For example, want to know what’s a dumb move? Screaming at women who go into abortion clinics.

                      I guess libertarians shouldn’t protest police brutality at police stations then, either.

                      Whatever you do, the right move is to protest at a place that has nothing to do with what you’re protesting.

                    2. We shouldn’t protest at the station. We should be protesting at those fuckers houses, but sadly the cities rarely release their names

                    3. For example, want to know what’s a dumb move? Picketing cops an their families at their homes. Makes you seem like fire and brimstone assholes, even if that is half of one percent of the libertarian movement.

                    4. Eddie, I typed that and immediately went, “Fuck, the media would just do stories about how their kids fear to go to schools.” Still, the left seems to do GREAT with name and shame. Sometimes, it gets mighty appealing.

                      Honestly, though, I think protesting the police stations just makes it seem like you hate the idea of laws, and people LOVE laws- as long as those laws only effect “Bad people.” I think the reason that the perception of the police has changed so drastically is that they’ve started to lose the Archie Bunkers of the world, and they did this by kicking in the doors of the Archie Bunkers of the world.

                      Honestly, the best place to protest is at city hall. They aid, abet, and take credit for the police’s actions. They should be the ones who have their heads roll when the cops fuck up. Also, I wish there was some way to protest in such a way that shows that we support the good cops, even if we wonder why they are so protective of their brethen, but I don’t have a good idea on that one yet.

                    5. I didn’t think you would actually stalk cops at their homes.

                      “the left seems to do GREAT with name and shame.”

                      That works on issues where the left cares *a lot* about an issue and their opponents care just a little bit less. “Just give these guys what they want and avoid the hassle.” But sometimes it backfires, eg, the union mobs in Wisconsin.

                    6. Just curious – in the prolife demos you’ve seen recently, how much screaming was there on the part of the prolifers?

                      In the demos I witnessed, I saw strictly polite behavior toward the women customers – from the people who were handing out pamphlets about You Have Other Options So Call Us to the people who carried “Love Them Both” (mother and child) signs. Then there’s the “I Regret My Abortion” signs.

                      Sometimes someone shows up with a placard with a dead baby on it, but these were rare in my experience, and is the closest I saw to screaming at women – at least on *our* side.

                    7. This is a fair assessment of most abortion demonstrations. It really only seems to get out of hand when the group gets larger than normal. He did say half of one percent of prolifers though, I would assume that the rest includes the majority polite demonstrators.

                      I’m not sure its an effect strategy but whatever. It’s not my bag as a lot of the literature is religious and isn’t part of what I believe as a pro-lifer for purely secular reasons.

                    8. There’s a small fringe which focuses on self-expression rather than reaching out to the women. But it’s gotten *much* better over recent years. One thing I keep hearing is that some local journalist comes by, after getting bloodcurdling warnings from the local abortion folks about these woman-hating fanatics, and then it’s some moms with their kids, some senior citizens, maybe a few priests and laymen, and they’re reciting rosaries or handing out pamphlets about adoption, etc. So the journalist, even if they’re a choicer writes a positive article – “local prolifers much nicer than we thought!”

                    9. Eddie, I hear you. I’m pro-choice, but I once read a very interesting article about a pro-life ministry, recently, that drove around in a van, showed these women their fetuses, and talked to them about how, whatever they needed, they would support them as single mothers. That seems very effective. But sadly, the image of pro-life protestors is of the people holding up signs of dead babies. Or handing out pictures of aborted fetuses.

                      Now, part of that is a very unfair media establishment, that is going to be very hard to win against, and it is terribly unfair. But that’s still the perception, so… yeah.

                      Cont..

                    10. Actually, Eddie, and I say this as a pro-choice person who would love to see the world Apatheist desires (technology helps us create an artificial womb, and both sides can essentially be mollified): I think the best thing that the pro-life movement could do would be to help change the perception of the foster care system. I think the perception that kids who aren’t adopted quickly are shuffled off into a shitty, abusive system that turns many into criminals ultimately leads a lot of people to be more in favor of abortion than they otherwise would be, because, unfortunately, our society doesn’t look at criminals as fully human (which is a WHOLE nother can of worms we need to deal with).

                      And that’s a REALLY old problem. England dealt with it in the 1700s, when they had an explosion of kids born out of wedlock, and the traditional solution of apprenticing them off at 8 and them becoming the town blacksmith started to fail because there were too damn many blacksmiths. This lead to a problem of “vagrancy”- essentially, men untied to any community, which was the bedrock of the social order. It scared the shit out of people, and colonies like the US were seen as places that you could dump these vagrants.

                      Foster kids, are, very sadly, our modern vagrants. They are people untied to our traditional social bonds that we don’t seem to have a great idea what to do with, and that kind of scares us. SO, if we could solve that perception, I think it could help a lot.

                    11. I’ll need to do some thinking about that. Certainly the life issues don’t occur in isolation. That doesn’t mean abandoning the right to life, but adding more outreach to what there is already.

                      That may be one reason the Pope is focusing on the situation of lonely elderly people and jobless youths – it’s a breeding ground for the culture of death, as the old tire of life and reach for euthanasia, and young men have kids they can’t support and want to abort, or they turn to crime and scare people into supporting abortion so that more young men like that aren’t produced.

                    12. Euthanasia and abortion issues. The former can involve entirely consensual parties while the second cannot.

                    13. The key word is *can.* IMHO, euthanasia advocates start with cases where consent at least *seems* clear, then work from there. We’ve already seen the push for legalized suicide for teenagers and the mentally ill, not the best examples of people who can give full informed consent. And they’ll move on to sick old people lying flat on hospital beds, surrounded by family and medical staff who “persuade” them, day in and day out, to off themselves. The boundaries of voluntary consent tend to get real fuzzy real quick.

                    14. Euthenasia is a tough subject for me. My paternal grandfather died of a stroke. My maternal grandfather had a massive stroke, but that kind of lead to, or accelerated, a severe dementia that plagued him for the next 5 years of his life until death. Now, this is a guy who treasured his intellect (maybe a bit too much- he could be an arrogant SOB about it) and prized the life of the mind. See, there is a part of me that knows that, could he time travel into the future and seen himself at 85, 45 year old him would have said something along the lines of, “Why the fuck didn’t one of you bastards take my gun and shoot me?” Honestly, there is not doubt in my mind that that would’ve been his reaction.

                      But, by the end, he had lost so much of his mind that he couldn’t even recognize that fact.

                      That terrifies me. I also prize my brain, my mind, and the life of both. And having seen someone in that state, I know I would never want to get to that point. So, yeah, I would kind of like to euthanize myself, although I do see your point, Eddie, and the pitfalls are REALLY obvious (Seriously, Europe would misuse that system so badly that it is insane). I honestly don’t know… but I also don’t want to die of ALS, or have my family have to see me slowly forget their names and become a person who isn’t me. It’s a very existential question, at a point, I guess. How much can you lose of your mind before you essentially stop being yourself?

                    15. EvH, by what authority do you presume to tell people they can’t end their own lives if they choose? It would seem that’s ground zero of libertarianism.

                    16. -by what authority do you presume to tell people they can’t end their own lives if they choose? It would seem that’s ground zero of libertarianism.

                      Well said.

                    17. I think you kind of hit the nail on the head there, Eddie. It can’t just be “life is sacred”. There needs to be a part of it that makes that life meaningful, fulfilling, and secure. Which I know many may see at a cross purpose with libertarianism, but I don’t think so. I just think that, even in religion, there is a strain of thought that says that the world is a shitty place full of evil and hey, maybe you are better off if you never have to deal with it. Environmentalism is taking that torch up quite nicely, actually, and I think that they may soon become the face of rabid, insane, unpopular pro-choicers.

                      And it is that strain of thought that we all have to compete against. We have to convince people that life is worth living, that there can be great things in it, even if you make a mistake. And we also have to convince people that the best way to find the meaning in your life isn’t by being told what to do. It’s about being free to go out into the world and find… well, not your bliss, that has a lot of druggie connotations… but your purpose, without the state coming in and telling you what to do. And it is also about having a sincere belief that once you’ve done well or found your purpose, you should give back to others. For whom much is given, much is expected.

                    18. How does that work for a severely retarded fetus or a kid who’s going to be born into abject poverty? Some peoples’ lives really do suck, and if you depend on claiming that’s not true, you’re still going to lose in the long run.

                    19. Well, Tulpa, the abject poverty is possibly to ameliorate through technology, and through the greater economic mobility that a crony-free, try free market economy. Not like Carnegie came from anything but abject poverty.

                      Let me put it this way: Today’s “abject” poverty is a lot better than “abject” poverty in the 1700s. You now have central air, heating, teevee, clean water, etc.

                    20. And maybe politics is a game, but not in the context you used it – “gosh, we lost a vote (or a court decision) about banning abortion altogether, so let’s never mind about lesser measures to protect as many kids as we can – wouldn’t be sporting, old bean!”

    2. I think it is pretty clear the establishment will push hard for Christie. I don’t know if there is a good option for the GOP at this point. But a lot will depend on what happens with Obamacare over that time.

      1. Terrible idea.

        In addition to being hated by the base after his Obama embrace, Christie has more skeletons than Arlington Cemetary.

        1. ” Christie has more skeletons than Arlington Cemetary Cemetery.”

          Well, Arlington Cemetery is a pretty reliable democrat voting block, so.. that won’t help Christie..

      2. Yeah, methinks Rick Perry is going to be the establishment candidate this time around. Hopefully he gets more sleep this time.

        1. I don’t think Perry gets a second crack at it given how badly he gaffed. The book on him is written and it’s basically that he’s a Palin with a penis.

          1. Except that he is the governor of a very successful state and everything he warned about has come true.

          2. How did he gaffe? By forgetting the names of a couple of federal departments? That’s pretty weak.

            He certainly looked sleepy and lost at times, but he also pulled some very good rhetorical tricks in the debates. I suspect he just wasn’t used to the level of activity required to run for prez.

  15. The Freeptards are already blaming the Libertarian for Cooch’s loss.

    I love those kinds of tears.

  16. I’ve found myself agreeing with some of the things PB has said in this thread. I guess that means he can shut the fuck up forever more, huh?

  17. The key to enjoying these results is to realize that there is a win in it no matter who loses.

  18. I’ve been sick about it. Despite media lies, Savris is the ONLY reason McAwful ever lead in the polls, he never reached 50%.

    His supporters are all Paultards who don’t care that Paul endorsed the Republicans and chose to ignore the fact that Savris has been exposed as to being to the left of Cuc on economic issues. Dumb little bastards. The idiot George Will endorsed Sarvis. They’re talking point was even “McAwful will win so cast a protest vote”. What a coup by George Soros.

    Freeper misery! I love it. All the LP’s fault!

  19. Noticed a fixer TV ad for S/S just now, and it reminded me:
    Wife was watching golf this weekend (Sunday?) and there was the first ad I’ve seen for O’care fixery.
    Anyone else seen one? No doubt the market is gonna fill the gaps on that train-wreck.

  20. By the way, what the boss man I’m attached to will never tell you while he’s trolling this thread is that, like most of the pollsters and the so-called “experts”, he thought McAuliffe was going to win big and easily, by at least a seven or eight percent margin.

    He’s actually quite shocked that it turned out to be as close as it was. But just between you and me, boss man is kind of a dishonest, lying bullshit artist.

    1. No, I am glad it was close so that John, wareagle, et al will cry for the next two years and tell all the libertarians about how they should vote for Team Red.

      1. Boss, I know you have a world class libido, but seriously, would it kill you to give me a day off now and then? Poor Little Dave is covered with frightening looking sores and pustules!

  21. Bradley Byrne 21,259 53.1%
    Dean Young 18,746 46.9%
    66% reporting

    (not a good night for the tea party at all.)

  22. So, it looks like Mcaullife’s win will be narrower than expected. I think his people voted less than him and more against Republicans. Which I actually think is a bad sign for them in 2014. Va, being so close to Washington, D.C., is probably more influence by national political trends, but at the local politics, it is hard to gin up your base with no ideas, as the Democrats love to chide Republicans on. What idea will the Dems be offering in 2014- “Obamacare can be fixed- we’re not really sure how, because we still don’t understand it, but don’t you dare talk about repeal”? Hell, the Republicans can just run on putting in a grandfathering provision, although by then it may be too little, too late for people to get their plans back.

  23. This editorial was penned a few hours ago, accurately premised on a Cuccinelli loss on C’s extremism – can you believe he opposed Obamacare and the EPA??!?!!!

    “…Cuccinelli is too extreme for swing voters in Virginia — and that neatly symbolizes the GOP’s problem as it looks to the congressional midterms of 2014 and the presidential campaign of 2016….

    “As attorney general he sued to stop the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel-efficiency standards, backed the controversial Arizona illegal immigration law and issued a legal opinion that sexual orientation should not be included in nondiscrimination statutes for the University of Virginia….

    “Cuccinelli’s problems must be seen side by side with the success of another Republican running for governor — Chris Christie….

    “The difference between the two candidates is self-evident — Christie has governed as an unapologetic centrist Republican with a no-nonsense focus on fighting for fiscal discipline rather than an obsession with social conservatism. He has built cross-aisle coalitions, even on controversial policy proposals, and reached out beyond the base. He puts problem-solving ahead of partisanship or ideology. In other words, Christie is pretty much the opposite of Cuccinelli, and that’s why he is winning in an otherwise ugly year for Republicans.”

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/…..uccinelli/

  24. Oh boy can’t wait for the “GOP needs to be more like Chris Christie” nonsense. I mean he won in a Blue State while Cooch lost in a Red State and the GOP needs to win Blue States in order to win in 2016.

    Of course if he does run in 2016 the DemOp media while call him some anarchist libertarian who wants all blacks, gheys, womyn and chillun to starve to death in the streets before he eats their dead bodies.

    1. “Oh boy can’t wait for the “GOP needs to be more like Chris Christie” nonsense.”

      You don’t have to wait- see above.

  25. So no late-night election thread, Reason?

  26. So does Christie’s victory prove that the GOP needs to be more libertarian?

  27. It’s the Repubilcans fault that Sarvis didn’t win!

    Why won’t they let go of their culture war bullshit and vote for someone who truly supports a free market?

    Who knows?

    What we do know: a lot of sandy vaginas tonight, and a lot of culture warriors are seeing their influence wane.

    1. “Why won’t they let go of their culture war bullshit and vote for someone who truly supports a free market?”

      You mean someone who supports Austrian economics?

    2. What we do know: a lot of sandy vaginas tonight, and a lot of culture warriors are seeing their influence wane.

      Really? I would say the culture warriors influence is way up. That is what a good number of people voted on. The attacks on Cuccinilli were about the culture war and they worked. How is that mean the culture warriors’ influence is waning? Looks to me like they own the field. It is their issues that decide elections.

      1. Only conservatives can be culture warriors, John.

        Leftists screaming about wars on women and gay pogroms are just being realistic.

        1. Funny that. People rant and rave about the SOCONS and the gays and the abortions and such and care passionately about those issues. But none dare call them culture warriors.

          1. When that side of the ‘war’ is arguing for people to live their own lives and make their own choices-have abortions if they determine they are OK, not if they determine it is not; have gay marriages if they want, do not if they do not, buy pornography if they do not object to it, do not if they do, etcetera, then yes I would not call that side ‘culture warriors.’

            It is when the left crosses the line to things like subsidized abortion or such that they become culture warriors.

            1. It is when the left crosses the line to things like subsidized abortion or such that they become culture warriors.

              So….all the time?

            2. But, you see…as most see the sides in the culture war, they don’t line up as pro- and anti-liberty. One side is anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-discrimination against gays & lesbians, pro-pot, anti-nicotine, etc. The other side is the opposite. To the extent they’re pro-anything, they’re just as much in favor of commandeering gov’t’s money & laws in favor of it as allowing people to do it freely. So pro-breastfeeding means not only being allowed to do it on gov’t property, but being allowed to do it anyplace that’s open to the gen’l public.

              And many of the issues in the culture war don’t even involve liberty, such as what to teach in gov’t schools or whether to allow a creche in the city hall’s yard.

        1. I guess not or I missed the sarc tags. I don’t get what you are saying.

          1. He doesn’t have a response. So he goes on the attack (below) and stalls (here).

      2. Only right-wing loonies can be culture warriors.

    3. A free market with no govt spending decreases or tax cuts, and GPS units installed in everyone’s vehicles for a miles-driven tax.

      Libertarians are getting as gullible about the (L) label as liberals are about the (D) label.

      1. The GPS thing is amazing. But I am not surprised they would go for that. It is more “efficient” and Libertarians love that shit. All you have to do is put a few buzz words in and talk about the market and they will go for it. Some of them know just enough about economic analysis to be dangerous. They know more than liberals. But they are hardly perfect.

        1. It’s absolutely adorable how you two have found each other in these desperate times. I hope this lasts a long time, it’s quite amusing.

          Of course, John will get over his little fling and pretend like him and tulpa never shared these special moments.

          I’d watch out, John. Tulpa seems like the clingy/stalky/creepy type; be careful.

          1. Look whose response to argument is a bunch of glib insults.

            Hard to accept that we once walked along the Monongahela in good fellowship, brother.

          2. I don’t live in Virginia Butt Naked. So I am not that concerned. But you are happy right? You got some of what you wanted with McCaulliffe winning? That is something right?

            You won’t be government GPS tracking, but you can’t have everything.

            1. Are you seriously saying that people that voted for sarvis essentially voted for mcawful? Cause that’s fucking stupid.

              Sarvis is his own special brand of suck.

    4. “seeing their influence wane”

      Have you checked the fate of libertarian ideas at the ballot box and in polls? Have you looked into the statist views of young people? Of the growing number of single women – including single mothers?

      If you think you’re looking in on the socons from the outside, compassionately watching as their influence declines while you yourselves go from strength to strength, you may want to reconsider.

      In the story I excerpted above, the author lumped C’s social *and* economic positions together in the “extremism” category and praised the voters for rejecting such extremism *tout court.*

      John once said that the kind of Republican who is lefty on social issues is likely to be lefty on economic issues too. Not all socon Republicans are strict liberty-lovers, but most of the Republican liberty-lovers are socons. Cutting these people off at the knees won’t result in more Gary Johnsons being elected – it will result in more Chris Christies. And that’s if the Republicans win at all.

      1. I don’t think that libertarians will ever have electoral success, and I don’t think there will ever be a significant libertarian element in the republican party.

        I do, however, think that this country has, at best, a century left before implosion and that with significant spread of information/propaganda one of the states that rises from the ashes could be libertarian in nature.

        The more elections that I am witness to, the more I am convinced and Virginia only reinforces that.

        Really, I’m just trollin’ you fucks that can’t even remember what a republican administration/congress really looks like. Fucking vote for it idiots; I could give a fuck.

        1. Eeyore and Marvin the robot just dropped by, but they thought everyone was just too depressed, and they left.

        2. with significant spread of information/propaganda one of the states that rises from the ashes could be libertarian in nature.

          Libertarianism never rises from ashes. Neither does democracy (at least not without significant outside influence for it). Both — especially libertarianism — require strong institutions independent of state power. You don’t find those in ashes.

          What rises from the ashes is ruthless dictatorship or the chaos of civil war. After a long cooling off period with favorable conditions you might get something approaching libertarianism, but it’s fucking rare. We lose it here and now, we lose it everywhere for a long time.

          1. Huemer basically makes a similar point in his book about anarchism. Any kind of successful transition would have to be gradual. If you tore down the government tomorrow the result would NOT be an ancap replacement.

            1. Yep. Of course in anarchy’s case, there’s a problem with maintaining it once it’s started.

              Democratic liberalism (using the original meaning of the l-word) on the other hand is pretty stable once it takes root.

              1. Time will tell on that one…

                Both anarchy ands Liberal Democracy depend on upon the various expectations of the masses aligning properly. LD only works if the party in power gives up control peacefully after losing an election, this was unthinkable 300+ years ago.

  28. There was an interesting article on yahoo earlier today about how the GOP needs to be more like Christie, by abandoning the “anti-gov’t” message. It was specifically addressing how Christie does not suffer the usual problem with non-white voters that the GOP does, and the article made the point that the attitude of being anti-gov’t, pro-private sector is an outlook held almost exclusively by white people.

    Not that minorities favor communism or any such thing, but that they simply do not have the dim view of the public sector that many white people do. They view it as a necessary, inevitable thing, and that politicians must therefore focus on “making it work” by electing “the right people”, rather than scaling it back or reducing it’s role in society. Whereas whites are statistically much more likely to believe that it’s irredeemably corrupt/inefficient, and therefore to favor removing it from as much of our lives as possible.

    Simply put, the author claimed that a “less gov’t” platform is just never going to resonate with minorities, because the very idea of scaling back gov’t, or of leaving things up to the private sector, is a theory that is almost wholly believed only by whites.

    1. Simply put, the author claimed that a “less gov’t” platform is just never going to resonate with minorities, because the very idea of scaling back gov’t, or of leaving things up to the private sector, is a theory that is almost wholly believed only by whites.

      If you look at Latin America, you might conclude that. Of course, if you look at Latin America, you have to ask “so how is that working out for you”?

    2. Well, in many places, the government is the only way for minorities to move into the middle class. Now, this is because of the shittiness of starting a small business, but thats second order thinking and a lot of people suck at that

      1. Well, in many places, the government is the only way for minorities to move into the middle class.

        And since libertarians oppose government that makes them racists.

    3. Blacks have been fed lies for generations from the Talented Tenth about how the white man is holding them down and only govt can protect them, while all along it’s the urban leftism that’s keeping them poor and miserable.

      Immigrants are almost uniformly coming from societies where it’s expected that whoever controls govt is able to screw over the ones who don’t control it.

      That there is most of your minority population.

      1. “Immigrants are almost uniformly coming from societies where it’s expected that whoever controls govt is able to screw over the ones who don’t control it.”

        There, I think, is an excellent point. And it doesn’t just apply to immigrants. If the govt isn’t affirmatively screwing other people on my behalf, the next thing it’s going to do is screw me. A general non-screwing arrangement will strike many people as impractical, so they figure the key thing is to capture the govt for your own group(s).

        1. A general non-screwing arrangement will strike many people as impractical

          The Constitution and Bill of Rights were pretty practical, at least for a while.

        2. We had a nice thing in this country for a long time. But we also had an agreed upon set of cultural values that we were proud of and were confident enough to enforce on new comers.

          When we lost those values and no longer were confident enough to enforce them on new comers, things went to shit. Now all we do is fight over culture values while our political class bankrupts us and immigrants move in with the same values and expectations that made where they came from so dysfunctional.

        3. At one point, it was also pretty true of the US- see machine politics. That’s, I think, the other thing that at least halted black advancement. By the time blacks moved to the city, the progressive reforms of their Era had made machine politics and patronage jobs harder to explicitly run (not that they DON’T run- Marion Berry runs a ward in DC along machine lines, but its a bit less of “get you a job” variety than “strong arm the bureaucracy” variety).

          I think the worst evil was that politicians, almost exclusively Democratic politicians, realized that once people became middle class, they no longer needed the machine and stopped voting for it. Thus, they’ve created a very successful and big machine that does give people enough to live on, and helps them navigate the bureaucracy of government, but doesn’t help them enough, or create enough opportunities, that they can ever leave the machine.

      2. The Talented Tenth weirdly enough half worked. I mean, only 90% of blacks vote Democrat!

        /ba-dum CHING!

        No, but seriously, there is a black middle class and even a small black upper class. The problem is that these people never followed through on duBois’ second part of that idea- that having advanced up the ladder, these people would lower it down to help the other 90% of blacks climb up. I’d even go so far as to say that some of the Talented Tenth realized that there was money to be made in pulling up the ladder even higher, and whipping up the bottom 90% to increase the power and prestige of the 10th.

    4. Cause it’s the private sector that enforced slavery and the drug war?

      1. It’s also the private sector that wages every war ever….right?

  29. Maybe it was a mistake to make e-cigarettes look so much like cigarettes. Invites the magical thinking.

    1. Hey what the hell is this? An on-topic post?

      1. SHAME!

        1. Wtf, is this guy new??

          1. Isn’t it like double heresy to go back on topic, once the thread has been successfully hijacked and when the thread is the thread that has successfully become the late nite links?

    1. People who vote for a candidate, because they see more of their ads bashing the other candidate, on the teevee, are retarded almost beyond belief.

      The country is now so dumbed down that politicians do whatever they want with impunity.

      It’s just like with the bills they propose these days. Immigration Reform! Yay! Who can’t be for that?! They don’t even bother explaining what that means. For all the illegal immigrants now here, waiting for that saving grace, the bill could put them all into concentration camps so that they could be used for free labor, and they wouldn’t have a clue that’s what it’s all about, until it was too late. But no matter, we have to pass it to see what’s in it. Just trust them, they never deceive or lie.

  30. Does anyone have results on the various ballot measures?

    I know that NJ voted to make to enshrine a barrier to unskilled employment into their constitution, but I haven’t heard much else.

    Is WA going to mandate junk science food labeling?
    Is Houston going to turn an old abandoned building into a money pit?

    These are the issues at hand, people!

    1. In SF we have two sets of rent-seekers arguing over who gets the gov’t favor on the waterfront.
      I voted ‘none of the above’.

      1. Oh, and we had 3 proggy dems running unopposed for office. If they’d had included a steaming pile of shit as an alternative, I would have voted.
        There was something I did vote on; it had to do with a universally promoted plan to ‘guarantee’ retirement benes for public leaches. I voted no.
        It was a couple of weeks back; I vote by mail.

    2. I know that NJ voted to make to enshrine a barrier to unskilled employment into their constitution

      I literally called my wife a moron for voting for that. She demands I apologize, that will never happen. The minimum wage is one of the vilest policies in the world. It is obvious that it does the exact opposite of the intent while the harms associated with it affect the very people it purports to help, all of the negatives are entirely predictable with even a basic knowledge of microeconomics, and vast reams of research that back up that prediction. Why do people keep voting for this shit?

      The sad part is she got this when Booker was basing his campaign on a min wage hike without me even telling her, then somehow forgot a month later. The NJEA went all “VOTE BUONO AND LINE A OR YOU’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” and she fell right into line like the stooge she is. Drives me nuts.

      1. My sister is the same way. She was like “blah blah empathy for poor people.”

        And I am like “making unskilled jobs unattainable for those without skills DOES NOT HELP THEM.”

        Does she really think that people who can’t find work at 7.25/hr are going to still have jobs when their mandated pay is $11/hr? Shit, if they make McD’s pay $15 I’ll fucking sling burgers and because I have 10 years of restaurant experience and 5 years of fine dining I WILL get hired and the poor black teen with no skills or experience WONT.

        Gah, it pisses me off just thinking about it. Why can’t these people see past step 1?

        1. The last thing they want at McDonalds is someone with fine dining experience gumming up their shit-disc processing.

          1. No, they’d want me because a) I’ve proven I can come to work on time and b) I can take their shit-discs and handle the guest’s 5883773524 complaints about them. We aren’t trying to reinvent the wheel here.

  31. If McAullife’s victory Virginia’s libertarian moment then isn’t De Blasio’s victory NYC’s libertarian moment?

    1. It’s the progressive moment, for both of them, like when Obamacare was passed. This is the beginning of free ponies for everyone in NYC and VA. And no one has to pay for them. It’s like when Obamacase passed. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

      1. If any Reason writer posts about how today’s elections are evidence of some Libertarian Moment or whatever then I think they should move to Toronto and hand over their crack to Rob Ford as I think he deserves it more.

        1. Didn’t Sarvis get like 7% of the vote?

          If so, that really is sort of a libertarian moment, though admittedly a very small one.

          1. It’s more of an anti-Cuccinelli moment than anything else. If the Greens had a candidate he would have gotten the same amount.

  32. Sasquatch hunt results in man shooting friend in back

    ROGERS COUNTY, Oklahoma – Rogers County Sheriff’s Department arrested three people in what appears to be an accidental shooting. One of the men told deputies he’d shot his friend while the two were on a Sasquatch hunting expedition.
    “If [they] had just been factual, upfront and truthful with us and explained that this was truly an accident, as strange as it might sound, we would have went ahead and investigated and probably nobody would have [gone] to jail,” Rogers County Sheriff Scott Walton said.

    The two men were hunting – apparently for Bigfoot – around 177th East Avenue and Tiger Switch Road Saturday night. Omar Pineda reportedly heard a “barking noise,” jerked and shot his friend in the back, authorities say.

    “When you start off with an explanation like that, do you believe anything after that?” Walton said Sunday morning.

    The men met emergency responders at a QuikTrip near Interstate 44 and 161st Street. The wounded man is expected to survive.

    Pineda, 21, was arrested for reckless conduct with a firearm and obstruction.

    1. I am really confused as to why anyone was arrested if it was indeed an accident.

      1. Did the guy have a permit for accidentally shooting his friend in the back? Did either of them even have a permit to hunt Bigfoot?

        Arrests were made, justice was served, move along civilian and don’t question authoritah again!

      2. They lied to the cops, which, let’s face it, is never smart.

        They’ll probably pay some fines.

      3. Dunno about the arrest, but it sounds like some drunken outing.
        The rule I was taught is the gun is NEVER aimed where people are, so ‘accidents’ go flying off out there somewhere.

        1. They guy who planned the bigfoot hunt must have really gotten too drunk since he forgot to make sure the other guy had an unloaded gun and also forgot where the dude in the bigfoot costume was waiting in ambush. Lame.

          1. I’m pretty sure the story is lacking the mention of a fifth or two.
            Guns are *intended* to be dangerous, for pete’s sake; act like it.

  33. Woooooh, no Astrodome money pit!

  34. When he is restricted to speaking about sports, Olberman is somewhat tolerable. It’s a very… odd… experience.

  35. Slate XX Blog: Virginia women stand up to Cuccinelli

    [W]hat really happened in Virginia today: An official who consistently used his elected office to promote policies that shamed, marginalized, and patronized women and other minorities was met with a “no.” This wasn’t just about money, or the shutdown, or Star Scientific, or Terry McAuliffe’s fancy Clinton-era friends. It was about voters and what they know to be true. The vote may have been close, but in the end Virginians, especially women, showed that they simply don’t believe that the commonwealth of Virginia should be in the business of discriminating against homosexuals, legislating an extreme anti-sodomy agenda, shuttering Planned Parenthood clinics, pressing an invasive trans-vaginal ultrasound law, and supporting a draconian illegal immigration law.
    [..]
    Virginia women who were mostly affronted by talk of trans-vaginal ultrasounds and clinic closures and constraints on birth control, know a whole lot about what they need to be protected from and when. And today they voted to “protect” themselves from Ken Cuccinelli.

    Someone sure is committed to the War on Women narrative.

    1. That’s all fluff anyway, everyone knows that the Dem plant, Sarvis, threw the election to McFuckFace.

      1. The idiots who nominated Cooch threw the election.

        1. I see you haven’t been watching FoxNews or reading the team red sites this evening.

      2. But wait! Never again vote for the lesser of two evils! Principaaalz! Teeeaaam Redddd nooo gooood eeeether!

        1. derp

    2. Women are kind of a twofer. You get the women and the men who don’t care about politics but want to get in the women’s pants.

  36. College Democrat friend on Facebook:

    Today I am happy that I almost moved to Virginia a year ago. They did something right. :’)

    Me: Are you aware of just how slimey and corrupt Terry McAuliffe is? The other guy was insane, but talk about a lousy choice. Everyone should have voted for Sarvis.

    I then link to that Mother Jones article on McAuliffe

    Her: do not link me to a libertarian website and expect me to read/care about what it says though.

    It’s really true that Democrats have no idea what kind of scumbag they chose to represent their party in Virginia.

    1. Today I am happy that I almost moved to Virginia a year ago. They did something right. :’)

      Er, I’m having trouble figuring out what the hell she’s saying here. She probably is too.

    2. The thing about Democrats is that they don’t care if the people they choose to represent them are scumbags. Where you been?

    3. Well she deleted the entire post, so maybe she’s embarrassed by her enthusiasm for a grifter.

      1. Probably also embarrassed at calling MJ a “libertarian” website.

  37. It is interesting to see several people here bellyache about the Libertarian ‘costing’ Cuccinelli the election. This is done despite the fact that McAuliffe led Cuccinelli in nearly every poll with Sarvis included, and without.

    Several have attacked Sarvis as not really libertarian (look at the proposals on his website, pure, perhaps not but he was more libertarian than most people you will get to vote for in an election these days). Others have argued it just empowers Democrats.

    But here is a thought: perhaps what it does is punish the GOP for deferring to SoCon candidates. And if it does that, then it strikes me as a good thing, especially for a person who is a libertarian that has chosen the GOP as the lesser of two evils or the vehicle for libertarian ideas. In fact, it seems the only ones who could be upset by such a result are those who actually agree with SoCons more than they might like to admit.

    1. Backing new taxes is totally libertarian bro. Totally.

      1. Replacement taxes. Like how many people support replacing the income tax with whole slew of other shit.

        1. Haha yeah the legislature will definitely repeal the current taxes, not just add a mileage tax to the existing gas tax.

          Why in the world would you hand the enemy more weapons?

          1. Pretty sure the plan is that replacement would be the requirement for passage…

    2. perhaps what it does is punish the GOP for deferring to SoCon candidates.

      This. That’s why it was always a no lose election.

    3. Not sure what a libertarian such as Bo (cough cough cough) gets out of punishing the GOP. Are you a sadist or something?

      If you think that losing elections is going to make them more libertarian, you’re dreaming. There are much easier votes to get in the statist center. Meanwhile, the punishment you’re enjoying actually hands power to the Dems for another four years.

      1. Not to mention non-Socons are not inherently libertarian. Chris Christie anyone?

      2. Not sure what a libertarian such as Tulpa (cough cough cough) gets out of supporting the GOP. Are you a masochist or something?

  38. Forced GMO labeling was defeated, but SEATAC passed a $15 minimum wage for airport related workers.

    I can’t wait to see the long term effects this has on that airport.

    1. Sadly, the GMO labeling defeat has yet to bring out any of the salty-ham tears on Facebook. Perhaps they’re holding out hope? Mmm maybe the tears will taste better with breakfast…

  39. They state we have no long term data, Yet china and other countries have been using electronic cigarettes for over a decade.
    And have yet to report any long term or effects that may be negative to ones health.
    It is time the Vapor community stands up and shows those that do not accept that which they can not understand the truth.
    Vapeing is more healthy than smoking regular cigarettes.

    THATS THE BOTTOM LINE!

    Quit trying to regulate, ban, and understand something you have not taken the time to research, and comprehend the big picture of how this is helping society in the effort to stop the chemicals that are given in regular cigarettes.

    In other words………Get a Brain…. perhaps a degree in health…
    understand what the chemicals are that are in these products. And their relation to a person’s health and how it is helping… not hurting the human race.

    Analogs are the past, And the past is gone.
    Vape on!

    Thamyris

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.