The Independents

Independents Rerun Open Thread for "Environmentally Challenged" Episode Featuring Bill Nye the (Off-Puttingly Argumentative) Science Guy & More!

|

I like that kid on the right. |||

Several Hit & Run commenters worried that the Friday theme episode of The Independents (re-airing tonight at 7 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. PT), organized as it was around environmental challenges such as climate change, would be one big cosmotarian sellout session. Well, as a perusal of the 600+ comments will show, those who watched the whole hour came away with a different impression altogether.

Starting with famous debater Bill Nye the Science Guy, the show was a telling, asymmetrical demonstration of global-warming worriers literally refusing to engage in practical follow-up questions, like how much economic growth are you willing to trade for climate-change remediation, and why have the forecasting models been so wrong these past 17 years? Instead, there were repeated attempts to put the show's co-hosts on "the other side," which is self-evidently composed of people beyond the reach of reason. Seriously, it was that weird.

Anyway, here's your open thread for a show that also included Climate Depot skeptic Marc Morano, Center for American Progress Director of Climate Strategy Daniel J. Weiss, New York Times science writer John Tierney,  "skeptical environmentalistBjorn Lomborg, energy economist Jerry Taylor of Cato, and beloved Reason Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey.

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.

449 responses to “Independents Rerun Open Thread for "Environmentally Challenged" Episode Featuring Bill Nye the (Off-Puttingly Argumentative) Science Guy & More!

  1. INDEPENDENTS, UNZIP!

    1. I’m confused why you think insinuating we like to masturbate is somehow an insult or funny?

      I love to masturbate and I have no problems admitting that I do.

      Sometimes I masturbate 7 times in a day.

      I’m proud of my ability, and it’s quite enjoyable too.

      Why are you so obsessed with trolling this site anyway? If anyone should be masturbating it is you. It seriously helps to relieve tension.

      1. What do you think he’s doing while trolling?

        Just like I *some* people can’t masturbate unless there’s homeless people involved, some can’t get off unless they’re trolling.

    2. Did Reason magazine shoot your dog?

      1. Tell me about your drugs.

        1. I don’t use any pills such as Viagra or Cialis, if that is what you are implying.

          I don’t need them.

          1. I wanna know all about your drugs.

            1. Apparently, it’s some song. Not sure what your point is.

              Anyway, you’re boring me, Mary. I’m going to go entertain myself.

              1. Did I just respond to this Mary gal?

                1. Yes, you did.

    3. Yo.

      /zips up.

    4. In cased anyone missed it, Mary Stack made this pathetic video to let the world know what awful people we are:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Bz2INnyR0

      Yes, Mary, you’re just a sweet, innocent victim. Maybe you could gather donations for a Troll Holocaust Museum.

      1. I dox, therefore I am.

        1. Hey, did Reason black-hole the thread from a few years ago in which Mary Stack was unmasked? Or my Google-Fu is failing me.

          1. I’ve never seen the original thread. If you find it, please share.

            1. Links for the saga of Mary Stack

              1

              2

              3

              4

              1. Sugar Free’d the whole lot of ’em.

              2. OK, here are the posts and their dates:

                Libertarianism does not equal selfishness

                3/23/2012

                4 best legal arguments against Obamacare

                3/24/2012

                California assemblyman wants to…

                3/23/2012

                3 reasons to kill Obamacare

                3/23/2012

                1. The original comment where she outed herself is deleted. Reason did her a huge fucking favor there…

      2. The Elite Eight.

      3. Wow, Rectal is still here? I feel like nothing has changed at all since I left.

        Also, I’m highly offended at not being mentioned in the video when I was the one that actually found out her real name.

  2. This place is dead.
    Is there a NASCAR race on the TV?

    1. Looking for attention?
      Go here:
      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4395693

  3. “Starting with famous debater Bill Nye the Science Guy, the show was a telling, asymmetrical demonstration of global-warming worriers literally refusing to engage in practical follow-up questions”

    I thought the very first words out of his mouth could be roughly translated into, “If you expect me to treat any of you seriously, you’ve made a mistake”. He basically said, “This show is on a Fox network; by default, you must therefore be treated as irrational troglodytes and given zero respect as thinking people”

    This was even before anyone had bothered to ask him a question. I found this particularly offensive as I’d assumed him to likely be the most interesting and informative person invited onto the show, given his background; instead, he seemed want to engage in some kind of Quixotic battle with invisible enemies rather that have any honest discussion.

    He didn’t even give The Independents a *chance* to pull a cosmotarian-sellout! UN-FAIR. 🙂

    1. I am too cheap to upgrade my Satellite TV package to one that includes Fox Business.

      However, I did watch the Bill Nye interview on youtube. He did come across as quite pathetic. Although, I wasn’t expecting much.

      I wish I could see the whole episode, but alas I cannot find a working pirate stream of it right now.

      I wish cable and satellite TV companies would start offering their channels a la carte. Or if the channels themselves would start offering internet streams for a reasonable price.

      1. The crazy part was when he basically said it’s fun to get worried at the end of the interview.

        His shtick was about as useful as the Bovine University video with Troy McClure.

        1. It’s fun to scare everyone into thinking the world is ending!

          Think of all the poor underwater Manhatians!

          1. If this keeps up, parts of New York will be islands!

              1. That can’t be right!

        2. I love the part where he says that what is most worrisome is the current rate of climate change”

          Basically zero change in the last fifteen years is worrisome? Bill, that idea is even more absurd than your bow tie.

          1. I liked when Kenedy asked him what he was *sure* of and he replied that global warming is happening and it’s changing weather in surprising ways.

            Oh to be sure and surprised at the same time! Whatta feelin’!

            1. Maybe he was sure it was warming but surprised at the weather that resulted from that warming. The word ‘and’ presumably does some work in that sentence.

              1. “The only thing we’re sure of is that we have no idea what’s gonna happen! Now gimme your money!”

    2. Shame on Welch for not only using the word “cosmotarian” unironically, but using the term as a negative epithet.

      1. Hell, I don’t even do that.

  4. Oh, look = Mary made a friend to talk with Mary.

    1. I hope you aren’t implying I’m Mary’s sockpuppet just because I like to masturbate.

      I think Mary’s problem is she doesn’t masturbate enough. Maybe she is incapable of achieving orgasm?

      1. Maybe masturbation is illegal in Fort Worth, Texas.

        1. I’m heavily publicizing your comment. Hope you don’t mind.

  5. Is Matt getting over time pay for re-posting this?

    1. Maybe he gets paid per post?

      1. Looks like you were right about Kansas.

        1. Yep. I have a rule that I don’t watch them in the first two rounds b/c I jinx them. Since I didn’t watch today, at least the jinx may be lifted.

          Sadly, Self’s record tend to be FF or bust.

    2. Ha. Libertarians don’t pay overtime.

      What do you have on your itinerary for the CA/NV/AZ trip?

      1. You saw that?

        We’re in the infancy stage but we’re looking at something like: Fly to L.A., rent a car or SUV, drive to San Diego head out to Death Valley then Las Vegas, over to the Grand Canyon and figure out other parts of Arizona to visit and fly out.

        We have to plot things out.

        1. Wouldn’t mind input from folks here. I know a few of you have visited, are from and live there.

          1. I live 3 miles from LAX, and so does Jesse. Also within an hour’s drive are Sloopy, Sudden, Serious Man, Ranned Pall, Hugh, and a couple of the Reason staffers.

            1. Isn’t Sevo from Calif. too?

              I know who to ask questions to.

              1. Yes. San Francisco, and so is PapayaSF. Mad Scientist is Ventura, and Warren is Sacramento area.

                1. Thanks for omitting me as a CA resident (East Bay). Oh well, I haven’t been posting much lately, I guess I’m easy to forget.

                  1. He also forgot EDG. Unless I am mistaken and he’s no longer reppin’ the LBC.

                    1. I have a 2nd cousin from California.

                      Too bad I have not spoken to her in 20 years.

                    2. He is. We went to his pad after brunch.

                  2. My bad.

                  3. I, too, was omitted. Outrageous!

                2. “Yes. San Francisco, and so is PapayaSF. Mad Scientist is Ventura, and Warren is Sacramento area.”

                  You have a spreadsheet, don’t you.

                  1. No, I just remember things about people. Jesse has a spreadsheet.

                    1. Jesse has a spreadsheet.

                      It’s pretty simple and was mostly before I figured out how to search the comments effectively to find past comments. Someone denied calling me a jackbooted statist and said I couldn’t prove that he had. When I finally found the original comment I started a notes section.

                    2. Jesse has a spreadsheet.

                      When I finally found the original comment I started a notes section.

                      I’m afraid to ask.

                    3. Gin, you’re on the list. For something.

                    4. Gin, you’re on the list. For something.

                      “Commenters who provide excellent customized drink suggestions on short notice, and are all around mensches”

                      Would be a little overly specific, even for me.

            2. Even San Diego is within 3 hours of LAX. The whole world lives in that radius.

              Advice: If you have time in San Diego county, there is lots of good beer here. Stone is in Escondido, not far from the Wild Animal Park (or whatever they are calling that now). I like Iron Fist in Vista.

              While in LA or OC, between 9AM and noon, tune the radio to 89.9 for KCRW’s music show.

              1. Excellent.

            3. Thanks for remembering me!

              (*runs away crying*)

              1. I assumed that his family couldn’t fit in into your college apartment/dorm.

                BTW, do you want in on the next SoCal reason brunch? If so, email Jesse with your info…

                1. That was a good assumption.

                  I would definitely be down, I just don’t have a car, and the Metro sucks, so it would have to be close by. I’ll give Jesse my info just for the future. I’m planning on staying here long-term (in spite of how much our state’s politics sucks).

          2. About 15 years ago, before we had kids, my wife and I found ourselves overdue for a vacation with no plan. We decided on the spur of the moment to do an almost identical driving tour as you have suggested (leaving from our home in the Bay Area). It turned out to be a great idea.

            A couple of suggestions: if you want to splurge on one hotel night during the trip, I’d do the Furnace Creek Resort in Death Valley (the old world-style Inn, not the motel-like Ranch). It’s really a remarkable, nothing-like-it-anywhere-else-in-the-world experience. And really not all that expensive compared to some top-end hotels from what I remember.

            If you drive to the eastern end of the Grand Canyon (a great way to see it on your way out of the park), you are well on your way to the Painted Desert/Petrified Forest National Park. A really very cool and under-visited park, with some parts that make you feel you are on some other planet.

            I’m too late on this discussion to know your timeline, but if you are going in the next few days baseball Spring Training in the Phoenix area is always fun, even if you are not a fan.

            Have a great time, you will love it.

            1. Hey, C. Heh, actually I’m planning for next year and yes, we like baseball (in fact I will die an Expos fan but have adopted the Dodgers as my team) and probably take in a game somewhere – maybe even soccer.

              Thanks for this. I will have to copy it and keep it.

              1. No Jays? But they are doing so well this spring training season…

                1. The Jays never attracted me. Montreal had better baseball atmosphere in my opinion.

          3. There’s the Petrified Forest – don’t try to take any ‘wood’ home, they will seriously throw you in jail.

            Bisbee – old mining town

            Tombstone (of course)

            Old Tucson/Desert Museum/Wildlife Museum – outside of Tucson, Old Tucson was a series of movie sets for old westerns (and “The Three Amigos”). Burned down years ago and rebuilt so I don’t know how much of the historical stuff is left. Desert Museum and Wildlife museum are right near Old Tucson – Wildlife museum is actually like a bajillion hunted/killed/stuffed animals.

            Mission San Xajier Del Bac – outside Tucson

            Pima Air and Space museum. Remember that big aircraft boneyard on Google Earth everyone keeps talking about. This is a museum right next to it. Gawk at an old Air Force one and an SR-71 among other aircraft. Then walk around in the boneyard itself. Tucson again

            Titan Missile Museum – old Titan missile silo near Tucson

            Picacho (not Pikachu) Peak – site of the only civil war battle in AZ, also neat tucson

            Benson, AZ – if you’re a fan of ‘Darkstar’

            Kartchner Caverns – near Benson

            Sedona – if you can stand ‘newage’ hippie crap. But there’s Slide Rock.

            Meteor Crater – Near Flagstaff. Go bother Tucille when you’re done gawking at a big hole in the ground

            Lake havasu – has the *original* London Bridge. The one the British replaced brought over brick by brick and reassembled.

            1. “Sedona – if you can stand ‘newage’ hippie crap. But there’s Slide Rock.”

              No. Can’t stand newage hippie crap.

              Tucson over Phoenix if I had to choose?

              What about that corner in Winslow, AZ?

              1. Tucson has better weather, beautiful mountains and the Bone Yard/Pima Air and Space Museum are both good to hit up if you’re a plane buff.

              2. “What about that corner in Winslow, AZ?”

                I said I hate the fucking eagles.

              3. What about that corner in Winslow, AZ?

                Well, if you *really* like The Eagles . .

                Tucson is better than Phoenix (but I grew up in Tucson so I’m a little biased) – I don’t think there’s as much stuff to do *outside* the city in the Phoenix area as around Tucson. But Phoenix is a much larger city so I guess, technically, it has more ‘culture stuff’ to do.

              4. Try to get to Taliesin West in Scottsdale, AZ. Try to get the sunset tour. Fucking beautiful.

            2. If I made a CA list like this, it would be 12 pages long.

              1. Hey don’t knock AZ – that list is just stuff from the top of my head and doesn’t list the ‘cultural stuff’ (which *I’m* not that interested in and therefore not that familiar with) supposedly you can listen to jazz, drink martinis, and look at modern art in places around here also.

                1. Tucson’s pretty great, and so is AZ in general. My one complaint in the case of Tucson is that the music scene sucks. Very little diversity in local bands, larger tours often don’t make it here and the Tucson downtown sucks. Phoenix is probably better for the “culture”, but if you’re into outdoors and a more unique experience, Tucson’s better than Phoenix.

                  1. Yeah – downtown is almost exclusively large commercial and government during the day and junkies and hobos during the night with a smattering of areas claimed by proto-hipsters (they were arty before it was mainstream).

                    Outside of the area around the university there’s not a large concentrated ‘nightlife’ district (like the Gaslamp in San Diego) in Tucson.

                    And the size disparity (couple by Tucson’s proximity to Phoenix) does mean that they get passed over by the more popular acts.

            3. Ha! How many Darkstar fans does it take to subdue a sentient beachball?

          4. I’d recommend sneaking in a trip through Owens Valley in Eastern California. It wont be a huge detour if your plan in Death Valley to Vegas and Schatt’s Bakery in Biship, CA is worth the trip alone.

            If I was planning for the trip for myself I’d skip San Diego and Arizona and travel up the Eastern Sierras to Tahoe, than travel around Utah before flying out of SLC. But it’s hard to argue with the Grand Canyon.

            1. Wow. We have really hijacked his trip.

              If you are going to include Owens Valley, why not include the 120 west through Tioga Pass and Yosemite? If he’s going that far north, Yosemite is truly a world class destination…

              1. I’d second Yosemite. I went for the first time last year and can’t wait to go back. Although I might bring a simpler camera. I handed the camera to a couple that owned THE EXACT SAME MODEL, so I could get a picture with the friend I was there with, and they didn’t realize it was in manual focus and took this

                Yes. That shirt is bemonocoled you may all commence your jealousy.

                1. Of all the sites in Yosemite, you posed in front of a casual pile of rocks?

                  1. you posed in front of a casual pile of rocks?

                    …with a bemonocled t-shirt and his friend manservant. How dare you criticize.

                    1. Thank you, TIT.

                      Actually I was taking pictures of the rocks because it’s a common thing for Korean Buddhists to do when hiking or around temples. One person balances a few stones and the next people that walk by add some more. When I lived there, a friend would always joke about knowing Buddhists had been there whenever we saw the pile of stones, so I figured I’d snap a shot and send it to him. That’s when the couple walked by and offered to take the picture.

                      With the number of stones stacked in the area it must’ve been a local tradition for quite some time. I think I posted this one before.

              2. I laughed.

                But I’m loving all this.

                I have all your comments copied.

        2. Yeah, I replied, but it was several hours after your original post. How many days are you going to have, and what time of year?

          NV and Arizona should be fairly obvious, but there is a lot of stuff you could potentially miss in CA….

          1. Yeah, it’ll probably be more weighted in California for obvious reasons. We kinda have as much as time as money is willing to give. We’re looking at 14 to 21 days in the summer – my wife is a teacher so we have to go during that time. Me, I can go anytime.

            1. We’ve both been to California and while we’d love to start in SF, given we want to go to other states nearby, it may be better to start in L.A. – my wife wants to go back and I figure to take my daughter to a Dodgers game if possible.

              I would love to squeeze Mexico in but that’ll be real hard. Plus, I don’t know how allergy friendly it is for my wife who has a severe case.

              1. This is the best part of the country to be in if you have allergies. My wife carries an inhaler, and she has never used in in CA, but uses it all the time in New England. If you are on the CA coast, the air is pollen-free salt air from the ocean, and if you are in the desert, the wildflower bloom lasts less than a month in the springtime.

                1. Ah. Interesting. We’re in New England a lot. But her allergies are more specific to food. Like, the chick can’t eat eggs, flour, and so many foods used to cook.

            2. Furnace creek in Death Valley will be a lot to handle in the summer. Ditto Vegas. My wife and I used to go out to Vegas mid-summer, and it is uncomfortable to be out of the pool for more than a few minutes.

              I’m biased, but I say go for 21 days. You might even be able to squeeze in Tijuana…

              1. I was in Tijuana in 91. But can’t remember if it’s worth a trip back.

                You reckon it is?

                Yeah, 21 seems more realistic. I can imagine it’ll be hot but it may be our only chance. If people suggest it’s too hot and not worth it, I’ll consider it.

                I know what it can be like having been to Florida so many times as well as my father’s home town in Calabria where it hit 50c. on the beach.

                We were invited to a friend’s place in Rome and were thinking of going for a week but then we reconsidered saying it’s better when we have more time. If I go back to Europe I want to go hit up a couple of other countries.

                1. The beach is very cool in the summer, and will most likely be foggy from San Diego to San Francisco. We call it “June Gloom”. Basically, the temperature here (Manhattan Beach) in June is High 68F, Low 68F for the entire month. Only one out of the last 5 July 4th holidays has been sunny at the beach. I can get on Interstate 10 with the thermometer showing 68F, drive east for 2 hours towards Palm Desert, and have the thermometer show 115F mid-summer. Death Valley will likely be hotter, but that’s part of the fun of visiting the hottest place in the world.

                  1. Where does Route 66 run exactly in the area and is it worth making a point of going to it?

                    1. Around here, it is all urban and there is barely a trace of it. It ended in Santa Monica, and passes through LA City, Hollywood, and San Bernardino. Then it heads out towards Barstow in the high desert (not a good place for your car to break down in the summer).

                  2. I think we are supposed to get El Nino this year, which results in June Gloom being much weaker.

                    So it might actually be pretty sunny on the coast this summer.

                    1. He’s looking at Summer ’15. Rufus is a planner.

                    2. The funny thing is my wife is the organizer. I’m more spontaneous. If it were up to me I’d just wing it. But the wife is regimented and it’s hard to wing things with kids.

                      Mind you, my father always did it with us and we were four kids.

                2. If people suggest it’s too hot and not worth it, I’ll consider it.

                  August in Las Vegas is the most uncomfortable month in terms of heat. 110+ Fahrenheit regularly. I’m very cold sensitive and not very heat sensitive, but even for me 18 holes of golf in 117 degree heat in August was a bit much. July is hotter than a lot of people are comfortable with as well, but doable IMO. June is quite pleasant.

                  1. If you are walking from casino to casino, it’s not that bad. 18 holes of golf is a different story.

                    1. Yeah, it does depend a lot on what you’re going to do. The strip is a mostly indoor affair anyway. The monorail covers most of the places worth seeing, so you don’t even necessarily have to walk around outside if you don’t want to.

                    2. Won’t be golfing. I figure we’ll go for a couple of days.

                3. Re: Tijuana

                  It is a bit of a cultural shock, but very educational.

                  If you like nicer vacations with a bit of pampering, check out Rosarito Beach and Ensenada as possible Mexico destinations.

                  P.S. There is no way that your rental car company will allow you to drive there without some sort of supplemental insurance.

                  1. Why? Different country or something else?

                    1. If you’re asking about the insurance, it’s because there is some additional risk and very few traffic laws in Mexico.

                    2. American insurance doesn’t cover stuff outside the country. Even taking your own car you need to buy a short term policy when crossing the border. They will sell them (at high prices) near the border crossing.

                      You can get away with not doing this – no one is going to check – unless you get in an accident that costs more money that you have on had (oftentimes minor stuff is simply handled on the spot by negotiating between the parties without ‘official’ involvement) – whether it your fault, paying damages to the other guy, or the other guy (who probably doesn’t have insurance at all) telling you to go fuck off.

                    3. I would even question the legitimacy of some of the border policies,,,

                4. It’ll probably be very different. Most likely when you went in ’91 you were young and cruising bars. Now you’re older and will go see the markets and landmarks.

                  1. I wish. I went with my family.

                    My father came home literally one night and told us to pack because we were going to California. Actually, it was the year Gretzky was traded.

                    We did Oakland, SF, LA all the way to Tijuana. Only drove through San Diego.

        3. I don’t know if yer takin’ yungin’s, but if you do the canyon, hike down inside. It’s freaking awesome.

          About 250 yds from the trail head all the tourists disappear and you get to walk on narrow paths with 1000ft drop offs. Sometimes with jutted out rocks pushing you to the edge. Take water and be careful.

          It’s really an amazing experience.

          1. Ditto. And Havasupai Falls if you are a strong hiker.

            Or, if it’s in the budget, take a helicopter tour.

            1. We’ve hiked. Done the Cabot Trail in Nova Scotia among other places.

            2. Oh wow. Is that a good trail for camping as well? And is it not full of people?

              The GF and I are looking for a summer vacation and because I actually have a semi-decent job now, we can afford to do something different than the GAP. We’re both strong hikers, like being out for a few days and not being around other people.

              1. Cape Breton and Newfoundland are a hikers/campers dream. We didn’t camp – instead we drove across it stopping off at different spots like a couple of urbanists but we hiked and visited some hidden beaches; even swam in Bras d’or – largest fresh water lake in the world. The thing is it remains incredibly rustic which I imagine is a plus for real campers.

                In terms of people, well, there are quite a few but it’s so big you don’t really feel it.

              2. Great for camping. Calculate the water you will need, and double it.

                Look out for flash floods, even in clear skies.

                1. Yes. There aren’t many convenience stores.

                  Like I said. Very rustic.

                  And breathtaking.

            3. With Island Hoppers?

          2. My daughter will be 10 by the time we plan to go.

            1. Man, you guys are coming through with some great info.!

            2. Ten would probably be old enough if they are used to hiking and being in semi-dangerous situations.

              The trail we took was 6 miles to the bottom (can’t remember what it was called it’s been too long, but we came in from the south) to a campground. We only made it 3 miles in because it was just a day hike and didn’t have the gear to stay over. One word of warning is that it gets much hotter the farther down you go so water and appropriate clothing are a must.

              1. I went down with my parents at age 8. I rode a donkey, though. Seriously.

              2. Maybe I’ll test her out at Grand Forks, VT. this summer. My brother in law and sister are heavy into camping mostly hitting up every spot in New England/Delaware/Maryland. Will have a dry run at Ausable Chasm, NY around these parts.

                1. Well, keep in mind with the canyon – every step down is one you’ll have to make back up and going down is real easy. Easy enough to go down further than you should.

        4. I like Death Valley. Spring is the best time to go. Rent a car that can handle some rough road. LA-SD-Death Valley might be a little overly zig-zaggey.

          Hot Creek is fairly nearby, but you can’t swim there anymore. Travertine Hotsprings is a bit further up, I was able to make it in my Civic, but wouldn’t try taking it in my Honda Fit.

          Also check out Margie’s Merry Go Round in Lone Pine and Mahogany Smoked Meats and Schatt’s Bakery in Bishop

          1. Will do.

            1. Just try not to end up like that German family that got lost out there. It took 13 years to find the bodies, and then they were only found because a search-and-rescue volunteer got interested in the case.

              1. Erm. Thanks. In a macabre way.

              2. That’s terrible. When we left the car to go hike to Panamint Dunes I packed the Garmin unit and set the home location to the car and my bf and I both brought our phones powered off in our bags for double backup GPS to find our way out. I made sure we were agreed on fixed landmarks on the way in and out. We got turned around in a few of the washes, but were able to get back on track once we got to higher ground.

                The Dunes are deceptively far out, but driving into the valley is awesome because they look like the sand level tiles from Mario 3.

  6. I’m not eligible since I’m not a father, but Matt should definitely create a MeetUp page for this:

    You know “bronies”? I’m thinking about starting a support group for Stockholm-Syndrome “Frozen” dads who’ve succumbed. Call it #LetitGonies.

    ? Matt Welch (@mleewelch) March 23, 2014

    [removed][removed]

  7. God, Bill Nye is enjoyable to watch when he’s explaining stuff at the grade school level, but he just seems like an bitter douche now..

    1. I think he is, in fact, a giant, bitter, vinegary douche.

      Which is much better than a turd sandwich.

  8. Starting with famous debater Bill Nye the Science Guy, the show was a telling, asymmetrical demonstration of global-warming worriers literally refusing to engage in practical follow-up questions, like how much economic growth are you willing to trade for climate-change remediation, and why have the forecasting models been so wrong these past 17 years? Instead, there were repeated attempts to put the show’s co-hosts on “the other side,” which is self-evidently composed of people beyond the reach of reason. Seriously, it was that weird.

    This ain’t your beat Matt so it is understandable that you were surprised by the alarmists refusing to debate.

    It is Ron’s beat though. You are his editor make him watch this episode please.

    1. Mandatory attendance.

  9. So, in this anecdote by a global warming alarmist, who comes off worse?

    Bluenose_Greaser ? 5 hours ago
    I was in Texas recently visiting family, and my sister was discussing with a co-worker recent weather events and how the effects of global warming keep her up at night. Her co-worker then proclaimed that he doesn’t believe in global warming because he’s a christian and jesus will decide the fate of the earth. My sister and I decided to leave it at that, but needless to say it was pretty illuminating.

    And yes, in case any southern liberals are reading this, I do realize this man does not represent all Texans/Southerners and we have plenty of AGW deniers here in NY (i.e. Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Peter King, etc.).

    One is a true-believer in an apocalyptic doomsday cult that preaches the doom of unrepentant sinners, and the other is a Christian that believes the End Times are imminent.

    1. At least the Christians don’t try to force you at the point of a gun to mitigate/avert their apocalypse

      1. I think a lot of Christians look forward to the apocalypse, so of course they don’t.

        1. Decades of persecution, war and strife. I mean, what else would you expect from the SOCONZ!!!!!!(!!!!)!!!!!! amirite?

          1. You might want to google this thing called ‘the Rapture.’

            1. Totally want to build a castle but know i can never get a permit for it. Climate change alarmist energy building code says it is too drafty.

              I think i am going to proclaim it is for the coming raptured zombie apocalypse and preventing me from building it will be a violation of my religious rights to defend myself from the risen damned.

              1. Look, I did not bring up social conservatives. Someone else brought them up in relation to climate alarmists, and then SIV (predictably) could not let a negative word about them go by and jumped in to defend them.

                But his defense was silly: of course social conservatives do not use coercion to help stop their version of the apocalypse, because as anyone who has spent any time at church knows the end times are something many Christians look FORWARD to.

            2. I saw the movie. I want to bang 1991 Mimi Rogers in Purgatory FOREVER.

              1. OMG shut up, shut up, shut up!!

                90% of the awesome of that movie is having no idea where the movie leads to and how it ends.

                Also everyone who has not seen it needs to watch “The Rapture”…like tonight.

                1. It really is that fucking good. Avoid spoilers at all cost but the movie is so well made you’ll probably forget ’em while you’re watching it.

          2. He’s nothing if not consistent.

            Quick Bo, look under your bed! I think I heard a SOCON murdering a gay abortionist down there!

            1. Burkean classical liberal sympathetic to social conservatism.

              The shock.

              1. Sympathetic or tolerant?

                Take your eliminationist rhetoric back to the Huffington post!!

                1. Corning, I am quite tolerant of social conservatives, but not tolerant of any of their attempts to restrict my rights and liberties. The tolerance so many here have for them in those occasions is quite telling, is it not?

                  1. but not tolerant of any of their attempts to restrict my rights and liberties.

                    They lost in 1971 and have not had a victory since.

                    Now who is being fanatically unreasonable again?

                    1. Where do you get that from, Corning?

                      Currently there are still more states that ban gay marriage recognition than otherwise (and that is counting the states where federal courts have overturned popularly elected bans). These people are hardly powerless.

                      Where I am in SC social conservatives are much more likely to restrict my liberty than the rare progressive.

                    2. Currently there are still more states that ban gay marriage recognition than otherwise

                      Gay marriage has been illegal since the beginning of time everywhere.

                      The fact that it is now becoming legal in the US (slowly but surely) is anything but a SOCON victory.

                      I am pro-pot as well as pro-gay marriage.

                      Why is it i see Washington pot legalization as victory but you see gay marriage legalization in Washington as a defeat?

                      Oh yeah i know why because you are left wing hack who has been milking animosity toward SOCONs for the political power to stomp on every other right under the sun for long that you can’t tell your head from your ass.

                    3. Nice try Corning, I have derided progressive policies like Obamacare as much as anyone else here. The difference between me and some others here is that I call out the socons and the progressives for violating liberty. I am not worried about ‘working with’ the GOP and their socons or, like many here, just plain sympathetic to them.

                    4. Nice try Corning, I have derided progressive policies like Obamacare as much as anyone else here.

                      Obamacare huh?

                      Wow you are a true hero of liberty. you know talking down to Obamacare which is pretty much unpopular with the whole universe.

                      Hey how about environmentalism and massive state intervention over CO2? You know the original subject. The one Grand Moff Serious Man mentioned to contrast with SOCONS. The one you are avoiding and filibustering with your worry about the ineffectual SoCons.

                      Left wing hack Bo. That is what you are.

                      Left wing hack.

              2. sympathetic to social conservatism

                Not even. Literally the only thing on my political agenda that intersects with anything that can be described as an aggressive SOCON agenda item is that I’m pro-life — and I’m not pro-life for religious reasons.

                More importantly, why are you wasting valuable time here when a social conservative somewhere is aggressing against others by being ignorant of biological evolution?

                1. You have to wonder why IT and others here get so upset when someone criticizes social conservatives.

                  Oh wait, talk with them a while about various things and you do not at all.

              3. Burke was conservative. Not classical liberal.

                1. Kind of my point, Rufus.

                  1. Didn’t get it. Not sure I still do. Sorry.

                    Suffice we recognize there’s a difference.

            2. SIV started this one.

              I get why Bo pisses people off by being overly pedantic. It’s annoying to me often as well. I don’t get why him simply criticizing SoCons gets to people, though. Does anyone criticize you for posting link after link to Amanda Marcotte and other feminists? Or Coeus for that matter (like 95% of his posts are to feminist/SJW screeds)? For the record, neither one of you bother me in the slightest by doing that. I find it entertaining. I also find Bo’s posts about crazy SoCons entertaining. I just don’t get why it causes so much controversy.

              1. There’s a minor difference between myself and Bo in that, for all the teasing, I really can’t say I dislike Marcotte. Bo OTOH does have a stick up his ass about the evuuuul SOCONs. We joke a lot about Two Minutes’ Hate around here, but with Bo it’s more like an 8-Hour Hate With A 5-Minute Pee Break. I don’t run around trying to “expose” posters on here as secret feminists or hop on my hobby horse on unrelated posts. I do find Marcotte’s posts amusing, but it is not my life’s mission to destroy feminism or anything like that. Bo is fucking obsessed and has created a whole mythology around secret SOCON infiltration of Reason as an explanation for why he’s disliked, when the explanation is very simple: he’s a pedantic dick with a bag full of lawyer’s tricks for rhetoric and not much else.

                As for Coeus… I think he’s a PUA, which is it’s own brand of crazy but doesn’t come up as often. When it has, I have seen people make fun of him in just the same way everything is made fun of on Reason.

                1. “Bo is fucking obsessed and has created a whole mythology around secret SOCON infiltration of Reason as an explanation for why he’s disliked, when the explanation is very simple: he’s a pedantic dick with a bag full of lawyer’s tricks for rhetoric and not much else.”

                  I don’t disagree with you on that. If you look below, I’ve posted half a dozen comments critical of him in this thread. But people often will criticize him simply for posting something critical of SoCons, even when he’s not going on one of his “Reason is full of SoCons!” tirades, and I’m pretty sure some people were doing this before he started with that whole shtick. I think he’s increased his frequency lately, but I don’t think he was posting about SoCons excessively at first (maybe I’m not remembering correctly, but I didn’t feel like he did it too much), and he was never exclusively critical of SoCons. He’s criticized Obama, progressives, and lately Feinstein quite a bit, more than most people here who criticize progressives criticize conservatives. Again, I agree that Bo deserves shit for pulling stuff like he did below. I don’t get the hate just for posting a link to some crazy SoCon.

                  As for Coeus, I agree that people do (rightly) criticize him when he goes into his blantantly pro-PUA mode, but not for just merely criticizing feminists and SJWs (not that I think they should).

                  1. But people often will criticize him simply for posting something critical of SoCons

                    Yeah, that’s true, some of the things he posts from SoCons really are stupid/funny. I think most of it is that people get a perverse delight from taking the piss out of someone who is the self-appointed Know-It-All and Vicar of the Comments Board. I know I do, heh. It’s not the kindest of tendencies, but… eh. What can I say?

                    1. That’s a fair point. I would just say that to me, it seems like some people did that even before Bo became the self-appointed Commissar of True Libertarianism. Of course, Bo has overreacted and prompted many more people to join in on the dogpile, so I can’t say he’s done himself any favors.

      2. At least the Christians don’t try to force you at the point of a gun to mitigate/avert their apocalypse.

        Sometimes they do the complete opposite.

      3. Or throw you in jail for not believing in the Jesus.

  10. Since this is an open thread…

    “Oh no!” you say – “Not ANOTHER @#()$*@ military veteran business where they sell pro-2nd amendment/military-themed T-Shirts saying shit like, “Freedom Isnt Free” and “GRR! SPARTAN!” and “Echo Victor Oscar Lima…fuck, I need spellcheck”-type things?!?”…

    FEAR NOT = They have a super-funny advert on YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v1EUQ1bjV4

    Order your “Liberal Tears” Gun Lube today! I did. And I don’t even have a gun!

    1. Almost as good as their Ranger vs SEAL rap battle

      http://youtu.be/gJsnEJRUjVs

      1. In a related, wonderful vein =

        RangerUp’s “The Damn Few” presents their take on Women in the Infantry

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HmT5jqy-iE

        (its a cartoon people. with cursing*.)

        *that should quadruple the hit rate at least

        1. Funny you should mention Ranger Up. I was looking at their shirts the other day.

          http://www.rangerup.com/tapthat.html

          For those of a certain age

          http://www.rangerup.com/neverforget.html

          And finally (since reason limits the links)

          “When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is not our friend”

  11. mattwelch.com
    This site may harm your computer

    Google says it is malware-infested

    1. Yeah, I need to clean it up, but don’t have any time.

      1. Send an intern in to delete everything and just add a photo of your smiling face with a link to reason.

        1. Intern! I’m sure he can spare a monocle-polishing orphan to sort it out.

          1. They suck at working with 1990s html script.

            html script coded by Matt in the 90s would stop their little hearts dead just by looking at it.

            1. Yeah, they’d probably only be able to handle Python.

  12. I just finished Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop”. I think he was nice to police.

  13. You can rely on the Center for American Progress for honest information, no mmatter what the topic.

  14. Matt Drudge sends out tweet the other days reading

    Just paid the Obamacare penalty for not ‘getting covered’… I’M CALLING IT A LIBERTY TAX!

    Enraged left-wing media dipshits then proceed to go ballistic, calling Drudge a liar because the individual mandate didn’t go into effect until this beginning of this year, and the penaltax doesn’t have to be paid until April 15 of next year.

    Drudge then proceeds to make complete fools out of the aforementioned wingers, who don’t realize that Drudge is a self-employed S-Corporation business owner who pays estimated quarterly taxes, and don’t really understand how their own fucking law works. So freaking awesome.

    1. Mike M.|3.23.14 @ 7:47PM|#
      “Matt Drudge sends out tweet the other days reading
      “Just paid the Obamacare penalty for not ‘getting covered’… I’M CALLING IT A LIBERTY TAX!”

      I LIKE it! Except it’s a fine.

    2. Drudge’s S-Corp has less than 50 employees thus has no health insurance obligation.

      Now he could estimate his taxes as an individual but as has been pointed out those are not due until 2015.

      For example, his FICA contributions are an expense and must be reported. There is no mandatory health insurance “expense” for an employer that size.

      1. There is if you pay quarterly. But we both know that you already knew that. And you were hoping that nobody would pick up on it. Nice try, troll.

        1. I’ve observed that’s his tactic. I’ve been privy to it.

          Wormy.

  15. WTF is a ‘re-run.?’

    Dear Fox Business,

    You may want to investigate this new thing called “The Internet.” It makes it very easy to deliver your product, electronically (using SCIENCE), at any time. That way, people who are otherwise occupied, but want to consume your product, can do so on their schedule.

  16. March Madness and the Confederate Flag

    “March Madness kicks into full swing today with games in Buffalo, Milwaukee, Orlando, and Spokane. Another four cities?Raleigh, San Antonio, San Diego, and St. Louis?will see men’s action on Friday. The women’s tournament then tips off on Saturday with weekend games spread out over 16 other cities. By the time the NCAA crowns a men’s and women’s champion in Arlington and Nashville, respectively, more than 30 cities will have hosted tournament games. None of those games, however, will be in South Carolina or Mississippi. The reason: The Confederate battle flags that still fly over the state capitol grounds in Columbia and Jackson.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..olina.html

    1. Yes, because the NCAA is in a position to take a moral stand on institutions that thrive on unpaid labor.

      1. That is a good one.

      2. How is it that I haven’t bought you a drink yet? And you’re even predicting the weather today.

        1. I would suggest Southern California Reason Dodger game get-together.

          Until I get a different job it’s hard for me to find time to go out to bars since my days off are Tuesday-Wednesday.

          1. Doyers game! We should totally do it.

            1. How much are flights to Australia?

      3. ZING!

        Seriously though, they should probably stop flying the Confederate flag

  17. Let’s stir up the hornets’ nest a little with some Rothbard quotes — sadly, not on deep dish pizza or circumcision, but some apropos quotes for this recent bit of Russian revanchism:

    “First, there is no doubt that the Soviets, along with all other Marxist-Leninists, would like to replace all existing social systems by Communist regimes. But such a sentiment, of course, scarcely implies any sort of realistic threat of attack – just as an ill wish in private life can hardly be grounds for realistic expectation of imminent aggression.” – Rothbard, “For A New Liberty,” p. 282

    “Any idea of “exporting” communism to other countries on the backs of the Soviet military is totally contradictory to Marxist-Leninist theory.” – ibid, p. 283

    “Thus, fortuitously, from a mixture of theoretical and practical grounds of their own, the Soviets arrived early at what libertarians consider to be the only proper and principled foreign policy.” – ibid, pp. 283-284

    1. More Immaculate Trouser tonight on I Love the 80s.

      1. Coming from the guy serving hors d’oeuvres at the Reliving Civil War Controversies Cotillion, that’s not so much of an insult. At least I’m a little past the age of sarsaparilla and corsets.

        1. I mean, this Russia thing has got you and a lot of the regulars here all excited. Cold War II, Electric Boogaloo!

          1. Serious question, Bo: were you dropped on your head as a kid? I would say that your ability to read a latent desire for American aggression into posts decrying Russian aggression is impressive… but it’s really not.

            My only dog in this fight is that a very large portion of the libertarian movement is not only limiting itself to silence, but outright batting for the tyrant in this scenario and that it is completely counter to their professed philosophy. I sure as hell don’t want the US in a land war in Asia, but creating a hagiography around Putin and the Soviets is equally repellent. So why don’t you tell me whether you agree or disagree with the quotes above, or else just shut up.

            1. Not being dropped on my head I could see what you were getting to, especially given the context of your recent discussions on the subject. You endorse a more, shall we say, ‘muscular foreign policy’ than many of the strict non-interventionists here. That kind of view held sway when many libertarians thought they had to compromise there in the face of the Worldwide Communist threat, and it seems to me from past conversations to be a time period formative for you.

              You posted these quotes in disagreement with them, to show what you think is the na?ve outlook of strict non-interventionists (see how silly that Rothbard was about the Commies!, that is what you guys sound like!). My point is that what Rothbard had to say about the Soviets who have been gone for decades has little to tell us about what is going on with Russia and Ukraine today.

              1. My point is that what Rothbard had to say about the Soviets who have been gone for decades has little to tell us about what is going on with Russia and Ukraine today.

                I heard they erased all history between the Ukraine and Russia in 1995 and replaced everyone there with lizard overlord people.

                This is what you must mean when you say Soviet history has nothing to do with “modern” Ukraine and Russia.

                1. What I mean is that while the Soviet Union, run along the tenets of Marxism and Leninism, would have one ideology, the nationalist Putin regime a few decades out just might have another.

              2. to show what you think is the na?ve outlook of strict non-interventionists

                Nope, to show the immoral and historically incorrect view of Rothbard — whom if you will note, is probably one of the most, if not the most, influential expositor of libertarianism in the US today. The largest libertarian web site in the world is a direct result of his philosophy, and its posts endorse his views on the USSR/Russia. All of this is of course directly relevant to libertarianism vis a vis reactions to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, since this notion of Russia and the USSR as a non-interventionist state is part and parcel of a view in which the US is always and everywhere the bad guy and thus other foreign actors, no matter how bad, are the good guy.

                None of that has anything to do with an ideological adherence to non-interventionism — which I disagree with, but I wouldn’t hold out Rothbardism as the reason for my disagreement.

                Dammit, this was supposed to be fun trollbait for Rothbardites, not tedious Q & A time with Bo the Sooper-Smart Law Student.

                1. Yes, IT, you posted some rather silly quotes by one of the main proponents of non-interventionist libertarianism not to poke a stick in today’s non-interventionists eye, but just to show how immoral historically incorrect that influential non-interventionist was.

                  Or something.

                  1. “rather silly quotes” is a fucking ridiculous way to characterize the complete white-wash Rothbard is giving the USSR in his attempt to claim that the West was the aggressor in the Cold War. Literally millions of people were butchered and enslaved by Bolshevik expansionism, through a policy which had nothing to do with non-interventionism. If I were a non-interventionist libertarian, I’d be fucking pissed that someone compared my foreign policy to the USSR. People should know where their supposed “non-interventionist” allies are coming from and separate their non-interventionist beliefs from this noxious apologia.

                    1. “People should know where their supposed “non-interventionist” allies are coming from and separate their non-interventionist beliefs from this noxious apologia.”

                      Yes, as I said from the beginning your goal was to poke a stick in the eye of non-interventionists via some guilt by association tactic. ‘Look, you guys who do not see the dire threat that is Putin, how someone who also extolled non-interventionism was so stupid on not recognizing what those evil Ruskies were up to!’

                      Perhaps the next time we are dealing with a Marxist-Leninist super power you can usefully break out those quotes, but their relevance today is questionable to say the least.

            2. The Immaculate Trouser|3.23.14 @ 8:11PM|#
              …”My only dog in this fight is that a very large portion of the libertarian movement is not only limiting itself to silence, but outright batting for the tyrant”…

              I’ll pat him on the back for making Obo look like an idjit now and then, but other than that, I just haven’t seen him feeling the love around here.
              What did I miss?

              1. Not yelling more about Russian Aggression=Batting for the Tyrant, don’t you know?

              2. What did I miss?

                Some idiots regurgitating Russian propaganda (the referendum was legitimate, Crimea wants to join Russia, Ukraine was a threat to Russia and its interests, the invasion was legitimate, the US/CIA overthrew the previous legitimate and democratic Ukrainian government, Ukrainians are fascists, etc). Lots of crap I can throw on the wall from the Ron Paul Institute and Rockwell.com giving Putin a BJ, but that would just be gratuitous.

                1. “Ron Paul Institute and Rockwell.com giving Putin a BJ,”

                  See, I could not parody it fast enough before the real thing showed up.

                  1. WTF are you talking about? Never mind don’t answer. Methinks MCE is a sort of sophistry engine that just strings words together along an algorithm designed to maximize sophistry. This might explain all the hair-splitting and point-missing and strawmen on his part.

                    1. And our resident neocon checks in.

                      With friends like this IT,…..

                    2. HUR nEOCON HUR

                      You truly are blue Tulpa.

                  2. It’s not really an exaggeration. Some guy at the RPI literally said something like “Putin, unlike Western leaders, actually looks out for his country’s interests!”

          2. I mean, this Russia thing has got you and a lot of the regulars here all excited. Cold War II, Electric Boogaloo!

            That would make more sense if you sent it to Obama’s twitter feed.

            1. Russia is no longer a Marxist-Leninist ideological super power, explaining their motivations and actions today in that framework is like laying 1980’s music at a current high school prom.

              If anything Russia today is like a beefed up (but not by a lot) Turkey, nationalist and aggressive in their region, and hardly up to anything we should get entangled in.

              1. I think his point was just that Rothbard had a very warped view of the USSR, just as many Rothbardites today have a warped view of Putin’s Russia, which, while not Marxist-Leninist, is still the successor state to the USSR.

                1. Cali got it.

                  Non-interventionism =/= dictator apologia

              2. yeah sure worry about the powerless conservative leaning libertarians here.

                Not about your buddy Obama who is pushing to start up cold war 2

      2. Bo, I defended you above, but I’m gonna call you out on this one. IT’s post is fairly relevant given recent Russian aggression, and brings up some pretty dumb quotes of a key libertarian thinker. Aside from getting back at him for criticizing you, I don’t see the need for that.

  18. HOLY FRACK!!

    Dobbs introducing Jay Carney.

    I need to vomit and take a crap and shower for a month.

    1. All in the shower?

  19. Burkean classical liberal sympathetic to social conservatism.

    Authentic frontier gibberish?

    1. Haha, Burkean classical liberal is how IT describes himself.

      I realize it is hard to keep up while watching MSNB and using this discussion board as your personal twitter account announcing your periodic outrage at Al Sharpton, but please try if you are going to jump in.

      1. I said I have Burkean tendencies wrt to change, not that I am a Burkean, you fuckwit. Burke had a good point that change generally doesn’t take when implemented quickly and without regard to social rhythms; just about everything else he said that was novel (especially about religious freedoms) was fairly worthless.

        1. It is not hard to take your announced sympathy with Burke and consider it in context with your tendency to ‘leave the libertarian reservation’ on the usual issues in ways that break from the LP towards conservatives (abortion, immigration, more muscular foreign policy), and combine that with your ‘oh who cares’ responses to gay rights or admiration for the military to get an idea of what is going IT. You’re a conservative with libertarian leanings, I get it.

          But look, when a conservative shows up here looking to poke a stick in the supporters of Paul and non-interventionism, you are going to get push back. That is not, my dear friend Brooks, being any Inquisitor, it is, or rather should, be expected on a long standing libertarian, pox on both their houses place like Reason magazines site.

          1. You should whine some about my lack of respect to the moderators for not being civil, Bo. C’mon, I know you want to.

            Also: I was never on the ‘libertarian reservation’. I was on the Marxist reservation for a while, though, and (more briefly) the conservative and proggie reservations, and they taught me that I’m not real good at reservation life. Thanks for caring, though.

            1. “You should whine some about my lack of respect to the moderators for not being civil, Bo. C’mon, I know you want to.”

              Goodness, jumping to some unrelated complaint in the hopes of drumming up support or something? Sad, IT.

              ” I’m not real good at reservation life”

              Yes, you are beyond all dogmas.

              Renaissance man, you.

              1. IT?

                Shouldnt it be TIT?

                1. Never call a ‘tit’ an ‘it’ if you wanna get anywhere.

                  1. Damn right, GBN.

                  2. Damn right, GBN.

          2. your announced sympathy with Burke

            Did he use the word sympathy or did you make that up about him too?

            1. Made it up. The phrase I used was “Burkean tendencies”, which as I have explained is a narrow sympathy regarding how to effect change.

              1. Er, IT, tendencies is stronger than sympathy.

              2. He would be calling me a Georgist because I agree with Henry George on one thing if he wasnt so busy calling me a socon sympathizer.

          3. Immaculate Trouser hasn’t advocated intervening against Russia in Ukraine, even if he isn’t a strict non-interventionist. One can point out the stupidity of defending Putin (or the USSR) under the guise of “non-interventionism” without advocating intervention. When Lew Rockwell and the Ron Paul Institute write some of the stuff they have defending Putin’s Russia, it makes all non-interventionist libertarians look bad.

  20. Another scolding from the Grand inquisitor. Oh, for shame.

    *hangs head*

  21. I’m watching Vice on HBO episode 3. In this episode, they visit a school in Albuquerque where some teachers are armed and students go through drills. Some older kids get training in how to disarm a shooter. Randi Wiengarten makes an appearance. She says they’re training kids to be vigilantes. Teach self defense is teaching vigilantism? Oh boy.

    1. They even interview William Bratton. More shit.

      1. Bill Bratton is a smug, lying, craven pig. Not a fan of the douchebag.

        1. In his inaugural speech to the LAPD rank and file, he said “If you are crooked, we will lock you up!”

          And then he proceeded to lock nobody up.

    2. Teach self defense is teaching vigilantism?

      Well, duh! I mean, when anyone other than a government agent uses force, it’s vigilantism! It doesn’t matter if it’s a woman fighting off a rapist in the act, or rape victim shooting her attacker in the back a week later! It’s all the same! Only government can legitimately use force! Everyone knows this!

    3. And the progs are horrified that Murdoch owns 5% of Vice now. I see no sign of a drift from the left.

      1. Yeah. I just watched episode four, the second half being about the rise of far left and far right movements in Europe.

        They start out showing some leftist student group trashing property in Madrid. Then they go to Greece and talk about the Golden Dawn. They show a clip of Golden Dawn supporters smashing booths and say “And like other far right groups, they aren’t afraid to use violence”. Hey! What did you guys just film in Madrid?

        I like some of what Vice puts out, but their politics are shit.

  22. Teach self defense is teaching vigilantism?

    Well, duh.

    1. I know, I know, I’m just a low intelligence troglodyte.

  23. Hillary Clinton is ‘very much concerned’ with the direction this country is headed

    Clinton, who would be an overwhelming front-runner for the Democratic nomination should she seek it in 2016, made her comments in response to a question from a student at the close of the Clinton Global Initiative University conference at Arizona State University.

    “If you don’t represent women in politics in America as future president, who will?” the student, Vrinda Agarwal of the University of California at Berkeley, asked Clinton.

    I don’t know, but maybe, hopefully, a woman that’s earned her position through hard work rather than her husband’s name and prestige?

    “Look,” Clinton added, “I am very much concerned about the direction of our country ? and it’s not just who runs for office, but what they do when they get there and how we bring people together and particularly empower young people so that we can tackle these hard decisions we’ve just been talking about.”

    Change we can believe in.

    Clinton also spoke forcefully about climate change, saying she hopes the millennial generation sparks a “mass movement” to bring environmental issues to the forefront of American politics.

    Oh, so is that going to be her issue since Obama crapped on economics and healthcare for the Democrats?

    1. Someone realizes they will have to run from Obama in 16.

    2. “Mrs. Clinton, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?”

      1. +1 Three-eyed fish.

    3. Oh, so is that going to be her issue since Obama crapped on economics and healthcare for the Democrats?

      Lets hope so because that issue crapped on Obama and the Democrats. The environment has been a bust for the left and the left knows it-lefty governments in Europe and Ecuador are cutting Big Green loose. The Keystone XL issue is causing a severe silent split in the Dem ranks and it is putting Hillary between a rock and hard place on fire.

  24. I, for one, am grateful for Bo’s prissy nitpicking.

    We’re all better for it. It elevates the level of discourse.

  25. Well, great. Another thread where I get suckered into dealing with Bo’s personal neuroses. I should get paid for this.

    Oy.

    1. Yes, the person who posted irrelevant Rothbard quotes with an admitted hope to troll non-interventionists is not the one dealing with personal neuroses here. Not at all.

      As I increasingly wonder, what is it about Reason, a magazine and website with longstanding and consistent non-interventionist, pox on both their houses stands, that attracts so many pro-life, ‘muscular foreign policy,’ anti-immigration, conservatives to the site?

      1. Good question.

        That is why they dislike me. I am anti-conservative and anti-progressive.

        When I accurately point out Carter was easily our most libertarian POTUS since Coolidge they freak out. RC Dean agreed with me on that and still said he preferred conservatives like Bush.

        Carter, of course, had a timid foreign policy and deregulated large swaths of the economy but he is despised here.

        Also look at how the wingnuts here hate the ACLU (although that hatred has diminished since 2009). ACLU bashing is a conservative past time.

        1. When I accurately point out Carter was easily our most libertarian POTUS since Coolidge they freak out.

          no we didn’t we discussed it when Nick pointed out Carter’s deregulation street cred a few years ago.

          You just butted in with screams of Christfag and BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!

      2. “what is it about Reason, a magazine and website with longstanding and consistent non-interventionist, pox on both their houses stands, that attracts so many pro-life, ‘muscular foreign policy,’ anti-immigration, conservatives to the site?”

        I doubt you will ever get an answer since you’ve only been here about 6 months and already demonstrated that you are a childish douchebag with an intellectual-strap-on, and no one has the slightest interest in your opinion on anything.

        1. Intellectual strap on is beautiful.

          1. How do you decorate yours?

        2. Intellectual-strap-on is such a creative use of words, and it describes Bo’s writings perfectly.

          I salute you, even if you did accuse me of being ‘Murkin once.

      3. The same reason it attracts a large number of liberals?

        1. Large number?

          Look at the treatment an acknowledged liberal like Tony gets here compared to that that an acknowledged conservative like John. The difference is startling to any newcomer.

          I disagree with them both, btw.

          1. BCE is STARTLED. When will you stop startling BCE?

          2. Both were in the default incif file.

            For those who used it, there was no difference between them (I did take John out of it, as he isnt a troll).

            And you werent around for the days of joe, who I never incifed away.

            joe counted for two or three Johns. And there was MNG and Neu and, well, you get the idea.

            They started fading away when Obama got elected and we switched from criticizing Bush to criticizing him. joe literallly used that as his reason for leaving. He was fine with 8 years of GOP bashing, but when the site flopped, he was pissed.

            1. I appreciate the history lesson of the website commentariat, but I am just talking about the differences between the treatment of John and Tony here since I have been posting. I disagree with them both, both are acknowledged non-libertarians that are quite vocal in disagreement with libertarians quite a bit, both can be quite caustic at times, but no reasonable observer would say they are treated comparably.

              1. Tony is not a liberal or a progressive, he is a troll.

                Test it by arguing with him, see how crazy of a position you can get him into.

                John, while a bit gruff, and a bit conservative, generally doesn’t argue in bad fairth.

                1. I think people often use the idea of ‘troll’ to mean someone they disagree with and who upsets them in that disagreement.

                  I do not think Tony argues in ‘bad faith.’ Sadly, I think he believes in exactly what he argues. He has pretty standard liberal arguments, John has pretty standard conservative ones.

                  1. John has pretty standard conservative ones.

                    Unless the standard conservative argument on police/courts has shifted in the last 10 years, John is off the conservative reservation, at least in that area.

                    He thought I might have gone too far on Friday.

                  2. Sadly, I think he believes in exactly what he argues.

                    That’s even worse, then. You should watch him more closely.

                    He has pretty standard liberal arguments, John has pretty standard conservative ones.

                    If Tony is pretty standard liberal at this point, well, it’s worse than I thought. Seriously. I bet I can get him to talk about putting people in camps in… 5 posts. (It’s like name that tune! Who can get Tony to talk about putting people in camps in the least number of posts?!?)

                    1. I have told Tony that I think that while he would not want to see people in camps, his philosophy would set up a structure where someone who wanted to do that could. But I honestly see more raw hatred of his political opponents from John. That guy can go on and on about how awful liberals are in their very souls. It sounds like Goebbels talking about Jews (sorry for the Godwin).

                      And you know what? The only policy I know of that is today actively rounding up people with guns and putting them into camps are our anti-immigration policies, things which Tony disagrees with and John and a surprising number of people here do as well.

                2. Yeah John is different from whatever Tony is.

                  I don’t get the hate hurled at Bo.

                  Then again, I do have a bleeding heart streak in me.

              2. No reasonable observer would think they are the same (just in different directions).

                Neither is libertarian, but John is in agreement on SOME issues. Tony is a full bore statist 100% of the time.

                Tony might actually violate my rule 1 of libertarianism.

                1. Tony would be in agreement with the LP about as much as John (defense, war, abortion, etc) , but for the wrong reasons.

                  1. John gets the gist of the angle here. That’s why he fits in and makes cogent points. Tony just babbles.

                  2. Tony would be in agreement with the LP about as much as John

                    OK, I’m almost embarrassed for you, at this point. You should probably stop talking about these individuals who the people here know much, much better than you do.

                    1. Tony would be in agreement on immigration, war and abortion, John would not, just as examples.

                      Of course Tony would not agree because he is right on the idea of rights, he’s not.

                      I have debated with Tony plenty in my time here.

                  3. Pull off their masks and see who they really are! (since HM or someone posted it the other night)

                    pulls off Bo’s mask

                    It’s TULPA!

                    1. Yes, everyone who says something uncomfortable to you is Tulpa. sheesh.

                      For what it is worth, Tulpa is one of the conservatives posing as libertarians I am complaining about.

                    2. Yes, everyone who says something uncomfortable to you is Tulpa. sheesh.

                      For what it is worth, Tulpa is one of the conservatives posing as libertarians I am complaining about.

                      It’s the tendency to argue anything into the ground that makes me think you’re tulpa. It helps me to think there aren’t a huge number of people who will argue the smallest point forever.

                    3. You demonstrate my point. What do you think robc is doing on this thread, for example? You do not see it in him because you are not upset by what he says.

                  4. Tony is pro-war when his guy does it.

                    And I dont think there is a libertarian (not LP) position on abortion.

                    Actually, there is. But it isnt what you think it is. Its rigidly defined and big tent. The position on abortion that I think every libertarian SHOULD agree with is that up to some point, people should be free to use birth control/abort/etc and after that point it is use of force against a human life and violates the NAP and self-ownership.

                    The only disagreement within libertarianism would be that point.

                    Some might argue that is a huge chasm, but it goes back to your comment about “the wrong reasons”. Choosing an early or later point than me may make you wrong, but at least your process is correct.

                    1. “And I dont think there is a libertarian (not LP) position on abortion.”

                      People throw around the word ‘dishonest’ here, but this is actually one of the few examples of it. We have had this out several times. The LP platform is out there for everyone to see, and it says government should stay out of abortion completely. It has consistently been that way.

                    2. The LP doesnt represent libertarianism.

                      How fucking hard is that to understand?

                    3. I am generally of the opinion that Bo is not a troll, but the LP platform comment makes me question that opinion.

                    4. The LP and its platform are not perfect (though I think it represents a very honest attempt to have an intellectually consistent platform with the NAP), but I have to have some lodestone for raising suspicions of posers. If you have a better one I am open to it.

                    5. I have to have some lodestone for raising suspicions of posers.

                      Uh… why? You do realize that most people on this board get through the day without revving up the Libertarian Grand Inquisition.

                    6. I agree it’s not easy to identify one, but I’d shy away from the platform of the party that nominated Bob Barr. (Though GJ was a legit choice. I asked him a question once in one of his web chats when I was a law student, cool dude.)

                      If someone were to ask me what the general libertarian platform is, I’d say “What Milton Friedman believed.” It’s not perfect but it’s about as close as you can get to what libertarianism is generally.

                    7. It has consistently been that way.

                      Except when it didnt.

                      But that isnt the point here, which you entirely missed. No one but you has brought up the LP.

                      We arent talking about the LP position on abortion, which is, today, what you said it is.

                      BUT WHO THE FUCK CARES? That isnt what we are discussing. I use a small l on every reference to libertarianism upthread. When Im referring to the LP, I always use a cap L.

                    8. “Except when it didnt.”

                      We have done this before, I asked you to present a single LP national platform that was pro-life, and you could not. The ‘debate’ that goes on in your head is one not between people who self identify as libertarians.

                    9. This has been explained. The LP doesn’t own libertarianism or classical liberalism. Quit being willfully obtuse.

                    10. Bo, he explicitly stated that he wasn’t talking about the LP, but libertarianism in general. The LP doesn’t own libertarianism.

          3. Look at the treatment an acknowledged liberal like Tony gets here compared to that that an acknowledged conservative like John.

            Like most liberals, Tony abhors economic liberty.

            Libertarians and conservatives align somewhat on economic liberty, and Reason spends a lot of time on economic liberty.

            So at those times, Tony will get shit while John will not.

            If Reason spent more time on foreign policy and less time on economic liberty, John would probably get more shit than Tony.

            Did I just defend the guy I dubbed Red Tony?

            1. Some people are assholes and it’s great fun to drink with them and argue over bullshit and make jokes about other assholes. Some people are assholes and you just wanna lock them in the trunk of a stolen yugo and drive them into a lake.

              The latter of the two often don’t recognize that the distinction exists.

              1. If you do not see that the ‘assholes’ in the first category are the ones that many here just seem to agree with, especially telling when they disagree in issues against the LP platform stance for example, you are just not paying attention. John gets overlooked by so many here because they are likely to take stances similar to him on immigration, foreign policy, abortion, etc.

                1. LP platform

                  What the hell does the LP have to do with anything?

                  Most of us ignore them most of the time, for good reason.

                  1. I am just using the LP platform as an indicator of libertarianism, since of course there is no real, cosmic standard.

                    1. I am just using the LP platform as an indicator of libertarianism

                      Im not.

                      since of course there is no real, cosmic standard.

                      Exactly. So stop acting like there is one.

                    2. Exactly. So stop acting like there is one.

                      Actually, I think there is one, but I claim no knowledge of what it is. Im going to go Platonic on this, Im just seeing the shadows. As is the LP.

                    3. There has to be some indicator to show that when a person who otherwise calls himself a libertarian ‘leaves the reservation’ that person is likely posing as one. PB calls himself a libertarian at times if I recall correctly, do you really believe he is? At some point someone has left enough to be suspicious. All I am saying is that those who leave on all the conservative/libertarian traditional splits are in the same boat.

                2. John doesnt get overlooked. He is fun to argue with. Tony is a troll.

                  I used to have fun arguing with Dan T and joe and MNG and Neu and John.

                  4 to 1.

                  I incifed/reasonabled away Tony and Shreek and Tulpa. (The latter recently as he stopped being fun)

                  1. Neu was cool and minge was alright until sometime in the obama administration when he lost his fucking mind. I think he actually agreed with people here on a lot of things and thought that obama would show us how freedom loving liberals actually are. When that didn’t happen he went pear shaped.

                    1. Neu was cool and minge was alright until sometime in the obama administration when he lost his fucking mind. I think he actually agreed with people here on a lot of things and thought that obama would show us how freedom loving liberals actually are.

                      I miss MNG. Remember reading several of Neu Meji…whatever’s posts. Never saw him as trolly (might have missed it).

                  2. Ok so what exactly is wrong with John? Has far as I can tell he is a believer in economic liberty, and the idea of a very limited government.

                    Do Libertarians have to agree on every single issue to be libertarian?

                    There are a lot of issues I see people argue about on here where I don’t see one side as being any less libertarian then the other.

                    Like abortion for example, because the disagreement has nothing to do with ideas on individual liberty or the role of government or any other Libertarian idea, but rather on the definition of life.

                    1. I would never think someone is not a libertarian over abortion.

                      In recent weeks John has affirmed the belief that government has a role in marriage and in education, he has argued against non-interventionism and immigration. He told me he supported the Iraq War, which I think is second only to Obamacare in federal boondoggles in recent times.

                3. John gets overlooked by so many here because they are likely to take stances similar to him on immigration, foreign policy, abortion, etc.

                  Horseshit, I’ve fought with John more times than I’ve fought with you. Of course, that may just be because John isn’t a pedantic asshole, so I like him more.

          4. Tony wants to have government mandated birth control.

            John wants a bigger military then most of us here and thinks the right to abortions should be based on the number of neurons in a fetus….

            Yeah there is a difference between John’s conservative leaning conservatism and Tony’s bat shit insane Marxist/fascism.

            1. “John’s conservative leaning conservatism”

              John’s conservative leaning libertarianism.

              1. I frequent a lot of firearms blogs with real red meat conservatives and they make John look like Matt Welch.

                It’s funny that he gives everyone here shit about being “cosmotarians” when I consider John a cosmo-servative in comparison to the true paleo-republicans. Not that I think that’s a bad thing. I think if the republican party moved in the direction of people like john they’d be a lot more popular.

      4. Yes, the person who posted irrelevant Rothbard quotes with an admitted hope to troll non-interventionists is not the one dealing with personal neuroses here. Not at all.

        When I react to stimuli with stupid strawmen arguments it’s because TROLLING.

        As I increasingly wonder, what is it about Reason, a magazine and website with longstanding and consistent non-interventionist, pox on both their houses stands, that attracts so many pro-life, ‘muscular foreign policy,’ anti-immigration, conservatives to the site?

        We just love shitting on your lawn oh great Inquisitor of Libertarian Purity.

        1. Cytotoxic, please continue to weigh in against me, nothing is more helpful.

        2. “We just love shitting on your lawn oh great Inquisitor of Libertarian Purity.”

          Thats exactly what it is about Bo that pisses everyone here off. The guy whose been here for the least amount of time decides to dictate to us whose a true Libertarian, and who isn’t.

          Frankly I don’t get the obsession.

          Libertarians can agree on certain principles, and yet still disagree on many individual issues.

          1. Wrong.

            I never questioned anyone’s libertarian bona fides when I first posted here. I posted against the ACA and regularly posted against SoCon NAP violations, and that was it.

            But lots of people then started to attack me for posting about SoCons. Why in the world would a post critical of SoCons calling for NAP violations get a libertarian so worked up? When I looked at who these posters were it was often the case that they were against immigration, for intervention, and other variances from traditional libertarianism. Some of them slipped, like Restoras, and plainly said things that, if Tony would have said them, would have gotten him many long two minute hates.

            It was then that I started to say, wait a minute, maybe this is why they do not like the socon posts…

            1. Whether or not you questioned anyone’s Libertarianism the first week or so you started posting here, you constantly do it now. Half the posts in this thread is just you going on and on about whats a real libertarian and what isn’t.

              It amazes me that someone who is such an expert in Libertarianism is so surprised to find a wide range of opinions and beliefs in a movement that bases it’s self on individualism, instead of collectivism.

              And what do you mean by against immigration, and for intervention? There is a huge range of positions one could take on either of those issues.

      5. He was trolling Rothbardites, not non-interventionists. Those terms aren’t synonymous.

    2. Just stop responding to it. It’s worthless.

      1. Talk about personal neuroses…Neoliberal got mad at me for refusing some ‘life advice’ he tried to give, then called me arrogant for doing so.

        1. Bo is (supposedly) on his way to joining the legal profession and lives to create strawmen, it is what lawyers do.

          I doubt that he has any hard and fast principles. It’s easy to see from his posts that he will be another amoral fuck that defines the legal profession, interested in trivia that can give them a leg up. It’s what lawyers do and is a reason to scorn them and bo just reinforces that stereotype. The plethora of (thieves) lawyers in Congress is hard evidence.

      2. I’m so glad that you are better than everyone else and ready to tell them who they should and should not communicate with.

        At least you’re not using force. Though I’m sure that you would if given the opportunity.

        So libertarian.

        1. Free minds!
          As long as you agree with us!

  26. Hillary Clinton is ‘very much concerned’ with the direction this country is headed

    So say we all.

    1. I guess she doesn’t plan to campaign on the idea of what an outstanding job Obama is doing.

  27. Got a good offer on my house today. 12th day on the market.

    If everything goes good at inspection/appraisal, I will be out of it before Derby.

    1. The beach house? Nooooo!

  28. How did Bo not get banned after the Clarence Thomas thread? Murican gets banned, right?

    1. Oh do tell. What thread is this?

    2. Because I asked why calling a black person an Uncle Tom is necessarily racist?

      That actually demonstrates my point well.

      Libertarians, like the writers here at Reason, are as skeptical or critical of conservative narratives as liberal ones, and that includes playing the race card.

      But go to any acknowledged conservative website or gathering, bring up Clarence Thomas, and you will get the ‘the liberals are racist to him’ narrative that so many here were pushing.

      When you are walking and talking like a duck…

      1. Because I asked why calling a black person an Uncle Tom is necessarily racist?

        You’re retarded.

        1. It is ridiculous to think that when a black person calls another black person an Uncle Tom that they are being racist towards black people. It is much more sensible that they are saying ‘you are too deferential to white people, just like the character Uncle Tom.’

          Conservatives have a LOT invested in the idea that critics of conservative blacks that call them that are being racist, because it allows them to feel they can turn around the charge of racist that is usually leveled at them and which makes them so uncomfortable.

          But libertarians? Who cares. The crazy race card games of BOTH sides are silly.

          1. It is ridiculous to think that when a black person calls another black person an Uncle Tom that they are being racist towards black people.

            So if a black guy calls another black guy something racialist, no racism. Got it.

            There’s layers of irony here.

            1. It is not ‘racialist,’ it refers to the deference of a black character in a book. The problem that blacks that call other blacks that have with Uncle Tom is not the problem that racists have with blacks, it is that Uncle Tom is too deferential to whites.

          2. Uncle Tom haunts American history while Canada has Anne of Green Gables.

            1. I don’t remember her in Strange Brew.

              1. I think she was the yeast

          3. When they – progressives- start getting into ‘racial code words’ it’s about time to check in any of these comfortable places:

            http://www.asylum.com/2010/02/…..e-asylums/

      2. Because I asked why calling a black person an Uncle Tom is necessarily racist?

        When you call a black person an “Uncle Tom”, whether you are white or black, you’re making a clear set of implications. The crux of the idea being that “authentic” black Americans are required to hold a certain set of beliefs and opinions, and that an “Uncle Tom” is an outlier who doesn’t hold those opinions. An “Uncle Tom” is therefore not authentically black at best, and possibly even a traitor to the black race at worst.

        You seriously don’t see any racism at all behind the notion that all members of one race ought to hold the same opinions about everything, rather than thinking for themselves as individuals?

        I personally think you’re just deliberately acting obtuse, because you sound reasonably intelligent and so I don’t think there’s any way you can possibly be this much of a stupid dipshit.

        1. “all members of one race ought to hold the same opinions about everything”

          That is not what people who use this phrase mean by it, it is what conservatives think they are doing when they do. Conservatives see this and say ‘oh, conservative ideas are not harmful to blacks so what MUST be going on is an insistence that all blacks think alike.’ But that is not what the people using the term think at all.

          Talk to black people who use this term. My experience is that they honestly think the person whom they so label is being overly deferential to white people in a way that harms black people in general, and it comes from the characterization of Uncle Tom as too weak and deferential of a character in the book.

          In the same vein some Jews will criticize what they see as ‘self-loathing’ Jews who they feel are fostering and furthering anti-Semitic views among non-Jews. Are they being anti-Semitic when they call these other jews ‘self loathing jews?’

          1. So when people call Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom”, they’re just saying merely that he’s “too deferential to white people” and nothing more?

            If this is seriously what you’re arguing, then you’re so completely and totally full of bullshit that there’s no point in even trying to have a serious conversation with you.

          2. Bo, I would agree that it’s not inherently racist to call someone an Uncle Tom, but wherever that line is, it’s nowhere near it being applied to mainstream black conservatives. It’s not like Clarence Thomas is protecting slavery or helping send black people to camps. I think you’re wrong if you think that many, if not most, liberals honestly think a black person having political views that are not left-wing automatically makes them an Uncle Tom.

      3. You are showing your feathers here, stupid, for someone who claims a modicum of intelligence you are busted, bitch.

  29. If everything goes good at inspection/appraisal, I will be out of it before Derby.

    Good luck.

  30. Some of this is beginning to sound familiar.

    I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t ? till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

    ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

    ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master ? that’s all.’

  31. NYT characterization of the Obama response to Ukraine =

    “THE HAGUE ? As Russia consolidated its hold on Crimea…President Obama and his allies prepared to meet here in an effort to develop a strong, united response despite their diverging interests in dealing with the Kremlin”

    “His” allies. That’s a new spin I’ve never seen.

    “After Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the lightning annexation of the peninsula by President Vladimir V. Putin last week…

    Hold the fuck up.

    “Lightning”?
    BY ‘Putin’?

    We’re getting deeper into the hyperbole/anthropomorphizing of foreign affairs.

    And “lightning” is a joke I find hard to stomach. Because this wasn’t expected over a month ago, when troops first showed up? I must be channeling Nostradamus.

    Mr. Obama’s decision to convene the leaders of several European countries, along with Canada and Japan, brought the nations ? once again the Group of 7, without Russia ? together for the first time since the crisis in Ukraine upended the stability and security of Europe“”

    Obama. Decided.

    “stability of *Europe*”? funny how the Europeans are cast as entirely passive in this whole narrative thus far.

    1. “funny how the Europeans are cast as entirely passive in this whole narrative thus far.”

      Did I miss where the French were going to send a strongly-worded letter and threatened to send three guys with a pop-gun if they can hitch a ride on some US transport?

      1. No, its that they spend zero time clarifying what any EU nation has stated thus far or talk about interests at stake, instead preferring to spin as the Ringleader of wisdom over how the EU is supposed to act about their own security issues.

        1. “spin Obama”

          1. See my suggestion to Obo below.

      2. With an exclamation point.

        “We the French do not appreciate your machinations in the Crimea…

        !

    2. Mr. Obama’s decision to convene the leaders of several European countries, along with Canada and Japan, brought the nations ? once again the Group of 7, without Russia ? together for the first time since the crisis in Ukraine upended the stability and security of Europe”

      Jesus Christ, this trip to the Hague was planned out several months ago, way before the crisis in Ukraine blew up, and his knob-gobblers at the Times make it sound like something he just organized in the last week or two.

  32. Debbie Whatshername Schutlz: Professional Concern Troll

    In recent days and weeks, Reince Priebus and the RNC’s plan for winning in 2014, 2016 and beyond has become increasingly clear. Shrink the electorate by making it more difficult for people to vote, hide their candidates by limiting the number of debates, and buy more ads that mask the fact that their policies hurt rather than help the communities they are targeting.

    What the RNC and the Republican Party still don’t understand is that their biggest problem has never been their primary calendar, their campaign tactics, or a lack of trainings. Their biggest problem is who they are, what they believe, what they say, and how they govern.

    2014 will be a choice — expanding opportunity for some versus increasing opportunity for all.

    Democrats will keep working as we always have, to expand the electorate, get more people involved in democracy, and engage the next generation of voters.

    1. that mask the fact that their policies hurt rather than help the communities they are targeting.

      The irony.. it burns.

    2. Seems more like “early adopter of two minute hate” than “concern troll” to me.

    3. TBF, even my reliably Democratic friends strongly dislike Schultz.

    4. Whenever DWS talks, I feel like I’m being myzled.

    5. So she admits that their desire is simply to create voters, not necessarily some substantive improvement for Americans.

    6. “2014 will be a choice”

      Ominous words right there Debbie, difficult to spin after a potentially crushing DNC defeat in the midterms, careful… there thar be dragons…

      ” — expanding opportunity for some *party operatives and their vested interests* versus increasing opportunity for all *others*.”

      FTFY Deb..

      How exactly did she become the chairmenperson of the DNC?

  33. And “lightning” is a joke I find hard to stomach.

    I guess the NYT Stylebook does not permit use of “Blitzkrieg”.

  34. “Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, acknowledged that the president’s weeklong trip, including a meeting with Pope Francis on Thursday and a stop in Saudi Arabia on Friday, would be overshadowed by Ukraine and the need to press for Western unity. Ms. Rice expressed confidence that the meeting here on Monday would “deepen” coordination.”

    Well, the high priority being placed on Ukraine clearly shows the degree of commitment, and I’m sure “deeper coordination” will continue in its *decisive and rapid fashion* shown thus far.

    “as the United States ratchets up economic sanctions against Russia, it may prove difficult for Mr. Obama to bring along his European allies, who are more economically intertwined with Russia and ended their own summit meeting on Friday with no detailed mention of tougher sanctions.”

    Aw? Really? It almost sounds as though Obama has presented some clear and thoughtful steps to be taken which others fail to support… steps which are strangely unmentioned thus far.

    They cast all these events as “the west” being caught “flat footed” and that its really “the EU and NATO that seem inflexible”…and there is ZERO mention of the Budapest Memo or that the primary signatories who had guaranteed Ukrainian independence were the US, Britain, and Russia.

    The whole thing is a strokejob to put the ongoing thumb twiddling in the best of possible light for the anointed one.

    1. “flat footed”

      Well, that’s pretty damn close to fleet footed, which is obviously a reference to the Ron Paul Newsletters, isn’t it?

    2. “as the United States ratchets up economic sanctions against Russia, it may prove difficult for Mr. Obama to bring along his European allies, who are more economically intertwined with Russia and ended their own summit meeting on Friday with no detailed mention of tougher sanctions.””

      So the Euros, who really might have some interest in Russian aggression, don’t much care, and here’s Obo, riding around on his (not quite white) horse rattling sabers?
      Obo? Shuddap and siddown.

      1. I don’t think its so much that the Euros don’t care, it’s that they are dependent on Russian natural gas, and know that ultimately they can’t do shit about Russian aggression.

        1. Pretty much agreed.
          They care enough about the petroleum coming from Russia so they can pacify the greenies by getting rid of nukes.
          They care enough about the aggression to hope that Obo (and the US taxpayer) saves their butts again so they can keep handing out free shit to the voters.
          IOWs, these are no serious people.

    3. Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser

      That says it all right there. I feel SOOO secure.

  35. Nate Silver gives GOP edge to take Senate, hilarity ensues at Raw Story

    Johnny Bloomington ? 28 minutes ago
    Why aren’t people holding these tea baggers accountable for the government shutdown? This ADD country is deaf, blind, and stupid sometimes! Oh look! Another IPhone just came out… *facepalm*

    BallsMcKenzie ? 3 hours ago
    Anybody who knows what this means is rightly devastated. I mean – do we really want to go through an economic collapse, because that’s what the GOP almost brought us last time, and they’ll go through with it this time. Every sane individual in the US – especially the “red” and toss-up states needs to get out and vote Democratic. The Republicans get the Senate, they’ll be back to destroying the fabric of what’s left of our society. We are truly fucked.

    Michael C. Thompson ? 7 hours ago
    The GOP has selected more credible candidates? The political atmosphere of the US moderately favors Republicans?

    Since when?

    This is depressing.

    But remember, Fox is the echo chamber.

    Best one:

    willymack ? 8 hours ago
    The returds subscribe to the Goebbels school of bullshit, that is “repeat a lie loud and often enough, and it will become the truth”, at least in the diminished ‘minds’ of the all too numerous rubes here.

    Jeff Hanson willymack ? 8 hours ago
    You mean you can keep your insurance, if you like it?

    Pwnd.

    1. No respect for a bait and switch? Give us credit.

    2. No respect for a bait and switch? Give us credit.

      1. I lol’d.

        1. I’m not clever enough to come up with that. It’s from one of Remy’s recent classics (they’re all classics).

  36. With the comment deletion Plopper is now FIRST. Somebody PM Virginia Postrel and tell her H&R has transformed into a serious, thoughtful, tasteful and respectful on-topic discussion.

    1. Isn’t Plopper a Mary sock puppet?

      1. No. Plopper is a little… eccentric? But, it’s not Mary Stack.

        1. Isn’t Plopper an admitted pedophile? Or is he just a sympathizer to pedophiles?

          1. Sympathizer.

            1. “Sympathizer.”
              And a commenter who engaged took weeks to shake off the ‘well, what abouts?’
              Caution.

          2. I don’t think he’s straight out admitted to being one, but it’s hard not to infer it from his writing…

          3. Last time he came on to talk about it, his story (if I’m remembering correctly) was that he was abused as a pre-pubescent, but that he emerged from it with a normal sexual drive for pubescent girls. However, his experience with that and an inability to pursue his preferred occupation at an earlier age led him to believe that age of consent laws were an imposition on freedom.

            An appalling position especially in the context of the conversation (Thai underage prostitution), but he’s not an “admitted pedophile”.

            1. Okay, I know he argued some sick position based on personal experience, but I wasn’t sure if he was justifying his own desires or someone else’s.

              I just remember Francisco d’ Anconia or some other regular giving him holy hell for it.

              1. HM lives (or lived) in Thailand, and he got really pissed at Plopper (rightly so, IMO) for construing the Thai underage prostitution racket in, ah, less than accurate and unjustifiably benign (even positive) terms. That’s how that whole thing started.

                That was an interesting thread, since Mary tried to shit it up but gave up after she realized she wasn’t gonna be able to top a thread about child prostitution.

              2. Wasn’t me. I avoid that guy like the plague. He’s not right. I think it might have been sarc, but don’t hold me to it.

                1. I think it was Heroic Mulatto. I remember because it was one of the few times they didn’t post an Independents thread so the post about child prostitution had to double as it.

                  1. HM or Suthen Boy.

        2. I will never understand the Marys and PBs of the world who get off on trolling. There must be something appealing about it, but I do t get it,

          1. Don’t get it. Damn it.

          2. Is it wrong that I find Mary’s insane posts somewhat entertaining? It’s just so batshit insane, and filled with impotent rage.

            I think I might be a bad person.

          3. Right? I only go to websites I have an interest in. Libertarianism, finance, investing, real estate, Ohio State. But I would never go to a Michigan football blog and start shitting up the threads. It’s a truly pathetic creature who derives pleasure by souring other peoples fun. Psychopaths.

            1. Do you follow Wu-Tang Financial on Twitter? I recommend it.

              Completely agree, I’m a Packer fan and am not the biggest fan of Bears’ and Vikings’ fans, but I would never get joy out of going to their message boards and riling up their blood.

              Likewise, I don’t go to Dailykos and troll them with “if you like your plan, you can keep it.” I’m happy to do it to PB or anyone who comes here, but they’ve sort of “agreed” to it by attempting to troll us here.

              1. Yeah. Been following Wu Tang Financial for a long time. Highly recommended to any Reasonoids looking for a humorous, libertarian Twitter feed.

  37. Guys, I think they got us all figured out.

    #UniteBlue

    1. The towering intellectual giants of twitter have spoken:

      All these esencential health and safety departments, agencies we lose under aRW Libertarian adinmistration

      YES WE CAN!

      1. So essential that the very things most of those agencies were created to fix were getting better at the same or better rate than after they were created.

    2. Dude is a dwEEb, too. He should know better. smh.

    3. Well…

      Jim ?@Rioraider67 15h
      @spooney35 you do realize none of those things listed are in the constitution right?

      Maverick? ?@spooney35 15h
      @Rioraider67 you do realize I don’t put much CREDENCE in the constitution..

      1. “I don’t put much CREDENCE in the constitution.”

        I would like to propose a grand bargain. We split up the united states. Give the left/progressives all the most valuable land, and all the libertarians/conservatives/reasonites the least valuable land but split it 50/50 and evaluate what’s happened after a set number of years. Is there any doubt the people in the least valuable land would be much better off than those who started off in the most valuable land?

        1. I’d love to own one of the first delicatessens in New New York, Wyoming.

        2. “Is there any doubt the people in the least valuable land would be much better off than those who started off in the most valuable land?”

          This exact experiment has been performed; Hong Kong, (421 Miles^2, with zero recoverable resources), compared to ‘main-land’ China; (9.5M K^2).
          Guess who won…

          1. also Germany, East vs. West.

          2. Agreed. I just want a binding agreement from the leftist assholes who want to ruin America for the rest of us.

          3. Also one Cuban defector, Roberto Goizueta, who rose to lead Coca-Cola and created more wealth in his time there that was created by all of Cuba in the same timespan.

        3. Question…

          If individuals in the Blue Lands eventually concede victory to the Orange Lands, do we let them imigrate?

          1. Freedom of association, beeotch!

            Doesn’t mean you have to let THEM on your property, of course.

            1. Freedom of association, beeotch!

              So what if they don’t capitulate? What if they just want to move to the Orange Lands because life is better there, but want to bring their Blue Lands philosophy with them?

              1. Let ’em in, don’t let ’em vote.

                That was easy.

              2. Contracts! Everything will be private property so they’ll have to agree to a certain number of conditions in order to be allowed to stay.

              3. Find out there deepest emotional traumas, break them and make them love their orange overlords?

                1. We’ll be so practiced at it, we’ll be breaking them like clockwork.

                2. +1

                  We’ve always been at war with East-Asia… or was it Eurasia… I forget…

          2. Indentured servitude. Let them earn their freedom and the price of their passage.

          3. Doesn’t one of the books in The Giver series deal with this issue?

            Also, they’re doing a movie, but it’s not in black and white.

            1. Messenger

              Strange changes are taking place in Village. Once a utopian community that prided itself on its welcome to new strangers, Village will soon be closed to all outsiders. As one of the few people able to travel through the dangerous Forest, Matty must deliver the message of Village’s closing and try to convince Seer’s daughter to return with him before it’s too late. But Forest has become hostile to Matty as well, and he must risk everything to fight his way through it, armed only with an emerging power he cannot yet explain or understand.

            2. Wasn’t that a really bad movie with Mark Hamill?

  38. How climate change factors into the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines flight

    “We have to grapple with Mother Nature and try to say, ‘Look lady, give us your secrets! We won’t get rough with you, please don’t get rough with us!'”

    1. The Onion’s still got it.

  39. “Eventually water that falls as rain on land comes back into the sea,” said Anders Levermann, a professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who was not involved in the study. “Some of it goes into ground water but most of it will drain into rivers, or evaporate.”

    Or turns into biomass. Photosynthesis is exactly about building plant matter from CO2 and H2O (plus sunshine, of course).

    A fuckin’ professor at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research fails to account for that destination of rainwater?

  40. Guess Who Said It, Awesome Quote Edition:

    The true remedy for the Fugitive Slave Act is a good revolver, a steady hand, and a determination to shoot down any man attempting to kidnap.

    Sounds like another internet tuffgai blowing steam over reasonable, common-sense gun regulation but who knows.

    1. Frederick Douglas and I didn’t have to cheat, even to confirm it.

      1. The only way to prove you didn’t cheat on the internet is to get it wrong.

    2. Frederick Douglass?

      1. If I’d “cheated” I would’ve spelled his last name correctly.

      2. Michael Douglas?

      3. Freddie Mercury

        Dude, really, it says so on Wikiquote!

      4. Douglass was clearly an Uncle Tom, what with the racist anti-gun-control position. You’d think he hadn’t even heard of Trayvon Martin.

    3. Fredrick Douglas.

      1. Very good, all…

        Thought it was a good quote to share.

    1. Yikes. I get his justification, but I’d be doing everything I could to lie low were I Zimmerman.

      1. Randy Weaver made an income by doing autographs at gun shows. So it’s not unprecedented.

        I’m sure that Waco survivors could do the same thing.

        1. Yeah, but you can make a case of Weaver being a wronged man. And, too, with Waco survivors. Certainly, they really weren’t the aggressors and lost much themselves in the respective incidents.

          I don’t want to re-start the debate on Zim but attention-whoring is the last thing the guy should be doing. Although, if this is what he’s reduced to for making a living I guess there’s some karmic justice to it.

          1. What, do you think he has something to get back to? Something resembling normality? Zimmerman’s life as some banal know-nothing nobody is over. Zimmerman the niche celebrity is his new life.

  41. Why aren’t the kids dancing?

    Link Wray rockin’ on Bandstand, Philadelphia PA.

    Rawhide

  42. Oh hey, Tasha Yar is on The Walking Dead now. So she’ll probably die in the next episode.

    1. Hopefully she’ll be killed by a kinetic psycho while shuttling.

    2. Was she killed on Ray Donovan?

      I haven’t seen the last episode of season one. Showtime streaming keeps failing, so I tried to download the episode but there was a crc error in the archive and I haven’t tried torrenting it yet. I’ve seen the first 10 minutes of the episode 7 times though.

    1. Cool….

    2. “..Well, as you can see, its wrapper is the first printing of the coinage act. It was hand-rolled by Ben Bernanke during his wild years and was buried with Obama’s political legacy until grave-robbing space mushrooms — Uh, well you know the rest.”

  43. Sometimes man, you jsut have to roll with the punches.

    http://www.anonblitz.tk

  44. You gotta get Bill Nye back to have another bite at the apple. He clearly had a list of talking points that he thought he was going to deal with and fell flat on his face not having prepared for a discussion of possible solutions and economic trade-offs.

    The leading lights of the skeptic movement are all hard-left progressives, which is strange to me. One would think that the skeptic mindset would inevitably lead to a more libertarian viewpoint. Perhaps you can get these guys to engage their skeptic training to re-examine their own political views by continuing to engage.

    I suppose I shouldn’t be so surprised about the hard-left influence at the top of the skeptic movement. Early Marxism was dominated by the “intellectuals”, which these guys clearly see themselves as representing. Still, in any other area of life they will rigorously point out the built-in biases and methods of self-deception that we all use. Strange that they are completely incapable of applying this to their own political views.

  45. The leading lights of the skeptic movement are all hard-left progressives, which is strange to me. One would think that the skeptic mindset would inevitably lead to a more libertarian viewpoint.

    They are skeptical of religion, not government.

  46. You need a real hacker with discretion and top servicing to go to for all of your cyber issues, then pauleta.steelbreaker on gmail is the one you should consult or text +19283233115

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.