Romney Not Running for President, Big Game of Thrones News, What's Belle Knox Doing These Days? P.M. Links

Haters and Chaiters: weigh in here.


  • Belle Knox

    Mitt Romney has decided against subjecting America to another one of his campaigns. The 1 percent weeps.

  • Today in awesome Game of Throne news: The trailer for season 5 has been leaked. The Lord of Light bids you to watch it here.
  • Today in terrible Game of Thrones news: Book 6 won't be out until at least 2016. The night is dark and full of terrors.
  • Reason's Jesse Walker has written a timely history of the term political correctness. Haters and Chaiters should read it.
  • Duke University porn star Belle Knox is "Remaking Herself as a Libertarian Activist," according to Business Insider (even though she was already widely known to be a libertarian and involved in libertarian activities, as far as I know).
  • Meanwhile, the new New Republic took the occasion to opine that libertarians like Knox have no idea what libertarianism is. Really, it's TNR's Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig who has no idea what libertarianism is, given her obviously false assertion that Catholics can't be libertarians.

Follow Reason on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

NEXT: Shake Shack vs. McDonald's: Why It's Great News that Better Burgers are Winning the Fast-Food Wars

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

  1. Mitt Romney has decided against subjecting America to another one of his campaigns.

    Frees him up to run the Boston Olympics.

    1. Hello.

    2. Did anyone else think Romney is copying Hillary’s not-running-yet campaign we discussed the other day? Like he’ll sit and announce closer to the primaries as “the candidate who can unite the country unlike all the other Repubs”?

      I’m not saying he is, I’m just saying he’s a politician and we know not to trust them.

      1. I really wonder about Hillary. There are indications of severe health issues and drinking problems. The more she gets into the public eye, the lower her poll numbers. After eight disastrous Obama years, do enough voters really want another Democratic president? Maybe she’s just stringing everyone along for the money and power. Maybe she’ll decide to be a “kingmaker” instead of a candidate.

        At least I hope so. Four or eight years of her, and another few Democratic Supreme Court appointments, and you can kiss the Constitution and this country goodbye. We’ll end up a giant version of Venezuela.

        1. She could run a low-key campaign, making as few appearances as possible, and the media will laud her for her fresh approach in a country sick of photo-op campaigning.

          I suspect she wants to be President like a junkie wants to find a free kilo of uncut heroin.

        2. … could you not want Hillary to be there holding the big excrement filled grocery bag that is the US economy when the bottom drops out all over her sensible shoes sometime in 2016-17!

          Suck it TEAM EVIL!

          1. The bottom might drop out before that.

            1. I think the odds are very strong that it will drop out before 2017, the question is whether it will happen early enough that blame for it falls on Obama or his successor since it often takes 3 – 6 months before it is clear that the economy has tanked.

        3. I think Warren is more likely than Clinton. Of the two, I think Warren has higher potential of winning because she can project a likeable image to the ignorati and has fewer well-know negatives than Clinton (i.e., health issues, numerous scandals, catastrophic performance at State, and Bill). Warren is also much worse than Hilary!.

          1. We’re fucked up, but we’re not that fucked up.

          2. Did you say “likeable”?

            1. Yes. Clinton is THAT bad.

            2. Clinton is so unlikeable that Obama said, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.”

              I just like to spell it with an “e”

  2. The night is dark and full of terrors.


    1. Someone you like dies.

      Does anyone here doubt in the least that Martin’s planned ultimate killing will be of the author?

      1. Everyone dies but Rickon; it turns out the whole series was a Shaggy Dog story.

        1. It’s actually just a holodeck experience on TNG. Martin gets murdered when this becomes generally known.

      2. Your favorite character dies, guaranteed. Unless it’s Tyrion.

    2. The night is dark and full of terrors.

      Like Warty’s basement?

    3. A welcome spoiler: There is a goodly amount of cleavage in the trailer.

      1. LoTR+cleavage+rape = GoT

        1. That’s why we love it, baby.

          And no stupid elves.

          1. But Legolas breaks physics!

          2. And no stupid elves.

            You should stop watching before the Brandon thread resumes…

            1. Hey, I didn’t badmouth Ents.

          3. I like the elves in the books. In the movies, not so much.

            1. Orlando Bloom ruins everything.

      2. The show has been on for years now, that is no longer a spoiler.

  3. The Lord of Light bids you to watch it here.


    1. It’s not as if I was going to be watching anyway.

    2. Lou Reed dies this season.

      1. A vision of the Golden Girls causes a gay orgy.

        1. The Cleveland Browns were on guard duty during the Red Wedding.

          1. Tyrion bitch-slaps Cersei after she tries to poison him with spoiled artisanal mayonnaise.

          2. Johnny Manziel does not claim the Iron Throne.

      2. Reed died last season.

        1. No he didn’t.

  4. …Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig who has no idea what libertarianism is, given her obviously false assertion that Catholics can’t be libertarians.

    I don’t think you’re allowed to define libertarianism for libertarians. OR ARE YOU?

    1. To be fair we define socialism for socialists and we do it better than they do, no? One need not be something to know something, not that she does.

      1. But they’re collectivists (there I just defined them again!) so they should welcome a central designation. Libertarians, on the other hand…

    2. Well, lefties have been defining libertarianism, badly, for years. I guess TNR was feeling left out.

      Seriously, we’re like a Pi?ata here.

    3. You would assume that Catholics couldn’t be porn stars either.

      1. or hookers, or murderers, or…anything else that resembles an imperfect human. Which is why the pope truly must be something inhuman.

      2. They can, they just have to feel bad about it.

    4. Not only that, but wasn’t the word “libertarianism” coined to describe a Catholic doctrine?

  5. Meanwhile, the new New Republic took the occasion to opine that libertarians like Knox have no idea what libertarianism is. Really, it’s TNR’s Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig who has no idea what libertarianism is, given her obviously false assertion that Catholics can’t be libertarians.

    I see Ms. Bruenig gets her intellectual honesty from her husband. Or maybe it’s the other way around.

    1. Who is her husband?

      1. He’s a communist with Demos (I think) who believes that property is violence. Also, he argues in severe bad faith. In his mind, if you’re not a commie, you hate the poor. I’ve had twitter exchanges that have ended with him saying basically as much.

        Here’s an example of his brilliance. his brilliance.

        1. damn it.

        2. Cripes, that’s confusing. OK, he’s got a Jesuitical argument about what “really” “belongs” to anyone. But then what? Is the point simply to justify any action the state wants to take, regarding taxation or confiscation or whatever? Has he thought this through from the other direction? If some government decided to confiscate everyone’s property, would he be OK with that, because “who can say who really owns anything, anyway”?

          1. He’s confusing government and society. If you’re assuming that private property doesn’t exist, it still doesn’t mean that the government has any moral right to do anything with it.

        3. You aren’t fooling me. Tony ghost-wrote that.

          1. If you read his twitter feed (I haven’t in a while, but guessing it hasn’t changed), it really does sound like Tony. So maybe you’re onto something.

            1. I thought Tony was gay and this guy is married. Could be some sort of marriage of convenience, but I doubt it.

        4. HAHAHAHAHAHA!

          She’s related to Matt Bruenig? She’s married to that sleazy creep?

          God, I hate that guy.

          Remember when he wrote that the Ferguson riots were good for the economy?

  6. The Upper Middle Class Is Ruining America…..erica.html

    So allow me to unburden myself. I’ve had a lot of time to observe and think about the upper middle class, and though many of the upper-middle-class individuals I’ve come to know are good, decent people, I’ve come to the conclusion that upper-middle-class Americans threaten to destroy everything that is best in our country. And I want them to stop.

    Time to buy a good rifle and string up the razor-wire.

    1. I didn’t read the article, but you can make a case that the nannyism of the upper middle class is what’s ruining America.

      1. My child is entitled to a risk-free environment! Children under 18 cannot be left alone for even a split second! The world must be bubble-wrapped! We need MOAR BICYCLE TRAILS that bicyclists don’t have to pay for! Obesity is a public health problem that requires lots of government intervention! Save the wolves! The government must force my employer to pay me to stay home and raise my kids, and hold my job open while I do so! The government must force businesses to serve people they don’t want to serve!


    2. Well, since that NYT article the other day said we are getting more upper middle class people and fewer middle class and poor folks, Reihan better start acting quickly.

      Also, what are the odds he’s upper middle class and excludes himself? I doubt he’ll have to suffer, just everyone else.

      1. Also, what are the odds he’s upper middle class and excludes himself?

        100% And calls himself conservative as well.

        1. And he’s got his, just Obama’s daughters got their tax-free 529s.

      2. Don’t write the article off. It’s actually really good and not what you would expect from slate.

        1. Yes, there is a strong critique in there about big city liberals that want to soak the middle class to support the “poor” while doing everything they can to drive the poor to the very edges of society.

          But the bastard doesn’t limit his arguments to the big city liberals, he paints me with the same fucking brush even though I live in the midwest and want to dismantle the programs the big city liberals love so dearly.

        2. Agreed, the author makes a number of good points.

    3. From their “resident conservative” Reiham Salem as well. I’ve never read anything he’s wrote, either at slate or National Review, that wasn’t a bag of shite.

    4. That’s a great article to read the comments on. All the liberals are losing their fucking minds at the suggestion that they should have to pay more in taxes, and that the protectionism they engage in using the government is hurting the poor. It is the best example of the hypocrisy of the upper middle class liberal mindset I’ve ever seen.

    5. Hasn’t the upper-middle class always been running America? DO people really believe that the US used to be run by the ordinary working man and only now it is starting to be ruled by an aristocracy?

      Heavy involvement in politics is a luxury for people with time and money to burn.

    6. What about the lower-mid-upper class? Why should they be spared criticism?

    7. Concern trolls gonna concern troll

    8. Was it Hazel who said this morning that leftists only care about winning and power? All of their bullshit arguments, which are legion, are designed to lull people into giving them power. When they achieve power we have seen over and over what happens. All of the principles they argued go out the window and the boot comes down on the neck.

      That is all this is. Power distributed evenly across society is bad. We must concentrate it in one place. I can guess where he wants it concentrated.

      Fuck you Reihan, no.

      1. Well Reihan isn’t a leftist, in fact hes an executive editor at National Review.

    9. The author seems unfamiliar with the laissez faire and conservative upper middle class elements in flyover country.

      If he were writing about the bicoastal upper middle class that is overwhelming liberal when politically active, it would be a fairly accurate critique.

  7. Today in terrible Game of Thrones news: Book 6 won’t be out until at least 2016. The night is dark and full of terrors.

    Seven hells

    1. It’ll still be here before Batman v Superman.

  8. Follow Reason on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

    You do realize your social media widgets are killing this site. I won’t contribute to you thinking these things are worthwhile tradeoffs by “liking” or “following” anything.


    1. Hear, Hear! I will never like nor follow again!

    2. Also, auto-play ads which make noise.

      1. You can change your browser settings to disallow that.

        1. Yes, it’s called Mute, and it’s foolproof.

    3. Excuse me, but I have trouble seeing an essential difference between covering your site in social media widgets and…aaaactually, on second thought, I’m not gonna tear that wound open again.

    4. I don’t know what it is, but the Reason site is awfully slow in loading, and it is very annoying.

    5. No more donations until the website stops crashing my browser. And no, I shouldn’t have to use browser x with such-and-such plug-in. Either stop with the browser nonsense or stop bugging me for donations.

  9. One of the dumbest articles on Belle Knox/Libertarianism you could ever hope to see.

    Note: All the studies she mentions in that article don’t actually say what she claims they say if you click through and look at the study. She’s basically just lying.

    Also, it’s written by a woman named Elizabeth Stoker. I wondered where I’d heard this name before and then I remembered: She’s an actual Communist liberation theologist.

    “Now we come to how the state should respond to these circumstances. It seems pretty clear. If the state is here to recognize and protect property rights, then the state must recognize that the excess of the wealthy quite literally is the property of the poor, and act accordingly. Just as the state would work to retrieve a stolen article, it must retrieve the hoarded wealth being stolen from the poor, and deliver it to them. If it’s not obligated to do this, it’s not obligated to protect property rights whatsoever: after all, why yours, and not theirs?”

    This woman is describing Soviet Russia. She’s the worst human being on Earth: An actual Stalinist theocrat. She’d force you to say prayers while the Stasi stomped on your neck for your betrayal of the proletariat.

    1. Would this by any chance be the article that H&R linked to in the PM Links today?

      1. You shut your mouth. I read that earlier today and knew it would be relevant for PM links.

        I wasn’t going to let Robby Soave take away my moment in the sun, no matter how many already posted articles I had to repost.

        1. Other people commented on it before you did, anyway. :-p

          1. My soul is wild and free as the noble antelope.

            Don’t constrain me with your city-statist view of how I should comment.

            1. Gambol away, Irish. Gambol away.

            2. In constant fear of lions, cheetahs, and crocodiles?

    2. It’s amazing how much communist ideology is predicated on completely fallacious understanding of property and justice. I’m truly amazed they don’t notice how blatantly arbitrary they are.

      1. Why do Communists only drink herbal tea?

        Because proper tea is theft.

        1. They could use a good detox tea.

    3. She’d force you to say prayers FOR the Stasi while they stomped on your neck.

      That’s quite a leap of “logic” she makes there.

    4. If only there was a site out there that rounded up stories of interest every day in some easy-to-read collection of links…

    5. “…the state would work to recover a stolen article…”

      Not in my experience. The State exists mainly to look at your burglarized house with an eye for finding evidence *you* have committed a crime and to take a police report so your insurance company can reimburse you. They don’t actually go looking for stolen property.

      1. ^^^Exacta-mundo

    6. “Communist liberation theologist.” Puke.

    7. If the state is here to recognize and protect property rights, then the state must recognize that the excess of the wealthy quite literally is the property of the poor, and act accordingly.

      How the fuck do you get from property rights to Marxist nonsense so quickly. How does anyone still believe the “excess wealth” bullshit. Even before I was hardcore libertarian/anarchist, when I first heard that that is what Marxism is mostly based on I immediately saw that it was utter nonsense.

      1. I love how she doesn’t even try to provide a logical reason for why that’s the case, it’s just an assumed conclusion that she jumps off of.

        1. the state must recognize that the excess of the wealthy quite literally is the property of the poor

          Really? Must it? Why?

          More to the point- these people only seem to be able to think in zero-sum game terms. How can they not recognize the number one poverty alleviater over the past 250 years has been free market capitalism? I know they have their rationalizations, it’s just that those rationalizations make so little sense, makes me think they don’t really care about poverty.

          1. They can’t understand that the rules have changed. Historically, great fortunes were created by pillaging and conquering your neighbors.

            The idea of property rights, voluntary exchange, and increases in technology changed that. I’ve seen people mention the Italian Renaissance as the turning point – city states stopped trying to conquer each other and the merchant class arose.

            You’re right, they’re seeing things in terms of a zero sum game. The fact that you have something implies that you have it at everyone else’s detriment.

          2. And if excess wealth is truly the ‘property of the poor’ it’s from either two outcomes:

            1. The government redistributing tax money to cronies (which libertarians dislike but I don’t think is her argument).
            2. The wealthy gaining money from providing services/goods/whatever and having people voluntarily purchase it. Where you then need to explain how that constitutes theft, rather than just assuming a conclusion.

            Also neither of these positions provide a reason as to why the government taking money away from people is moral or ‘not theft’ while the wealthy having excess wealth is ‘theft’.

          3. Oh, they care about it. You can bet on that. They love poverty because people in poverty can’t fight against them effectively.

      2. The state is here to steal from you, and to enslave your children if necessary to defend itself.

    8. She’s even got an ‘Ayn Rand said…’ point. Because libertarians are dogmatic followers of Rand apparently.

      1. Someday…you will be.

        *Gives dark look*

        1. You know, Rand had nothing to do with me being a libertarian. Sure, I’ve read her books, but that all happened long after I turned my back on the statist philosophy as a youngster.

          1. I know, but her philosophy is still the one true explanation of everything.

            1. Again, spoken like a true cultist.

              1. Spoken like a tedious mofo who can’t actually refute my point.

                1. You need to actually provide a point rather than just claiming that your religion is the one true one before I can actually refute it.

                  1. It’s not a religion, stupid.

                    Objectivism provided a reason we should be free, and it basically stems from making happiness the goal of life.

                    1. Why, exactly, do you need a reason to be free? Is freedom itself not a worthy goal?

                      It’s not a religion of course. Please, continue to explain how only your prophet and your beliefs will lead us to the chosen land.

                2. Cultists are also overly sensitive about their cults and leaders and can’t take jokes.

                  1. I have a little trouble with the idea that Rand should be the center of a cult. Her philosophy seems not entirely coherent to me, even though I do agree with some of what she said. And I think she may have been a little confused about sexual matters.

                    1. And I think she may have been a little confused about sexual matters.

                      If by ‘confused’ you mean really into S&M and being ravished masochistically by an untamed man ‘who knows no authority other than himself’ I agree with you. Rand loved the kink.

            2. I know, but her philosophy is still the one true explanation of everything.

              But can it explain why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?

              1. UUh…crap.

        2. Spoken like a true cultist.

          1. It was a joke.

            But seriously Objectivism is the only way to get to answer ‘why freedom?’ when people ask that question.

            1. Only in Objectivists’ rather limited worldview.

              1. That’s cute. Adorable really.

                1. Again, prove it. Have any little Watchtower-style pamphlets on your ‘only way’?

                  1. I’m not going to teach you Objectivism here, but I am going to point out that Libertarianism is not holistic. It is just a political program. Objectivism covers so much more-epistimiology, metaphysics, ethics, etc.

                    1. And unwavering and undying acceptance of doctrinal conclusions. No room for actual discussion, accept our conclusions (or the Prophet Rand, Peace Be Upon Her) or you’re out. That’s why Objectivism will ultimately always play second fiddle to a much more broad, vague libertarianism: most of the people willing to embrace ‘freedom’ as a core concept are equally unwilling to accept an orthodox doctrinal movement.

            2. No, kid. Maybe it is if her books are the only books you’ve ever read. But no.

              1. Yes it is. I am sure there is much value in those other books, but they don’t do what Objectivism does.

    9. No hat tip. Get it together, man!

    10. I noticed that immediately. The bar chart numbers sometimes indicate the opposite of what she has titled them. At that point I stopped reading.

  10. From the New Derpublic article:

    “libertarian disinterest in state efforts to care for the poor really is the antithesis of Catholic teaching on moral states”

    Applicable to the Rothbardian kind of libertarianism, but not to the Hayekian kind, not that author is familiar with these sorts of distinctions.

    “”I grew up Catholic, so I grew up in a very, very, conservative background and that, I think, really was kind of the impetus for why I wanted to become a libertarian,” she said. “I was always being told to cover up my body and I was always being told to wait until marriage to have sex? That really made me become a libertarian and become a feminist.””

    OK, there may be a *little* bit of tension between the Catholic faith and her version of libertarianism. And feminism.

    1. “libertarian disinterest in state efforts to care for the poor really is the antithesis of Catholic teaching on moral states”

      I don’t get it. What’s the connection?

      1. Don’t you see? Helping the poor yourself is evil. Forcing other people to help the poor is good. It’s right there in the bible probably.

        1. I’m Catholic AND Libertarian-ish (at least I’m very sympathetic to the libert. I don’t see how they can’t be mutually inclusive – not that it should be. Who said living one’s life must be according to Catholic notions of how to deal with poverty?

            1. My point is she seems to argue you can’t be both and still be compassionate.

              Which is retarded.

              1. Yeah but that’s just typical ‘you must hate the poor if you don’t want the state to use violence to extract money from people’ argument. That’s nothing out of the ordinary and is really the most common argument as to why libertarians are selfish or lack empathy.

                1. It’s an angle they will work until I die.

      2. “Thou shalt not steal” is pretty Catholic.

  11. Not until “at least 2016”? At this point I’d just be happy if JRRM gets the 6th book out this decade.

  12. Nice alt-text, Robby ‘Suave’.

  13. LA police chief is shitting himself that people using the Waze navigational app, which includes users submitting cop locations to help people avoid getting tickets, may help people who want to murder cops know where they are!! The ability to avoid the police’s revenue generating activity, of course, has nothing to with it, so stop thinking that!…..story.html

    1. How dare the cops be seen just being there as a deterrent!

    2. I guess you can BECK on him using google maps instead.

      /runs from room shouting hysterically

    3. That is one of the dumber things I’ve heard police complain about in a while. It’s not like it is constantly reporting on the locations of undercover or plainclothes cops. If someone wants to murder an random traffic cop, they can do the same thing as the Waze users do and look for a fucking police car. I’m pretty sure the point of having marked police cars at all is so that people know where the police are.

  14. I read that Android has recently stopped and updates for its browser on smartphones, so I do not want to use it anymore. I have a Samsung Galaxy 2. What should I use as my new mobile browser, keeping in mind I value security and privacy.

    1. I read that Android has recently stopped and updates for its browser on smartphones, so I do not want to use it anymore. I have a Samsung Galaxy 2. What should I use as my new mobile browser, keeping in mind I value security and privacy.

      I personally like the Android version of Chrome. If that’s not your bag, I’ve heard very good things about a browser called Dolphin.

      1. I’ve been using Dolphin on my old Kindle Fire. It works better than the resident browser.

      2. I’m using Chrome, but they’re all awful on this site (mobile or desktop version) the only thing about chrome is no add-ons.

      3. I found Dolphin to be much, much better. Not that Android Chrome was bad, just Dolphin is quite a bit better than any other mobile browser I’ve used.

    2. I use only Chrome on my Samsung Galaxy S4 and it works great. As a bonus it has all the same auto password, memory and everything else from my desktop Chrome.

      1. I’m still saying “Just Once” on my s5 when it comes to the browser selection. So, Chrome or resident browser?

    3. Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or Dolphin.

      Chrome is, unsurprisingly, what Google is pushing everyone toward.

      I don’t care much for Dolphin but a few years ago it was king and some people still swear by it.

      Last time I used it, Opera didn’t offer much over Chrome (it and Chrome share a lot of the same code [and Dolphin to a somewhat lesser extent] , but it has “not Google” going for it if that’s your thing, and like Chrome, has a bandwidth-saving feature.

      Firefox has occasional compatibility issues because some sites are written with only WebKit/Blink-based mobile browsers in mind, but it has a major edge over its competitors in that it supports a subset of extensions on mobile, such as LastPass and BluHell Firewall (a lightweight adblocker). I use it for that reason plus sync, since I use Firefox on my desktop and laptop.

      Also note, however, that using the stock browser has always been a poor choice, because even when it was maintained by Google, it would only get updated upon an OS upgrade for most phones, which is too slow. At least one manufacturer (HTC) has begun to push stock browser updates through the Play Store, but I am pretty sure that is not true of the S2.

      1. Chrome is terrible.

        1. Chrome works fine for me, but both of my devices have 2GB of RAM. I have heard that it is much less serviceable on lower-spec devices.

          People who have trouble with Chrome on their devices usually have better luck with Firefox — which makes some sense, considering that Mozilla has spent considerable time optimizing Gecko for low-speed devices for FirefoxOS.


          1. *low-spec, not low-speed

  15. Clarion Canuck Call: Evil asshole of a prime minister Stephen Harper proposes essentially bringing back Canada’s secret police and criminalizing ‘glorification of terror’.…..ederated=1

    I can’t wait for Canada’s conservatives, ever so vigilant on freedom of speech, to speak against this. *holds breathe*

    1. The RCMP were pissed off because they tried to get a warrant for something they called ‘preventative arrest’ on a suspect on three or four occasions but were rebuffed by a judge. The suspect went on to kill the soldier in Quebec.

      So naturally they’re pulling a ‘you see’ angle and the Tories are all too willing to bite.

      Also, heard someone from CSIS speak about terrorism and among the sensible things he said was it’s not just Islamic terrorism that’s problematic. He mentioned all sorts of terrorism including eco-terrorists. His point was to be pragmatic so as to not infringe on privacy.

      1. The eco-indian terror thing is really important. Hey Harper, instead of foisting a security state on us, how about getting the RCMP to do their jobs when indians or ecotards block a road or a project?

        1. Yeah, that’ll play really well on CBC:

          “Harper orders arrests of Indians engaged in peaceful demonstrations, blah blah blah reservations boarding schools genocide.”

          1. Fuck the CBC and its three dozen viewers.

            1. And their sadistic, sex crazed radio personalities. And Mansbridge. And the draft dodger with a radio show!

              1. And firing Bezmenov because the Soviets complained!

            2. Those ‘three dozen’ viewers tend to vote.

              1. They never vote CPC, so Harper has little to nothing to lose there.

                1. You really, really don’t understand Canadians outside of your Western bubble.

                  1. Does anyone?

    2. So no glorifying government sector workers?


  16. Hey everybody, there’s a new American Sniper article! Maybe posting this close to the weekend will help it get to 1000 comments.

  17. Re: The TNR article: I like that one of her primary complaints about libertarianism is that there’s a very wide range of views among people who call themselves libertarian, and it’s therefore difficult to argue against the ideology as a whole since you have to deal with them like individuals.

    She’s angry that we think for ourselves instead of just mindlessly following a cult leader. That isn’t too surprising from an arch-Catholic Communist. I remember Martin Amis once said that Terry Eagleton couldn’t get out of bed without the dual guidance of The Pope and Karl Marx, and that appears to apply equally well to Elizabeth Stoker Breunig.

    1. Hell, that’s the whole point of including the ‘Ayn Rand said…’ statement. It’s her just saying “Dammit libertarians, your leader said this wasn’t acceptable and you need to follow the teachings of her!”

      Apparently you can’t have a diversity of opinion about your ideology, you just have to tote the line of whomever Breunig sees as your ‘prophet’.

      1. It’s the whole secret to libertarianism. We see humanity as a whole lot of individuals. Statists see humanity as a collective. Where they really go wrong is in not realizing that that collective is an artificial construct and, largely, an illusion.

        1. We realize that society doesn’t exist. They think individuals don’t matter.

          1. Collectives don’t feel pain. They can’t be happy.

  18. Belle is adorable but could stand to eat two cheeseburgers. Not three. Two.

    1. Where from? I mean the cheeseburgers.

      1. Hardee’s.

      2. 5 Guys is also an acceptable answer. Heh heh heh.

        1. I think she’s, um, been there already.

          1. 10 Guys.

            1. So 15 Guys is right out.

        2. I don’t even want to know how that works

      3. Smashburger

  19. I just want everyone to know that there’s another thread where people are defending Chipotle. It’s literally the worst thing I have ever read on this site.

    1. And comparing in n out to McDonald’s. If there was ever a time to take a thread out behind the barn..

    2. Eating at Chipotle is just like committing mass murder.

      1. Do libertarians get this fanatical about food when they get accustomed to orphans making all of their meals or what?

        1. Orphans are supposed to MAKE the meals? Uh, oh. I’ve been doing it wrong.

        2. As far as I’m concerned, my orphans are anyone who is earning minimum wage and making me food. So yes.

        3. Ask them about deep dish pizza sometime.

      2. Delicious, yummy mass murder.

        1. Delicious? Let’s not cheapen that word. It’s serviceable, no more. I mean, would you rather have that than, say, real Mexican food?

          1. Where I live, I can’t get anything but Real Mexican Food. Sometimes I prefer Chipotle.

          2. I am willing to create a Heinleinian line marriage in order to add a woman into my family who can cook homemade Mexican food.

          3. I mean, would you rather have that than, say, real Mexican food?

            Taco Bell?

        2. Delicious? That word does not mean what you think it means.

    3. It’s…okay? I don’t get what the fuss is both ways on it.

      1. That’s my position. I’ll eat it, but I don’t get the obsession some people (mostly younger) have with it. My biggest problem isn’t the food quality, but the service, which is worse than what you’d get with untrained bobonos in heat.

  20. Today in awesome Game of Throne news: The trailer for season 5 has been leaked.

    Prediction: Jon Snow continues to know nothing


    1. That’s pathetic. I feel like if someone immediately goes to the racist definition of any word, even if it doesn’t make sense in context, it might just mean they’re the racist one.

      1. I mean assuming there are multiple definitions of a given word, like chink

    2. I haven’t heard anything so ridiculous in a racoon’s age.

  21. “Book 6 won’t be out until 2016”

    Which means the tv series ends before the books do,

    “You had one job, Martin! ONE JOB!”

    1. Every time a fan complains, Martin gets another dollar. It’s in his contract.

    2. Which means the tv series ends before the books do,

      Or that there is only one more book.

      1. After five years of the book fans taunting the TV fans with spoilers, now the shoe will be on the other foot!

      2. No, there are supposed to be seven.

        1. Total.

  22. “I admire this article for pointing out how inconsistently the Libertarians comprehend the concept of liberty. If we’re going to use language with some precision and purpose, we should probably replace the term “libertarian” in public discourse with a more accurate description of what they really believe and advocate. I’d propose “propertarian.”

    Beneath their misuse of the term “liberty,” what they really care about is simply the privilege of people with a lot of property to run roughshod over people without much of it.

    They’re just fine with market activities generating externalities that deprive others of true and meaningful freedoms (e.g., pollution that impinges on people’s natural freedom to breathe unpoisoned air); they whine like stuck pigs whenever the public sector dares take regulatory action to preserve that freedom. The Propertarian, or pseudolibertarian, can’t tell the difference between real human liberties (e.g., the ones mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights, and other admirable documents) and the irrresponsible actions of antisocial people or organizations that market mechanisms inevitably fail to hold accountable.

    A shorter way of saying this is that… there is no such thing as a libertarian. The term and its advocates should really be laughed out of the public sphere.”

    1. Are you trying to get us to decide who wrote that? I say Marcotte.

      1. No, Marcotte would have also been sure to take the time to point out that all libertarians are misogynist man-child virgins browsing Reddit in their parents’ basements (maybe we should hook her up with that Sam Haysom guy?).

        I’m thinking maybe Robert Reich?

      2. It’s a comment on that stupid Bruenig article.

    2. Oh, I get it. Freedom is the state of being at the complete mercy of the state. In order for one to be free, one needs to be completely dependent to a group of people who have a monopoly of force. How silly I have been all these years. Thank God we have such intellectual powerhouses to show us the way.

    3. She’s upset that libertarians don’t say a catechism, I think. Let’s fix that. SugarFree can be our St. Paul. Who’s libertarian Jesus?

      1. “Who’s libertarian Jesus?”

        Warty, do you remember the time where there was only one set of footprints…?

        That was when i drugged you and carried your body away to rob you of your kidneys and sell them on the black market.

      2. Well at least we know who/what will be the analogous Jezebel…

    4. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

      Not that ridiculous document, where everyone is practically ‘has the right’ to a backrub and a cuddle every night.

      Amazing how some people feel forcing others to provide things for you should be a ‘right’.

      Also, how many overall straw men can you count in that comment? My abacus caught on fire trying to keep up.

  23. So I watched Milius last night. Delightful. I knew that he was one of us, but I didn’t realize how much so. This quote of his sums it all up nicely.

    I’m an anarchist. I’ve always been an anarchist. Any true, real right-winger if he goes far enough hates all form of government, because government should be done to cattle and not human beings.

    1. We can’t have freedom without governance.

      1. You can’t have freedom without someone stealing from you first?

        1. Without someone 1) monopolizing retaliatory use of force and doing it well and 2) protecting the air and oceans from pollution.

          1. Monopolizing retaliatory use of force and doing it well

            Well, that takes the Objectivists out of the equation.

          2. Maybe so. But you don’t have to like it.

    2. Apocolypse Now. Dirty Harry. Conan. Red Dawn.

      Suck it, Truffaut

      1. Milius is too much fun. I just saw Conan again for the first time in years. What an enjoyable film.

      2. And the docu implies that he wrote some of Connery’s scenes in The Hunt for Red October, and he wrote Quint’s great dolls eyes monologue in Jaws.

      3. The Wind and the Lion seems undeservedly forgotten. Many fine scenes, including the charge into the palace.

    3. Member of the NRA Board of Directors from 1995-2001. He currently serves on the Public Affairs and Shotgun Committees.

      Is a personal friend of the Coen brothers and was the inspiration for the character of Walter in the The Big Lebowski (1998).

      Milius, an avid gun collector, insisted that part of his payment for writing Jeremiah Johnson (1972) be in antique weapons.

    4. If you are a fan of him or his movies it really is a fantastic docu.

      1. It sure is. I was very impressed with the film. And he’s just another amazing creative talent from the USC Mafia.

      2. Fantastic documentary even if you haven’t seen his films.

    5. And great quote, though I note that you left out the part where he says he’s a Maoist. Though I think that was him just doing his usual trolling–he’s pretty obviously in the libertarian camp.

  24. Start working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life….
    Open this link to get the opportunity , as like i did and i am feeling crazy.. it realy works,
    ????? http://www.Workvalt.Com

  25. Game of Thrones has been made by HBO .and now it is very popular all over the world . there is a bad news that Book 6 won’t be out until at least 2016 and readers may wait for a long time

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.