Hillary Clinton

Libertarians Should Hope for Clinton Versus Bush in 2016

What could better illustrate the bankruptcy of the political system than that race?


The more I think about the coming presidential election—it's not unreasonable to ask why I think about it at all—the more I am convinced that the best contest for libertarians would be Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush. Why? Because all we libertarians would need to do is point to the ballot and ask, "Here's our argument against politics. Need we add anything?" 


What could better illustrate the bankruptcy of the political system than that race? What better way could there be for us to capitalize on the presumed disillusionment, especially among young people, with the Obama years? You wanted hope and change? Here's what it got you.

The stale politics personified by these two uninteresting, dynastic power-seekers couldn't be better suited to driving home our point that the status quo is too firmly entrenched to be challenged effectively from within. I'm not saying that's a timeless law of nature, but it seems to be the case at present. If someone knows a way to change that quickly, please let us know.

A Clinton v. Bush contest would have all the excitement of a snail race. Again, that's good for the advocates of liberty. Is anyone really going to be excited about these two? I guess a few people will think having a woman elected president is worth any cost. But really—Hillary Clinton? She's so obviously opportunistic and void of principle, so ready to say whatever she needs to say to assemble a winning coalition. When she tries to sound like a progressive, I feel I'm watching a Saturday Night Live sketch. She has none of her husband's ability to feign sincerity. Does anyone really believe what she says? I think the only honest statement that could come from her would be, "I want power. Now!"


And Jeb Bush—I can barely conjure up a mental image of him; that's how memorable he is. What does he believe in? It's a silly question. He believes he ought to be president.

I realize the bar is low, but the other candidates in the race would be more interesting, even if in a screwball way. Bernie Sanders against Rand Paul would have more spectator value—maybe. It would depend on which Rand Paul we got. Rand Paul in an anti-interventionist mood, tearing into the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president for perpetual war and execution by drone without due process (with Americans among the victims), would be a welcome sight. But the pressure of coalition politics will keep that Rand Paul under wraps, even if a hint is dropped now and again. No wonder his father looked despondent at the campaign kickoff.

On the Democratic side, I fear we won't get 100-proof Sanders. He is in a position to go after Clinton from the left on both foreign and domestic policy, but indications are that he will confine his assault to the domestic side. I'd love to see him spell out Clinton's record of support for war—she helped make Libya, Syria, and beyond the disasters they are today—and her suspicious reticence about the civil-liberties violations committed by the Obama administration. [She was willing to criticize George W. Bush on that count.] But what if Sanders calculates that the public doesn't care enough about foreign policy or surveillance, and instead focuses entirely on economic issues, where from a libertarian perspective he's a mess?

That would be a shame because Clinton should be seen for the hawk she is. She is vulnerable on the domestic side, of course: her notorious ties to Wall Street are juicy targets for someone like Sanders, and she deserves to have this dirty linen put on full display. But Sanders is boxed in by his modest—yes, modest—agenda, which calls merely for more regulation by Washington bureaucrats rather than a radical elimination of the deeply rooted government privilege that characterizes the American political economy. [Markets do regulate themselves when privilege is absent.] He seems unfamiliar with the principle of regulatory capture. How many failures of "reform" must we experience before people like Sanders finally get the point? Sadly, a great opportunity will be lost to teach Americans that the problem is the corporate state—the long-standing government-business alliance—and that the solution is the radically freed market, not better regulators. We can empower bureaucrats or liberate people. It's not really a tough choice.

I suppose Rand Paul would make "crony capitalism" part of his campaign too, but we can't expect him to propose a thorough rooting out of corporatism. Further, since he supports increased military spending, he encourages expansion of the trough at which major corporations feed. So at best his message would be murky and uninstructive. Another opportunity forgone.

So I'm leaning toward the position I opened with. Let's have the two stalest, most forgettable people imaginable run for president in 2016. Suffering through that race will either convince people that needed radical change won't come from the electoral system, or if that is too much to swallow, it will convince them that the candidate gatekeepers must be exiled so that fresh thinking—read: libertarian ideas—can have a shot for a change. Wouldn't a few months of Clinton and Bush be worth it?

This piece originally appeared at Richman's "Free Association" blog. 

NEXT: Why Was This Rapper Jailed for His Lyrics?

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. If rand wins and shit hits the fan (the Fed raises rates or whatever) people will blame it on rand. They will associate libertarianism with economic disaster and it will be horrible for liberty

    1. ^This

      Because the crap they’ve been pulling is exacerbating the business cycle and it will come crashing down hard once again.

      If Hillary, or any other republican is in office, they will both seek more control of individuals, and the economy. Bailouts will once again happen. Both sides will blame the free market and offer up their own grand scheme to “fix” things.

      Voting in itself is horrible for liberty. They suck up everything these salespeople spew out of their wretched mouths, and vote for them because the are great orators, are a woman, have a nice haircut, or look like Reagan.

      Either way liberty is screwed. So long as folks wish for the state no matter how small, liberty can never be.

      1. Voting in itself is horrible for liberty.

        No it isn’t. That’s retarded. It matters who you vote for.

        1. The only vote you should have is in the market, rewarding good economic actors and punishing bad ones. All the services can be provided by free individuals far more efficiently. Silly rabbit, Socialism isn’t magically delicious and efficient when applied to defense, or anything else for that matter.

          You couldn’t rob me, or enslave me by yourself. There would be consequences, so you vote for politicians who hide behind standing armies to do the dirty work. You then say it matters who we vote for? You’ve got to be kidding. Why should I or anyone have to wait for years for a “chance” to vote to not be robbed, or enslaved?

          If you wouldn’t like to have a gun shoved in your mouth for failure to obey someone’s wishes and to confiscate your stuff if you can’t pay, then why advocate others do it just because they put on a costume or a suit.

          1. The only vote you should have is in the market,

            that is ridiculous. Are you advocating that govt officials elect themselves? Even the most capitalist of societies requires representative govt. You may dislike politicians all you want, but pretending that all men operate of good will and that some umpire is unnecessary is a bit fanciful.

            1. Where am I advocating government officials elect themselves?? I don’t support any government if I am to support liberty and the NAP.

              What is ridiculous is “You may dislike politicians all you want, but pretending that all men operate of good will and that some umpire is unnecessary is a bit fanciful.”

              If people are inherently evil, then the belief that concentrating the voices and choices of millions of individuals into 535+ folks with the lobbyists and bureaucracies that surround them, and giving them a monopoly on violence, and qualified immunity which therefore violates the rights of individuals can be considered ludicrous.

              When you vote in a free market, it is with your media of exchange. You believing just because a politician is voted in and puts on a suit that somehow they magically know what they are doing is “fanciful”. Are you going to call Hillary Clinton for Internet security? Or folks that know what the hell they are doing? If your stupid enough to go to Hillary for those services, you do it with your money, not mine, and you can’t force me to use her services and make me a slave. Would you call Mitt Romney to pave your driveway? So how in the hell can he magically fix the “crumbling infrastructure” because he dons his suit?

              1. Freedom and liberty is the only “umpire” that is needed. If you attempt to rob your neighbor, you will face consequenses for your actions. That is why you don’t up and do it. Do you really need someone in a suit to write law on parchment so you can refrain from robbing them? If someone shoved a gun in your mouth and extorted you, you wouldn’t like it very much. Oh but they voted for her, so enjoy the taste of that barrel and pay up bitch…….. you wouldn’t like that “umpire”.

                Free people in the free market can umpire just fine. There are so many examples from security and defense, on to various simple and complex things that are handled more efficiently through the market. Just because the government confiscated things and claims monopoly on something doesn’t mean their socialism is now more efficient than the market. Socialism is incapable of economizing, so how in the hell will better services be provided through malinvestment? And how will the umpiring through socialism and violence through government be better and protect the rights of individuals by violating them to begin with?

          2. Nah anarchy wont work any time soon

            1. Nah, government won’t work anytime soon. Everything the govt is involved in wind up in crisis or chaos, yet products or services that a pretty much unregulated don’t have the same phenomena of crisis, chaos and shortage.

              When was the last time there was a watch, computer, clothing, or shoe crisis? How long did it last?

              Yet when the gov’t meddles in the market we get the energy crisis, the crumbling infrastructure crisis, the education crisis, the military budget crisis, the healthcare crisis and on goes the list. Despite all the evidence that gov’t is the problem and isn’t or hasn’t worked, people being free, and free markets can’t work and would be chaos when individual and market performance is far more effective and efficient at delivering complex things at a far better price, and voluntarily instead of at gunpoint like the state.

              That is why the quote below is so true.

              Tejicano-“My point being that if 180 years (or so) of terrible government hasn’t gotten people to hate how they are being governed I highly doubt that a few years of either of these clowns will make a difference.”

              If you wish to be a slave, and believe people being free won’t work, then do so without enslaving those that wish to be enslaved to your chaotic failed experiment known as government, and leave free people alone.

              1. Wish not to*

            2. Transitioning from a national republic to a collection of monarchic micro states would be a giant step in the right direction.

      2. The evidence is heavily on the side that democracies are freer than autocracies. It makes sense a priori, too, for why should people you can’t vote out care more for your freedom than those who can?

        1. Ever been to Singapore?

          1. Are you seriously suggesting that Singapore is an abundance of freedom?

            I guess if you don’t mind the Canings and other Corporal punishments. Also, the things that can get one arrested like being Gay or failing to flush a toilet(not kidding!).

    2. That’s one way they manipulate the thought processes and opinions of the masses; regardless of how anyone is elected or who is elected.

      1. +1… Republicans could be all shipped to mars and they’d still be blamed

      2. Conservatives and libertarians need to gain control of the media and blacklist all progressives. Everything will be much better after that.

    3. Oh for fuck’s sakes they’ll do that anyway. We aren’t going to win by losing. Typical anarcho-dipshit ‘reasoning’.

      1. Im not an anarchist, sorry if my name confused you

        1. Next you’re going to tell us you also don’t have a boner, despite your name.

          1. I can’t have one 🙁

            1. So you’re a eunuch?

              1. Or you have really bad ED, because TANFL.

                1. This being a libertarian site, both of those are more likely than him being a woman.

                  1. If you have an erection lasting longer than 4 hours

      2. You would think people would see that by now. How many years of losing now? How many losses does it take for the losses to collide like antimatter creating matter (or in this case, a win)?

        A Clinton-Bush showdown will simply teach people nothing.

        1. ^ THIS – the american voter is officially retarded

          1. And half of the population will be rah-rah’ing if Shrillery wins, anyway. Because she’s a Dem. With a vag.

            I’m pretty sure only a few Chamber of Commerce style Repubs will be happy if Bush wins.

            At any rate, most of the electorate will proceed unimpeded with their moronic and ignorant beliefs.

      3. Oh for fuck’s sakes they’ll do that anyway.


        If Bush were to take it, any economic problems would be blamed on his “free market fundamentalism”. If Clinton wins, the problems would be blamed on “Republican obstructionism”. In either case the solution will be a massive ramp-up in government intervention. And, of course, when that fails to get the economy moving, they’ll simply push for even more government intervention.

        We’re better off with a Rand Paul, especially if the inevitable crash comes relatively early in his tenure. Best indications is he’d deal with the crash by rolling back intervention, or at least resisting the push to ramp it up. That just might be enough to give him a robust recovery to take credit for.

  2. Maybe libertarians should hope for an asteroid strike. Jesus, richman.

    1. At least Jesus is an anarchist.

      1. You are not an anarchist ! You support voluntary government ! 😛

      2. I would consider Jesus more of a government agnostic.

        1. According to the proggies, he’s one of them. That is, they say he doesn’t exist, until they need to pull him out of the closet to say that he’s the original supporter of the welfare state.

        2. According to the proggies, he’s one of them. That is, they say he doesn’t exist, until they need to pull him out of the closet to say that he’s the original supporter of the welfare state.

  3. “Wouldn’t a few months of Clinton and Bush be worth it?”

    Maybe, but four years (or, God forbid… eight) of Clinton or Bush might be more than I could stand.

  4. “Libertarians Should Hope for Clinton Versus Bush in 2016”

    I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

  5. You wanted hope and change? Here’s what it got you.

    An electoral win over racist Republicans. Think they wanted something else?

  6. Happy Mother’s Day to all the Reason moms out there.


    1. This is why…wait, happy Mother’s Day!

    2. You’re all MILFs to me:)

    3. Do you know who else loved their mother?

        1. +1 tortoise/turtle

      1. Norman Bates?

      2. Oedipus?

        1. +1 regicide.

      3. Bambie?

  7. Not sure who trolls this board harder, Richmond or shrike.

    1. Am I the only person who broke out laughing as I read the synopsis on the main H&R page?

      1. Just as it isn’t Friday without the Nut-Punch, the weekend isn’t complete without a Richman troll-fest.

    2. Yes. because the only true libertarian is a TEAM RED! one.

      1. High five. Good effort, but it can’t top wishing Bush-Clinton on us.

        1. Hi-fives trigger proggies like him, you insensitive prick: vigorous jazzhands instead.

  8. The trouble with this idea is one of these control freaks would win! Want even more government,war and illegal spying? These two are for you Sheldon.

    1. That’s not the only trouble. It’s not as if people are going to get rid of politics after they run. If by some fluke they did, they’d replace it w kingship by Chavez-Maduro-Gacy or some such.

      But mainly, not only would we wind up with one of that pair as president, w all the authority that office provides as usual, but also very few people would find the contest dull or meaningless in the way you think, Sheldon. Look at Humphrey vs. Nixon vs. Wallace, for instance.

      1. Gacy would probably be the least bad of the lot.

        1. He wouldn’t be the first murderous clown to be in charge.

        2. Didn’t they execute Gacy?

      2. Yes the unwashed masses tend to be enamored of leftist demagogues. Perhaps a military coup would improve things for us like it did for Chile.

  9. The worse, the better, comrade!

    A terror attack would help liberty by exposing the inadequacies of a government which seeks to regulate everything yet can’t protect the borders.

    An EMP attack which disables electronic communication will help liberty as the population comes to the preppers’ houses begging for food.

    The idea situation would be the unleashing of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

    1. *ideal* situation

    2. Or an asteroid…don’t forget the asteroid.

    3. An EMP attack which disables electronic communication will help liberty as the population comes to the preppers’ houses begging for food.

      If they’re hungry enough they won’t be begging, and even preppers have to sleep sometime.

    4. This is a Richman article, so it would only be an ideal ending if Israel was destroyed by the Horsemen first.

  10. So I get the impression Richman opposes the Rand Paul nomination because he might pollute the philosophy of libertarianism ?

    I’m afraid that will come with any increase in political popularity unless he expects the libertarian party or libertarianism to just make a sudden break into popularity … in which case I’d like to hear his view on how that would happen.

    1. I’d like to add that limited statists have already polluted libertarianism ….. but I’m not sure I have heard Richman state this yet 😀

    2. in which case I’d like to hear his view on how that would happen.

      It world happen by dumping the EXTREME SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES Ron and Rand Paul overboard and embracing forcing bakers to bake cakes. Only then will the 59% of the population that are libertarians but reject the libertarian label come over to our side.


    3. The ‘liberaltarians’ of Reason are uncomfortable with Rand for a number of reasons. For one thing, they might have to actually advocate for a platform instead of just putting out more fatalism.

      1. And if the editors actually had to officially endorse a *gasp* Republican for president, they’d automatically lose whatever respect they got from the cool kids of the media (NYT, Washington Post, Huffpost, etc.).

        1. Yeah, Gillespie’s jacket would be torched for sure in the ensuing melee.

  11. Never really thought of Richman as a “glass-half-full” kind of guy before.

    1. Once you accept freedom of association, it becomes much clearer that the state is an obvious violation of that … which is the primary political position of libertarianism IMHO 🙂

    2. Maybe half full full of progressivism.

    3. Glass half full of Israel-hate.

  12. This reminds me of the joke about a young guy who walks up to the bar and orders six shots of scotch. Ehern h proceeds to drink them, one after the other the bartender says “Looks like you are celebrating something”. To which the guy replies ” Yeah, first blow job” – as has finishes the last one. The bartender says “Cool, let me pour you one more on the house”. The young guy says ” Naw, if six won’t get the taste out of my mouth I doubt another would help”.

    My point being that if 180 years (or so) of terrible government hasn’t gotten people to hate how they are being governed I highly doubt that a few years of either of these clowns will make a difference.

    1. Hungover Nora Charles: What hit me?
      Nick Charles: The sixth martini.

      1. Thin Man references restore my faith in the Internet.

  13. This is Richman’s version of the broken windows fallacy.

    1. He wasn’t this bad even as little as 3 yrs. ago, let alone 30. It must be some long-term exercise in self-parody.

    2. But isn’t Richman’s argument a cousin of the “don’t vote” philosophy of many libertarians? That is, when only 20% (or whatever) of potential voters bother to vote, then the government loses some of its “legitimacy”? Isn’t his argument an extension of this?

      1. I’m not sure, but if it is, that argument was refuted long ago. Best example was I Forgot who in a print debate in Konkin’s ‘zine IIRC that an astoundingly low turnout in a sizable Calif. municipality installed a regime that put in rent control. Low voter turnout is as easily taken as evidence of satisfaction as it is of dissatisfaction, and indeed that’s evidence of the truth according to studies.

        Sheldon might be making the loss-of-mandate argument, but it seems as likely he thinks people will just get bored w politics, & that that lack of enthusiasm will lead to people putting less effort into politics, & that somehow that’ll lead to less power’s going into gov’t.

      2. I hear that ‘argument’ from anarchos all the time and it is typical of their magcal thinking and 2 kool for skool posturing.

      3. I never knew that was why libertarians didn’t vote. “Legitimacy”, that’s funny. What the hell difference does that make?

        No, I thought not voting was purely utilitarian: basically saying to the losing party, “if you wanna win next time you’ll have to dominate something other than a boiled turd.” Third-party/non-voting is a way to incentivize the party you lean toward (assuming it loses) to change its strategy in your favor so as to improve its turnout with, well, you.

  14. “since he supports increased military spending”


    1. Ok, so it’s been a crazy busy semester so I’ve not kept up much with the jockeying of the GOP field (for a contest a year away), but sadly it appears Rand did reverse his long standing position and now calls for a hefty increase in defense spending…I never expected purity from Rand, but this is disappointing. Given our insane spending and debt the military has indeed become a third rail for the GOP when even someone like Rand not only abandons talk if cuts but feels like they have to start selling increases…

      1. But in True Bush-Cheney style he will propose tax cuts while boosting spending – thus doubling or tripling the deficit in the process.

        1. Why don’t you two spend some more bandwidth arguing? You know, to clog the NSA servers.

        2. Considering Paul is as much of a war hawk as Bernie Sanders, and far less of one that Hillary, I’m curious to know how you rationalizing blowing the whole blue team on this one? Remind me again how much different Obama’s foreign policy was from Bush’s? Nah, you’re too busy cleaning that extra salty Obama jizz out of your left nostril before it dries.

          1. Saying that the First Black President’s jizz is extra-salty is clearly an example of the worst sort of racism. Libertarians = racist h8 group.

      2. One may hope that Paul is just cynically trying to establish his bona fides with the GOP to get the nomination, and that once he’s won the primary, he’ll ditch that position.

        Again, it would be cynical, but I prefer a smart cynic to an honest retard, so that would be the optimistic interpretation of Paul’s actions.

  15. I think Richman has a point (I’m also considering making 2016 the first year that I will not cast a vote). I am an adherent of the view that the country will never be lead toward libertarianism by a “leader” — the masses need to be educated and then, and only then, will the politicians follow and government start to shrink. We evil libertarians are only about 2% of the population yet we still get blamed for many of society’s problems.

    1. Of course they do, but what’s going to educate them? They still need meaningful choices to learn from.

      1. Well, they’re being educated by outfits such as Reason and Lew Rockwell. But here in the real world I think, as Richman argues, a Bush or Clinton presidency would be very educational, no? Under Bush, FISA was created and provided an education to that sort of evil; and now Obama is educating many on the evils of government health care.

        But, I agree that is a dangerous game — at what point does the frog jump from the boiling water?

        1. Sure, a Hillary presidency would be educational, she’ll have fun camps for that!!

        2. When the legs are ready to eat.

        3. “now Obama is educating many on the evils of government health care.”
          In 20 years when Obamacare is universally hailed even by Republicans as a landmark piece of legislation you will eat those words and they will taste very sour indeed. It will be as unthinkable as arguing for the abolition of medicare is today.

          1. I don’t think the current system is going to last another twenty years, not with the sword of debtocles hanging over this country. Our government (in its current form) cannot survive a marginal increase in interest rates, let alone a total implosion of its fiat monetary system.

        4. I see violence being the real solution. Do you think progs are just going to stop? They will take power any way they can. They have to be destroyed. Removed from America it’s rough some means.

          I wouldn’t mind dumping them all off in Venezuela or Cuba.

          1. Yes. Except it cannot be in the form of a popular revolution. Revolutions have always ultimately advanced the leftist cause du jour. The paradigm of democratic positivism effectively allows the poor to extort their betters and should be combatted at every opportunity. As a great libertarian once said, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality.”

            To preserve a modicum of liberty, we have to infiltrate key positions within the political infrastructure and quietly purge progressives from the military and bureaucracy. Lobbyists, not sans-cullotes, will be our foot soldiers. Our jurists must push for greater and greater campaign finance liberalization with the end goal of legalizing “quid pro quo” contributions (and other forms of bribery). The natural aristocracy must be able to pay tribute money to its oppressors as a stop-gap measure.

            This will not achieve any utopian aspirations. But it may forestall the total triumph of socialism for several decades.

      2. Of course they do, but what’s going to educate them? They still need meaningful choices to learn from.

        First Ron…now Rand. Tomorrow?

        People lead…government follows, chasing votes. Educate the people.

        1. They have no reason to be educated unless some meaningful choice is on the table. Why should they pay att’n to something that’s not even on the agenda? They have plenty to attend to in their own lives, so they’re not going to devote any concentration to things that are merely theoretic.

          As an example, few people think about narcotics prohib’n because it’s not considered an item of controversy. Same w gov’t-provided schools. Things are not controversial unless there are meaningful choices in the offing, not just in theory.

    2. When the student is ready, the master will appear.

      Alternate phraseology: “I must get in front of the parade, I am its leader!”

    3. It certainly wasn’t my stance that a libertarian should vote for Rand Paul, merely that opposing his nomination needs much more explanation from Richman.

    4. Libertarianism will never be a populist ideology. It is inherently hostile towards the egalitarian values — democracy, socialism, feminism, etc. — that the little people hold dear. As such, it has to be imposed top down through a concerted campaign of political corruption.

  16. Democrats want man to dominate man – Republicans want it the other way around.

    1. Sexist! (see below)

      1. How about “quasi-norms to dominate quasi-norms”?

        1. What about quasi noms?

    2. Republicans want the church to dominate man.

      1. Well, progressives have a couple of dead guys with beards they worship, so it evens out.

      2. Curious buttplug, why do leftards think that the idea of “separation of church and state” does not apply to secular moralities and ideology too? Like, it’s ok to force people to bake cakes or to send people to prison for having consensual sex just because money was involved. Like, because your theocracy is a ‘secular’ theocracy, individual rights don’t apply? That’s only for ‘religious’ ideologies and norms? Seems like a stupid exemption to me.

      3. No, you sick fuck. Churches are designed to provide moral standards and guidance so we don’t end up as scum, like you.

        Progs want to destroy churches so there is no moral standard. That way your kind can eventually get away with things like exterminating the Jews. Or purging undesirables like Stalin and Mao did. An absolute Kota,it’s and belief in a higher power is inconvenient for that kind of activity.

        1. +100

      4. Better the church than the mosque.

      5. Better the church than the mosque.

  17. Today is the Sunday of the man born blind. In today’s gospel….

    I’m just kidding, today we commemorate the document “The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law,” co-authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1974. Among the suggestions of the report are replacing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day with “Parents’ Day,” abolishing sex segregation in prisons, changing federally-chartered groups like the Boy and Girl Scouts into sex-integrated organizations, and refusing future federal charters to discriminatory groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution (while graciously letting the latter keep its charter).

    More to libertarian tastes, the report suggests that there may be a constitutional right to prostitution. Whoo-hoo, I guess.



    Full PDF document, so you can learn about all the oppressive anti-female legislation which polluted the statute books before feminists came to the rescue:


      1. Dare I ask what that means?

        1. Dare I ask what that means?

          Sure. You’ve been accused of wearing your religion on your sleeve and introducing it where it doesn’t belong.

          Just because you turn it into a joke doesn’t mean you aren’t wearing it on your sleeve or introducing it where it doesn’t belong. You put it out there, making you an asshole.

          Today is the Sunday of the man born blind. In today’s gospel….

          THERE IT IS!

          1. It’s what we earthlings call humor.

            Even a feminist could understand it, why can’t you?

            1. I repeat, with emphasis:

              Just because you turn it into a joke doesn’t mean you aren’t wearing it on your sleeve or introducing it where it doesn’t belong. You put it out there, making you an asshole.

              1. I repeat, with emphasis:


                1. A feminist with a sense of humor – now THAT’S crazy…

                2. Posting this:


                  Does not change the ABSOLUTE FACT that you wore your religion on your sleeve and introduced it where it didn’t belong.

                  I’m done with you and will not belabor the fact further.

                  1. Are you really and truly done with me? If so, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

                  2. Where it didn’t belong. What. the. Fuck.

                    Haven’t we spent the better part of this week arguing for free speech on this very blog?

                    1. Me thinks you need to reevaluate “freedom of speech”. Sure Eddie is free to spout his beliefs any time he wants. I can’t/won’t force him to stop.

                      I am, however, free to call him an asshole for doing so.

                    2. You’re both assholes. How’s that?

                    3. Coming from you?


                    4. Careful buddy, you’re gonna get pretty bad back pain carrying a chip that large on your shoulder.

          2. Holy fucking shit, dude, get help.

          3. Today is the sunday of the american attack on fort ticonderoga, does that make me an america-firster ? Things happened on certain days , recalling them doesnt make one an adherent of the event or its underlying creed.

            1. Happy Mothers’ Day to a certain musician’s mother. May 10th is his birthday. (Hint:he sang the song “My Way”).


          4. wearing your religion on your sleeve and introducing it where it doesn’t belong.

            As an atheist it is safe for me to say the world would be a better place if the likes of Shrike became a Christian.

            THERE IT IS!

            1. Shreeeek is a troll too…

              Just like Eddie.

      2. Yep. Eddie has to turn even Mothers Day to an excuse to push his theocratic ideals. Sheesh.

        1. What on *earth* are you talking about?

          1. Your invocation of Mothers Day to segue into your diatribes against dissent to your perceived Godly and/or Church ordained correct sex roles and behaviors.

            1. Holy shit, you’re totally gone around the bend.

              1. Shorter Bo: “I’m not the one obsessed with religion, you are, ha ha ha ha!”


              2. You and other SoCons are just mirror images of these feminists. Both sides accept using government/law and relentless culture war to enforce what they see as ‘correct’ sex roles and behavior, they just disagree on what those correct roles and behaviors are.

                1. A man goes to a Psychologist and says, “Doc I got a real problem, I can’t stop thinking about CoCons.”

                  The Psychologist says, “Well let’s see what we can find out”, and pulls out his ink blots. “What is this a picture of?” he asks.

                  The man turns the picture upside down then turns it around and states, “That’s a SoCon putting gays in prison.”

                  The Psychologist says, “very interesting,” and shows the next picture. “And what is this a picture of?”

                  The man looks and turns it in different directions and says, “That’s a gang of SoCons plotting to overthrow the government.”

                  The Psychologists tries again with the third ink blot, and asks the same question, “What is this a picture of?”

                  The patient again turns it in all directions and replies, “That’s a bunch of SoCons hiding under my bed.”

                  The Psychologist states, “Well, yes, you do seem to be obsessed with SoCons.”

                  “Me!?” demands the patient. “You’re the one who keeps showing me all those political cartoons!”


                  1. The funny thing is you think you’re the doctor and not the patient.

                    1. The funny thing is you look at the sex-specific provisions of the federal code in 1974 and think, “THEOCRACY!”

                    2. The laws then were actually full of crazy distinctions between men and women based on little more than traditional notions of appropriate sex and gender roles with religious foundations. You don’t see that because I suspect you’re fine with that kind of thing as long as the ‘correct’ roles are the ones being enforced or subsidized

                    3. I hope you didn’t throw your back out moving those goalposts. You started off by suggesting these laws were theocratic.

                    4. “based on little more than traditional notions of appropriate sex and gender roles with religious foundations.”

                    5. So, to take just one example from Ginsburg’s report, the mere use of the word “longshoreman” is theocratic?


                    6. I see you didn’t get the whole ‘mirror image’ comment

                    7. Indeed, the reason we have separate parental-recognition holidays invented in the early 20th century and corporate charters for gender-specific non-profit organizations is because of religious zealots oppressing womyn.

                    8. Holidays and charters are silly, but there were an extensive amount of uncommonly silly laws on the books treating men and women differently, not sure if even you can deny that.

                    9. In Soviet Russia, goalpost move *you!*

                    10. Treating men and women differently. The horrors.

                      Bo further proves peaks retard is unattainable

                    11. Treating them differently based on silly reasons is horrible.

                      You think for example men should automatically be named administrators of estates over women? That women shouldn’t be able to serve on juries or work in bars? These were all laws in the 70’s until people like Ginsburg got them struck down.

                    12. Or laws that only men have to register for the draft… oh wait. I guess for jurists it’s a one way street too.

                    13. If it hadn’t been for the 19th Amendment, this country would be a veritable libertarian paradise. Take from that what you will…

                    14. “Indeed, the reason we have separate parental-recognition holidays invented in the early 20th century and corporate charters for gender-specific non-profit organizations is because of religious zealots oppressing womyn.”

                      What a crock of psycho babble bullshit.

                      We have those kind of “holidays” so people can sell shit.

                    15. “traditional notions of appropriate sex and gender roles”

                      So reproductive biology is a traditional notion?

                      This is great…all I have to do is abandon tradition and I too can get pregnant!!

                      Note: I am happy gays can marry and consenting adults can fuck how they want and i wear glasses so i am all for body modification but holy shit Bo you are being a huge pile of shit. “little more”? Really?

            2. How’s that SoConz hunt going Bo?

              1. How’s your SJW hunt going? Or your anti-Semite one?

            3. Seems like Raul Castro’s cool with that now.

          2. What on *earth* are you talking about?

            You are in fact a theocrat. The Huckster must make you giddy with excitement.

            1. Huckabee’s a bit too Protestant for Eddie’s tastes methinks. Santorum preferable.

              1. “Doc, doc, you gotta listen to me, the Pope is coming! He’s gonna enslave us all! The Catholics have already dug an invasion tunnel under the Atlantic…are you listening to me? We’re all in danger! You have to let me go!”


                1. Eddie (I guess that is your name) – Do you believe that Biblical Law is superior to US Constitutional law?

                  A yes or no will suffice.

                  1. No, because that would imply there’s some sort of conflict – which parts of the U.S. Constitution contradict the Bible, in your expert opinion?

                    1. No tension between the 10 Commandments and the BoR Eddie?

                    2. Bo’s sane and comforting laughter:


                    3. No tension between the 10 Commandments and the BoR Eddie?

                      Let alone the other 613 mitzvot in the old testament. That’s why there’ve been so many violent clashes between Jewish fundamentalists and the US government.

                    4. Are you really ignorant that there’s actually a lot of case law involving religious fundamentalist groups in tension with our laws? The Amish or Jehovah Witnesses alone could fill a book, but Orthodox Jews would be represented there too.

                    5. Are you really ignorant that there’s actually a lot of case law involving religious fundamentalist groups in tension with our laws?

                      The last major case like that I can think of is native American religious use of peyote, which wasn’t a constitutional issue – nice subtle change from “Bill of Rights” to “our laws” there. Due to that whole “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” thing, until you start getting into child brides and ritualistic sacrifice type of shit, there’s not much conflict there.

                    6. Might want to google Kiryas Joel school

                    7. Those conflicts involve areas where the federal government has ignored the limits imposed on it by the constitution.

                      Seriously Bo, where exactly do you see a conflict between Christian or Jewish beliefs and the Bill of Rights?

                    8. Yes, there are conflicts.

                      But you evaded my question by qualifying it with hypothetical and incorrect scenario.

                    9. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain

                      Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image

                      Thou shalt have no other gods before me

                      Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy


                      Just the First Amendment alone!

                      Yeah, no tension or conflict there.

                    10. Wow, I’d totally forgotten about the clauses in the Constitution requiring me to misuse the name of God, worship idols, etc.

                    11. The Ten Commandments were commandments, laws for the people for Israel. These laws would all be stricken down by proper application of the First Amendment alone.

                    12. “laws for the people for Israel”

                      Where did you learn geography? Israel isn’t in the U.S.

                    13. So you ignore the Ten Comandments Eddie? Just for Israelites, eh?

                    14. You are astonishingly ignorant, but make up for it by being insufferably arrogant.

                    15. Let’s take just one, the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. SoCons of course took this as it was written as a basis for a law. There were for most of our history liberty restricting laws forbidding business on the Sabbath. This wasn’t in conflict with the First Amendment? Even SCOTUS, in turning back challenges to such laws conceded they were religious in origin and problematic and had to invent a comical fiction that regardless of their original intent they had evolved to be secular.

                    16. What kind of shitty law school do you attend? I could’ve refuted the trash and sloppy equivocation you’re peddling by about my third day of Con Law I.

                    17. There is a requirement to “stone to death” adulterers or new brides whose fathers cannot produce a “soiled bedcloth” to prove virginity.

                    18. I see Bo and buttplug have finally joined forces.

                      You guys are all wrong, this is a sure sign peak derp is close.

                    19. The singularity is at hand.

                    20. There is an updated and revised version of the Bible called The New Testament that is a couple of thousand years older than the BoR that allows for the ignoring of the need to stone anyone to death.

                      How old were you when your father abandoned you ButtPlug ?

                      Had you reached puberty yet (or have you now for that matter) ?

                      My money is on no because you hide your anger towards mankind so poorly.

                    21. Taxation contradicts the bible. Oh, and the very institution of government contradicts the bible. You can look up Samuel 8 for that.

                      Hell, I don’t go to church, but I see what millions of church goers don’t.

                      Thou shalt not steal…..

                      “But it’s ok when politicians do because they are greater than God”
                      ?????? Though shalt not mother effin steal!!!!!

                    22. “the very institution of government contradicts the bible”

                      render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s

                    23. Caesar wasn’t God, so nothing belonged to Caesar. That is one of the fallacies brought up to justify taxation.

                      —-15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

                      17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”——

                      Read the effing bible. Fuck Caesar.

                  2. What does that matter honestly?

                    Buttplug, do you agree that it is possible for the constitution to be errant? And if constitutional law required you to engage in behavior you believed to be moreally wrong, would you not break the law?

                    So why would anyone else be any different, including those who defer morally to Biblical law?

                    Everyone, everyone, defers to their morals (wherever they derive them from) above the law. The very idea that there can be an unjust law should make this self-evident even to a retard like you. There can be no unjust moral, because if it is unjust, then it isn’t a moral. How is any of this theocracy?

                    1. It does matter, because countless folks that sit in the church pews read this stuff, but support the violent state which continually violates what they “say” they believe in…..that being thou shalt not covet, steal, murder and so on.

                      But so long as they get their tax free status, it’s ok if the state extorts people, and backs it all up through violence.

              2. He is a Catholic you half wit.

              3. Good. You and PB can be playmates now. I foresee lots of giggling and flingimg your turds at each other.

    1. “replacing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day with “Parents’ Day,” abolishing sex segregation in prisons, changing federally-chartered groups like the Boy and Girl Scouts into sex-integrated organizations”

      When you think of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — think asexual!

      1. I always have.

  18. He may have a point. Politics is so entrenched right now, the only way there will be any positive change is to hit rock bottom so there can be no doubt to anyone that there is a problem, and that problem is government.

    It may be too soon for a libertarian to get anything done, even if elected. After 8 more years of the complete horror, that WILL occur under another establishment administration…who knows people might be ready?

    1. Look what happened when the country hit rock bottom under the statist Herbert Hoover.

    2. There is no objective bottom. At any point, things can get worse. You find a “bottom” only after an upturn, & even then nothing says it can’t turn down again & find a lower point.

      And even if you do find an impenetrable floor, what makes you think that on hitting that floor, you bounce up to a new high? Things could get worse for a long time, and then people get fed up & say, let’s not keep it this way, but let’s also not go back to the way it was before. The new normal, worse than now.

      1. As an example, suppose you get the Nazis. You could have gotten the Nazis w bad manners. & if you got Nazis w bad manners, you could always have gotten ill-mannered Nazis w dull blades on their long knives.

      2. The bottom is changing the minds of enough people to become a movement.

        1. There are always movements.

          1. And some are big enough to effect change…some aren’t.

            Change has happened in the past. Why do you believe a) it can’t happen again or b) it can’t be positive?

            1. Of course it can happen & be positive. But not the way outlined above!

              In democracy, no interest gets to set the agenda; you work 1st on getting the right stuff behind the right side on the issues that are on the table. Then when people see the stuff that works, they start to bring other issues to the table. They have no reason to get behind things that work only in theory because they exist only in theory.

              In the context of an election of an official, the way that works is by the candidates seeing what works in terms of response, and the voters then get to see which choices produced better results.

          2. There are always movements.

            Not if you eat enough cheese!

        2. Keep dreaming.

      3. There is no objective bottom. At any point, things can get worse. You find a “bottom” only after an upturn, & even then nothing says it can’t turn down again & find a lower point.

        And even if you do find an impenetrable floor, what makes you think that on hitting that floor, you bounce up to a new high? Things could get worse for a long time, and then people get fed up & say, let’s not keep it this way, but let’s also not go back to the way it was before.

        Yep, the idea of social collapse as a prelude to libertopia is the most idiotic and ignorant meme floating around.

        The country’s that have had something approaching social collapse, Russia in the 20s, China in the 50s; various latin american countries etc. have always ended up with tyrannies that lasted decades.

        1. Financial/economic stress CAN lead to better more free policies, like Canada in the ’90s and its budget slashing. But outright collapse is a dangerous crapshoot.

        2. Yep, the idea of social collapse as a prelude to libertopia is the most idiotic and ignorant meme floating around.

          Regardless, the collapse is coming.

          You can either attempt to show people the reason for the collapse and attempt to set up a system that mitigates similar conditions in the future…or you can do nothing and accept the hell that follows.

          1. We need to declaw and pull some teeth out of the maw of The State to mitigate the inevitable short term bad government behavior The Collapse will induce, and we aren’t going to get that with a Hillary vs Bush. Rand or someone similar can make it less bad and get us to the part where government is reformed faster.

          2. Collapse is always coming. So is everything else. Eventually everything possible happens, & eventually it happens again, & so forth.

            1. You’re right. Scarlett Johansson is knocking on my door right now, with a bottle of tequila.

              1. Don’t worry, she’ll eventually be back.

    3. Politics is so entrenched right now, the only way there will be any positive change is to hit rock bottom so there can be no doubt to anyone that there is a problem, and that problem is government.

      People as a whole will never come to the realization that govt is the problem. Even getting herded off to deathcamps doesn’t make people realize.

      1. People as a whole will never come to the realization that govt is the problem.

        See the American Revolution.

        1. See the American Revolution.

          That was kind of a special circumstance where people had already lived without much govt interference for 100+ years.

          1. Ah, the “special circumstance” argument.

            I’m all for having another “special circumstance” then.

            1. I’m all for having another “special circumstance” then.

              I’m sure any day now, modern “Boston Strong” Massachusites will be heading to the harbor to sabotage the apparatus of the tax man.

              Seriously, you don’t actually think anything resembling that time in history will ever repeat itself, do you?

              1. Only if the United States of Mars comes out of nowhere. PM’s right, the Thirteen Colonies had advantages due to the limitations of geography and the technology of the period that simply don’t exist now. Not to mention that their ideals were ‘Enlightenment’ ideals contrasted against the traditional European kingdom-state. There’s simply not as much groundswell for pure ‘Enlightenment’ anti-state rhetoric as there was in the period (I mean, we live in the age of ‘I believe in free speech but…).

              2. I do. People will only take so much before pushing back. Only a matter of how muck.

                1. They’re always pushing back, resulting in a temporary equilibrium. Which leads to the next equilibrium, etc.

                  Lobagola’s law doesn’t say things bounce back beyond where they started, only in the direction of where they started. Then they bounce back from that too.

            2. I’m all for having another “special circumstance” then.

              I’d be all for it too, but that circumstance is unlikely to repeat itself any time soon.

              The pre-AmerRevolution colonists had basically already been accustomed to effective self-rule for awhile, and then rightly balked when the British crown decided to enforce taxation, etc. upon them.

              There aren’t any societies like that today AFAIK.

            3. You don’t get to produce circumstances, that’s why they’re “circum”.

          2. Not only that, but a century earlier they’d revolted vs. the crown’s chosen gov’t & gotten it abolished. Check out the Dominion of New England.

        2. See French Revolution for an example of how ‘realization that the current government is a problem’ doesn’t necessarily mean what they replace it with will be much better.

        3. Where they replaced government with “a new government”

          Thomas Jefferson felt the result of their experiment would be that people would govern themselves “without a master”

    4. There seems to be an implicit assumption here that ‘hitting rock bottom’ will suddenly make people see the appeal of libertarian politics. I’m skeptical to the idea.

      Look at the way that the various statist ‘true believers’ frame the Obama administration. Their argument is that he ‘didn’t go far enough’ or was constrained by nefarious elements in the government. What is to stop a dedicated statist base at rock bottom from proclaiming that the problem is that ‘we didn’t go far enough’ and actually need to increase state control even further for the supposed utopia? I see true believers more willing to double down than admit they were wrong. I think you might be able to get some support from the more basic, pragmatic voting class, but even then there will still be a large percentage of the population driven by demands for quick solutions and a ‘the government should DO SOMETHING’ mentality.

      I think the ‘rock bottom’ argument ultimately assumes the voting public is a rational entity, when there’s plenty of arguments to show that’s not really true.

      1. True. As I say, progressives are like medieval doctors: “The patient weakens! Bring me more leeches!”

      2. This times a million. There is no limit on the horrors that “the people” will applaud.

    5. Just like the Germans let the Weimar Republic hit rock bottom. That sure ushered in a era of liberty. Bad times get people to believe in demagoguery and more government not less. You guys really are delusional

      1. They have no understanding of history, as if that wasn’t evident enough in their foreign policy notions.

    6. Great idea. Look how awesome Argentina has turned out after hitting ‘rock bottom’ under Peron.

  19. Never been a fan of Hilary, and I never will be. I’ll take a good Libertarian candidate any day

  20. Bill Maher: What the Hell Happened to Rand Paul?

    Bill Maher has long held Rand Paul in high regard, but certain position shifts on the campaign trail have left Maher increasingly disappointed with the libertarian 2016 candidate. He said Paul didn’t even wait a week into his campaign before “setting fire to everything he used to believe.”


    1. “The 2016 election is approaching…time to retract all the nice things I said about Republican candidates.”

      1. I have only said nice things about Rand Paul. And now I am also disappointed in him.

        On a stand alone basis he is still better than Hillary but the GOP will go full Big Gov with him like they did the last time they held all three branches of government (2001-2007).

        The GOP only cares about small government when there is a Dem in the White House.

        1. Whatever.

          “I’m not an Obama fellator, I just don’t like all those nasty SoCons!”

          “I used to like Rand Paul, but hey, now Hillary seems like a good choice!”

          Just follow your marching orders, drone.

    2. And I say, “what the hell happened to Bill Maher?” He went from self-proclaimed libertarian to calling Nick Gillespie a “republican” on air.

      1. Emphasis on the “self-proclaimed” in that statement.

        1. He was a least a lot more libertarian when he had Politically Incorrect.

          1. Very much so. Maher getting on Paul for changing his positions, is the pot calling the kettle black. In fact the pot is none more black.

            1. RACIST?

          2. Maher saw the value in ingratiating himself to his Marxist masters at HBO. They don’t want a libertarian show. They want a hardcore prog to do their bidding, and Maher is their lapdog.

      2. Bill Maher was never a libertarian, but he was always a mentally-retarded joke that cannot see his own hypocrisy on a wide variety of issues. He’s a poser and an actor and a comedian. Really, he’s just a Hollywood guy in love with himself and his fat nose and shriveled penis.

    3. Bill Maher: I can’t believe Rand Paul isn’t an anti-vaccine weirdo like me! Now I’m going to go flip out about the evils of ‘Western’ medicine and GMOs!

      I love how the self proclaimed ‘rationalist’ fanboys over this nutter.

      1. You miss the point entirely.

        I’ll go slow.

        Why has Rand Paul turned into a Big Gov, Big Church, mainstream Republican.

        Possible answers include:

        He is a political whore like all the others.


        He believes in the Bush GOP model.

        1. Actually, I ignored your point because you’re a boring, sad, predictable little man. I just like to point out how full of shit the local ‘rationalist’ is. Why don’t you throw another temper tantrum because someone mocked your favourite Z-list comedian?

          Shockingly, your repeated and unbalanced screaming diatribes (not to mention your obviously consistent habit of lying and constructing a delusional interpretation of reality to soothe your own fragile, pathetic egocentric personality) makes your analysis of Republican strategic planning worthless. Thanks for playing, but the adults are talking.

          1. Thanks for playing, but the adults Republicans are talking.

            You meant this.

            1. And thus the ‘boring, sad, predictable little man’ holds true. Like clockwork, the pathetic accusation of ‘Republican’ comes into play. Ultimately all your posts are some variation of the same half dozen vapid arguments or grandiose ego-stroking. Thanks for continuing to provide evidence to show how limited your thought process is.

              Of course Palin’s Buttplug continues to prove he operates on a child’s level by calling a Canadian a Republican. I, of course, didn’t expect anything else, because that would require Palin to actually think or understand nuance, rather than the delusional self-centred narrative he constructs for himself.

        2. Why has Rand Paul turned into a Big Gov, Big Church, mainstream Republican.

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

        3. Nope and nope. He’s just wise enough to realize the power of corporate mainstream media and Wall Street. He doesn’t want to make enemies before he has really started his rise to the top. You cannot read between the lines.

    4. Yeah, unlike his dad, Rand is playing the game. But since when does anything Bill Maher say matter? Maher’s not even running for office and he’s a total mess.

      1. Maher doesn’t matter very much at all. He has an opinion on Rand Paul that is broadcast on HBO. That is about it.

        1. You are such a sad little monkey.

          Dance, monkey! Dance!

    5. You’re listening to Bill Maher’s opinions on issues? Are you also on anti-psychotics?

  21. OT: If it hasn’t already been announced, for those honkeys living in Milliken, Colorado, there’s a restaurant that wants to celebrate your melanin deficiency.

    “White Appreciation Day!”

    Sounds like a joke to me…

    1. It’s only funny because Mexicans run the restaurant.

    2. Oh goody:) Can’t wait to see the derp expended on this.

    3. Sigh. Such is what it’s come to:

      “Dorothy Jouett
      What would be even better if the sign said “American Appreciation Day!” Because All Americans should be Celebrated !!!!!!
      Reply ?
      ? 49 ? Edited ? May 8 at 9:34am

      Amanda Vogel ? Top Commenter ? DJ/Producer at VRDO – Your Variety Station
      I like your idea, 🙂 how about People day!
      Reply ?
      ? 15 ? May 8 at 9:38am
      Dorothy Jouett
      I agree “People Day” what a beautiful idea. One day of Peace where everyone lays down their differences and celebrate what each and every American has done and contributed to this country.”

      Yes. Let’s have a ‘Duh, Obvious’ day. Isn’t it America Day everyday? I need a day to appreciate being ‘People’?

      Spank me this is getting old and stupid.

      Why stop at this? Have a Human Day!

      1. It’s funny. When I say stuff like that in the month of February I’m racist. Weird. Almost like there’s some sort of…I don’t know, maybe double standard based on skin color. Which would be really ironic, since we’re supposed to be post-race or whatever.

      2. I agree “People Day” what a beautiful idea. One day of Peace where everyone lays down their differences and celebrate what each and every American has done and contributed to this country.”

        Did she mean to imply that everyone in the world should take a day to celebrate what every American has done? I mean, I’m not in the “Everyone hates Americans because we’re self-centered” crowd, but damn.

      3. “Why stop at this? Have a Human Day!”

        Mammalian day?

      1. You can have a YouTube video start at a certain time by adding (in this case) &t=1m20s to the end of the URL.

  22. So wait a second…several weeks ago Richman was writing about how libertarians tend to be more concerned with being seen as ‘right’ or morally superior than actually influencing people. Now he’s writing about how libertarians should basically ignore the political process this election round in favour of been seen as right and/or morally superior, and that will somehow pull people over to it.

    Jesus Christ Richman, is this some kind of performance art or do you really lack basic self-awareness?

    1. I think the former article was about interpersonal interactions and the second about national level political strategy.

      1. I’m not seeing why those should be different.

  23. People have to understand the point in order to get it. They don’t. The vast majority believes that most of the problems caused by big government are not caused by big government and ironically believe instead that the solution to those problems is more big government. They are taught that from an early age. They know nothing about history and do not have an understanding of the constitution. They can’t stand the thought of anyone being allowed to do our say anything they disapprove of.

    1. There is also the issue off lowered expectations. Metal detectors in schools, random locker searches, stop and frisk, have all conditioned people over Rome to just expect to all be treated like suspects and not free citizens. Public schools are are also and not coincidentally anti-capitalist, anti-individual, anti-America brainwashing centers. Perhaps Hillary and Jeb should be the candidates because they represent what americans truly want. To be ruled. Me. I’m voting for Paul.

      1. Over time not Rome. Samsung has the worst spell check ever.

        1. You’re not supposed to put your keyboard in the washing machine.

          1. But that’s the only way it ever gets really clean!

        2. IDK, work bought me a windows phone, and the auto spell sucks as bad as the rest of the phone.
          8.1: Bringing everything you hate about windows to your phone.

  24. Guess I’m not libertarian. At least not libertarian of the definition of a Richman Libertarian. There’s no way I’m hoping for a Clinton vs Bush run regardless of what it would supposedly demonstrate. I have to live in this nation.

  25. How is this any different than the Top Men argument we hear all the time? While I’m excited that Uncle Sheldon isn’t giving us another Sunday lecture about how we’re falling short of doctrinaire libertarianism, he’s basically just saying that all it takes is the right “bad politicians” to unleash the swelling tides of libertarianism. History shows us that rarely happens, and the exceptions tend to prove the rule that socio-political change is incremental.

    People like stability. Elect a Clinton or a Bush, let that person do their absolute worst, and people will think, “Wow, Clinton/Bush presidents suck, I hope somebody else shows up to the primary,” not, “To the barricades! Overthrow the system!” They’ll think that president went a little too far, not that the presidential system itself is faulty.

    Shit, look at us now. People were bitching about 8 years of Bush and they voted for 8 years of the sequel, just a shade more tan. Everybody who’s bitching about Obama will vote for the most popular candidate that says he/she won’t be like Obama, and the whole damn thing will keep trundling along.

    Besides which, what is Sheldon talking about: libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism. I mean, I’m a big fan of the latter but I’m pretty sure the former is the only one I have a snowball’s chance of seeing in my lifetime, and that’s not necessarily as radical a thing as Sheldon seems to be advocating.

    1. Even if it did work, it seems really dick-ish to me. I don’t even wish a Clinton presidency on the dumb feminists who vote with their vaginas. I’m cynical, but not to the point where I want everyone I disagree with to suffer just so they change their minds.

      1. You need to work on that. The women who vote with their vaginas should suffer for being so simple-minded. They have to learn somehow.

        1. Reality should take care of that without my help.

          1. Also, I suspect it’s not too much of a leap from “people deserve to suffer for their views” to “what can I do to speed this up?” It serves as a large part of the motivation for who progs vote for.

  26. So I’m guessing that Sheldon believes a Clinton/Bush election would lead to the emergence of the Mahdi?

    1. #1 Comment ^

  27. To those, like me, who have wondered where cafehayek has been the last few days, it is back up. And there is even red meat for us there — THREE posts regarding Robert Reich and his arguments for doubling the minimum wage. Yum!

    1. I like the artwork. I’m guessing Hayek probably would have been more of a Linux man, though.

  28. You know who else thought their country deserved a power hungry leader to teach them all a lesson?

    1. God, in 1 Samuel 8?

    2. The Kaleds?

  29. I’m cynical, but not to the point where I want everyone I disagree with to suffer just so they change their minds.

    No kidding. Especially when we will suffer along with them.

    1. Yeah, Richman doesn’t really consider the ‘self-interest’ position. Shockingly a lot of libertarians might be unwilling to just stand by and do nothing while the Clinton/Bush state messed around with their lives through taxation, bad healthcare reforms, etc. based on his theory that it will lead to some kind of mass appeal for libertarianism. And that’s just under a ‘light state’ model. The more dramatic ‘rock bottom’ or authoritarian outcomes some people are suggesting aren’t exactly beneficial either.

      I mean, not to Godwin the thread up, but I don’t think the Jews massacred by the Germans would be that enthusiastic about it even if they knew they’d get a state out of it and widespread sympathy.

      1. I mean if you’re ready to just say fuck it and burn the country to the ground to start over again, then you can accept his argument. I’m not even sure we can avoid it at this point.

        But before one goes wishing for it, they may want to realize that a lot of people will not survive such a grim scenario.

        1. The pension apocalypse ought to arrive in the next 8 years – it’s hard to envision Americans demanding “more of this!” when there won’t be any money left. And on the bright side most of the pain will be concentrated in the unproductive class.

          1. No, I can completely imagine Americans demanding more of this when the well is dry. They have zero comprehension of how things work. They think that the government is who has money and that they can just hand out as much as they want. It’s only Republicans and greedy corporations that are stopping the magical money train. This is what they believe. There will be riots, and these people will burn their own neighborhoods down. Also expect ports to be blocked. My advice is to move to the country and go into survivalist mode.

            All of this could be totally avoided. But that would require politicians to give up a lot of power. That’s not going to happen voluntarily.

        2. Maybe Sheldon thinks his friends in the Middle East will send him a rescue boat.

  30. Libertarians should hope for Carson vs. Sanders: the bark a lot, but they are toothless.

    1. Good point from a unique angle.

  31. Meanwhile, the DHS, brought to you by G W BOOOOOSH, has taken on a life of its own, such that the most libertarian President imaginable could not kill it.
    Right now ABC is ringing the shit out of the terror gong. ISIS IS COMING FOR YOU, AMERICA. Does anybody believe we can successfully counter the vast fearmongering campaign engaged in by self-perpetuating government bureaucracies?

    1. Who else is going to work in a place that is still waiting for its headquarters to be built? 1.5 billion over budget and twelve years behind schedule is a good start.

      1. I wasn’t even aware of this boondoggle. Well, it will be worth it if it turns out looking like this.

  32. An excerpt from Chapter 12 in Richman’s forthcoming book:

    How to be a Gigantic Asshole: & Ensure the World Holds You in Complete Contempt

    While most people probably agree Richman is 1-douche-too-salty for their personal tastes, there is a wider strain of libertarian, ‘purism, or nothing’-thinking that seems to revile at the idea of incrementalism or any compromise to achieve a ‘better’ state than where we are today.

    Its not the best look. I still think Rand deserves support because he could at least start to fix some of the problems.

    1. Hi Gilmore,

      Are you like the local Republican precinct chairman? I’m looking forward to your continually evolving insights as to why libertarians should cast their vote for Marco Rubio or Jeb bush. Rand Paul is currently running in 6th place–ahead of Ben Carson, at least, so you better start to hone those really, really important reasons for why people who think the government should stay the fuck out of people’s decisions to have an abortion should vote for the RP.

      1. You’re just mad sheldon stole your book idea

      2. Ah, our socialist friend.

        Dance, monkey! Tell us all about those eevul korporashuns! And we’re all just closet Republicans!
        You’re so insightful, just like PBP!

    2. As I often say around here, we didn’t get into the semi-socialist mess we’re in because socialists won elections. We got here because of socialist incrementalism. Libertarians should do incrementalism as well.

  33. On Meet the Press (I need to know what America’s thought leaders want me to believe), they had a long winded version of the NEEDZ MOAR FREE SHIT argument, because being a mommy in this country is apparently worse than shoveling coal deep in the bowels of the Titanic. Some teacher(!) was moaning about how the government didn’t paid her babysitter. And, of course, mommies need free child care so they can go get more degrees because, as a teacher, she has been conditioned to believe more degrees (regardless of their actual utility) automatically equal better pay.
    Some day I would like to see somebody on one of these shows point out the difference between paper credentials and useful knowledge.

    1. “Some teacher(!) was moaning about how the government didn’t paid her babysitter.”

      “I’m workin’ on it!”


  34. I still think Rand deserves support because he could at least start to fix some of the problems.

    I’m holding out for the part of his inauguration speech where he calls for the resignations the heads of the NSA, DEA, FBI, CIA and Department of Education.

    1. He’ll at least replace the AG.


  36. Bo and PBs posts in this thread are remarkably similar in their wording and timing.

    1. I noticed that too. Shreek is someone’s troll act. I could see both franchises being run by the same mendacious prick.


    Thanks, Greta.

    You have the “right” to say offensive things. Isn’t that enough?
    Now, STFU!

  38. It really doesn’t matter who gets nominated from either party. For the first time in our country’s history American is now comprised of a majority of STUPID people. And stupid people will opt for the free Obama phone every time.

    Hillary in a landslide.

    1. If Bush is the GOP candidate, then yes. Rand will beat Hillary.

      1. Yup. You got it right.

    2. I really don’t think Hillary has a chance. Nobody actually likes her. Even the phrase “ready for Hillary” suggests you need some mental and psychological pep talks beforehand. It’s not natural to prefer her.

      1. The only way she wins is through election fraud, which I’m not putting past her, but I don’t think she’s shrewd enough to get away with it.

        1. Yeah, unfortunately blue America has a pretty good starting point. If you add up the “will vote Dem no matter what” states, my math puts Hillary (or any other Dem) at 249 electoral votes right out of the gate, with 270 needed for the win. The elephant needs to win Ohio, Florida, and either Colorado or Nevada, if my map is right. This is obviously not impossible, but is harder than what the jackass will have to do.

          1. I wonder if Hillary still supports getting rid of the electoral college as she did in 2004 (or was it 2000?)

      2. ” mental and psychological”

        sorry, I’m from the dept of redundancy dept

    3. Really? The FIRST time? FDR and his Dem supermajorities argue otherwise. The improvement seen in today’s state governance also says otherwise.

  39. Well, that’s wishing for at least 4 years of Hillary, who will be some order of magnitude worse than Obama. Hillary is like the a more neocon and drug warrior version of Obama. I understand that if Rand wins, libertarians will be blamed for everything that has ever happened since the big bang. But how bad can that really be? It will mostly just make the MSM look even more ridiculous than they already are. I doubt that it will have much effect at all on the future of politics. But 4 years of Rand leading a GOP congress might see a lot of the worst legislation, like the Patriot Act and FATCA get a chance at repeal. Rand could also undue a lot of the worst of Obama’s executive actions and put someone decent in as AG. And don’t forget the SCOTUS. Who better to appoint a couple new justices than Rand?

    I totally reject the argument being made by this article. At this point, we cannot afford even 4 more years of someone like the Burrito Bush or Hitlary.

  40. “… it will convince them that the candidate gatekeepers must be exiled so that fresh thinking?read: libertarian ideas?can have a shot for a change.”

    I am not sure that sure how that conclusion naturally follows from a Bush v Clinton race. Letting the building collapse does not mean it falls in the direction you want it to, and frankly, I see considerable amount of dislike for freedom of choice in general and economics to say that the edifice will more likely fall in the opposite direction.

  41. Frank Bruni haz a confuze.

    That’s a clear takeaway from several surveys of voters released last week. They showed that despite her email shenanigans, despite the ethical muddle known as the Clinton Foundation, despite the growing confusion about whether the Hillary Clinton of 2016 will be of an ideological piece with the Hillary Clintons of yesteryear, voters will gladly take her, considering the alternatives.

    According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, she was six points ahead of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in head-to-head contests with either. She was 10 points ahead of Scott Walker.

    Inexplicably and rather alarmingly, she was only three ahead of Rand Paul. The mysteries of the American electorate are boundless.

    Bruni obviously has no problem with “business as usual” candidates.

    1. This is wilfully ignorant analysis

      The take aways here are that

      -shcker=hillary is the only possible dem candidate

      – Rand is the only GOP candidate that motivates independent voters

      Other than that the numbers are meaningless because its way too fukn early

      1. Note the use of the words “shenanigans” and “muddle” to describe illegal actions and graft.

    2. Hillary didn’t crack 50% in any of those matchups. Which is really bad for her given that she is universally known while her opponents are almost completely unknown.

      Bottom line, Hillary can’t get more than 45% of the popular vote – max.
      She’s going to lose badly.

      1. We hope.

        1. I can’t say with any confidence that she won’t win in 2016. Too many unknowns at this point for me to say she will lose, let alone badly lose.

          1. I don’t think “badly lose” is very likely, but I don’t see her as much of a “sure thing” as so many do. For one thing, her health is questionable.

            1. “For one thing, her health is questionable.”

              Many who said McCain was too old be president will support Hillary, I am almost looking forward to their mental gymnastics.

              1. Such major disqualifying factors can instantly fade for partisan purposes. I.e. how “sexual harassment in the workplace” was a huge issue in the early ’90s, until Bill Clinton got caught.

  42. I don’t think she’s shrewd enough

    Your misogyny has been noted.

  43. At first glance, I agree with Richmond that libertarians should probably stay home, or vote in down ballot races in 2016. Of course, there is an alternative to people who want to raise military spending and fight Sunnis in Iraq running as a Democrat so that’s the route I’m going down.

    I have to say though that having lived through the years of 1993-2001–where there was prosperity, relative peace, and a sex scandal that seemed to drive right-wingers crazy– and then comparing it to the years of 2001-2009– where we launched a criminal war against a country that never attacked us– I have to say that I’m at least considering a vote for the Clintons. Warts and all.

    1. I have to say that I’m at least considering a vote for the Clintons.

      This is Sudden’s complete lack of surprise

    2. I find your rationale compelling and your conclusion sensible

      Ha, just kidding. Fuck off slaver

    3. …we launched a criminal war against a country that never attacked us– I have to say that I’m at least considering a vote for the Clintons.

      Awesome. Mention Iraq in explaining why you might vote for Hillary, even though Senator Hillary voted to allow the invasion.

      1. Also, since Saddam was violating the peace treaty from the first Gulf War, the second wasn’t illegal, just incredibly stupid, or at least mis-managed.

    4. Who cares who you’re voting for? You’re an imbecile, as evidenced by your marriage to a dumb bitch who can’t understand the contracts she signs.

    5. You’re totally right. I mean, it’s not like that Clinton guy bombed Yugoslavia or continued the Iraq mess or bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan or anything. And it’s not like Hillary went along with all that awful stuff that W did in Iraq; she just voted for it because she had to.

      But your whole “having lived through the 90’s thing” – that’s some bullshit right there. No way you’re over 20.

  44. there is an alternative to people who want to raise military spending and fight Sunnis in Iraq running as a Democrat so that’s the route I’m going down.


    1. Parody? I don’t think so. I’m planning on voting for the most principled man to run for President since George McGovern. You?

      1. american socialist|5.10.15 @ 3:49PM|#
        ‘I’m planning on voting for the worst slaver man to run for President since George McGovern. You?’

        Fixed, shitstain.

  45. maybe we should just put a Lannister on the throne and be done with it — if Bush v Clinton is the best this country can come up with.

  46. Just to correct the article: The Clintons are not a “dynasty”. By definition a “dynasty” must include members of several generations, such as Prescott Bush, George HW Bush, and George W Bush. The Clintons are both from the same generation–husband and wife. Hence not a dynasty.

  47. “Sanders calculates that the public doesn’t care enough about foreign policy or surveillance, and instead focuses entirely on economic issues, where from a libertarian perspective he’s a mess?”

    You mean like when he opposed TARP and didn’t want to give big banks a bailout or the way he has been a consistent for of people who want to regulate things like gay marriage and abortion rights?

    1. He probably is talking about Sander’s bailing everyone else out.

  48. A Hillary vs Bush matchup would be as bad as Adam Lanza.

    Christ Sheldon is such a troll. If he’s not foaming at the mouth about WARMUNGERS he’s arguing for a presidential contest between two of them.

  49. The ‘burn the world to freedom’ notion held by anarchos and some libertarians is so moronic and ahistorical only they could think it. This sort of perfect magical cure-all thinking is in perfect harmony with anarchism and Rothbard’s bastardized version of libertarianism. No need for reality; only unicorns.

    1. HAHAHA!

      Please, oh oracle of the North, tell us how you realistically see liberty becoming mainstream? Do you think you are going to reason people out of wanting “free shit” prior to reality forcing them to?

      1. It isn’t going to become mainstream with Hillary vs Bush contest. Having one of those drive America into the ground doesn’t seem conducive to liberty either, and is more likely to result in at least short term very harsh reductions in liberty. See ‘New Deal’ for further details. I don’t why you find having a clue about history to be hilarious, but it does explain a lot of your posts.

        1. Without a catalyst to drive people away from the current two team, free shit system it will continue.

          If there is a collapse and it is couched as a failure of government while libertarianism is in ascension, there is NO REASON, it couldn’t spur a liberty movement.

          1. “Free shit”

            I’m curious francisco just how much money you received from the army while you were shooting at Iraqi nationalists. You know, people I thought had a legitimate reason to be shooting back. A round number is ok. Thanks,

            1. I wasn’t in the Army retard.

              And the answer is every penny that was contracted for my services.

              1. I love how you can just feel AS think he’s being immensely clever when he posts stuff like that. When in reality he’s so stupid he can’t even get the basic facts right.

      2. Sure, they want free shit, but they also want their own shit. It’s just a matter of whether & to what degree offense or defense predominates. That’s true regardless of what ideas are in the mainstream. The question is not whether people want free shit, but whether they’ll have the power to overcome those they need to take free shit from. And how much free shit, because this is a quantitative issue. It’s not reality forcing them to not want it, but forcing them to not be able to get it.

        Social change doesn’t come from masses of people becoming philosophers, it comes from whose philosophy predominates, and that’s determined by a multitude of factors, usually very particular to the situation.

    2. Lol. The founders south of you started a new govt with a constitution and bill of rights and all kinds of protections designed to protect individuals and their property.

      You are talking about unicorns while holding the belief that “if only the right people were elected would we have liberty” bullshit that folks have been saying for the existence of governments. Yet what the hell has the result been other than the continual erosion of the rights of individuals?

      If govt were so great, it wouldn’t need to survive through violence.

  50. Seasteading can’t get here soon enough. I want to get away from all you zombies.

  51. Bush or Clinton it’s all the same: endless unjust wars, attacks on liberty, making gruberment even bigger with more rules and regulations, taxes too, and fees, fines, surcharges, and mandates.

    1. Which makes it weird that Richman claims I should hope for a contest between two individuals that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. Oh, and I will have to suffer along with those enemies. Makes perfect sense.

      So far, Paul looks like he’ll get my vote.

    2. You forgot to mention surveillance, GMOs, destruction of the American landscape, thwarting of the advancement of solar and wind power, consolidation of the financial wealth into the hands of a few, and so many more issues. But thank you for your comment.

  52. the commies thought a nazi win would be great for germany because it would reveal the wretchedness inherit in national socialism, as opposed to international socialism. Didnt quite work out that way , and 4 years of either jeb or hillary would not be good for the USA either.

  53. Tsarist Russia looked bad, Chiang Kai-shek looked bad, Lon Nol looked bad and so did Weimar Germany. All four of those countries in turn looked to libertarian rulers and and are now libertopias, right?

    1. Not a libertopia, but Taiwan has become pretty free (with a fairly thrifty government and low tax burden), not to mention prosperous. And that’s with a whole lotta Chinese guns aimed at them.

      1. But it’s also important to mention that during most of its extreme period of having a ‘whole lotta Chinese guns aimed at them’ it was under constant martial law and a one-party state.

      2. Well, yeah, right wing dictatorships tend to result in at least having prosperous economies.

  54. The only difference…the ONLY difference between these two is that one of them walks leftward, while the other runs leftward.

  55. Sheldon is onto something…two years too late. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is too pessimistic for comfort. I agree that Bush vs. Clinton would be the best way to show Americans that it is screwed. But it is also the best way to show Americans that resistance is futile. It’s one thing for people to say this stuff to each other, and another thing to read it in an online magazine that is declining rapidly over the past few months. Rand Paul FTW.

  56. 300+ comments; Sheldon you magnificent bastard.

    1. Nothing looked fresh & interesting, so commenting on comments here was best.

      1. Now I’m commenting on your comment on comments on comments. I out-meta you.

        1. It is meta meta all the way down. Kurt Goedel.

  57. I basically mak? about $6,000-$8,000 a month online. It’s ?nough to comfortably replace my old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home. This is how to start… W?W?W.W?O?R?K4?H?O?U?R.?C?O?M?

  58. I think Clinton vs. whomever will be an uplifting discourse between two radically different policy approaches to American governance.

    1. No, even you can’t possibly sincerely believe that.

  59. “Wouldn’t a few months of Clinton and Bush be worth it?”

    Maybe, but four years (or, God forbid… eight) of Clinton or Bush might be more than I could stand.

  60. The problem with this whole thesis is that the left is perfectly happy with Hillary Clinton, and they’ll be happy as hell to listen to her blather on in the debates with Jeb and to turn out in big numbers to vote for the continuation of what they’ve come to believe is so important: more government. She’ll give it to them.

    So, no thanks, I’ll take a deeply flawed candidate such as Scott Walker who will at least work to make government more financially responsible. He’s a proven quantity and I’ll settle for a step in the right direction. If you (Richman) want to sit on your fat duff and watch a continuation of the status quo ?. be my guest. Hope it makes you feel better.

  61. “The worse the better,” Nikolay Chernyshevsky.

  62. There is only one drug powerful enough to cause something like this to be written.


    1. I hear there are treatments but no cure.

  63. I’m voting anti-Prohibition in ’16.

  64. The problem being that one of them would win and we’ll indoctrinate yet another generating into thinking that this is acceptable.

  65. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  66. Last Wednesday (May 6), Seth Lipsky of the New York Post suggested that Michael Bloomberg run against Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Bloomberg is probably the only person on the political landscape who could be Clinton. He’s got stature while Clinton has plenty of baggage.

    But will he run? Age could be a factor (he’ll turn 74 in Feb. 2016).

    A Bloomberg v. Bush race in 2016. Any thoughts, Sheldon?

  67. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

  68. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.netjob80.com

  69. Really? Do we need any more obvious illustrations of how bankrupt and corrupt our government is? Didn’t we acquire a superabundance of such obvious signs of such a long time ago? If anyone is asleep enough to have failed to notice those I very much doubt that the suggested presidential race is going to wake them up.

    The match I really want is Elizabeth Warren against Rand Paul. At least diametrically opposed sets of principles would be presented to the voters rather than the same old “me-too” crap covered in slightly different rhetoric.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.