The Independents

Tonight on The Independents: Former NSA Official Stewart Baker Accuses Libertarians of 'Obama Derangement Syndrome'; Major-Party Partisans Waffle on Weed, Plus Reason's Peter Suderman and TV's Andy Levy!


And after I have EATEN the Capitol I will dispense with you little humans next! |||

Tonight at 9 pm ET, Fox Business Network's The Independents comes in with Part I of a two-installment Stories of the Year package, leading off with discussion about 2013's bombshell revelations about the National Security Agency's spying activities. Former NSA general counsel and Bush-era Department of Homeland Security official Stewart Baker does not agree with this word "spying," and generally does not share the same antipathy toward federal surveillance activities as the show's co-hosts. The resulting interview is…contentious.

The left-right panelists, former Kerry/Obama aide Mark Hannah and GOP Deputy Communications Director Sarah Isgur Flores, compare the two major parties' ongoing civil wars, and later try to outdo each other in not answering the question, "Would you legalize weed?" Reason Senior Editor Peter Suderman talks about—wait for it—Obamacare! And TV's Andy Levy, from the great Fox show Red Eye, talks about the best filibusters and/or celebrity meltdowns of 2013. Syria also gets a mention in there somewhere, as does the word "statists" (twice!).

It is a very good television program, which I can state with confidence because it's already done! I may lurk in the open thread here, just to police the Kmele Foster fanclub activity….

NEXT: Poll: 37 Percent of Uninsured Believe Obamacare Will Hurt Them

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Isn’t it crazy how the same people can have Bush Derangement Syndrome and then later come down with Obama Derangement Syndrome? Next you’ll tell me that they’ll come down with Hillary Derangement Syndrome. These people are not healthy, I tell you.

  2. Suderman’s Shit-Eating Grin(tm) = Now With Twice The Shit-Eating* Power

    (*note = I never understood that expression. Still don’t. But as the judge said about the porns… I know it when I see it)

    1. Etymology/definition of “shit-eating grin?”

      As with many idioms, I had to ask about this once. Most answers I received made emphasis of the quality of smugness exhibited by the described person’s smile. I reckon the etymology is simple enough – displaying one’s delight in doing something contemptible or noxious to others.

      posted by Dee Xtrovert at 10:03 PM on February 8, 2011 [2 favorites]

  3. “Obama Derangement Syndrome”

    basically, this is the left’s version of, “Hating the president is equivalent to Treason”, except its not like, you know “Treason”, which the Right likes so much = its a ‘disease’ you’re suffering from, you just don’t know it. Poor baby, he has ODS! He needs some tender love and year in the MADDOW RE-EDUCATOR

    1. Shouldn’t ODS be spelled Odious? As in the policies of the most transparent administration evah?

  4. Fewer topics, more in-depth discussion.

    1. Also more Kemele Foster.

      1. What did he say yesterday that resulted in Fist laughing about what a rabid libertarian he is? I didn’t watch.

        1. Something to the effect that he doesn’t like government funding public schools any more than he likes government funding lotteries.


  5. Can we have a separate thread for those of us who would rather push needles through our scrotums (or labia for the ladies) than watch some statists screech and moan at various reason staffers?

    Or we could just disrupt this thread. It’s a nice thread you got here. Wouldn’t want to have anything happen to it, would we?

    1. One of the many great changes I have experienced in moving to Texas from Chicago is hearing right-wing statist arguments for a change.

      I have debated my coworker on the merits of the drug war and America: World Police. The counterarguments basically boiled down to Hitler and everyone will get high all the time.

      Also, I am a damn Yankee*.

      *Anyone born north of the Red River

      1. That’s absurd. People from Chicago aren’t Yankees. They’re Polacks or something like that. As a real Yankee, I take offence!

        1. Oh, they’re yankees all right, at least to someone who hails from the Old South.

          To expand, all of Florida is yankee, and at least half of Virginia is yankee as well. And we’re still not sold on Texas just yet.

          1. No, no, you have it all backwards. If you’re not from New England, New York, New Jersey, or eastern Pennsylvania, you’re a southerner. Not sure about Delaware; does it actually really exist or is it just a figment of our collective imagination?a

            1. Not sure about Delaware; does it actually really exist or is it just a figment of our collective imagination?

              So Joe Biden is an illusion? David Icke was right?

            2. This is the most horrifying worldview I have encountered on this site in at least the past week.

              1. This is the most horrifying worldview I have encountered on this site in at least the past week.

                Ever step out of the boundaries of these United States? We’re all Yankees there.

                1. Ever step out of the boundaries of these United States? We’re all Yankees there.

                  A lot of my friends are furriners, so I’m constantly reminding them that I’m a Tennessean, not an American. My other schtick is that Hayek is a liberal, while Obama definitely isn’t.

                  Neither gets many laughs, upon reflection.

                2. A brit I know often refers to me as a Yank so I started calling him a Taffy even though he’s not from Wales. He kinda got the point. I mean, if I was in the UK I would have to accept it, having chosen to be there.

            3. What?! I have it on good authority that the known world ends in Yonkers and Hoboken.

              1. I was being generous. After all, Ben Franklin was sort of a Yankee.

              2. In Jersey you’re considered southern if you’re from Ocean, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland, Atlantic, or Cape May counties.

                1. In Jersey you’re considered southern if you’re from Ocean, Burlington, Camden, Gloucester, Salem, Cumberland, Atlantic, or Cape May counties.

                  What about Saint Br?lade?

                2. Good thing I was born in Bergen County, then.

                3. “Lady Bertrum|12.18.13 @ 7:27PM|#

                  “In Jersey you’re considered…”

                  No, you are not. You are dismissed offhand as irrelevant.
                  /NYC Snot

              3. ODYSSEY V was lost trying to return from the theoretical dimension called “Yonkers”, so this remains pure speculation

                1. Captain GILMORE, we’ve picked up a contact. It’s coming from a vessel calling itself “Y-GER”.

            4. The South begins at the South End of Boston.

              1. In the ancient world, opinions like these resulted in wise rulers building very long walls.

            5. Comports with a professor of mine who believed that Southerners secretly took over Delaware in the middle of the night sometime in the 1880s.

            6. YANKEE, n.: In Europe, an American. In the Northern States of our Union, a New Englander. In the Southern States the word is unknown. (See DAMYANK.)

              — The Devil’s Dictionary

        2. I’m not even from Chicago. I was born in Maryland and grew up in rural West Virginia.

          There should be a word for people with no particular tie to any state or region.

          Maybe “American” or something like that…

          1. FURRINER

        3. As a real Yankee, I take offence

          So how do the breakfast pies taste up in Montpelier?

      2. I live in CA which is freakishly blue, and no one outside of the hipster crowd is into drug legalization. Folks in LA (not Orange County) vote to limit the number of legal pot shops.

        Didn’t CA vote against legalization when either Obama or Brown was up for election?

        California must be worst of both worlds for libertarians. There are many OLD SCHOOL conservatives here, but they vote Democrat. Free stuff is alluring.

        1. If the states were smilies, California would be the one hitting its head with a hammer.

        2. I hate my state.

      3. How do you like Texas so far? Also, there are plenty of libertarians here, but you notice that arguing with conservatives often brings good debate. The conservatives are just libertarians that don’t want to admit it sometimes.

    2. Be a damn shame if someone brought up Chicago style “pizza” or made a Star Wars vs. Star Trek comparison wouldn’t it?

      1. You know, I’ve heard that people don’t like Star Trek V. They’re probably just jealous of Shatner’s directing capabilities.

        1. Again, the true question is ST original vs. ST:NTG. I am the minority here on TNG side.

          I have a plan for wooing others to my evil ways. Get Christopher Nolan to sign on to a three part ST:TNG movie series. He will easily murder anything done by JJ Abrams, thus ensuring that TNG is considered the height of the franchise going forward. Now its just a matter of finding who to cast as Q (who has the potential to be the greatest villain in history).

          1. Rip Torn?

          2. Now its just a matter of finding who to cast as Q

            I dunno. John de Lancie’s son, who not only is an actor but also the spitting image of his dad should be approaching the appropriate age sometime soon.

            1. Interesting. I would’ve liked the idea of Cumberbatch until he was cast by Abrams to play Khan (his Sherlock Holmes providing a perfectly eloquent and observant Q like demeanor).

              The only problem with Nolan is his tendency to recycle actors in all his projects. The contract will stipulate no Christian Bale or JGL.

        2. I bet you have the entire TekWar series memorized to the page and your hard copies have been each signed twice by Shatner himself.

          1. I actually started reading the first TekWar book (which was clearly ghost written) in 1990. Then I lost the book about 1/3 way through. I suppose it’s telling that I didn’t bother to replace it to finish it.

            1. Pretty much the same for me. I mean not losing it, but drifting out in the middle of the first.

              In the middle of Herbert’s Destination: Void. Around 178 pages in, it may be getting too stupid for me to go much further. The characters are forced to create an artificial conscience intelligence to man their ship systems, and they are arguing the need to create in it feelings of love and emotion. It’s . . . well, maybe, Herbert is only trying to show how desperate they are that they are losing their rational prerogatives, but its felt a bit confused with some sloppily applied terminology from the start.

  6. What’s the point in giving so much free time to the statists? They’ve already got pretty much everything else. It’s not like their position is inadequately represented. Preach to the choir!

    1. What’s the point in giving so much free time to the statists?

      I’m with you. Stop with the politics and talk more about to policy and philosophy, damned it!

      1. A segment on libertarian philosophy might go a long way to dispelling some of the bullshit we’re constantly accused of by our statist tormentors.

        How bout it, Matt?

        1. Design it — length, topics guests. Go!

          1. Length: 10 to 15 minutes. Topic: Taxation, Social Contract, Minimum Wage Laws, etc. Guest: Tomasz Kaye, the producer and animator of kickstarter funded films Edgar the Exploiter, George Ought to Help, and You Can Always Leave.

            You’re welcome. I just request a assistance producer’s credit as “A Heroic Mulatto Joint 2014”.

            1. I was thinking about doing a Friday show on “Libertarianism’s Critics.” Where we invite Chait, E.J. Dionne, Jacob Weisberg, Michael Gerson, David Brooks, whoever, to give us their worst, and answer back.

              1. I’m assuming you guys would voluntarily wear restraints for this so that you didn’t end up leaping over the table to strangle the guests? At the very least, please wear a smug-proof HAZMAT suit. For your own safety.

              2. At this point, just add Loder and invite Stewart on to the show. Recreate the MTV of my youth. Ed Lover. Get him to.

              3. Jesus Christ Matt, do you want the entire studio to be destroyed in one giant smug retard attack?

              4. That would be interesting.

          2. Whole show. Start with the NAP. Talk initiation of force. Define force.

            How our position is devoted to liberty/freedom.

            A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED they don’t violate the rights of others.

            Define rights. Negative rights are unlimited, positive rights rights can only be provided within the framework of the founding document.

            The only legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

            Explain how these tenets relate to our positions on issues.

            Guests? I guess you could just let me talk for the whole hour.

            But seriously, how about a little libertarian education?

            1. I would buy this, FdA. I mean, how better to describe libertarianism than to proceed from first principles?

            2. I would seriously like to do more on this right now, but I’ve had a bit too much good beer. Crap. This is the kind of thing I’m really interested in: describing libertarianism to others and doing it effectively.

      2. They should have an entire episode in which Thomas Di Lorenzo discusses the vile authoritarian Abraham Lincoln and the way in which, contrary to ending slavery, he truly enslaved us all.

        They can also have an episode where Lew Rockwell explains that libertarians should support Nicolas Maduro in his battle against American imperialism.


        1. DiLorenzo is very entertaining. I can imagine card-carrying members of the Lincoln fan club turning purple if they ever heard him speak.

        2. Perhaps they could have a discussion as to why criticism of Lincoln is off limits yet criticism of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson are perfectly fine?

          1. It’s hard to overcome the cognitive dissonance involved in criticizing a man who has two giant monuments and hundreds of schools named after him.

          2. Di Lorenzo’s histrionics go far beyond reasoned criticism.

            By way of comparison, it’s okay to criticize Lyndon Johnson, but it isn’t reasonable to claim he’s worse than Hitler.

            Do you see the distinction?

            1. Lincoln was not a monster. He was not a hero either. That’s the gist I got from DiLorenzo.

              1. In the Real Lincoln he blames Lincoln for not doing what the British did and buy slaves from their masters, after which they would all be emancipated. This nicely ignores the fact that the South attacked Fort Sumter before Lincoln’s inauguration.

                When was Lincoln supposed to enact this policy? Di Lorenzo totally blames the Civil war on Abraham Lincoln, despite the fact that it was started by the South attacking a fort prior to Lincoln even being inaugurated.


                He [Lincoln] chose instead to wage a long and devastating war in which the victims were not just slave owners but every Southern citizen.

                This is a nice moral inversion on Di Lorenzo’s part. He ignores the South’s part in the Civil War, lays all of the blame on Lincoln, and then neatly turns slave holders into helpless victims of government…the very government they were using to hold human being in bondage.

                1. This nicely ignores the fact that the South attacked Fort Sumter before Lincoln’s inauguration.

                  Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4 and Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12. Are you referring to something else?

                  This is a nice moral inversion on Di Lorenzo’s part. He ignores the South’s part in the Civil War, lays all of the blame on Lincoln

                  Um when libertarians attack the behavior of the US military don’t they too ignore the part played by America’s enemies?

                  1. My apologies. They didn’t attack the fort proper, they just forced Federal government forces to vacate a fort in Charleston, fired on a boat sent to resupply Fort Sumter, and placed Fort Sumter under siege.

                    They didn’t open fire on the Fort until a month after Lincoln was inaugurated, but I hardly think placing the fort under siege, opening fire on a Federal boat, and shooting up the fort when Lincoln tried to resupply it are the actions of a people who want peace and are coerced into war by mean old Lincoln.

                    Um when libertarians attack the behavior of the US military don’t they too ignore the part played by America’s enemies?

                    Not unless they’re morons. I also don’t think any libertarian, Di Lorenzo included, would claim that a mobilized army attacking U.S. military installations is anything other than an act of war.

                    Face it. The first act of war was committed by the South when the placed Sumter under siege, fired on Union ships, and shot at the fort during Lincoln’s attempted resupply.

                    1. Well I thought you might have been referring to the siege rather than to the battle.

                      I suppose from the Confederates view not abandoning the fort after Secession was declared was aggression and using a civilian ship was also but I would think the Fort was federal property?

                    2. I suppose from the Confederates view not abandoning the fort after Secession was declared was aggression and using a civilian ship was also but I would think the Fort was federal property?

                      I would assume that after Secession, pretty much everyone knew war was inevitable. So the question of who owned the fort would have been moot. However, I think the Feds had a better argument in not only did they build the fort, but they built up the shoal it was situated on with aggregate they boated down from New England. So one might argue that the island was never really SC’s to begin with. On the other hand, the waters clearly were in SC’s territory, so they had every right to blockade. (If one accepted their succession as legitimate)

            2. By way of comparison, it’s okay to criticize Lyndon Johnson, but it isn’t reasonable to claim he’s worse than Hitler.

              Yes I do see the distinction. Problem it is does seem every time Lincoln comes up here there will be some people who react as if any criticism of Lincoln is pro-slavery and therefore unlibertarian when no one here would react that any attack on FDR is pro-Nazi or pro-alcohol prohibition.

              I will admit that Di Lorenzo’s posts on LRC got tiresome since about 10 years ago there was a period for about a year or so where every week he would write the same article which was just a rehash of what he wrote in the Real Lincoln and he would often try to compare Lincoln to BOOOOSH.

              1. My favorite LRC head turn was when after advocating not voting as a principled stand every day during the ’04 race, they turn around for the ’08 race to endorse Paul. If disengagement is always the right stand, than the next cycle is, what? Outside the parameters of time?

                They have had many decent people working the articles over there, I mean, Tucker for many years, and they gave Anthony Gregory a forum as well, so I don’t wont to pile on. Its too easy.

                  1. I get that confused with some of the paleo stuff.

          3. why criticism of Lincoln is off limits

            I’ve never found that to be true. YMMV, I guess.

        3. I normally avoid the Civil War fights as the Confederacy is hardly worth my defense, but Bo Cara was so goddamned self righteous in the last thread I broke the vow of silence about debating historical matters with little relevancy to me.

          1. You should probably normally avoid talking to New Tulpa too. It’s about as productive as talking to Old Tulpa.

            1. He has that same quality of Old Tulpa of starting the day saying something entirely educated and sensible, and by the end of it, you are wondering, where in the blue blazes of Hell did this come out of.

          2. I think it’s important to make it very clear that there’s a difference between defending the Confederacy–a shit state that supported de facto slavery by conscripting innocent men in addition to supporting the legal institution of slavery–and supporting the individuals who were caught up in the state-sponsored war either due to common illiberal attitudes or by no fault of their own.

            There are plenty of people today who voted for Obamney in the last election, but I wouldn’t want to see any of them start slaughtering one another or their teenaged kids after the Republican states invade the Democratic ones.

        4. Did you hear about the new cable show – I was Lincol’s Chef? Being from Illinois, Lincoln hires a Chicago cook (after whom Cook County is named) who is famous the world over for his deep dish pizza. Lincoln just can’t get enough!

  7. So I’m looking to purchase my first rifle and have a real thing for the Marlin 336. It sounds like the quality of the rifle has gone to shit since Marlin was taken over. Anybody have any experience with new 336’s?

    1. I don’t, but if you don’t mind my asking, why the lever action? What are you planning to do with it?

      1. So he can rack it one-handed and look cool?

        1. I was going to say, “stand on your porch, work the action with an audible click, and then say, ‘Get her home before curfew, ya hear?'”

        2. Only The Rifleman can do that. Who does he think he is, Chuck Connors?!?

          1. Certain models of SkyNet cyborgs had a similar capability….

            1. That was while riding a motorcycle. It’s completely different.

            1. Well of course The Duke can do it. He can do anything. It doesn’t even need to be said.

              1. John Wayne was a Fag

                  1. Sorry sir, the correct answer is, \

                    “THE HELL HE WAS!!”


      2. No reason other than I like the lever action and I like the look of the gun. The 336 has a great reputation for short range deer hunting, or so I have read. And I want to be Clint Eastwood a little bit.

    2. I have 14 Winchester 94s and one Marlin 336 if that tells you anything.

      The quality of marlin 336s has gone down since I bought mine.

      The winchester is smoother and the pressure tolerance is higher. Plus, the 94s are better balanced and carry like a dream.

      What cartridge chambering were you thinking of?

      1. Fourteen?!? I am impressed. I had one in .45 Long Colt, and it was really fun, but I found myself never shooting it so I sold it.

        1. I never got that one.
          I did get one in 44 Mag with the long 24″ barrel and love it. Inside of 100 yards it drops deer or pigs like they are struck by lightening.

          1. I got some Cor-Bon +P .45 Long Colt for it and that packed a serious punch. Very little drop for quite a while too.

            I probably shouldn’t have sold it, but I wasn’t shooting it and rifles aren’t really my thing anyway; I’m much more shotguns and handguns. Which reminds me that now that “assault rifle” prices have returned to semi-normal, I should get an AK. I love my SKS but AKs are so much fun.

            1. Build one from scratch.

              1. I don’t build things. I buy them or pay people to build them for me.

            2. If you like scatterguns and are looking into getting an evul black rifle split the difference and get an MKA-1919. I just got one, converted it to a folding stock configuration, then mounted an EOTech holo-sight on top.

      2. 30-30. Very common round so will likely be able to find ammo for it anywhere up here in Canada.

        Do Winchesters all have top eject?

        1. I believe so. Where do you buy your ammo in Canada? Sporting goods store? Gun store? Wal-Mart? Tim Horton’s?

          1. Well Canadian tires sell ammo, and they are pretty much everywhere hah. Otherwise, I’m gonna have to get back to you.

    3. I apologize. I forgot to add that Mossberg now makes a damn good lever in 30-30 and the cost is lower than the winchester.

      1. I’m going to look into the Mossberg.

        In the future I will be expanding my rifle collection, but I need to start somewhere and I have my hard earned firearms license burning a hole in my wallet and a little bit o cash too.

        1. I am looking at getting a lever action too but I’ll probably go old school with a reproduction of an 1876 in 45 Colt. I already have 4 SA & DA revolvers in that caliber so I need a rifle to balance things out.

        2. If you’re worried about the quality of the new ones look for a used 336 in decent shape. They cost less and if it was used like most hunting rifles (i.e. only fired to sight in and when shooting at game) it will still have most of its usable life left.

        3. “hard earned firearms license”

          Where are you?

          1. My bet says Canuckistan.

            1. Yep. Two 10 hour days of learning about de gunz, with a written and practical test thrown in there.

              1. At least it was all in (some form of) English. Things could be worse.

        4. I see now, Canada. Come to the states man. Florida and Louisiana both have Nuclear power and lax gun laws.

          30-30 is an excellent choice. It really is about the best all around cartridge you can get.

          Get yourself one of these:


          Some brass, powder and primers and then you can choose from lots of different bullet choices from lead round balls to 170 grain sledge hammers. It will take everything from squirrel to grizzly.

          1. I have family in NC and Florida, I have seriously given thought to moving down south. I love it down there. I need to put more effort into getting employment there though.

      2. I second the Mossberg line = I have no experience with lever guns, but have heard from friends with many the line about ‘new marlins’ being lower quality fit and finish compared to older ones, and positive comments about Mossberg competitive offerings.

  8. ANDY LEVY?! Andy Levy!!!! I’m tuning in. Will you have a half-time report?

    1. No more half-time reports since Bill Schultz departed for reasons that remain top secret. Andy seems to be a full-time panelist. Yes, I am the (singular) Red Eye viewer.

      IIRC Schultz has visited the Reason forums before.

      1. I don’t usually watch it because of the late hour, but I like Red Eye when I do catch it. Andy is an avowed libertarian and usually gets a dig or two in. Bill Schultz is a funny guy. I hope he’s found another gig.

        1. He got super pissed at Greg Gutfeld when Gutfeld was supporting the NSA.

          He said something like “Hey Greg, from now on can you stop calling yourself a libertarian?”

          I love Andy Levy. His twitter fight with Chris Brown was also hilarious.

          1. I really wish they’d put both Red Eye and The Independents on Fox News at a reasonable hour. But, then, I’m not their target demo, sooo.

            1. Were you to go to youtube and search for Red Eye, you might discover a long-tolerated, but perhaps unofficial channel for watching said show shortly after it airs.

              I haven’t seen any of the Independents yet outside of the 5-minute clips on Fox Business, but I’m hoping they’ll put full episodes online somewhere, even for a subscription or per episode fee.

          2. That’s pretty much why I quit watching Red Eye.

            Not only supporting the NSA, but constantly saying Snowden should be murdered because of his leaks.

        2. Any time someone from Reason is on Redeye, the whole show can be downloaded for free via the Reason podcast on iTunes.

        3. Schulz posted this on his Twitter feed today:

          “Left @SammyJudge at this beachside bar to go to 20 degree weather & continued unemployment. Hooray for me? *weeping*”

  9. Slate lashes out at critics of Pajama Boy

    These critics?and there are many?are not just offended by the notion of a relatively modest, market-based system designed to help people of differing levels of economic privilege gain access to healthcare. What really gets them, apparently, is the fact that there exist young, somewhat bookish-looking men who enjoy being comfortable. At least I think that’s what the problem is, based on descriptions like “infantilized ? man-child,” “metrosexual hipster in a plaid onesie,” and reactions like “liberals fear masculinity and maturity.”

    …According to Charles Cooke of the National Review, he’s a member of the “Queer Students Association” where he takes part in ” ‘dialogue’ about the evils of ‘heteronormativity’ or ‘micro-aggressions,’ the pressing necessity of ‘safe spaces,’ and the vital importance of whatever other buzzwords the comically hopeless liberal-arts students at Oberlin, Hampshire, and Brown are talking about these days.” Did Obama tweet out his college syllabus as well? I mean, that seems like a lot to assume from a fella’s bedclothes, but hey, I’m not as schooled in the old conservative Christmas tradition of gay witch-hunting as Cooke seems to be.

    1. “market-based system” ?

      Must be somehow connected to the “unfettered capitalism” that caused the 2008 meltdown.

      1. Raven Nation|12.18.13 @ 7:55PM|#
        “market-based system” ?

        The government tells you what shoes to buy, how many you can buy, who they can be made by, what size you have to buy, what materials can be used in the manufacture, what color they might be, how long the laces are, but other than that,
        Why, it’s a FREE MARKET!

        1. A little too free, to the tastes of some, as you have yet to inform us as to the wages of the laborers providing or selling said shoes.

        2. “but other than that”

          Damn, of course, how stupid of me.

          “what shoes to buy”

          Is this connected to the “Shoe Event Horizon?”

    2. Holy fuck. No wonder he has so much butthurt.
      His photo is at the top of the page;

      1. J. Bryan Lowder is Pajama boy

      2. Yeah….pretty remarkable resemblance.

      3. “Why, I resemble that remark!”

    3. “Why does my comfort make you mad?”

      It has nothing to do with your comfort, it has to do with the undeserved smugness oozing out of your face.

    4. differing levels of economicWHITE MALE! privilege gain access to healthcare


  10. Debbie Wasserman Schultz inexplicably starts twitter trolling Michelle Malkin.

    It’s wonderful living in a country run by such distinguished individuals, isn’t it?

    1. You mean by people who have never moved out of high school mode? Because that’s what we have.

        1. My first SF’d link? How poignant.
          Once more

          or just this:

          1. It’s 56 minutes long and I don’t want to watch some hacks from Heritage whine. What stupid shit did the Heritage foundation do this time?

          2. Oh God. It’s a conservative comedian.

            Holy fuck. Maybe I do have to watch this.

            His first CD is called “Funny, you don’t look conservative.”

            I want to kill myself.

            1. Yes, he’s solid Team Red, but nonetheless, he has some amusing remarks.

          3. Never mind. His points are actually pretty good.

        2. SFed

    2. I did not think that Debbie Wasserman Shultz was smart enough to use a computer.

      1. It really is amazing to listen to Team Blue academics deride all conservatives as idiots, while basking calmly in the knowledge that everyone on their side is really smart.

        1. Highly-educated people skew liberal- as long as you leave out engineering and medicine and business and hard science and…

          1. And yet, I can think of prominent examples of all four fields who are the most prog of progs.

          2. Sorry.

            Probably should have clarified: since I am in the humanities, when I say “academics” I am always thinking of my fellows in fields such as history, polisci, philosophy, etc. Observer bias I guess.

            Having said that, a lot of scientists I hear talking in general (friends, TV shows, etc.) seem to be default Democrats. Anecdotal evidence only I know. I assume this default position comes from the Gen Ed courses they take in college.

            1. Government science funding.

              1. I suspect that plays a role, but I was thinking more of just the “casual” support for welfare programs, Obamacare, instant belief in the Democrat interpretation of current events, etc., etc.

            2. since I am in the humanities

              What do you do? As in, what are your interests?

              1. Pre-Revolutionary British America

                1. Cool. I just finished Foner’s Tom Paine. I really dug his description of the social and economic makeup of pre-rev Philli.

                  Anyway, if you ever come across some documents by some randy Scotsmen surnames “Samuel” located in the West Indies, those might have been the Samuels that led to me. I’m guessing those letters would have been about their love of dark rum and darker women.

                  1. Will keep an eye for docs. Haven’t read the Foner book, but he is usually brilliant (although his present day politics, of course, are not mine).

              2. Oops, history.

                1. Anyway, back to the topic. Yeah, I can see in History a lot of proggies due to explaining everything through class struggle being shoved down History majors’ throats.

                  Over here in Linguistics its not so bad, despite Chomsky, in that a fair amount of linguists moonlight as Christian missionaries. (The ones going out into the jungle to record new languages that is)

                  For less-commonly-taught languages SIL is a huge institution that drives translation and research. SIL’s (Summer Institute of Linguistics) primary mission is to translate the Bible into every language known. Historically, you also had the LDS involved with certain Amerindian languages as well.

                  Anecdotally, I find this religious influence does slightly dampen the Neo-Marxist-bias.

                  1. I can see that. SIL is pretty interesting; years back I knew some people involved with Wycliff Bible Translators. I think there is some connection b/w WBT & SIL (or there was).

                    Interestingly, I’ve never been criticized or scorned b/c of my religion but have frequently been for my politics. However, it became apparent that most historians who “completely understood” modern politics were so bereft of basic knowledge that it wasn’t worth debating them. So, now I concentrate on the students; undermining the system from the inside.

                    1. Yes, Wycliff and SIL were founded by the same person.

                      In our department we tend to avoid politics. We also have a lot of foreign-born faculty, which might be part of it. For full-time faculty, we have one former Soviet refusnik and one refugee from Castro’s Cuba. You can imagine what they think of ol’ Marx.

                    2. Though, I do adjunct over at the Education department for foreign language teaching methodology classes, thought. It’s like something out of the Maoist Cultural Revolution over there, complete with posters of smiling zombie-like kids.

                    3. I would say there are not too many Marxists running around history departments any more. Mostly they are just straight up Team Blue folks who believe that the words from the New York Times and NPR are to be believed without question or doubt.

                      It’s actually the thing that drives me the most crazy. When it comes to things that a specific historian is an expert on, they will never claim to have the whole truth and will be respectful of those who hold competing views. But when it comes to modern politics, they read the times or listen to NPR and they KNOW all truth and anyone who disagrees came be ridiculed, impugned and viciously attacked.

            3. That’s because most people view Republicans (creationism and other retarded stuff) and Libertarians (AGW skeptics, etc.) as being anti-science. If you’re a scientist you probably aren’t going to support the guy you’ve been told thinks the world is flat and only 6,000 years old.

              1. I took a history class at the University of Arizona where the professor was a die in the wool commie. She even included one of Lenin’s books as required reading.

      2. DWS is mind-bendingly tarded. I’m from Maryland, and I feel the burning rage of native Floridians when they look at her carpet-baggin’ Miami-cum-Manhattan face.

        1. Say what you want, but Raylene was totally hot in Carpet-Baggin’ Miami Cum Manhattan Face 7.

    3. Well, Malkin has been mizzling people for years now.

  11. So I was thinking about thinking about this while making dinner. Many libertarian formally develop their philosophy by starting out with something like the NAP or self-ownership. I’m not familiar with progressive philosophy but does anyone know if there an analogous principle(s) in progressive philosophy?

    1. FYTW I believe is the foundational principle.

      1. Sudden that is probably pretty accurate as they have utter contempt for the rule of law.

        1. They are pragmatic utilitarian collectivists. The days of the Old Left–i.e. of philosophical Marxism and intellectual distinction–are gone, and today’s Left is a product of the philosophy of pragmatism of John Dewey, who was hugely influential on the original “progressives” a century ago.

    2. I dont think people come to progressivism in the same way. There is an ocean that lies between the way they think and the way we do.

      I imagine insecurity and the need to be told what to do causes them to drift in that direction. Once they see it, they latch on.

      1. I’m serious though. Presumably there have been some thoughtful progressives that have addressed this sort of thing.

        1. I realize you are serious, and that was my best answer.

          They do embrace the principle of ‘end justifying means’ so I am not sure there is a common thread running through their philosophy. It seems just a disparate collection of premises for getting what they want or think is best for you.

          It takes a very different kind of person than I am to think that way.
          I dont think of myself as a hardcore libertarian, but I am a rabid believer in self ownership. That guides my position on all issues.
          I dont see any of them behaving that way.

          1. Irish says it better below.

          2. See my answer above. The Old New Deal-era Left died in the 1950’s when the atrocities of Soviet Russia were first revealed to the world, and Marxism as an intellectual ideal was first severely damaged.

            Pragmatism was the only philosophical system to take root in the American public in the 20th century, and John Dewey was particularly influential on the entire progressive movement. In today’s diluted version, pragmatism has been reduced to its essence: do what works, theory doesn’t matter, reality is unknowable anyway.

            The modern left is quite simple, and they are much easier to understand if you know anything of the philosophy of pragmatism and its huge impact on 20th century America (and today).

            1. Thanks for that. I’ll read up more on Dewey.

              1. Oh God, go for the Cliff’s notes. Dewey loved to hear himself…write?

                Seriously, my copy of Democracy and Education is heavy enough to crack open lobster claws.

                1. I learned my lesson about original source material with Keynes. The General Theory of Employment isn’t even that long but I don’t think I made it more than 8 pages in.

      2. “feelings… nothing more than….feeeeeeeeeel-ingsssss…..”

    3. Modern progressives have no guiding principles because they’re completely separated from what the Progressive movement originally was.

      The progressive movement initially started essentially as a religious movement that melded in various sorts of pseudoscience (eugenics, Marxist economics, dialectical materialism, bizarre psychological arguments, etc.)

      Modern progressives maintained all of the old time theocrat prog’s policy preferences, but they no longer make sense as a unified whole without the religious underpinnings. The whole point of the failed experiment was to use natural selection and various government programs to create a Christian Heaven on Earth, and modern progs don’t know enough about their own history to realize this.

      For example, it tends to be neatly forgotten that proto-Progressive William Jennings Bryan was a hyper religious hick who was the prosecutor at the Scopes Monkey Trial. That would be inconvenient to the mythology that progressives have created for themselves.

      1. Modern progressives have adopted multiculturalism and environmentalism which contradict key parts of the old progressive ideology.

        1. They contradict their own stated goals since most environmental policies are seriously detrimental to the poor.

          This is what happens when you have no unifying principles. You adopt policies that contradict each other and your own policies negate the goals of your other policies.

          I’m still trying to figure out how Californian progressives can claim to be friends of the poor while levying a 70 cent gas tax.

      2. Having grown up with and around progressives, and having to associate with them periodically – or cut off relations with my father – this is how I see them.

        Listen to what all the other progressives say they care about. Repeat what should make them feel comfortable hearing until you believe it yourself and eventually you will feel good about it too. Thinking too deep will only confuse your emotions so don’t do it.

        Come in for the emotional connections. Stay for the continuity of TEAM.

    4. I would imagine that they see the TEAM and its tribal nature, have always wanted to be part of something, and find out that if you just say the right shit (and keep saying the right shit), you’re in. So they do.

    5. I’m not familiar with progressive philosophy but does anyone know if there an analogous principle(s) in progressive philosophy?

      Kindergarten: S’NOT FAIR!!!!!! *smashes down block tower you worked hard building*

      1. Yeah, I need to reload more often.

    6. does anyone know if there an analogous principle(s) in progressive philosophy?

      And the same can be asked about conservatives. Both Teams seem to have a collection of positions on issues, NONE, quite assuredly, stem from anything that could justifiably be considered philosophy.

      1. I don’t think that’s accurate. Conservatives, while they realize it or not, base their worldview from a philosophy that places individuals as part of a larger whole. What binds this group together is “tradition”. Thus, conservatives seek to preserve this tradition in order to maintain the health of the group, which in turn, benefits the individual.

        Now of course I’m speaking of actual conservatives. Neoconservatives are the aphilosophical, realpolitik-driven pragmatists you described above.

        1. Well, TEAM BLUE certainly also has a hard-on for “tradition”. Just watch them talk about blue-collar workers or WalMart encroaching on small town Main Street or preserving the world in the exact condition it is currently in or was in some few number of years ago.

          The whole conservative/liberal (or progressive, if you wish) schism is a massive load of shit. They all want the same thing; they want the world forced into the shape they want it in, and if individuals and liberty get trampled along the way, they couldn’t give less of a shit. They all fear change, they all fear creative destruction, and they all fear other people having the autonomy to do as they wish.

          1. They will even get sentimental about the 70s. Not the awesome stuff from that decade like Starsky and Hutch, Black Sabbath, roller disco, Shatner’s wilderness years, hot pants, and Donna Summers, no. Keynesianism. Fucking Keynesian driving up the interest rates to just under 20%! Defending it. How sick in the head do you have to be to miss that?

            1. 9% unemployment and 10% inflation are the ingredients for a healthy nation.

            2. All of these types have a tendency to get sentimental about all kinds of time periods, usually focusing on mythological remembrances (TEAM RED types getting all giddy over the 50s, or TEAM BLUE types getting all giddy over the 60s, or both getting all giddy over WWII and how the nation “came together” and so on) and shit that gets set forth as a narrative that they then take for having been real.

              They all want to go to some idealized fantasy world that once existed in their imaginations. Exciting new technology and developments, especially for individual freedom? Oh, they don’t like that. Because all their idealized fantasy worlds are collectivist. Everybody following social rules, or everybody working together for the common good, and so on. No matter that that has never existed. In their fantasies it has, and that’s what matters!

              1. There’s also this notion that Big Government was working perfectly fine from 1933 to 1981 and there was “consensus”. Yes this includes the 1950s. Vietnam and Nixon.

              2. …”TEAM BLUE types getting all giddy over the 60s”…

                Pretty sure Krugman’s nostalgia is for the ’50s; Detroit had no competition, and neither did the guys working in the auto plants.
                ‘Golden’ times and the promises made in perpetuity gave us what Detroit is now.

            3. They even get sentimental about the 1950s! Taxes, Unions, government projects, big Northeast Cities were in good shape and the “consensus” that supposedly existed then.

              And those mom and pop stores they bemoan Wal-Mart for killing? What era would they be thinking of?

            4. Most of the attacks on Reagan and Thatcher seem to implicitly act as if the 1970s were the beginning of some new utopia which would surprise the people actually living at the time.

              1. I had to learn to chop wood due to Carter’s energy policies. That I’m not going to forget.

                1. I had to stand idle in the 3rd MarDiv while Pol Pot decimated his country a couple hundred miles west of me due to Carter’s policies. That I’m not going to forget.

                  1. That would place you in Thailand? You likely mean his advocacy of ‘self determination’ I’m guessing; funny how that only applied to leftist regimes in power demanding our recognition or revolutions getting Soviet backing to overthrow self determined right wing regimes like in Nicaragua. Yeah, I can definitely see that contributing to strengthening Pot’s hand.

                    1. That would place you in Thailand?

                      If it was west, he was in South Vietnam. I’m guessing he would have done anything to have been in Thailand at that moment though…

                    2. Good navigation, I just imagined Tejicano being West of Cambodia without getting the gist of it. But, I’m drinking at the moment.

                    3. On a ship in the South China sea. Thailand would have been south.

                      I was refering to Carter’s policies of not getting involved – even to stop an ongoing genocide.

                      I loved hearing him being quoted – when establishing the Holocaust museum commission – about never again standing by when something like that happened, while standing by while something like that was happening.

                    4. Well that’s even further west. 🙂

                    5. And, yeah, I would have bee all over a trip to Thailand back then.

                      I did get to see Olongapo in those wild days bafore AIDS – when the worst thing you could get would be cured with a few shots. The concept doesn’t even translate into contemporary speach…

          2. “…they all fear other people having the autonomy to do as they wish.”

            You could have gone with just that.

          3. Well, TEAM BLUE certainly also has a hard-on for “tradition”.

            That’s absolutely true. The Gaia-worshiping, Organic-Only, Prius driver has much more in common with the Jesus-worshiping, KJV-Only, SUV driver than they do with any of us in Libertyville.

        2. I’ve got to agree with Heroic. Conservatives generally revere an idealized vision of the past, and I say this without a bit of condescension. New cultural influences, change, etc., are all disruptive things that pull society further away from its high-point in the past. Conservatives see a lot of value in stability, and they generally see history (in the sense of the duration of an institution or concept) as legitimizing in and of itself.

  12. 173 comments before airtime. Nice job, people!

    1. For pete’s sake, I thought it was OVER.

      1. Yeah seriously. I thought this show aired from like 7:30 to 8:00

    1. If you had helped us get to 200 comments, this wouldn’t have happened. Way to slack off, slacker. Sometimes I wonder why we even let you post here.

      1. You people pollute the live blog with your tangents about what I assume were penis hoods and pizza pies.

    2. It’s not a clip show, but something that we can maybe run during holidays.

  13. Is there a way to watch it online?

    1. The age old question. I haven’t seen an answer yet.

      1. I watch it simulcast from my cable company (Comcast).

  14. Christmas decorations. Those weren’t there before, right?

  15. Right off the bat, Stewart understands the terrorism clause of the Constitution.

  16. Get the graphics off of Kennedy’s low-cut blouse, you Fox Puritans!

  17. 4-way screen split.

  18. I see three people champing at the bit to refute the toady.

    1. That guy has built-in listening antennae in his eyebrows

      1. Those eyebrows know when you’ve been naughty or nice.

  19. The thrust of Stewart’s argument seems to be exasperated indignation.

  20. Matt is wearing a red shirt tonight. Is he implying something?

  21. Is Welch about to call Stewart a liar?

  22. Ask yourself this, NSA haters: do you want to see 9/11 times 1000?!

      1. Actually 818.18181818181

        9/11 = 0.181818 multiplied by 1000. PEMDAS!

      2. You don’t understand fractions, do you?

        1. Aren’t they supposed to be kept in reserve?


  24. An honest American has nothing to hide!

  25. Law is also not made in secret.

  26. Damn, Kennedy.

  27. Zing!!! +1 Kennedy.

  28. I don’t like the guy but he’s a guest on your show, Kennedy. Ease up on the direct attacks.

    1. She also now needs to be wary of what she says on the phone and what she does online.

      1. They’re going to run dry of willing liberal/statist guests to query if they’re not careful.

          1. People won’t tune into an echo chamber. MSNBC suggests that.

            1. Is that another name for Maddow’s vag?

    2. Fuck that. Beat him down!

    3. Kennedy’s the white hat. She needs someone to play the black hat.

  29. I’m calling BS on this guy. We talk about legal doctrines all the time without mentioning the facts. Think about all those commerce clause cases. Lots of people can talk about the (crappy) legal opinions but very few remember the facts of the cases.

  30. “Spend a ‘little’ time in customs”

  31. “We collect information on everybody to determine who to spy on.” — NSA guy.

    1. +1 cloak and dagger

  32. This show certainly knows how to generate bizarre exchanges of anger, resentment, and irreverently polite humor.

  33. Shakedown Street

    1. And Franklin’s Tower last night.

      Someone’s a DeadHead.

  34. I am guessing Matt picked that bumper music.

    1. Nope! Beloved ex-Reasoner Anthony Fisher!

      1. Well, good choice either way.

  35. A lot of hipster glasses on this show.


    1. Wait until you see them on the Weed!

  37. That was nice to hear that paid Dem rip MAAATTTT DAAAMON.

  38. So they’ve booked two talking point generators on the show tonight.


  40. That Kmele exchange must have been weird for the Dem operative: Black guy hitting Obama on foreign policy and drones: DOES NOT COMPUTE DOES NOT COMPUTE

    1. How do I get away with callin’ a black guy racist?

      1. In this case – Uncle Tom.

  41. President Not-My-Fault and Secretary of State Assbackwards make a dynamic foreign policy duo.

    1. Makes me think of the ambiguously gay duo from SNL

  42. There’s a queue for calling Pelosi on logical fallacies.

  43. Slow Mama Hair?

  44. Now that there is confirmed Welch activity in the thread, it’s time to retell Aristocrats jokes but replace the punchline with “The Independents”.

    I’ll go first.

    1. A group of libertarians walks into a FOX producer’s office. It’s Welch, Kennedy, Kmele, Gillespie and dog. Matt says to the producer, “We have a really amazing act. You should represent us.”

      The agent says, “Sorry, I don’t producer libertarian shows. They’re a little too un-family-values.”

      Kennedy says, “Sir, if you just see our schtick, we know you would want to produce us.”

      The producer says, “OK. OK. I’ll take a look.”

      1. The group forms a circle around the dog-facing outwards, on their knees with their pants down. The dog goes from person to person and, each time he touches his nose to someone’s anus, the person shouts, “Free Markets!”

        They do this for 3 minutes then, they each fight over taking turns at making out with the dog’s ass. The dog, meanwhile eats a bowl of EX LAX and the game is to see who can catch the first spurt of diarrhea.

        Eventually, everyone has had a turn and the floor is covered in shit. Kennedy then takes an unused jumbo tampon and sops up the mess. She then pops out her left eyeball from the socket and inserts the tampon. While the infection sets in, the ensuing flies join in on the act. Kmele and Gillespie fight over tugging the tampon out of Kennedy’s eye while the Matt pops the other eye out of the eye socket and fucks it.

        1. Meanwhile, Kennedy finger fucks the others’ asses while the dog barks along to Kennedy singing, “God Bless America”. Matt breaks down in a fit of patriotic tears while the dog then sits on his still erect cock. Gillespie gets jealous and steals his spot and shoves the dog’s cock in his tight, maggot infested butthole. Gillespie gets pregnant, somehow, and Kmele aborts the baby with a fly swatter. Kennedy and Matt eat the fetus-tearing it limb by limb while, simultaneously ripping the fur off the dog.

          The group skins the dog and eats its entrails. The entrails are full of gas and Matt strikes a match and sets his family ablaze and – while they are on fire, the Matt takes the dog’s burnt penis and shoves it down Gillespie’s throat. Matt then takes the burnt remains of the family, eats them, shits out the ashes, praises the terrorists for their good work in the 9-11 gig and then suffocates himself in the steaming heap of shit while fucking the floor and thinking about Jesus getting ass fucked by Mel Gibson.

          For the longest time, the producer just sits in silence. Finally, he manages, “That’s a hell of an act. What do you call it?”

          And Matt says, “The Independents!”

          1. There needs to be a rec button for the comments.

  45. Suderman couldn’t even bother showing up to the studio.

    1. Total slacker.

      1. Maybe it’s cold outside and he’s too miserly to pay for a cab?

        1. WATCH IT.

    2. He’s excited, though, isn’t he?

  46. When Obamacare was a gleam in Nancy Pelosi’s lobbyists’ eye.

  47. Suderman’s been doing yeoman’s work on OC, but where’s Andy Levy already???

    1. Patience, Grasshopper.

  48. But, Peter, from whom are you shifting resources to make your system work? Someone has to get screwed over or it’s a nonstarter for Obama.

  49. I’m totally gay for Kmele right now.

    1. Kmele’s pocket kerchiefs are adorable.

  50. Insurance and healthcare aren’t the same thing. Good job, Kmele.

    No difference in health outcomes for insured vs. uninsured. Good job, Matt.

    1. Yes, very informative segment. Hat tip to Suderman for all that work he did doing actual reporting.

  51. What is that flag pin on Welch’s jacket? It’s a US flag and something else.

    1. Arkansas?

    2. Switzerland!

      1. It’s a plus.

      2. How neutral of you.

  52. Everything is World War 2’s fault, isn’t it?


    1. Is Miley pro or con for legalization?

    2. Just looked up her latest titty display. Not bad.…..ture_1.jpg

      1. Agreed. She looks good there.

  54. Whiskey girl? Awkward.

    1. So did I miss it, or did whiskey girl have absolutely nothing to say about anything?

  55. Well, apparently we’re not going to get personal stances from these two guests.

    1. What about wide stances?

  56. Truly you won’t find more compassionate and wise persons than District Attorneys

  57. Thank you, Matt. She’s contradicting herself.

    Levy’s coming – finally.

  58. We’ve been promised an appearance by Andy Levy’s cats. Will they come through?

  59. That was the possibly the very most worthless discussion ever, and I don’t even care what their personal views on legalization are.

  60. How about we base the law on the principle that people own thier own bodies?

    SAY IT!

    SAY IT!

  61. Next time you shave, Andy, try taking a step closer to the razor.


      1. I’m not gay for Andy and I’m no longer gay for Kmele after I realized they weren’t wearing ties.

        1. I see. You like your men in (semi)formal dress. interesting.

          1. I find shirt buttons vulgar.

            1. Button down collars must be like a not so subtle middle finger to you.

  62. Anything that restrains Congress’ ability to pass laws is a good thing.

  63. Welch is the only one who respects the audience enough to wear a tie.

  64. And poor Ted Cruz really took it on the chin in that segment.

    1. (I guess it’s okay to beat up on Canadians on The Independents.)

      1. Is there anywhere that’s not okay?

      2. We should beat up on Canooks at every opportunity.

        1. Fifty-four forty or fight!

    2. I actually was more stoked by Cruz’s filibuster than Rand’s because if it had gained any real traction, it really could have meant something.

      1. Had Cruz come first, his filibuster would have been shiny and new and maybe it would have been treated better.

  65. Matt Welch and Lance Armstrong have the same number of balls?

  66. Welch’s wife is French? That makes him an anchor husband.

  67. I still find it impressive that a doper with one testicle beat a bunch of other dopers without such a disability in an arduous bicycle race.

    1. Isn’t being monorchid an advantage in that situation though? Those seats don’t look to comfortable to the be-balled.

      1. Maybe, but then again wouldn’t all your weight be shifted onto one ball instead of two?

        1. Ah…ah…ah…let’s stop talking about this.

  68. “Liberty” got cut off for Lou Dobbs. Boo!

  69. Ahhh1! Dobbs!

  70. Kennedy and Levy are terrific together. Very complimentary.

  71. Okay serious question what should I get my girlfriend for Christmas? I have no shame stealing other people’s ideas so if you bought a sweet gift feel free to share.

    1. Dude. The answer is always and forever jewelry.

      1. The problem with jewelery is I’ve bought (nice) earrings each of the last two years, and I’m not going to be able to top last year. She hates necklaces and has worn the same bracelet for 10+ years. I’m not buying a ring until it’s “the ring.”

        I have a couple little things she’ll like but I want something big like jewelry but not jewelry.

        1. “The ring” it is, then. And the present to yourself can be insistence on not getting the state’s stamp of approval and go marriage licenseless.

        2. Clothing then. Or a purse.

          1. I wouldn’t attempt to buy a woman clothing or even a purse unless she specifically told me what she wanted.

            1. I wouldn’t attempt to buy a woman clothing

              It can only go bad.

        3. Then focus on a particular interest or hobby of hers. What does she like to do? Buy her something that supports her interest.

    2. *Gift ideas. Not actual ideas.

      1. Giving or receiving?

      2. We are opening gifts with her parents.

        So, yes?

    3. A rabbit.

      1. For testing for pregnancy? Because they don’t have to use rabbits anymore.

        1. I have no idea what you are talking about. But you seem to be referencing the animal. I was not.

          1. “The rabbit died.” That phrase for “she’s knocked up” is before my time and yet somehow I know what it means. Why does no one else seem to?

            1. At one time they used live rabbits to test for pregnancy. A positive test would supposedly kill the rabbit. I think the test killed all the rabbits.

              It was also a bad movie with Joan Rivers and Billy Crystal.

              1. Yes, Rabbit Test. My mom says it was so bad she walked out in the middle of it.

            2. I know it because of the nun joke.

    4. If you’ve got money, jewelry. If you don’t like me then you should buy her something that shows you actually pay attention to what she says and know her likes.

      1. Jewelry doesn’t have to be expensive. Sterling Silver earrings maybe $25.

        1. Duly noted. Although for me and this girl it’s only been two months of casual dating. So jewelry is not warranted, I would think.

    5. That’s easy.

      A new shotgun.

    6. Puppy or kitten.

      1. Scratch that, LB’s right as always.

        A necklace of some sort with something resembling diamonds. Or if you have a relative with a machine shop, make her a ring with all sorts of numerology and heartfelt shit that will get you laid many times over. Women love the sorts of things that will get men laid, as it turns out.

      2. Which has more meat on it?

        Anyway, giving animals is shitty. You’re not giving them a gift, you’re giving them a series of chores that will last for years.

    7. Okay, well, uh… candlesticks always make a nice gift, and uh, maybe you could find out where she’s registered and maybe a place-setting or maybe a silverware pattern. Okay, let’s get two!

    8. A vacuum, clothes iron, and and cookware.

      1. She definitely won’t need shoes.

  72. That was the possibly the very most worthless discussion ever, and I don’t even care what their personal views on legalization are.

  73. I dont think Sam Loo is going to like that.

  74. Disappointing. Was excited to watch but found not much more content than basic cheerleading. Might as well of been watching MSNBC or Fox normal programming. OK not quite cause I do agree with most of the opinions espoused but every segment needed more depth instead of bullets and talking points made for folks already indoctrined in the libertarian camp. How will this show help Republican’s watching Fox reform their thoughts…? It won’t and maybe it will alienate because the reasoning and discussion was inadequate/nonexisten. Try presenting the case in a more intellectual and thorough way. I’m thinking Stossel or Zakaria. Or even a balance between what they do — thorough analysis of an issue and what you do –5 min cheerleading fest on 10 issues. You seemed to have some sharp guests, reason magazine does great analysis, how about the show going a little deeper please!

    1. Ughh nonexistent –dang mouse must have ate my t

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.