4 Ways Republicans Are Full of Shit

It's awfully tough to narrow these down to just four, so feel free to list more ways the Republicans are full of shit in the comments. And since we're equal opportunity offenders, check out a list of 4 ways the Democrats are full of shit.

reason graphic

Spending

• "Rand Paul Is Right: Carter Was Thriftier Than Reagan"
• "Tax Collectors for the Warfare State"
• "Mike Lee: End the Ex-Im Bank Because of Crony Capitalism! But Don't Cut Military Spending"
• "Karl Rove Group Attacks Democrats—For Wanting to Cut Entitlements"
• "This Is Why It's So Hard To Cut Medicare"

Dependency

• "Bipartisan Corporate Welfare"
• "Tommy Thompson: Creature of the Corporate State"
• "Does Defense Spending Stimulate Anything Other than Military Contractors' Bank Accounts?"
• "Karl Rove Group Attacks Democrats—For Wanting to Cut Entitlements"
• "This Is Why It's So Hard To Cut Medicare"

Federalism

• "Pot, Poker, and Prohibitionism"
• "Anti-Pot Prejudice vs. Federalism"
• "Fair-Weather Federalists"
• "Yes, the 2012 GOP Platform is For 'vigorously enforced' Laws Against Pornography and Obscenity"

Limited Government

• "Mitt Romney Is Out of Sync With the Small Government Movement"
• "Eric Cantor Loss: One Down, 200 More Small-Government Fakers to Go"
• "3 Signs The Republicans Aren't Serious About Cutting The Size & Scope of Government When They Get Back in Office"
• "Lindsey Graham Urges Colleagues to Support Targeted Killing, Protect Obama From 'Libertarians and the Left'"

Comments

[Palin's Buttplug]

Nicely done. Skewer both sides with examples. I approve.

John will not.

[WTF]

Are you quitting on me? Well, are you? Then quit, you slimy fucking walrus-looking piece of shit! Get the fuck off of my obstacle! Get the fuck down off of my obstacle! NOW! MOVE IT! Or I'm going to rip your balls off, so you cannot contaminate the rest of the world! I will motivate you, IF IT SHORT-DICKS EVERY CANNIBAL ON THE CONGO!

[JPyrate]

So only 8% of us "Peanuts" are ignoring this side of the blog. PB you are a fucking Turd Burglar.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Look at the time stamp. The ants all quickly ran to this side of the colony.

[JPyrate]

It does not matter. You are still a one way, partisan, Turd Burglar.

[Palin's Buttplug]

I am a buttplug. I stop the shit - I don't steal it.

[JPyrate]

Yeah you are a fucking buttplug.

[anomdebus]

At the time you posted your message on the other story, there were 5 posts in that story and 3 posts in this story.
That is hardly indicative of anything.

[wwhorton]

So, did you post this before you read the Democrat version, PB? Because I notice that both articles were published at exactly the same time, but you seem to be horrified at the content of the other, Dem-critical one.

[Pro Libertate]

Which is why the GOP can't be the only front for libertarians trying to reduce the size of government. They'll say less spending and less government, all while doing nothing whatsoever to accomplish either.

[Episiarch]

The GOP is no different than the Dems. They do the exact same shit, just for different constituencies, and even sometimes, the same constituencies. We call it TEAM BE RULED for a reason. Nothing is funnier than the shadow Republicans here squealing about how the GOP is the true friend and home to libertarians. It's downright pitiful.

[Paul.]

I'm supporting TEAM BE UNRULY next election. Who's with me?

[Episiarch]

Your mom?

[Pro Libertate]

It's a home to libertarians like the Nostromo was a home to Ripley after the xenomorph dealt with everyone else.

[Banquo]

She still had her cat.

[Bill Dalasio]

I don't entirely buy this. There is an active movement of people within the GOP pushing for libertarianism. Do they run the show? No. Are they growing? Yes. Can you show me anything comparable within the Democrats? Or is their only insurgent movement unhappy because those in charge allow too much liberty?

[Pro Libertate]

I'm all for continue to push within the GOP, as I believe that there is plenty of libertarian elements within the rank and file. But the GOP leadership has taken active steps for some time now to purge libertarians from the ranks.

[Ahem']

That's because they're full of shit, period. And there are waaaaay more than four reasons, just like team bluetard.

[Ted S.]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This could have been done in far fewer than a thousand words.

[BigT]

Ephalumps are guilty on spending and the WoD and warmongering and religiosity.

[Cyto]

The bizarre ranting about Obama "gutting the military" is shameful. The spigot of cash heading to the military contractors is wide open, and yet GOP hawks still manage to gin up the base with red meat about more military spending.

[Harvey_birdman]

Republicans claim to support "family values" but then try to prohibit gay marriage and gay adoption.

[Brandon]

This looks familiar...

[Harvey_birdman]

I mistakenly posted it in the other thread first. I can't edit so I figured I'd post it over here.

[seguin]

Who's the man in the suit? Who's the cat with the beak?

[Marktaylor]

That's not really a contradiction

[Drake]

I was a Republican for a long time. Their positions on smaller government, less spending, etc... certainly appeal to me. Their complete inability to accomplish any of over the past 15 years - and often doing the exact opposite drove me away.

There are individual Republicans who seem okay. The Party just sucks.

[Doctor Whom]

The Republican Party is a mystery cult. As soon as you advance at all in the GOP, the higher-ups will tell you that they never meant a syllable of what they said about smaller government; that was just to lure the unwashed masses in.

[Suthenboy]

This is more or less also true of the Dems.

What we have is a political class that serves its own ends, exists for its own sake. To them, we just exist to foot the bill.

We need to figure out how to get rid of the fucking parasites.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Why not start an Anti-Parasite Party?

[JPyrate]

Well. You being a parasite PB. You would not be able to join said party.

[Robert]

The "political class" is everybody. It may not seem so merely because at any given instant some people are calling more shots than others. But you take any 3 people, and soon 2 of them will conspire to screw the 3rd. It's human nature.

[craiginmass]

"Their complete inability to accomplish any of over the past 15 years - and often doing the exact opposite drove me away."

I invite you to study history.

Budget deficit TRIPLED under Reagan.....which reflects, of course, the Big Gubment spending more than it had.

"Federal outlays (total spending) rose by 40 percent under Reagan's first four budgets (fiscal year 1985 vs. Carter's last budget for fiscal 1981). That was two-and-a-half times faster than the rate of inflation, which rose 16 percent during the same period, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
And far from cutting debt, Reagan borrowed more heavily than previous presidents. In Reagan's first term, debt owed to the public increased by nearly 91 percent by the end of fiscal year 1985, compared with what it had been at the end of Carter's fiscal 1981."

[SugarFree]

phtttbt!

[JPyrate]

headinass. The other Turd Burglar.

[Juice]

He's not wrong. 15 years? Try 50.

[JPyrate]

headinass still supports big government. His "sides" big government.

[Juice]

Oh, well then he should celebrate the Republican Party track record.

[MegaloMonocle]

Ah, the reign of Emperor Reagan, when Congress was disbanded and Reagan did exactly what he wanted, no more and no less. . . .

[soflarider]

The Reagan deficit tripled from what amount to what amount? And how much is that deficit currently?

[kbolino]

If they're talking about the deficit, the real story is in the debt, and if they're talking about the debt, the real story is in the deficit.

Never underestimate the media and its lackeys' ability to misdirect.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Doesn't matter. Clinton erased those deficits.

Obama is working on the trillion dollar Bush deficits needed Simpson-Bowles to finish them off.

[SusanM]

Clinton, with the help of who...?

[Catatafish]

Ooh! Ooh! Is "tech bubble" the answer?

[Palin's Buttplug]

Actually, no one from the GOP voted for the 1993 Omnibus that cut spending and raised taxes. That did it.

And the tech bubble did help.

[PM]

That's kind of odd since the government, in point of fact, ran a budget deficit that year.

[Free Society]

And the tech bubble did help.

We can leave it to your kind to claim that a grossly systemic misallocation of resources was ever a good thing.

[Harvey_birdman]

Fancy accounting tricks and taking SS off books.

[soflarider]

"Clinton, with the help of who...?"

With the help of Bush 41 who raised taxes and was subsequently fired, and of course from Gingrich who held Clinton's feet to the fire, balancing the budget in a much more timely manner than Clinton desired.

[soflarider]

It's somewhat surprising of you to go against Democrat dogma and simultaneously agree with Dick Cheney by stating that the Reagan deficits didn't matter.
Then you go off the rails. The only Trillion dollar deficits were the product of the Obama administration. You can pin a portion of the 2009 spending on Bush, but Congress, the government body which sets spending levels, was ruled by Democrats. For 2009, only a portion of spending bills were passed by Congress before Bush left office. More spending bills were signed and stimulus spending was added after Obama took office. Of course a fair minded person would note that the deficits were the result of stimulus spending and lowered revenue.
I'm not sure why you mentioned Simpson-Bowles since Obama largely ignored their suggestions.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Nope. The deficit was $1.2 trillion while Bush was still in office and no spending programs other than TARP had passed Congress.

[soflarider]

Look it up dimwit. When where spending bills for 2009 passed? Which president signed them? Who added stimulus spending after Bush left office? Bush?

[XM]

Clinton didn't erase any deficits. He never had a surplus either.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-837799

Don't forget that the housing market bubble and a few deregulation (which is just terrible) occurred during his admin.

If the government spent / piled on debt more than it took in, and passed a bunch of auto pilot programs guaranteed to require more money in the future, then some modest tax cuts and cuts in spending is a moot point.

[Ukrainian]

Citation needed? US national debt went up every year during Clinton's administration.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Simpson-Bowles? You mean the commission that Barry set up that he repudiated?

[wwhorton]

I love that craig actually had the balls to say, "I invite you to study history," and then went on to prove that he hadn't even read the post to which he was responding.

Ah, Massachusetts public schools. You never disappoint.

[Jorono]

Fuck dude, do you EVER say ANYTHING of value, except, "My team's better."

No, no you don't.

Please try to add something to the conversation instead of peddling your pedantic crap.

Please, please, don't be a hack and just say one negative thing about Team Blue.

Please?

[Warty]

The Hit&Runpublicans; are not going to like this.

[craiginmass]

"The Hit&Runpublicans; are not going to like this."

Sure they are - because Money Talks and this org (Reason/Kochs/etc) are delivering hundreds of millions to ONLY GOP Candidates.

They figure they can draw you and others in by being equal opportunity offender, but momma taught me to judge by the ACTIONS of people, not their BS.

[SugarFree]

horp
horp
horp horp horp!

[Juice]

Reason has hundreds of millions of dollars?

[Catatafish]

How many pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-pot, anti-war GOP candidates are there then, you fucking waterhead? Just because the Kochtopus believes in free markets and the 2nd Amendment you immediately turn on that shit-spigot of a brain and come to the conclusion that the only people they support are in the GOP?

[seguin]

Craiginbasstomouth. There's a joke there. I'm pretty sure of it.

[Cyto]

They are complicit in the "continuing resolution" scandal that is the Obama presidency. For those too busy to notice, the President and congress have conspired together to continue spending at the "stimulus/fiscal emergency" levels of the end of the Bush administration for the last 6 years. By failing to pass an actual budget for years they have been able to normalize the extra trillion in spending that was supposed to be a one-time thing.

For all the talk of intransigence and lack of cooperation, there sure has been a bipartisan effort to keep that extra trillion bucks flowing without anyone putting their fingerprints on it. I suppose when that much money is getting flashed around, pretty much any politician is going to get on board.

[Butler]

^This

[MegaloMonocle]

Yeppers.

[wwhorton]

Bingo. Now tell me again how voting Republican is the only way to move towards a more libertarian government.

[PM]

It's almost like pretending there's contention between the parties benefits them both at the expense of everyone else.

[Aloysious]

Me like.

Personally, I think the whole list could be taken up by fiscal matters, and how they are complicit in our looming financial destruction, but I won't quibble over minutia. Good job.

[Butler]

As far as I can tell, the ideal scenario for libertarians (assuming that the Ds and Rs have to be in power), is a Dem President with an R Congress. The Rs are a much better opposition party than a ruling party. When in control of Congress in opposition to a D Pres, they do tend to at least hold spending flat and block most major progressive initiatives.

[Square]

Repub Pres + Dem Congress was OK, too (i.e. Reagan era). Trouble is, by the time the Repubs take back Congress, we'll have another Republican President, and we head into another cycle . . .

[Palin's Buttplug]

a Dem President with an R Congress

Gridlock I have supported for years.

The worst is R/R due to how shitty an opposition party Democrats are.

[soflarider]

Nice ideologically induced blindness you have there.
As recent history shows, the worst combination is D/D.

[Palin's Buttplug]

2001-2009 federal spending went from $1.9T to $3.5T where it remains today.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

Remind me who controlled congress in 2009. I forget.

[joshrendell]

sorry, but the tea party loonies
mess up your whole dynamic

[Jorono]

Oh, but you're team has the feminists! What a great catch.

Douche.

[PM]

The Rs are a much better opposition party than a ruling party.

That's a pretty broad statement only borne out during a few years of the Clinton presidency. Do you really think that if the current GOP takes the senate the last 2 years of Obama's term will be Clinton/Gingrich redux? I doubt it.

[craiginmass]

Let's critique both side - but then when it comes to voting, let's all go far right!

[SugarFree]

Gur gurck cuh derp!

[antisocial-ist]

In the massholes defense, the libertarians who exist only in his head are really terrible people.

[wwhorton]

That's funny, because all the massholes I've met are mouth-breathing statists.

[Harvey_birdman]

Gary Johnson is far right?

[Square]

Absolutely.

1) there are only two directions
2) the only place left of Republicans is Democrats
3) therefore, any non-Democrat who is not Republican is FARTHER to the wrong direction than Republicans.

Logic. Don't you get it?

[Jackand Ace]

And 4 ways Libertarians are full of it:

1. Climate change..."nothing to see here, move along."

2. Obamacare..."Americans will never sign up for it, and we will repeal."

3. Secession..."Americans want California booted" (according to JD)

4. Pot legalization..."everyone else is responsible, but Rand Paul gets a pass on introducing any legislation to do so."

I could go on.

[Square]

1. Climate change..."why aren't we calling it Global Warming anymore?"

2. Obamacare..."How's that working out so far?"

3. Secession..."Huh?"

4. Pot legalization..."Libertarians are for it."

[Jackand Ace]

1. Because its climate change, caused by global warming. But thanks for proving my point.

2. Very well.

3. http://reason.com/blog/2014/10.....nt-to-boot

4. Then why doesn't your golden boy do anything about it?

Like I said, 4 reasons.

[Square]

1. Where does all that stupid heat go? Well, we'll find it one day, and then we can go ahead and talk about warming again.

2. Compared to expectations, I suppose. Oh, wait . . .

3. What in Samhain has this got to with anything at all in the world?

4. Rand Paul is a Republican. Read: not Libertarian.

But, please, I don't want to get in the way of you lighting up those straw men.

[Jackand Ace]

1. Atmosphere AND oceans.

2. Right, more people signed up for it then Reason ever thought. No need to wait.

3. Just pointing out that the crap resides in Libertarians as well.

4. He's is still the golden boy here at Reason, with nary a complaint headed toward him.

Its Halloween...straw men are in fashion...you just don't know what they are.

[SugarFree]

hurk hurk hurk!

[Juice]

1. Atmosphere AND oceans.

Well, they just found out it's not in the oceans, so....

http://science.nasa.gov/scienc.....oct_abyss/

3. Just pointing out that the crap resides in Libertarians as well.

TIL that 25% of Americans are libertarians.

4. He's is still the golden boy here at Reason, with nary a complaint headed toward him.

I've got many problems with Rand Paul, but I have fewer problems with him than almost all other people in Congress.

[Juice]

2. Very well.

Dude, just no. No matter how many Democrats are sharing in this mass hallucination that Obamacare is "doing well" it doesn't make it so. It's a mess, and it's only going to get worse. Those that are being asked coerced into paying for it, ie paying way more for shit insurance, hate it with a passion. Those that had their policies canceled and can't afford the new mandatory "options" (like me) hate it with a passion. Employers with under 50 employees are scrambling to figure out what they're going to do next year, and they hate it with a passion. But you go ahead and just pay no mind and live in your fantasy world.

[joshrendell]

you really don't know anything about it, do you?

[Catatafish]

One question: if it was so fucking fantastic why use legislative and HHS gimmicks to continuously push the premium hikes beyond the 2012 and 2014 election cycles?

[Juice]

Oh, please educate me. Everyone I talk to who has been affected by Obamacare has been affected negatively, except one person who had a pre-existing condition. So for that one person to have insurance, I lost my policy and can't afford the options on the exchange. People I know who work for small companies have to figure out what they are going to do for insurance next year. They're probably going to have to go on the exchanges. They'll go from very good coverage to expensive shitty exchange "coverage." Pretty much anyone who isn't getting subsidized or put on Medicaid is paying more and sometimes substantially more. But please, tell me how awesome Obamacare is.

[soflarider]

How will idiotic Obamacare supporters sweep the outrage under the rug when all the extensions expire?
It's going to be a bloodbath!

[SugarFree]

hronk!

[Palin's Buttplug]

Containing carbon pollution requires an effort that fucks up everything libertarians believe in.

They have to deny carbon pollution exists.

[Square]

Libertarians might suggest that once you get the government involved in a problem they are going to reduce it to the most simplistic terms they can and then implement the most ineffective solutions possible while loudly reassuring everyone that they have the problem under control.

Witness the continued destruction of coral reefs in the South Pacific because ideological environmentalists have lost the ability to identify anything other than carbon emissions as the cause of anything at all.

A radical environmentalist I knew 30 years ago predicted that this would be the result of the government getting involved in environmental causes, and he was exactly right.

But, please, I don't want to get in the way of you lighting up that straw man.

[Jackand Ace]

Are you admitting that AGW is real and a problem? If so, you are an outlier in the comments section here.

[SugarFree]

herp der derp!

[Square]

AGW is theoretically possible.

Leaping from there to the assumption that it is definitely a dire global emergency that can only be addressed through government action is not only a bit of a stretch, but it places agency for addressing the problem precisely with the least qualified agent.

This is non-neutral as a faux-solution. If there are indeed real environmental problems going on in the word, the government is distracting people from addressing them by tossing every available egg in the AGW basket and denying that anyone but them is capable of addressing the issue.

The "anti-Climate-Change movement" is counter-productive political theater of the worst sort.

[Jackand Ace]

Nothing to see here, move along?

[SugarFree]

HURR

[Square]

You're not listening. Read it again and see if you can apply a distinction between government non-action and universal non-action.

[wwhorton]

As someone who works with the EPA on a daily basis I can tell you with absolute moral certainty that the people I work with are, by and large, intelligent, friendly, well-meaning people who are utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause, not terribly interested in questioning their assumptions or altering their narrative, and utterly incompetent from an administrative, organizational, and logistic standpoint. Even among federal agencies the EPA is renowned for being unable to find its collective ass with a map.

So, yeah, the very idea that you'd create a major federal agency and tell it to go "protect the environment" is pretty much a surefire way of making sure nothing worthwhile gets done and you spend a bunch of money not doing it.

[Jorono]

Witness Rhinos. Why are people shooting them? Because its illegal to own them and people want the tusks.

Allow private ownership, you raise them, cut the tusks off, they grow back. Problem solved.

But hey, govt!

[BYODB]

Just a random FYI but the planet Earth is far closer to the minimum amount of Carbon in the environment required to sustain all life than it is to prehistoric PPM concentrations when life was flourishing.

I'd be a lot more worried about the CFC's that China is dumping into the environment just to extort money from the U.S. government.

I love how people point at CO2 as some doomsday gas when there is far worse stuff being pumped out at far higher volumes that no one at all seems concerned about.

Keep those blinders on!

[Palin's Buttplug]

I thought the destruction in the Gulf coral reefs was due to nitrate runoff from the US heartland via the Mississippi River.

Still, I recall the BP oil disaster of 2010 here when Peanut Gallery thought Obama was mistreating poor BP when he fined them $20 billion for their fuckup.

Seriously, this place draws the nutjobs when you won't hold BP accountable for that disaster.

[kbolino]

when he fined them

Do you bow before your God-king when you suck his dick, shreek?

[Palin's Buttplug]

Your homoerotica fetish aside, I applauded that $20 billion fine. Fuck BP. They fucked up and were rightly held accountable.

[Harvey_birdman]

You dumb bastard. BP voluntarily and before government action posted the $20 BILLION for the Gulf spill. When the government fined them for the '06 Alaska spill they were fined $25 MILLION. Your stupidity knows no bounds.

[KDN]

You really have the absolute worst reading comprehension of all time. It's truly a sight to behold.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Go search on the "BP shakedown" by Obama.

Fuck BP. I cannot say it enough.

[KDN]

Aside from your complete misreading of BP, there's also this:

Gulf coral reefs

As a response to:

Witness the continued destruction of coral reefs in the South Pacific because ...

I used to think that you don't bother to read the links you post, but at this point it's obvious that you actually do, but you comprehend them so poorly that you honestly believe the shit you write is actually a legitimate interpretation of what's written therein.

[Juice]

The shakedown comment was a Republican congressman whose name I can't remember but he's always been an oil shill.

[Square]

The Gulf is not in the South Pacific, but the principle is similar. I bet you wouldn't have a hard time finding government-produced studies tying the issue to AGW in some way and forcefully distracting attention from the nitrates, since they don't fit the current narrative.

Every libertarian I know had the attitude toward BP that they absolutely should take financial responsibility for damage they caused to other peoples property and livelihoods. Whether or not Obama and his government are damaged parties is perhaps debatable, but my personal heartburn was over the liability cap that George I put on off-shore drilling to help big oil companies mitigate the risk (if that makes you feel better) - BP should bear full responsibility for its own risks, and this is a perfect example of just the kinds of consequences of perverse incentives that government introduces into the marketplace that we should expect.

[Palin's Buttplug]

Oil Gushes and Power Rushes
Obama's "$20 billion shakedown" exemplifies his lawlessness.

http://reason.com/archives/201.....wer-rushes

Fucking insanity.

[Jorono]

You know, if the GUV didn't force drillers so far off the coast, they wouldn't have to drill in miles deep water.

But hey, GOVT!

[Walter Peck]

Did you even read that article?

[Robert]

I used to teach Environmental Science to undergrads and was disgusted that the textbooks wanted to focus on the most iffy & intractable stuff, chiefly CO2-induced global warming, when clearly there were environmental problems that were conducive to teaching actual science.

[Harvey_birdman]

No we don't have to deny carbon pollution exists. As John Stossel has reported repeatedly we'll just adapt to it. The trade-offs aren't worth what you prog-tards propose as solutions (which won't work anyway).

[joshrendell]

hahahha.. john stossel is an idiot

[Jorono]

Says a dipshit who doesn't know where the shift key is.

[PM]

Go to bed Mary

[JPyrate]

http://www.nationalreview.com/.....ert-zubrin

[JPyrate]

Here you go PB. A for profit solution that carbon tax junkies really hate. =)

[Juice]

Ever since the rivers were all dammed up, Pacific salmon have relied 100% on humans for their continued survival. Saying that salmon are "back" because of human ingenuity is a bit misleading if not disingenuous.

[JPyrate]

In addition to producing salmon, this extraordinary experiment has yielded a huge amount of data. Within a few months after the ocean-fertilizing operation, NASA satellite images taken from orbit showed a powerful growth of phytoplankton in the waters that received the Haida's iron. It is now clear that, as hoped, these did indeed serve as a food source for zooplankton, which in turn provided nourishment for multitudes of young salmon, thereby restoring the depleted fishery and providing abundant food for larger fish and sea mammals. In addition, since those diatoms that were not eaten went to the bottom, a large amount of carbon dioxide was sequestered in their calcium carbonate shells.

[Juice]

carbon pollution

Soot? VOCs?

Oh you mean CO2, a necessary part of the atmosphere.

[MegaloMonocle]

1. Climate change..."nothing to see here, move along."

For the last, what, 12-15 years, there hasn't been anything to see here. Which makes me wonder why you haven't moved along.

2. Obamacare..."Americans will never sign up for it, and we will repeal."

Libertarians can't repeal anything, because we don't have enough (read: any) people in Congress,

Oh, and the best estimate to date on the net number of new insurance (not welfare) enrollees under O-Care is probably 2 - 3 million. Big success there, buddy.

3. Secession..."Americans want California booted" (according to JD)

How this is supposed to show that Libertarians are full of it, I have no clue.

4. Pot legalization..."everyone else is responsible, but Rand Paul gets a pass on introducing any legislation to do so."

Obama is a stroke of the pen away from effectively legalizing pot at the federal level. Rand Paul is hundreds of Congressional votes away from doing the same thing. Who should we look to, first?

[joshrendell]

libertarians are a bunch of goonybirds
who are so desperate to seperate
themselves from the right and the
left leaves them wih a bucnh of
idiotic ideas that have no basis
in reality

[JPyrate]

joshrendell an anal wind
ghost of a turd
never shat
hokum

[Jorono]

Wow, way to really enhance the discussion here.

[Flaming Ballsack]

1it's easy to not see things when u have nointention of looking. 2 libertarians dont have eough peope in congress because people see you a s a joke and since you want to blame the freemason illuminati democrat conspiracy for noone aking you serioulsy that will not change 3 screw cali anyway 4 rand paul gets the same treatment obama gets from prigressives excuses excuses untill its too late. dont deny that youre doing that for the few times he says somethinga greeable to your cause.

[Harvey_birdman]

Obama will legalize pot the same way he legalized gay marriage. By not actually doing anything about it.

[Brian]

Jackand Ace:

1. Climate change..."nothing to see here, move along."

4. Pot legalization..."everyone else is responsible, but Rand Paul gets a pass on introducing any legislation to do so."

OK, in the spirit of true even-handedness, please explain where democrats aren't giving a pass to democrat politicians in power who are choosing to do next to nothing about what democrats tell us is the biggest problem of humanity of the century of the decade.

Somehow, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid making half-hearted gestures towards reducing CO2 emissions is all they need to get a pass on "global catastrophe", but libertarians are hypocrites for not yelling at Rand Paul for not introducing an end to the drug war.

Go figure.

[Brian]

In fact, I think that should be added to the democrat bull shit page.

"Global warming. Democrats pretend to seriously care about the environment and CO2 emissions, as if we're going to destroy the whole fucking planet, and really enjoy trash talking libertarians and republicans about it. Somehow, though, they can't actually propose and pass any legislation that addresses it, despite having control of the entire legislature and executive in this country from 2009-2011. Hypocrites, or liars? You decide."

[Tony]

It's a lie to say Democrats had complete control of policymaking at any point during Obama's presidency. Not with a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. So apologize for repeating this bullshit lie. If they'd had complete control, they most certainly would have passed climate legislation. It's on their docket, ready to go. They're just waiting for the other party to acknowledge fucking scientific reality.

[Juice]

If they'd had complete control, they most certainly would have passed climate legislation.

They managed to ram Obamacare through without a single R vote.

[Tony]

Do you choose not to remember how things went down or are you trying to get one over on me? Remember the whole reconciliation thing?

[soflarider]

I don't think you should be bragging about how such an ill-advised, overarching piece of legislation was barely passed by a party that couldn't muster enough votes to do so except by using a legislative trick.

[Tony]

I'm not bragging about anything, I'm lamenting the fact that one of our two major parties has become a psychopathic anarchist cult.

[Brian]

Right. Somehow, they can pass Obamacare without a single republican vote, but they can't pass legislation to try to stop the biggest catastrophe the globe has ever faced, because they just didn't have enough power, damnit. In fact, they had so little power, they didn't even try.

However, the definitely had the balls to try a new handout program.

So apologize for repeating this bullshit lie.

Oh, get your panties out of a twist, Susan, and admit that democrats really don't care about the environment as much as they say they do.

"We'd save the planet, except for those damn republicans" is a convenient excuse to avoid unpopular legislation. And if you're not willing to use government power for everyone's best interest (i.e., stopping global meltdown), but insist on using it for your own selfish political career, then you don't get to go around pretending you're here to save the world and maximize everyone's well-being.

[Tony]

It is astonishing that you're placing more blame on Democrats for their failure to get legislation through on this than Republicans for being science-denying morons and/or nihilistic oil company stooges. It clearly is very hard to pass meaningful climate change legislation in this or any country. Especially when the only party that actually believes in science never really had complete control of Congress despite your lie. The ACA was passed in the Senate on reconciliation and only by giving into health insurance industry extortion. It's not clear how we could pass meaningful climate legislation along those lines--all the oil companies want is to keep burning oil.

[Brian]

Tony:

It is astonishing that you're placing more blame on Democrats for their failure to get legislation through on this than Republicans for being science-denying morons and/or nihilistic oil company stooges

Oh, I don't place more blame. I just don't let them sit there and be all preachy about how horrible climate change is when they also enjoy doing just as much about it as republicans and libertarians.

The ACA was passed in the Senate on reconciliation

So, I guess to democrats, reconciliation is a good enough tactic for setting up a new government handout, but not good enough to save the planet? So, your point is, they only control congress when they're willing to use reconciliation? What a joke.

It's not clear how we could pass meaningful climate legislation along those lines--all the oil companies want is to keep burning oil.

No, you idiot. Consumers love burning oil. Oil companies produce oil. You can't sell oil you burn beforehand. Perhaps the first step in addressing climate change is having an accurate idea of who's doing exactly what?

[Tony]

Consumers don't love burning oil, they like driving and having electricity. Industry likes having consumers dependent on their product, and industry is who pays the lobbyists.

Forget Democrats, I'm not convinced democracy itself is up to the task of solving this problem. I would hate to be proven right.

[Brian]

Tony:

Consumers don't love burning oil, they like driving and having electricity.

Yeah, and by the same logic, oil companies don't love people burning oil, they just like making money. It's all so simple and innocent, isn't it?

Trying to distance the concepts like that is kinda pathetic.

[soflarider]

So you're openly admitting that Democrats are beholden to the health insurance AND big oil lobbies?

[Brian]

Yeah, but they flap their lips as if they're not.

You know, the same way republicans talk about freedom and limited government.

[Jorono]

Here's the thing. EVERYTHING you see, touch, and feel is dependent on oil. Until you live in the woods, TONY, STFU.

Get off your computer, stop posting, and go plant a fucking tree.

[PM]

They didn't need a 60 vote threshold if they'd invoked the nuclear option. Which, with the literal fate of the world hanging in the balance, would probably have been a good time to use it by your Machiavellian standards, I would think. But they saved that for the really important shit, like judicial nominees.

[Tony]

Why don't you concern troll the Democratic party some more?

[HTuttle]

Something equivalent you will NEVER read on a Lefty site!

Period!

[soflarider]

I can imagine that DailyKooks or HuffnPuff could come up with a dandy list.

Four ways Democrats are full of shit
1)They care about women yet they let misogynistic Republicans hold back legislation that would ensure they get equal pay and treatment.
2) They care about minorities yet they let racist Republicans hold back legislation that would level the playing field.
3) They care about immigrants yet they let hateful Republicans hold back comprehensive immigration reform
4)They care about the poor yet---well, you get the idea.

[Tony]

These are accurate but the Democrats one was just bullshit griping. The difference is Republicans are hypocrites about everything they say. Democrats being "pro-choice" on abortion doesn't make them hypocritical for supporting public schools. I mean I know it's pointless to come to their defense here, but you guys do get that that comparison is completely ridiculous, right?

[JPyrate]

Wisdom from Tony "One Way" Street.

[Brian]

I assume that means you concede the other three reasons democrats are full of BS.

[Tony]

Only the civil liberties one. Democrats never claimed to never engage in military action (they're just more judicious with it than Republicans). And Democrats know how to help the poor, but as it requires spending rich people's money, Republicans won't let them, and then generously blame Democrats for any bad outcomes.

[Jorono]

Right, because they haven't spent money in the last 60 years.

Sometimes you put forth a decent argument, this time, not so much.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

"Democrats never claimed to never engage in military action (they're just more judicious with it than Republicans)."

Gulf of Tonkin
Cuban Missile Crisis
WWI

Just sayin'.

[Ballz]

Tony, there a little Blue jizz... there!... on your chin.

[Juice]

Democrats being "pro-choice" on abortion doesn't make them hypocritical for supporting public schools.

No, it's the converse. They're hypocritical because they claim to be "pro-choice" and want to prevent school choice, among many other choices one could make.

[Tony]

But school choice is a term of propaganda that refers to an attempt to privatize education, which Democrats have every reason to be against. Pro-choice and pro-life are also propaganda, of course. The point is you're trying to find hypocrisy entirely at the diction level, and that sort of nonsense makes everybody in the room stupider.

[PM]

But school choice is a term of propaganda

Sounds kinda like being able to choose your school to me. Which you presently can't. And Democrats want to keep it that way. And they have every reason to want to keep it that way, since the public sector unions representing compulsory public school with no choice or options are responsible for about a quarter of their party fundraising. The altruism could truly warm the cockles of any heart. Maybe even the sub-cockle area.

[Tony]

The goal is to make public schooling high enough in quality across the board so that people can find what they need in their own neighborhoods. School choice, a proven total disaster, is about lining people's pockets, not educating children. Lining people's pockets is, after all, what capitalism is all about. Do you disagree?

[Brian]

Tony:

Lining people's pockets is, after all, what capitalism is all about. Do you disagree?

It's funny to listen to people obsessed with redistributing wealth complain about "lining people's pockets." Like, you're so above carrying about who's pockets get what.

[soflarider]

Are you inanely trying to diminish the effort of people who want their kids to have a better education and completely ignoring the extent to which the Democratic party kowtows to union teachers?
Many of these children are forced to go to substandard schools. Why do you hate these children?

[Tony]

School privatization has proved to be an unmitigated disaster at all levels. Not that you guys will ever own up to it.

[Square]

"School privatization has proved to be an unmitigated disaster at all levels."

When and where was it tried?

[soflarider]

Tell that to the parents of failed public schools, who are being denied the choice of sending their children to a school that provide a better education.

[NotAnotherSkippy]

No try assessing it NOT from the teachers' union perspective...

[PM]

There is literally no state or municipality in this country with a privatized school system. Even charter schools are extremely few and far between. And have better student outcomes than their public counterparts. The education outcomes of children who attend private school because their parents are able and/or willing to pay for it twice are miles ahead of the near-retard level outcomes of public schools, despite higher spending on public education than at any time in history. It's fun when you're delusional, lying, and completely wrong all at the same time.

[Hopfiend]

The apolitical Tony has surveyed the information and determined the Democrats are pretty good and Republicans are evil civilization destroyers.

[Tony]

Wow, not bad at all. Yeah, that's about it.

[AKCharle]

Oh I got one for you, how about the dudes who wrote this article? FOS x 4.

[PM]

I can only guess by Bo's absence that his head must have exploded from all the crypo-Republican Kochtopus socons. Thankfully fellow libertarian purists and non-partisans Tony and shreeeeek were here to make the same arguments.

[Remnant Psyche]

"arguments"

[Robert]

So what it really comes to between these 2 blog bits is: Most people are full of shit.

[CandiceEmmettsad]

my co-worker's step-sister makes $69 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for eight months but last month her income was $20541 just working on the laptop for a few hours. why not try here............

http://www.Jobs-spot.com

[Ammy452]

Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... You can have your first check by the end of this week

Check Freely ?.. w?w?w.j?o?b?s?3?6?.c?o?m?

[TKList]

Republicans: Authoritarian, religiously obnoxious, economically hypocritical, spendaholics.

Democrats: Dictatorial, socialistic, economically ignorant, spendaholics.