State of the Union

"The 5 Worst Moments" from Obama's State of the Union Address

|

Earlier this week at Time, I wrote up what I thought were the five worst moments in President Obama's State of the Union Address last Tuesday.

Here's number five:

5. "Let's close loopholes so we stop rewarding companies that keep profits abroad, and reward those that invest in America. Let's use those savings to rebuild our infrastructure and make it more attractive for companies to bring jobs home." This is an Obama golden-oldie that makes it into almost every appearance he makes that's longer than 30 seconds. If he's serious about bringing jobs and profits "home" to America, the obvious place to start is with our corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the world among developed countries. What's worse, though, is that we tax corporate earnings on a world-wide basis, meaning that companies headquartered here pay taxes (and then apply for credit) on what their overseas branches make. Just about nobody else does that and it's that sort of policy that goosed Burger King to relocate its main headquarters to Canada. 

Go here to read the first four and a larger argument about what Obama just doesn't understand about the best ways forward for economic growth, peace, security, and freedom.

And lest we forget: However misguided the president is, he's now hemmed in by a GOP Congress that, despite its pro-market, pro-freedom, pro-limited government rhetoric, compiled about the worst record imaginable the last time it was calling the shots (albeit with a Republican president).

Advertisement

NEXT: WATCH: The Big School Reform That Fits in a Tiny Package

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. For as many times as you fuckers told us we shouldn’t bother watching it, it appears ya’ll did.

    1. If we watched it then there’d be no market for *their* watching of it and providing snark and analysis.

      Plus, its like the argument about having the mass in latin or english. If the proles have access to the source material then the power of the priests is diminished.

    2. Everyone loves to watch a great train wreck. =)

  2. Let’s close the loophole that allows presidents to bloviate nonsense on prime time television. Obama was raised in another country. You would think he’d have some empathy for foreigners and the overseas investment that could help them.

    1. Freedom = Loophole

    2. “You would think he’d have some empathy..”

      I am puzzled why anyone would think that.

      1. It doesn’t matter whether he has empathy only whether his teleprompter does. The teleprompter tells him what to say which is always straight out of the proggie playbook.

    3. He has about as much empathy for foreigners and overseas investment as a Mexican-American BPS agent has for Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise.

  3. Phuck…another rerun.

  4. I am guessing that there is more than one reason Obumble’s transcripts have been hidden. In addition to poor performance there are few to no classes that would help prepare him for the job of …well, anything. I bet he has less than 9 hrs of econ. Hell, less than 6.

    1. Enough time learn supply curves are sexist, and demand curves are rapey.

    2. I would bet he took no economics courses whatsoever. If there is one thing I think we can confidently say about his transcript, it is that it is littered with work in laughable topics. It’s also a relative certainty that he got abysmal grades in those topics.

  5. The comments at time are about what I expected:

    DanBruce 3 days ago

    Mouthpiece for the 1%

    George286 3 days ago

    Another tea rant disguised as an observation. FYI “Reason.com” is the chief organ of (you guessed it) the anti-government-doing-anything Koch-bro libertarians, back to the gilded age. If he believes Obama does not deserve any credit perhaps Mr. Gillespie should look at Europe’s economy and how the economic policies he espouses have worked –terribly. These are the people and policies that GAVE put us in this economic nuclear crater in the first place.

    1. “Mr. Gillespie should look at Europe’s economy and how the economic policies he espouses have worked –terribly. These are the people and policies that GAVE put us in this economic nuclear crater in the first place.”

      Whut? What universe is George from?

      Just as Bezmenov said, no matter how much information you give them they cannot draw a sensible conclusion.

    2. “…Mr. Gillespie should look at Europe’s economy and how the economic policies he espouses have worked –terribly.”

      It’s to imagine how misinformed someone would need to be to think that European countries have ANY libertarian policies.

      1. *It’s hard to imagine…

      2. They just create fiction as they talk. It’s awesome for people who never like their sanctimonious worldviews challanged. that way they never have to think about them too much.

      3. Is he talking about England’s ‘austerity’ measures? Maybe Ireland and Estonia?

        1. Yes. They are still trying to claim that we need more spending, and that austerity is killing jobs, etc.

          Unfortunately for them, we ran a little experiment in 2012-2013, where we cut spending by 500 billion, (Still had 500 billion deficit), reduced the safety net, increase payroll taxes and income taxes.

          So basically massive austerity. 2013 ended up with higher growth than 2012 or close to it (depends on when you start counting) with lower unemployment , too.

          Austerity did nothing. There was no double dip recession. Keynesians were talking -2% GDP growth.

          1. Also the fastest growing economies in Europe right now are the Baltic states and Ireland.

            I.E. all the countries who actually engaged in something describable as ‘austerity.’ Although Ireland’s alleged austerity is still a fucking joke since they’re running a massive deficit regardless.

            My favorite counter to the ‘you must spend shitloads of government money!’ argument is the fact that Switzerland has had their total government debt drop from 50% in 2006 to 35.4% today and has an unemployment rate of 3.4%.

            Their highest unemployment rate since 1994 is 5.4% and they just happen to do virtually everything that the lefists say you shouldn’t do, including having no national minimum wage and a constitutional debt brake.

    3. The true believers really are amazing. They hear some story about “austerity” in France (meaning they have to work 181 instead of 180 days per year) and think thats the free market wrecking everything.

      The deference to Obama is just amazing. He could slaughter a puppy in the Rose Garden, and his followers would come up with some reason why the dog asked for it.

      1. No they would swear that the Koch brothers did it while Obama did his best to stop them, but he was thwarted by the Republicans.

        I showed a proggie acquaintance video of Obama saying ‘under my plan energy prices would necessarily skyrocket’. Three times. To this day she swears he never said it. She will acknowledge that he said it for the duration of the conversation after seeing the video but reverts back within an hour. Also, during the time period when she cannot deny it, even to herself, she appears to be in some kind of near psychotic state, as if her reality is being turned inside out and she doesn’t know how to respond. It is creepy and surreal.

        Obama supporters truly are delusional.

  6. The left continues its grand quest to indoctrinate children into an emotionally abusive political movement.

    In the Radical Brownies, girls learn about social justice movements such the Black Panthers and the Chicano group Brown Berets. They wear their brown berets in homage to those two groups. But they also study how Disney princesses define girls’ image of beauty, and how that can affect self-image.

    The Radical Brownies have their own badge system, including one for “Radical Beauty” and an “LGBT ally” badge. The girls also earned a “Black Lives Matter” badge after learning about police accountability and attending a civil rights march in Oakland.

    There’s no indoctrination like pre-teen indoctrination! They should set up some kind of camp system for this sort of thing and start doing it without the parents’ consent.

    1. Heck of a job… you know the rest.

    2. They are creating a generation of proggies who will not be content just waving signs.

      Bet your life on it.

      1. I know. I think you’re going to see a lot of these kids engaging in some pretty violent actions when they grow up.

        1. Or they’re going to backlash against the indoctrination. Kids aren’t stupid (relatively), and some of them react badly to being told what to do and think.

          1. ^THIS^. Many of the most hard-core pagans or atheists I know were raised in restrictive fundamentalist homes. When children find out the people they trust were lying to them, the backlash can be quite severe. It’s kind of interesting to see if they go no gods or many gods, but it’s usually one or the other.

            1. Of course it goes the other way too. Many of the staunchest Bible thumpers I have run into were raised by hippies.

            2. One difference is that, except in rare cases, fundamentalist kids have to interact with the real world. If you’re a kid raised in this way, you can move on to college, to graduate school, then back into academia or a non-profit or a government post and never encounter an opposing view that wasn’t filtered thru leftist talking points.

              I’m always amazed by academics who decry how conservatives and libertarians only listen to “one side” of an argument.

              1. Epic unceasing projection from these types of people should never, ever amaze you any more. It’s a fundamental aspect of their personalities. Every single thing they accuse their opponents/perceived enemies of doing, they do in some way or another. Their self-unawareness is staggering to behold.

                Every interaction you have with them, every single thing you read from them, you need to keep their epic projection in mind.

                1. I’m well aware of it. I find it darkly amusing.

                2. Epi: good points. I do find myself getting riled up by the idiocy of smart people at times. However, I am getting better at simply avoiding such subjects altogether.

                3. A (white) progressive friend told me I was a racist before I forced him to retract the charge. But before he did this, he said, “I’m a racist, so I get to call you a racist.”

                  Fortunately, I didn’t reply, “so any hooker on the street, so long as she admits she’s a hooker, gets to call your wife a prostitute?”

                  1. This caliber of self-loathing is disturbing. Racism is a rather particular worldview, if one thinks a viewpoint is racist, one can simply not subscribe to it. It’s not a disease you get from ‘the culture’ in spite of your beliefs, where you have get cured in a reeducation camp.

                    The sort of self-loathing in these people is really foreboding, They’d almost send themselves to the guillotine, so they’d have no trouble sending others.

            3. ^THIS^. Many of the most hard-core pagans or atheists I know were raised in restrictive fundamentalist homes. When children find out the people they trust were lying to them, the backlash can be quite severe. It’s kind of interesting to see if they go no gods or many gods, but it’s usually one or the other.

              I personally think Raven Nation’s point is largely correct, though. Our culture today is so generally left-wing (and our public schools and universities are run by leftists) so that people who grow up in fundamentalist households will have to interact with opposing views at some point.

              If they didn’t have to do so, then they’d believe all those fundamentalist ideas into which they’re raised. The problem is that leftists never have to listen to any ideas that differ from their own. The left is vastly more insular and hostile to outside ideas than other political movements in modern society because you can go through life as a leftist without ever even understanding other peoples’ ideas except as some vague Other that must be combated.

              That problem simply does not exist among conservatives or libertarians because our generally leftist cultural establishment makes it impossible for anyone ‘on the right’ to avoid left-wing ideas and arguments.

              1. This may hold true in many cases, but it presupposes that libertarians only come from the right, which is not true either. Or that people inclined to examining or re-examining the premises of their opinions will fall for argument from authority twice. I went from fundamentalist Christian Republican upbringing to neo-pagan liberal, to neo-pagan libertarian, to Deist Voluntaryist.

    3. I keep trying to find some reason why we aren’t completely fucked.

      1. Glass half full take would be that learning to protest beats learning absolute deference to authority. Let’s just hope there isn’t a merit badge for looting:)

        1. Glass half full take would be that learning to protest beats learning absolute deference to authority. Let’s just hope there isn’t a merit badge for looting:)

          They ARE learning absolute deference to authority, it’s just an authority based on left-wing assumptions rather than right-wing assumptions.

          I don’t know how being taught to mindlessly believe whatever you’re told by ‘activists’ is any less damaging than being taught to mindlessly believe whatever you’re told by cops.

  7. It’s never about efficacy, it’s always about control.

  8. In times like these, I found solace in the Derpsiderata:

    Go placidly amid the herp and derp, and remember what peace there may be in silence. As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all morons.

    Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and the ignorant; there is much humor in the stupid

    Therefore be at peace with derp, whatever you tum teh teedily tum, and herpy derp derpity derpy derp, in the noisy confusion of da derp da derp teh tum teh teedily. With all its herp, derp, herpy derp herpy, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

    1. Is drinking allowed the Derpsiderata?

      1. Of course. You only need an excuse for not drinking.

        1. Hitler didn’t drink, smoke, or eat meat. Therefore we owe it to ourselves to do all three.

      2. Yes. The drink of choice tonight is whiskey and water: 4 oz. good rye, 2 oz. water. No ice.

        1. I personally prefer my “flu shots” 1/2 oz elderberry juice 1/2 oz whiskey.

          1. Those sound OK in large quantities.

            1. They’re very delicious. I am the epitome of the cheap date though, so I can’t handle much more than two flu shots without passing out. Those of you with much higher alcohol tolerances should adjust the quantities upward as needed. 😉

      3. How do you think he wrote that?

    2. A is a men!

    3. So say we all!

  9. I feel like #1 should have been “the moment it began”

  10. . . . it’s that sort of policy that goosed Burger King to relocate its main headquarters to Canada.

    Ya know, the funy thing about this stuff is, despite all the people in government (and the ‘pundits’) decrying offshoring and tax inversion – it really has no negative effects on the company itself once its customers see bottom line on their bill.

    OTOH – this is something to be feared as the people with political power stand to (re)gain money if they can force companies to stop doing this through the use of legislation and violence.

    1. They are just fine with offshoring and tax inversion. They have the power to stop people from doing this through legislation simply by fixing the most fucked up tax code in history. That they don’t do it tells me everything I need to know about their intentions.

      It is really saying something when the country’s largest hamburger company is forced to leave the land of the hamburger.

      1. The thing is – fixing the tax code doesn’t *stop* anyone from doing this, it simply removes the incentives to do so.

        That means there’s a reduction of power for those who make policy.

        They won’t implement a fix that is ‘hand-off’, they will implement a policy that requires more control. Additional paperwork, fines, and the administrative controls needed to run this.

        Its always about *control*, not results.

  11. Palin signals 2016 run

    “Former vice-presidential contender Sarah Palin told ABC News that “of course” she is interested in running for president in 2016. “Yeah, I mean, of course, when you have a servant’s heart, when you know that there is opportunity to do all you can to put yourself forward in the name of offering service, anybody would be interested,” Palin said…Palin made it clear she really wants a woman in the Republican field. “We definitely had enough of seeing that?American has had enough of seeing that?sign on the Oval Office door saying, ‘No Girls Allowed.’ I know that.”

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

    1. I could live with a Palin presidency, I think. It would be worth it just to watch the proggies lose their minds…again. The eye rolling, foaming at the mouth, incoherent screaming would be epic.

      1. Palin strikes me as about as mature and balanced as most of her reality star peers.

        1. My knowledge of her is pretty superficial. I don’t recall her saying or doing anything terribly objectionable and most of the rantings the left have done about her are fiction. In any case, I can’t think of anyone who would be worse than what we have now.

          Besides, wouldn’t it be awesome to see empty beer cans on the white house lawn?

          1. I think the left went crazy over her and a lot of it was unfair. Attacking her for accent and things like that. Having said that, she still came off, and still does come off to me, as ‘not ready for prime time.’

            The left’s going to lose it if any Republican wins the White House, so I can actually hope someone a bit more ready for that might.

            1. “Ready” for what? Everyone thought the current occupant was “ready” and look how that turned out.

              1. Her temperament. She’s like her reality star peers.

                Obama has many faults, but I don’t think he’ll be involved in fistfights or starring in a reality show anytime soon. I’m used to disagreeing with nearly every President has. I did with Bush and do with Obama. But they at least seemed like people who have some sense of com porting with a baseline of dignity of the office.

                1. Some sense of comporting with a baseline of dignity of the office?

                  The twink just did an interview with an imbecile bathing in cheerios on youtube and has no time to meet with the Prime Minister of one of our biggest allies. He was on Dancing with the Stars.

                  Yeah, he has a baseline alright.

                  1. The twink just did an interview with an imbecile bathing in cheerios on youtube and has no time to meet with the Prime Minister of one of our biggest allies. He was on Dancing with the Stars.

                    Unfortunately, one of those youtube imbeciles challenged him on Cuba and another questioned him on Boko Haram.

                    The legacy media has basically avoided questioning Obama on either of those topics.

                  2. Hey at least he’s zooming over to Saudi Arabia to kowtow to their new dictator. That takes gravitas.

            2. My ideal scenario for 2016 would be Wyden v Paul. That there is no buzz at all for Wyden in the Democrat Party shows how awful they’ve become: issues like civil liberties aren’t even getting lip service now.

              1. My ideal scenario for 2016 would be Wyden v Paul. That there is no buzz at all for Wyden in the Democrat Party shows how awful they’ve become: issues like civil liberties aren’t even getting lip service now.

                I actually wouldn’t have a problem with this at all. Wyden isn’t even going to run, but if Wyden were the Democrat’s candidate against, say, Romney, I’d have to vote for Wyden.

                It’s a pointless question though, since Wyden has no chance of winning since he actually believes the things regarding surveillance that the rest of the Democratic party only pretends to believe.

              2. That would be a nice match up.

              3. There is some buzz for Wyden. There will be more if he or Sanders gears up for a third party run, which isn’t all that unlikely.

                1. Sanders? I’d vote for Palin over him. I’d vote for Bernie Madoff over him. That guy doesn’t belong in so much as a city council.

            3. I don’t care if she’s ready for prime time. That pretty much impacts her electoral prospects. The actual business of being a good president boils down to saying no to idiots. I think she will be above par in that regard.

            4. Turns out Obama wasn’t ‘ready for prime time’ either.

              And yes, they obsessed over the personal and trivial. They were sickening – and still are. Wait, just wait until Letterman talks about it every day.

            5. She’s basically retarded. The thing is, so are the leftist alternatives, they just think they’re geniuses because they mistake stupidity for intelligence, whereas Palin is stupid and proud of it.

              TO explain the difference between progressives and conservatives, I employ a quote from ‘Flight of the Phoenix.’ Conservatives behave as if stupidity were a virtue, liberals behave as if stupidity were a science.’

              So I really don’t see why a leftist moron who cloaks his idiocy in convoluted terminology is any less dangerous than an honest straightforward moron like Palin.

          2. And an El Camino on blocks.

          3. Another reason why this may be good new: Palin may help divide the right wing vote in the primary, giving Paul an edge.

            That’s what needs to happen for a bearable candidate to get the GOP nomination: divide and conquer. It seems possible. The Dems on the other hand seem like a lost cause. With Warren gaining traction, Hilary seems like best case scenario. That’s bad news.

    2. I don’t think she has much chance. On the other hand, if it were Biden vs. Palin, imagine the pretzels leftists and media members would twist themselves into trying to explain why we should vote for a white male over the first female candidate. That might be worth the price of admission.

      1. Victoria Woodhull would like a word with you. There have actually been quite a few female candidates, unless you mean the first female candidate in the D or R parties.

        1. Yes, the first D/R candidate. From the perspective of the media she would be presented as the first female candidate with a “realistic” chance of winning which would then require a crusade of tortured logic to explain why Biden would be a better choice.

          1. Also truly amusing would be Palin vs La Clinton. They’d have to avoid gender altogether.

            1. Good point. Palin vs. Warren, on the other hand, would be easier. It would be “she cares about the rich” vs. “she cares about the poor.”

              The other issue on Palin vs. Clinton or Warren is they will probably trot out the Yale vs. Community College argument.

            2. They’d have to avoid gender altogether.

              No they wouldn’t. According to the leftist template, blacks aren’t really black if they’re for tax cuts and against affirmative action, to name two issues.

              Similarly, a woman who is anti-abortion isn’t really a woman.

              1. True, but it would be a lot harder. If Clinton or possibly even Warren runs, they may win the election just based on the precedent-breaking factor, which helped get Obama elected.

                If the GOP ran a woman, it would take most of the wind out of the Dems’ identity politics sail, even if they would still play the ‘shes not a real woman’ card. Trouble is, the GOP doesn’t have a viable woman to run it seems.

      2. Another great match-up! I’d love to see that run through, but God will instead give us what no one wants: Hillary-Jeb

        1. Or Romney.

          What the hell is that about? Wasn’t the last ass-whippin’ enough for him? He doesn’t seem to have any position on anything. The perfect Stupid Party candidate, I suppose.

          1. Here’s my hope: a slew of ultra-conservatives including Palin divvy up that segment of the vote, while Jeb Bush and Romney divvy up the ‘centrist’ vote that otherwise would go entirely to one, and Paul manages to win the primary as a result. That’s my hope. Best thing that can happen is that votes that aren’t going to Paul get divided into as many different candidates as possible.

      3. Yes, epic also. I think it would get pretty nasty. There is nothing progs hate more than a black or a woman who isn’t one of them. They would show everyone who they really are in a big way.

      4. They’d have to line up the ‘gaffes’ and see who is worse.

        Obviously Biden wins in a landslide. The gaffe thing that is.

        1. God I hope Biden runs. I’d register as a Democrat and vote in the primary just to help make that happen. I might even donate to his primary campaign.

    3. The republicans will run a woman and a black in the primaries to preempt the inevitable cries of “white, male party”. It’s the best move politically even if they are long shot candidates. If they could find a black-hispanic lesbian they would be set. Big-tent party of superficial features.

      1. A *disabled* black hispanic lesbian.

        Bonus points if the disablility was caused by injuries while in the military.

        1. The Dems actually have one of those, BTW.

        2. Bonus points if the disablility was caused by injuries while in the military.

          Disabled, yes. Military injury, no. This one candidate, who has no chance of winning the nomination, must counter all the “negative” republican stereotypes. The candidate must be anti-war. The disability could come from being an abortion survivor. Amazingly, she is pro-choice and does not resent her mother for the decision she made.

      2. I think it was Rachel Maddow who said, in 2012, that support for Herman Cain was further proof of Republican racism. That is, they knew they were racists and were only supporting Cain to try and show they weren’t racists.

        1. I don’t believe this unless you provide me with a citation.

          I could believe that from Salon, but Maddow isn’t that stupid. She’s a hack, but she’s not dumb enough to say that.

          1. OK, good challenge. I was doing it from memory. It wasn’t Maddow it was Janeane Garofalo:

            http://www.realclearpolitics.c….._cain.html

            1. Yeah, I’m pretty good at detecting which leftist hack would say certain things.

              Maddow is a total stooge for the Democratic party, but she’s a very intelligent stooge who would never say anything that stupid.

              1. Maddow is a total stooge for the Democratic party, but she’s a very intelligent stooge who would never say anything that stupid.

                Why is this stupid:

                And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say ‘Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.

                This was the point of running Cain and probably Bachmann. They most likely ran Huntsman so Mormonism wouldn’t seem so foreign for a political candidate.

                1. Because if they run black people they’re racists and if they don’t run black people they’re racists.

                  The idea that the Republican Party is some sort of front movement for the KKK is a common idea among the Democrats and they’ve gone to great efforts to make the concept impossible to disprove. No matter what Republicans do, no matter what arguments they make, no matter what candidates they run, everything is evidence they are racists.

                  It’s not a rational argument, it’s an article of faith among Democrats because they’re increasingly closer to a fundamentalist religious movement than a political party.

                  1. No matter what Republicans do, no matter what arguments they make, no matter what candidates they run, everything is evidence they are racists.

                    Yes, this is why the republicans run a black person. Democrats will still call them racists but a more rational person will remember the black-face on the stage and if not fully dismiss the allegation at least ponder its veracity. It is a wonderful counter to an effective democratic tactic.

                    This is why Garofalo is partly right. The republicans will put minorities up on the stage to preempt their opponents.

                  2. “It’s not a rational argument”

                    Not least of which because the KKK and the Jim Crow south were part of the Democratic hegemony. The contortions progs will go through to explain that away are pretty amusing, but they always end with the clear assertion that YOU are ignorant of history.

                    1. The contortions progs will go through to explain that away are pretty amusing, but they always end with the clear assertion that YOU are ignorant of history.

                      All that matters is that enough people go along with their version of history. It doesn’t matter how inaccurate it is. If a lie is more convenient and you can get away with it, why not lie. The left has a powerful sway over the narrative. They control the schools all the way through college. They have TV and they have hollywood. For how many people will this movie become the official version of what transpired?

                2. The first part of Garofalo’s statement was this:

                  People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert

                  Perhaps that is up for interpretation but the way I read it is that Rove & the Republicans aren’t really interested in purging racism from the party so they run Cain as a front to cover up the racism.

                  I don’t know if it is stupid per se, but it is creating a mythical situation in order to justify your own preconceptions.

                  1. Perhaps that is up for interpretation but the way I read it is that Rove & the Republicans aren’t really interested in purging racism from the party so they run Cain as a front to cover up the racism.

                    Democrats don’t want to give up their go to attack (“racist!”). Some, as Garofalo is evidence, stupidly double on the racist charge. This is just poor tactics by some democrats. It makes the accuser look unhinged and evince conspiratorial tendencies. They need to find a more effective way to work around this republican strategy.

                  2. Perhaps that is up for interpretation but the way I read it is that Rove & the Republicans aren’t really interested in purging racism from the party so they run Cain as a front to cover up the racism.

                    Except that Rove and the Republicans aren’t choreographers of some elaborate show.

                    Candidates self select and primary voters vote for candidates that they like.

                    Herman Cain was up there because he wanted to be and because he appealed to enough people to make his candidacy relevant.

                  3. But when the democratic president says “women are smarter than men, everyone knows that” to the applause of a liberal crowd, that’s not proof that the Democrats are anti-male, no way.

          2. I don’t know if she actually said that, but she’s certainly stupid enough. All the talk show hosts are remarkably stupid. Look at how stupid Hannity or Ed Schultz is. They’re basically apes in suits.

            1. Maddow is way sharper than either Hannity or Ed Schultz. She was a Rhodes Scholar. I know that doesn’t mean you’re smart when it comes to your political arguments (as Maddow has shown) but it means that you’re not stupid and are at least intelligent in certain subjects.

              1. Sorry dude, that doesn’t mean shit. If you are a rabid partisan you are by definition extremely stupid. No intelligent person who is capable of examining their own actions can be a blind partisan. It requires too much intellectual dishonesty, self delusion, and looking the other way when your side behaves badly. If you are capable of fooling your own self about pretty much everything that happens (which is exactly what partisans do), you are an abject moron who is being taken for a ride…by your own self.

                Which means that person is a fucking idiot and a rube.

                1. Rand Paul is a rabid partisan.

                  1. Rand Paul is a rabid partisan.

                    This explains why he’s constantly getting in fights with McCain and Jeb Bush, who are both members of his party. Because he’s a partisan hack.

                    Here’s a hint: ‘Partisan’ stems from the word ‘party,’ i.e., someone who is a total party loyalist. Since Paul is constantly getting in arguments with members of his party, he cannot, by definition, be a partisan.

                    God, you’re stupid. It’s not even like you’re stupid in a way that’s interesting. You’re literally too dumb to understand the basic meaning of the words you use.

                    1. Yeah, but Irish, it wants me to respond to it so badly. That alone is hilariousness to be savored. It’s so desperate.

                    2. Bullshit. Rand Paul is a garden variety Republican on the issues that matter to the party including abortion, Israel, drugs, and immigration. He is courting the partisan vote.

                      Ron Paul had the courage to say drugs should be legal and that we were attacked for meddling in the Middle East. You can’t mix the two up.

                    3. Nothing in your stupid post counters Irish’s post demonstrating that you don’t know what ‘partisan’ means. You’ve demonstrated you don’t know how to argue.

                  2. Palin’s Buttplug|1.24.15 @ 10:02PM|#
                    “Rand Paul is a rabid partisan.”

                    This from turd who would excuse Obo’s committing sodomy on the platz at noon.
                    Fuck off, turd.

                  3. I speak for everyone here when I say:

                    We all completely agree with you. You always have such insightful points, a preternatural ability to just completely know the truth about people. We are in awe.

                2. Sorry dude, that doesn’t mean shit. If you are a rabid partisan you are by definition extremely stupid.

                  Why? Maybe she is just playing the part.

                  It requires too much intellectual dishonesty, self delusion, and looking the other way when your side behaves badly.

                  These traits are found in spades across cultures. They also can be quite advantageous.

              2. I think the argument you seem to by trying to make is that she’s incredibly stupin in her beliefs, but is more strategically intelligent regarding knowing what she can and can’t say.

                This may be true, but it doesn’t count for much. Take Ezra Klein for example: in one sense, he’s quite intelligent. I mean, he’s a total fucking idiot, he’s dumber than most leftists; but he’s great at at anticipating what’s going to be in vogue on the left, and so has established himself as an intellectual trend-setter on the left. An idiot and an authoritarian perhaps nearly devoid of a conscience, but a clever strategist. If anything, that makes him more dangerous rather than less.

          3. “She’s a hack, but she’s not dumb enough to say that.”

            Why would saying that be dumb? It’s what MSNBC viewers want to hear, and no one (with any clout) would call her out on it.

    4. Oh Lawd I hope the Klondike Kardashian runs. The comedy would be worth it. I will certainly vote for her in the GA primary if she does. I will even donate to her campaign. Tina Fey should hope so too.

      1. Palin’s Buttplug|1.24.15 @ 9:59PM|#
        “Oh Lawd I hope the Klondike Kardashian runs. ”

        Poor, poor turd! She never returned your emails, she ignored you voice mails, she sent an 8X10 glossy in return for you letters!
        Poor, poor, poor turd; she IGNORES slimy twits like you and you just can’t STAND it!
        Fuck off. No one here likes you any better than she does.

      2. Are you from Georgia? We all had no idea.

        Please, tell us more about that.

        1. Are you from Georgia?

          Yes, which means he’s a racist. So he tries extra-hard to compensate.

          BTW, what’s the fourth derivative of position with respect to time called?

          1. To my knowledge, there’s not an agreed-upon term for that.

            I have heard it referred to as “jounce”. It has also been called “snap”, with the fifth and sixth “crackle” and “pop”, respectively.

            Or was I being trolled without realizing it?

            1. No, serious question. It’s been (mumble mumble) years since I took mechanics.

          2. Are you asking what the derivative of acceleration is called? WHy not just call it the fourth derivative?

            Fuck calculus. Probability theory ftw.

            1. Second derivative of acceleration. Derivative is “jerk.”

            2. The derivative of acceleration (wrt time) is his handle (d3x/dt3). It is the third derivative. The question is what the higher derivatives are.

            3. I considered “da/dt” as my handle but figured that would get misinterpreted as “don’t ask / don’t tell”. NTTAWWT.

              I am excited, though, about the numbers of dorks on this board!

      3. Don’t forget Lisa Ann.

  12. I found an article on Britain’s Green Party Manifesto and it is hilarious:

    Parents will be entitled to two years’ paid leave from work.

    So if you have a kid, both the mom and dad are allowed to take two years off of work? And what if you have three kids in 6 years? Can you take that entire time off while still getting paid?

    Under Green plans, inheritance tax ? “to prevent the accumulation of wealth and power by a privileged class” ? will no longer just tax the dead.

    Under radical reforms, it will cover gifts made while the giver is still alive ? raising the prospect of levies on cars, jewellery or furniture given by parents to their children.

    ???

    All elements of the sex industry will be decriminalised, and prostitutes could no longer be discriminated against in child custody cases.

    YAY! One thing we can agree on!

    The “overall volume” of advertising on TV and newspapers will be controlled and cut, as part of a war on the “materialist and consumption driven culture which is not sustainable”.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

    1. It will be a criminal offence, with “significant fines”, to stop a woman from breastfeeding in a restaurant or shop, and formula milk will be more tightly regulated.

      Merely being a member of al-Qaeda, the IRA and other currently proscribed terrorist groups will no longer be a criminal offence under Green plans, and instead a Green Government should seek to “address desperate motivations that lie behind many atrocities labelled ‘terrorist’,” the policy book states.

      Scare quotes around terrorist are the best part of this.

      Access to benefits, the right to vote and tax obligations will apply to everyone living on British soil, regardless of passport. The policy book states: “We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a ‘British national’ is irrelevant and outdated.”

      So anyone can move to Britain and vote in British elections no matter what their citizenship is.

      Brilliant!

      1. I’m sure the ‘terrorists’ appreciate that.

      2. Well…

        Terrorism, it adds, “is an extremely loaded term. Sometimes governments justify their own terrorist acts by labelling any groups that resist their monopoly of violence ‘terrorist’.”

      3. So basically, they agree with the Libertarian party? Everyone in the world can come here and get free stuff from the government and vote because some of them might actually work and do low skill jobs for less than citizens will work for. (Also pushing those citizens onto the government dole as well, since their wages will be undercut)

        1. So basically, they agree with the Libertarian party? Everyone in the world can come here and get free stuff from the government and vote because some of them might actually work and do low skill jobs for less than citizens will work for.

          Does you mother know how much of an absolute liar you are? Or are you just hallucinatory?

      4. So Tanya Cohen is real and she’s with the Greens? Go figure.

        1. Be careful.

          Canada’s Greens under Elizabeth May probably agree with this retardation.

    2. Dear gods! I would’ve had a decade of paid leave!

      1. Receiving stolen goods is not getting “paid”.

        1. Check your sarcasm meter it seems to be out of spec.

          1. I got it. Just trying out some double reverse sarc.
            /sarc

            1. Sarc-ception?

            2. metasarc?

    3. Shorter Green Party Manifesto: We can be just like Venezuela!

      1. Speaking of, here’s my favorite story to come out of Venezuela lately:

        Venezuelan Prostitutes Earn More Selling Dollars Than Sex

        Prostitutes more than double their earnings by moonlighting as currency traders in Puerto Cabello. They are the foreign exchange counter for sailors in a country where buying and selling dollars in the streets is a crime — and prostitution isn’t. Greenbacks in the black market are worth 11 times more than the official rate as dollars become more scarce in an economy that imports 70 percent of the goods it consumes.

        Socialism is hilarious. Prostitution is legal, but if you dare sell American dollars, we’ll lock you the fuck up!

        1. “Socialism is hilarious. Prostitution is legal, but if you dare sell American dollars, we’ll lock you the fuck up!”

          Pretty clear statement that the intent is dictatorial control rather than any hint of “serving the people”.

    4. “And think of all the new jobs created for prison guards at the new gulags!”

    5. Look at their platform on ‘gender issues.’ I shutter to think.

      The German Green Party actually has a quote with respect to how many male candidates they will run (I think at least 50% of candidates have to be women). They might even have one for party membership.

  13. The Tuttle Twins Will Teach Your Kids All About Libertarianism:

    New children’s book series helps libertarian parents school their kids on the dangers of big government

    http://www.vocativ.com/usa/edu…..ens-books/

    1. I can’t wait for this to show up as a prop on MSDNC.

      “We have to educate people about this new danger! First Eddie Eagle tries to steal our kids to the NRA, and now this!”

  14. There should be more trolls on this thread.

    Where’s Tony with the spittle-flecked arguments when we need him?

    1. Waiting in line for toilet paper in Venezuela?

  15. Dude that is like the craziest thing I have heard all week.

    http://www.BestAnon.tk

    1. Ahhh. That’s better.

      1. His cousin’s favorite Venezuelan hooker also made $435.62 selling dollars at this one cool website you should check out..

  16. “If he’s serious about bringing jobs and profits “home” to America, the obvious place to start is with our corporate tax rate, which is the highest in the world among developed countries.”

    Lowering the corporate tax rate would be the same to the left as admitting that the federal government does not have a right to that money. That’s why they talk about closing “loopholes” rather than lowering the rates to something that is competitive with the rest of the world. They’d rather drive revenues out of the country than admit rates are too high.

  17. And lest we forget: However misguided the president is, he’s now hemmed in by a GOP Congress that, despite its pro-market, pro-freedom, pro-limited government rhetoric, compiled about the worst record imaginable the last time it was calling the shots

    Except that it’s not the same people.

    Or did you forget that they lost control of both houses?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.