Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Announces Plan to Essentially Be Barack Obama's Third Term

Her big 'launch' speech is full of absolutely no surprises.

|

Political censorship for some; miniature flags for others.

Bracketed by "Brave" by Sara Bareilles and "Fighters" by Kris Allen, standing on a podium formatted to look like her own logo, Hillary Clinton flung heaps of delicious red meat to a crowd of supporters on Roosevelt Island in New York this afternoon. It was a rally to launch her already-launched presidential campaign with a lengthy, if rather vague, statement of her intentions as president.

It was not a bad speech by any means, though any libertarian is going to struggle to find much to support in her platform (her immigration position, perhaps). It was full of left populist talking points about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are stagnating and completely unironic complaints about how the Republicans are serving the needs of rich corporations and not the public.

She reiterated several more specific positions that we've analyzed here at Reason. She said she wants to create a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the United States illegally. Shikha Dalmia analyzed the political acumen of taking such a position here. She called for higher pay and also a "right" to paid sick days and family leave. Peter Suderman recently highlighted the unintended consequences of such practices, which turn out to be not favorable to women at all. She devoted one whole sentence to criminal justice reform shuffled into a section on policies that affect families, saying "Unequal rates of incarceration are a family issue." I hasten to point out that this is not the same as saying that we're putting too many people in prison, just that the proportions are wrong. She had nothing to say about the drug war other than a mention in this same section about how families should have access to addiction treatment. She said she wants to "make college affordable and available to all and lift the crushing burden of student debt." Presumably, then, she's in favor of eliminating the thousands upon thousands of college bureaucratic and administrative jobs that have grown enormously over the past two decades, because that's what would be necessary. But probably not. I bet any number of folks in those positions were in that very crowd cheering her on and donating to her campaign.

She had nothing of any substance to say about foreign policy, despite being a former secretary of state.  She said she'd "do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe," and spoke vaguely about diplomacy and America being a world leader.

She also said she'd support a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, which brought huge cheers from the crowd. So she is campaigning on actually trying to make it illegal for citizens to fund documentaries to criticize her. But as is typical on the left, she played it off as though Citizens United is about "corporations buying elections," which nobody has ever proven is happening. And isn't that insulting to the voters? Everybody cheered and waved their flags while Clinton essentially told them they are too stupid to decide who to vote for on their own and just line up for whomever spends the most money. It's just not true.

Anyway, what I found interesting about her speech is that anything that sounded remotely specific could have come directly out of President Barack Obama's mouth. She played up investments in renewable energy, fighting income inequality, even improving broadband standards. As Obama's tenure comes to an end, it's been an open question as to where the Democratic Party would be turning. Yes, Obama had positions, of course, but his base of support has revolved around the man himself, what he represented, and his cult of personality that protected him from criticism. So what happens when he steps down? It looks as though Clinton is offering to continue on exactly the way things are now. Her emphasis on being a "fighter" is to signal that she can withstand the media criticism that Obama never received.

Clinton's speech was about an hour long, and the whole speech is not available online as yet (Update: here is the full text of the speech). Here's a clip from Reuters below:

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.

355 responses to “Hillary Clinton Announces Plan to Essentially Be Barack Obama's Third Term

  1. “The libertarian case for Hilary Clinton” article should be easy.

    1. I’m too sober to click on that shit right now, sorry.

    2. Should be easy. In the entire generation of Nam-era boomers, only one couple and two brothers were deemed capable of being President. Then poll millennials and see what they think.

    3. There is little question that the enormous sums flowing into candidates’ campaign coffers undermine democracy, breed cynicism and shape policy to the preferences of powerful donors.

      1. I know! If only we could get the Right People in charge! It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with politicians having too much power over our lives.

        Just have to get rid of the Kulacks and Wreckers, right?

      2. That is exactly why we need someone who is not beholden to corporate money, like Hillary!

      3. So what. Just adapt to the situation, man. Anyone who finds themselves ‘undermined’ by this had it coming: they should’ve adapted. Adapt or die, right? Right?

      4. No, you don’t get it.

        In a democracy, the people vote to give power to the politicians, who then implement the will of the people. And, on that foundation, we have the social contract: because everyone agrees and consents.

        Politicians don’t just do what wealthy donors want. They have to do what the voters want. Because, social contract.

        Don’t start talking about lobbyists and donors and ruin it all.

    4. Is it just a blank page?

  2. So that would make it a fifth Bush term?

    1. If we never hear what she thinks about warrantless wiretapping, mass data collection, and the Fourth Amendment, we can safely assume that she’s for it, for it, and against it, respectively.

      If she ends up running against another Bush in the general, it’ll be really important for us to emphasize to our friends, family, frenemies, and coworkers that Hilary’s no different than another Bush on those issues. She’ll definitely campaign on how we don’t want another Bush!

      Unfortunately, I’ve been getting the feeling from my fellow civilians that, like a lobster being boiled with the heat turned up slowly, people are getting used to the idea of government snooping.

      1. “Private email servers for all!”

      2. Warrantless searches, wiretapping, extortion, murder? That’s all just in a day’s work for the Clinton Gang.

    2. eighth

    3. Hugh Akston|6.13.15 @ 1:51PM|#
      “So that would make it a fifth Bush term?”

      Hugh, I thought it was worth looking before I posted a comment to that effect. Didn’t have to look far.

    4. Well, I suppose, if you discount the difference between Bush’s international interventions, which were going only so-so until Obama ashcanned them, and Obama’s apparent obsessions to get us involved in every third world piss-up going, to our detriment.

      Seriously, Iraq and Afghanistan were campaigns one could criticize on any number of fronts, but they weren’t disasters, except in the minds of the delusional Left, until Obama took the reins. Everything the man touches turns to goo.

      If Hillary is promising to be four more years of the same, we won’t have a friendly nation left and the Middle East will have dissolved into Beirut level chaos.

      1. “Seriously, Iraq and Afghanistan were campaigns one could criticize on any number of fronts, but they weren’t disasters,”

        ALERT: Republican pretending to be a Libertarian.

      2. “Seriously, Iraq and Afghanistan were campaigns one could criticize on any number of fronts, but they weren’t disasters,”

        ALERT: Republican pretending to be a Libertarian.

        1. No no, he’s a republican still learning to be a libertarian. Come brother, let us show him the error of his ways that he may better himself

          1. You should listen to darkflame, Jim. He is a Top Man, and your Better.

  3. So, basically, she’s promising to expand the class war and race war Obama launched into pitting women against men, as well.

    Honestly, that might distract people away from what a disgusting, ethically challenged, irresponsible and incompetent crook she’s been her whole life–long enough to get elected, anyway.

    1. When I think of all those societal civil wars and the general havoc she’s going to wreak on national security (of the cyber kind at least) and corporate and governmental integrity, I really wonder what her grand game is. She wants to sack America to gorge herself on money and power — so what does she want to be the queen of? Who wants to be the Pope Leo X of America?

      Not to mention, she’s also trying to set Chelsea up for high office, and probably that little granddaughter eventually, so why is she chowing down on their seed corn? Why is she killing their golden goose?

      I really don’t get this type of schemer. Maybe it’s because I credit her with more logic and long-term thinking than she’s capable of.

      1. why is she chowing down on their seed corn? Why is she killing their golden goose?

        She’s always done that, but whether she possesses zero long-term strategery skills or she’s that much of a narcissist, I don’t know. The only thing she’s never screwed up is hanging onto Bill’s coattails.

        1. I’m nauseated by Chelsea and anything else that oozed the wrong direction out of Hillary’s Sarlacc Pit. This includes Bill, allegedly…

          It takes a village to cement fill an disgusting predatory, fang-rimmed hole and save children from being digested over a thousand years.

      2. Maybe she’s trying to restyle her family as the American version of the Gandhi family? Basically, if she can generate enough good will (by castrating teh evil kkkorporationz) then Americans will continue to elect her incompetent and corrupt descendants till the end of time? Of course, Modi kind of showed the limitations of that strategy by burying the Congress party, but it worked for a few generations.

  4. Hillary Clinton flung heaps of delicious red meat to a crowd of supporters on Roosevelt Island in New York this afternoon

    Who. The. Fuck. Does anything on Roosevelt Island. You can’t even get there from Manhattan without taking the tram or driving into Queens and getting there from there. It’s mainly inhabited by UN workers and congenital bores (which I’m sure overlap very heavily). Seriously, why would any politician ever hold a speech or rally on fucking Roosevelt Island?

    1. Yeah, why would Hillary Clinton hold a rally on a remote island populated by governing class functionaries? It doesn’t symbolize her campaign or her entire existence even a little bit!

      1. Hey Hugh, I saw in another thread that you called NutraSweet “NutraSweet” and not the other thing that I never say. Only I can call him that, Hugh. If you do it again…I might have to cut you.

        (flips butterfly knife around in a showy manner, only nicks self a little)

        1. I meant nothing by it, Epi. I thought that was just a friendly nickname for him, not an intimate pet name whispered between lovers. I didn’t mean to make you all jelly.

          1. He’s mine! Only I understand him! You stay the hell away from him!

            (punches wall)

          2. Hugh just shut you the fuck down.

            More of this please, Hugh.

            1. Listen assholes.

              The DoJ is reading all your posts and this is the best you can do ?

              Do you guys ( sexists I know ) have nothng better to say ?

              Must you revert to this sophmoric banter that shines a bad light on all the intellectual banter here ?

              1. But there’s no chilling effect, right?

    2. Optics. Same reason a republican might hold a meeting at the Reagan Presidential Library. The liberal hero hierarchy has FDR on the pedestal right below Obama.

      1. You’d think this would be a turn off for Japanese voters.

    3. ” why would any politician ever hold a speech or rally on fucking Roosevelt Island?”

      I actually thought it was a perfect symbolic location.

      Its an even more-cloistered bubble-world within the already bubble-world environment of NYC. From a security standpoint… its perfect. For a politician who doesn’t want to mingle with the public or allow anyone near her who isn’t pre-screened and approved, and has promised to keep their mouths shut and not ask questions…. Roosevelt Island is like Fortress Hillary.

      Naturally my first thought was of the first X-Men film’s Mutant-Making-bomb, intended to Mutify all the UN members on the Island…

      …but then it occurred to me that a Mutant-Powered Hillary would be indistiguishable from the existing one. I expect her to dissolve into a puddle of jelly at any moment as it is.

      1. “I expect her to dissolve into a puddle of jelly at any moment as it is.”

        It should be noted, should any government agent theoretically be tempted to issue a subpoena for Gilmore’s identity, that Gilmore is speaking hyperbolically and has neither the plan nor the means to liquefy any presidential candidates.

        1. I can only hope the DOJ functionaries who read these posts get as big a kick out of them as I !!!

        2. Gonna need a bigger Bass-O-Matic.

        3. We all know Gilmore prefers to put them through a wood chipper.

        4. Ya never know, better safe than sorry. Next time you see Gilmore his state-mandated frontal lobotomy will be complete. I believe afterward he plans on going by the name Tony.

      2. The X-Men connection occurred to me too. Which Brotherhood member would she be? Kankles?

        1. Or maybe she could steal Tomy Stark’s prototype for the Iron Pantsuit Armor.

        2. Omega Red?

        3. She’s got to be Mystique. She’s capable of morphing into any politically expedient form and she has zero conscience.

      3. Personally, I was hoping for an Isla Nublar roll-out. Watching one predator eat another is always fun.

    4. Who. The. Fuck. Does anything on Roosevelt Island. You can’t even get there from Manhattan without taking the tram or driving into Queens and getting there from there.

      Oh, I think you unintentionally explained precisely why she’d choose Roosevelt Island. If you can’t got to Roosevelt Island, you can’t get from Roosevelt Island.

    5. I think it’s more like “flung tofu” at the crowds since it sounds like a typical lib/prog wish list from a women made famous by marrying bill and becoming rich through rent seeking and graft.

    6. “Seriously, why would any politician ever hold a speech or rally on fucking Roosevelt Island?”

      Because it’s easier to fill the crowd with fawning fans and minimize the potential for any undesirables to attend and disrupt the event?

  5. Imagine my surprise.

  6. Hillary had thought for a brief moment that she would differentiate herself from Obama in order to reinvigorate a democratic base that was slightly disillusioned by his failures to live up his promises.

    Instead, she discovered that they liked “The Real Hillary” even less.

    So now, its “Obama, round 2!!” where democrats get to give themselves a pat on the back for their good-intentions, and continue to ignore the failures of the actual policies their party produces.

    1. Right now it looks like the democrats are going to have a race to see who can run the farthest to the left. I’m expecting them to be changing their logo to a hammer and sickle and to start handing out little books written by Chairman Mao and Che Guevara t-shirts about half way through the Democratic primaries. Maybe some Pol Pot bumper stickers.

      They really do not see the connection with Obama’s success as having anything to do with him being the first black POTUS and coming off as a youthful, charismatic, and fresh face in politics. Hillary on the other hand is a hagly old white woman with cankles and no personality. How anyone could like this woman or even see anything positive about her is beyond me.

      1. Running to the left may motivate some of the base, but I doubt if the average black Democrat is going to be as enthusiastic about Hillary as they were about Obama. And that strategy seems doomed when it comes to centrist voters, who have largely turned against Obama. “More of the same” seems like a hard sell.

      2. It’s politics. They’re looking to drop her as soon as they get a little blip of support for someone else.

      3. Is “geria-skank” a word?

  7. Women fighters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KBPH-wSYBE

    I don’t think Hillary cuts it.

    1. Watching women’s MMA is a lot more interesting than watching the guys. Women fight different.

      Thank goodness Rousey got a couple of knockouts, or I thought they were gonna have to tweak the rules. What is she, 15-0 with 13 wins by armbars?

      Also, Rousey’s got the most intimidating pre-fight stare I’ve seen since Marvin Hagler. But Hagler couldn’t scare the hell out of you by the way he was looking at his opponent, kick somebody’s ass, and then turn around and look like a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model.

      When I was younger, if you wanted to see women fight, it was usually in the back of seedy strip club. If women’s MMA is womens’ liberation, thank God for it. I”m sure the feminists think it’s exploitative–if it’s fun and interesting, and guys like watching it, then the feminists must be against it, right?

      1. Do they… do they kiss and make up at the end of each fight?

  8. All Hillary’s speeches sound like this to me.

    1. Don’t you understand, she promised BWAH?

      BWAH 2016!

      1. Hillary could give the following speech and the monkey clapping crowd would react with the same fake enthusiasm:

        BwahBwahBwahBwah RAISE MINIMUM WAGE BwahBwahBwahBwah WAR ON WOMEN BwahBwahBwahBwah GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE BwahBwahBwahBwah RAPE CULTURE BwahBwahBwahBwah

        1. Vote for Rand Paul, he’s BWAHless!

          *bros’ ear tingle*

  9. Reason’s mindless support of open immigration and free trade is giving libertarians a very bad name amongst those of us who don’t happen to be in the top 5% of the earnings distribution.

    1. Aww come on. Are you sure those things are giving libertarians a bad name? Not the butt sex and drugs?

    2. ” free trade is giving libertarians a very bad name”

      If you really think free trade has hurt the average American, you’re not below ‘the top 5% of the earnings distribution’… you’re in the bottom 5% of IQ distribution.

      You also seem to suggest that there’s some version of ‘libertarianism’ out there that would be compatible with a police-state which would require Identity Papers permitting people to work, and a strictly regulated economy which placed innumerable barriers between American buyers and sellers.

      Do share how that works.

      1. “”which placed innumerable barriers between American buyers and sellers….” …and the rest of the world…

    3. If we could just give up our mindless support for those icky free markets, we would surely be embraced by the masses.

    4. “Reason’s mindless support of open immigration and free trade is giving libertarians a very bad name amongst those of us who don’t happen to be in the top 5% of the earnings distribution.”

      Since free trade unquestionably has made you far richer, John, you should be applauding its existence rather than whining that every good you consume is vastly cheaper than it would otherwise be. Oh no! The Japanese can sell me cars that are superior to cars produced by GM in almost every way! We’d better stop them from doing that!

      Furthermore, according to Forbes and the New York Times, the bottom 5% of American wage earners are richer than 68% of the planet. If you’re in the top 80% of American income earners, you’re making more than 90% of the human species, and part of the reason for your staggering wealth is the fact that the cost of living is very low due to the wonder of free trade.

      You’re welcome – I’m glad to help you out, even if you are far too stupid to thank me for my kindness.

      1. Also, I’m a big fan of people using the phrase ‘mindless support’ when reason has actually been very mindful in explaining their reasoning for supporting free trade.

        If you think Reason is being ‘mindless’ then perhaps you should explain where their logic goes wrong and explain why you know better about the need to restrict free markets. Otherwise, you should probably stop calling other people mindless when you yourself don’t seem quite sharp enough to make actual arguments on behalf of your beliefs and just whine instead about how being outside the top 5% of American income earners makes you so damn pooooooorrrrrrrr.

    5. Why do you allow yourselves to be trolled?

      1. I haven’t found any articles about feminists marrying teddy bears in almost 5 hours so I’m a little bored.

      2. Well, if it isn’t our local slanderer trying to shut down a conversation he finds threatening.

        1. Local? Whatever that means. You’re the one who feels threatened. All of your socks have been shut down, and the new ones are too easy to spot.

          There is no conversation. It’s just you trying and failing.

          1. I have nothing to do with Bo, Buttplug, etc. That theory is ridiculous.

            It’s funny that you claim that I can’t avoid being spotted under an alias, and then turn around and say I’ve successfully been posing as several different long-term commenters at once.

            1. Bo’s started commenting here and imploded within a 12 month period.

              That isn’t an argument that he’s your sock. He’s just not a “long term commenter”. He’s also a gigantic douchebag, which possibly explains the confusion.

            2. If you aren’t who you are accused of being, your choice of language there is…odd.

            3. I have nothing to do with Bo, Buttplug, etc. That theory is ridiculous.

              Your name is related to an unpleasant intestinal parasite, however. Coincidence? I think not!

        2. What conversation? The guy called free trade mindless. He offered no reasons. That’s not a conversation, that’s a talking point, a one and done. A troll. When he comes back and responds, then, technically, it will be a conversation.

    6. Reason’s logo: Free Minds and Free Markets. So, what part of “free markets” don’t you understand?

    7. Just who the hell do you think YOU are? Telling me what I can or cannot do? Using government force and coercion in your fascist desire to.keep me from buying cheaper products or better products from China or Vietnam or whatever, because you’re a lazy incompetarded union member?

      Go away. You’re nothing but a fucking boob.

    8. Reason’s mindless support of open immigration and free trade is giving libertarians a very bad name amongst those of us who don’t happen to be in the top 5% of the earnings distribution.

      I suspect the fact that you don’t understand how immigration and free trade make everybody in America better off may have something to do with your lack of economic success.

  10. full of left populist talking points about how the rich are getting richer and the poor are stagnating and completely unironic complaints about how the Republicans are serving the needs of rich corporations and not the public.

    The Party of Envy hardliners eat that pablum with a spoon.

  11. Oh look, libertarian lemmings cheering for a path to citizenship for illegals, while complaining about the party and ideology that would lock down the presidency — and thus the courts — for decades if that happens.

    1. Oh Tulpy-Poo, getting lonely as usual? Maybe you could pretend to be Bo, that usually cheers you up.

      1. Lay off. He’s making a convoluted Archer reference

      2. You have to wonder why he doesn’t ever get tired of being retarded. He takes a beating, and then comes back for more. That can’t be good for his mental health.

        1. He’s gotten progressively more deranged lately, though this particular troll is actually giving off a very ‘Mary’ vibe given all this talk of ‘libertarian lemmings’ and calling you a ‘slanderer.’

          1. Considering that PM has claimed, more than once, that Tulpa has been “ratting out” Reason commenters (presumably with regard to l’affaire woodchipper)…. if one of us is deranged it sure as hell ain’t me.

            1. How dare I drag your stellar reputation through the mud!!!

              1. So it’s OK to make false accusations against a person as long as they’re sufficiently unpopular?

                I know that many commenters here act like spoiled toddlers who treat the internet as their playpen, but thought you were cut from a different cloth. Appears I was wrong. Sad.

                1. So it’s OK to make false accusations against a person as long as they’re sufficiently unpopular?

                  No, but it’s certainly fair to speculate based upon your past behavior. You have the reputation of being a dishonest shitbag. You have that reputation because you’ve been caught red handed being a deceitful piece of shit (need I post the proof AGAIN?). You are absolutely hated here, due to your deceit, which gives you motive.

                  I’m not saying you did shit…but if I had to guess who might attempt to make trouble for Reason, you’d be in my top 3.

                2. Sockpuppeting is sad. So sad. So very sad. So very Tulpa.

            2. Constantly changing handles and trolling an internet sight where you are not welcome is healthy behavior? I don’t know if you are deranged Tulpa, but you are increasingly pathetic.

        2. You flatter yourself, slanderer.

          Watching my enemies stoop to ever lower new lows, lying and colluding to try to shut down and smear a POV they disagree with makes me feel a lot better about myself. I’m sure you and the other clowns will reply with a string of insults, but the magic of considering the source will transform it into ambrosia for my self-image.

          1. What is this slanderer nonsense?

            1. Google is not your friend.

              Loki|6.10.15 @ 4:22PM|#

              I was thinking maybe it was either Mary Stack, Tulpa, or Bo. Although I doubt the last 2 would do it. They’ve seen comments like that here for a long time, often directed at them and haven’t tried to snitch to the feds.

              Someone must have tipped the feds off though. The only other explanation I xan think of is that someone in the federal prosecutor’s or the judge’s office was keeping tabs on news coverage of the case and saw the comments. I’d like to think they have better things to do with their time.

              Pl?ya Manhattan.|6.10.15 @ 4:25PM|#

              Tulpa snitches all the time. Maybe he got someone to listen.

              Loki|6.10.15 @ 5:19PM|#

              Tulpa snitches all the time.

              Didn’t know that. That was his last semi-redeeming quality I thought he had: that at least he wasn’t a snitch. Oh well.

              1. Did you or did you not threaten to contact the attorney general over a bottle of coke?

                1. And I said maybe. All you had to do was deny it, but you didn’t.

                  1. Bullshit. You did not say “maybe” about the accusation of snitching. The text is right there, don’t even try to pretend you didn’t slander me.

                    1. Bullshit. You did not say “maybe” about the accusation of snitching. The text is right there, don’t even try to pretend you didn’t slander me.

                      I’m no lawyer, so anyone that is please feel free to correct me.

                      First, it’s written so it would be libel. Here is what you need for libel:

                      To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to his or her reputation as a result of the communication.

                      [emphasis mine]

                      a. Not sure how the plaintiff (using their real name) could be damaged when using a pseudonym? (are you going to sue him for damaging Tulpa’s reputation?)

                      b. There is nothing anyone could say that could make Tulpa’s reputation any worse than it is already.

                      c. How can real life Tulpa be injured if no one knows who you really are? What’s your injury, that people don’t like your on-line persona?

                2. Weak, man. Calling customer service and returning to the store when you are fraudulently sold a different product than you thought you were getting is not “snitching”. I suppose I was supposed to just drink the soda that tasted not like it was supposed to taste.

                  Leaving aside the “all the time” bullshit that you stuck on there, too.

                3. Also, when people use violent language that is obviously exaggerated, there have been multiple times that Tulpa has said things like “You’d better hope no one from the government sees this!” and he has often claimed that obviously exaggerated language is somehow a ‘death threat.’

                  We have long memories, Tulpa, and don’t try to deny that you’ve said and done things like that. Given your history, it’s not exactly a slanderous assertion to say you might have ratted on someone given that you’ve outright threatened such things in the past.

                  1. Also, when people use violent language that is obviously exaggerated, there have been multiple times that Tulpa has said things like “You’d better hope no one from the government sees this!”

                    Plenty of Reason articles about “threat prosecutions” detail why that is a valid concern. The current legal affairs regarding the now-infamous woodchipper thread underline it. I did not create this legal landscape, nor do I support it, I just live in it and try to help people. To insinuate that as evidence of me being a “snitch” is ridiculous. Snitches would want people to run their mouths.

                    he has often claimed that obviously exaggerated language is somehow a ‘death threat.’

                    Often? Name one time.

                    Given your history, it’s not exactly a slanderous assertion to say you might have ratted on someone given that you’ve outright threatened such things in the past.

                    Well, he didn’t even say “might” when referring to his accusation, so that’s irrelevant. I have never threatened to do something like that, “outright” or otherwise.

                    BTW, you really would benefit by losing this tendency to embellish your opinions with words like “often” and “outright” when you can’t even provide evidence to back up your statements without those emphasizers. Bluster may work great hanging with your buds here in 0.5% land, but in the real world it will not serve you well.

                    1. I just live in it and try to help people.

                      Didn’t you just say that we were your enemies? And you’re here to help?

                    2. My enemies getting in legal trouble does not help my cause. I must defeat them in the marketplace of ideas.

                    3. Huh. How is that going for you?

                    4. How is that going for you?

                      Better than it is for any of you. If you think dominating a backwater blog comment section with impotent complaints constitutes winning, you are horribly deluded.

                    5. So why are you here, Tulpa? I mean, besides that you’re a pathetic loser. That’s a given.

                    6. Tulpa, the English language doesn’t have a word that conveys what a pitiful loser you are. “Pathetic excuse for a man” doesn’t work. Nor does “pitiful loser”, nor “whining manchild”, nor “oxygen thief”. You would do us, and yourself, a favor if you gouged out your eyes, burned out your tongue, and cut off your fingers. You’d at least get to retain some dignity, you know? Give it some thought.

                    7. But you’re not, Giardian. That’s the perplexing thing.

                      No one forced you to log into Reason today. No one forced you to post comments.

                      If you are ‘trying to defeat your enemies in the marketplace of ideas’, trolling Reason isn’t the way to do it.

                      You know the commenteriat are very libertarian and so – why waste your time? I doubt Warty or Ken or Playa will suddenly have an epiphany and say ” damn, Giardian was so right after all”. Especially using your adversarial, confrontational approach – you’re not persuasive. Remember the saying about catching more flies with honey? Calling us ‘your enemy,’ is not a wise way to persuade.

                      So, let’s be honest. You’re here because you are bored. You probably troll various cites all day long, picking fights and getting your jollies off as you do.

                      I pity you, man. I really, really do. You have no life but an online one and that online one is not a happy place but a hateful one.

                      You will be in my prayers and I wish you inner peace.

              2. You and I both know the truth. Don’t bother lying to the people here, which may also violate the terms of the gag orders. The documents will eventually be unsealed and your identity will become public knowledge. Until then, by making false statements about it, you are in violation of multiple Federal statutes, including the Lumber Tools Safety Act of 2005.

                1. in violation of multiple Federal statutes, including the Lumber Tools Safety Act of 2005

                  The sad thing is (other than tulpa) is that it might well be such a law.

              3. For the last time, you fucking half-wit. Slander is spoken; libel is printed. You’ve been fucking this up for years. Years.

                No wonder you were denied tenure.

                1. Is it possible to defame someone whose reputation is already somewhere south of a dung beetle?

          2. Daddy come too fast so you got left with blue balls? Poor Tulpa. Poor, poor Tulpa.

          3. “Watching my enemies stoop to ever lower new lows, lying and colluding to try to shut down and smear a POV they disagree with makes me feel a lot better about myself. I’m sure you and the other clowns will reply with a string of insults, but the magic of considering the source will transform it into ambrosia for my self-image.”

            Wow, Tulpa. You’re a paranoid loon. Are you typing this from a basement compound somewhere with your head wrapped in tin foil so as to ward off the mind control rays directed towards you by your many enemies?

            And if getting attacked did ‘make you feel a lot better about yourself’ I have a slight suspicion you wouldn’t be flying around this comment section angrily wailing and gnashing your teeth about what big meanies everyone is to poor, put-upon you.

            1. Irish, it’s pretty clear at this point that he’s just getting off tricking people into arguing with him. He’s the Rachel Dolezal of Reason.

            2. I don’t wail here. I pity the people who have to go through life as such scuzzes.

              Hey, maybe you’re not assholes in real life, just on the internet where you feel you can get away with it. Though that may in fact be even more pitiable.

              1. Hey, maybe you’re not assholes in real life, just on the internet where you feel you can get away with it.

                Clearly, projection isn’t limited to movie theaters.

              2. I’m not an asshole in real life. I’m actually quite nice, and people tend to like me a lot more than I like them. I would even have played volleyball with you, had you actually been here. But, being a pathological liar, I don’t believe you were ever here.

                You should really think long and hard about this situation. You’ve trolled this place for a decade, and now you’re concerned about your reputation? Something ain’t right, man.

                1. So it’s OK to make false accusations against a person as long as they’re sufficiently unpopular?

                  1. Are you really trying to lecture me on what is socially acceptable?

                    1. No lecture at all. Just curious about your views on morality.

                      Is it OK to make false accusations against a person as long as they’re sufficiently unpopular?

                    2. My reply isn’t going to make sense to you if you don’t see yourself realistically, which you clearly don’t.

                      Do you feel, given your track record of behavior, that you deserve to be treated fairly? If your answer is yes, then there’s the problem.

                    3. Better not say what he deserves, though. Reason doesn’t need any more subpoenas.

                    4. If anyone has a subpenis, it’s you, Warty.

                    5. My reply isn’t going to make sense to you if you don’t see yourself realistically, which you clearly don’t.

                      Funny to see such a hyper-opinionated person dodge such a simple question. Though of course, your previous comments imply that your answer is “yes, it’s OK to make false accusations against a person who is sufficiently unpopular.”

                      Do you feel, given your track record of behavior, that you deserve to be treated fairly?

                      Everyone deserves to be treated fairly. I suspect you mean to ask whether I deserve to be treated well, which is irrelevant. That’s a much higher bar than refraining from false accusations.

                      If I were really so horrible, there would be no need for false accusations — the truth would be sufficient. But you appear to have chosen to join SF and others on the slander train.

                    6. You can drop the whole “unpopular” thing. You didn’t just happened to draw a short straw and end up unpopular through no fault of your own; your reputation is well deserved. People think you’re an asshole because you consistently behave like an asshole.

                      Honestly, based on your long record of bad behavior, I really think you’re capable of pretty much anything. I think it’s likely that you’ve snitched, and I think you are likely running multiple socks right now. And when you say “I didn’t do it”, it means nothing to me, because you lie more often than you tell the truth.

                      As far as I’m concerned, the accusations aren’t false until you provide proof that they are, and that means more than “I didn’t do it”. I would take anyone else’s word for it. Not yours.

                    7. Progression of your behavior on this thread thus far:

                      3:03 PM – questioning whether the statement ever occurred
                      3:13 PM – claiming the comment was just a speculation, not an accusation
                      3:42 PM – claiming that my reputation is bad so the false accusation didn’t matter
                      3:57 PM – claiming that I don’t deserve to be treated fairly, and false accusations are OK
                      4:20 PM – back to doubling down on the accusation

                      If you look at this and think it’s a justifiable sequence of choices, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. You go in the same category as the others.

                    8. OH NO PLAYA TULPA IS PUTTING YOU ON THE NAUGHTY LIST NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

                    9. This just made my day. It’s a window into the mind of a mentally ill person.
                      Your interpretation of what took place… Just wow.

                      And then you keep talking about how you’re disappointed in me, and that you thought I was different. That’s more than just a little crazy. I absolutely don’t care about what you think of me. If anything, your disapproval validates me. That’s how far in the mud your reputation is.

                    10. I THOUGHT YOU WERE DIFFERENT PLAYA

                    11. (I really am though, sub penis).

                    12. (I really am though, sub penis).

                      STOP LEADING HIM ON.

                    13. Warty? He’s so hetero, it’s ridiculous. I’m glad we’re not both competing for you, because he has twice as much testosterone as I do. But I’d pay attention to your needs first.

                    14. Twice as much, you say?

                      *taking notes*

                    15. Did you miss the part where I implied that he would ignore your needs?

                    16. “Progression of your behavior on this thread thus far:

                      3:03 PM – questioning whether the statement ever occurred
                      3:13 PM – claiming the comment was just a speculation, not an accusation
                      3:42 PM – claiming that my reputation is bad so the false accusation didn’t matter
                      3:57 PM – claiming that I don’t deserve to be treated fairly, and false accusations are OK
                      4:20 PM – back to doubling down on the accusation

                      If you look at this and think it’s a justifiable sequence of choices, then, well, we have nothing further to discuss. You go in the same category as the others.”

                      I can’t fathom why you’re not more popular.

            3. Wow, Tulpa. You’re a paranoid loon. Are you typing this from a basement compound somewhere with your head wrapped in tin foil so as to ward off the mind control rays directed towards you by your many enemies?

              Nope, just his cubicle at the OFA office where he is paid to do this shit.

          4. It’s hilarious that Tulpa, after all the time he’s spent whining about ad hominiems and how no one will take him seriously because he’s a joke, is doing this “consider the source” bullshit. Hey, Tulpa, do you ever consider that you’re a disgraceful excuse for a man? Do you ever consider that? Of course you do. You loser. You failure. You scum.

            1. I bet you feel you can get away with that on the internet, Warty.

              I think he’s trying to hint that he called the feds, but then we all know he’s much too cowardly to do anything like that. I mean, he’s too afraid to even post under “Tulpa.”

              1. Can you tell us another story about Lindsey Graham and Chris Christie? Pleeeeeze?

                1. Can you tell us another story about Lindsey Graham and Chris Christie? Pleeeeeze?

                  Stop that.

          5. “The_Giardian”

            Looks too similar to giardiniera. Trolls shouldn’t be allowed to have yummy names. False advertising.

              1. Much better

          6. You have to understand, Giardian, that many posters here are optimists. It’s one of the common faults of libertarians, that they sometimes like to believe people are naturally good and competent and corrupted by institutions. As such, they life to believe there are only a few halfwits running around making lots of aliases for themselves.

            I am more cynical, and can wholly accept that there are myriad idiot out there, and that every one who wanders on here may well in fact be a seperate person.Yes, afraid to say, it’s not just Bo, Tony and Tulpa; there is in fact an army of idiots out there.

            So don’t worry, you have a partisan in me: I acknowledge that you are your own special, unique shit-for-brains, not merely the alias of another. So go out there Giardian, go out and spread your own unique brand of drivel, and don’t let anyone tell you you’re just copying someone else’s! ‘Cause you and I know different đŸ˜‰

        3. I think Reason needs “kill files” (note to ill-tempered and ignorant legal professionals: that’s a computer term and has nothing to do with manila folders, homicide… or wood chippers, for that matter).

    2. Those damn lemmings and their goddamn principles.

      1. This is one of those cases where principle is more honored in the breach than in the observance. The effect of supporting “freedom of movement” will be the stomping of every other freedom, as well as that one in the long term.

        1. ” The effect of supporting “freedom of movement” will be the stomping of every other freedom, as well as that one in the long term.”

          Quite the opposite.

          but i don’t think you’re being intellectually honest to begin with, so its understandable.

          1. Tulpa’s very mad people say mean things about him, so he’s here to Show His Enemies a thing or two!

          2. Quite the opposite.

            Seriously? Please elaborate on how the opposite happens.

            From what I can see, the only thing that would stop Democrat one-party rule at that point would be:
            1. The Greens splitting off to form an even more socialist party, or
            2. The GOP dumping Tea Party ideals and shifting toward a Mike Huckabee philosophy of social conservatism and economic leftism to appeal to Hispanics.

            1. Hey Tulpa, so how did it feel when you snitched to the US Attorney? Did you get a stiffy? Did you feel like a big man? Did you go flex in the mirror and strike a few kung-fu poses?

            2. Were you the person who made this same argument a while back, which i debunked in detail, and then you asserted that “You’d Bookmarked The Discussion” so that you could come and revel in your foresight when Michelle Obama leaps into the fray at the last minute (as Hillary implodes) and rescues the Democrat party?

              If not, its ok.

              As for your observations about ‘the only things stopping Democrat one-party rule’….

              Your incisive analysis of our political landscape is fascinating, and worthy of its own newsletter, to which I would gladly subscribe given the opportunity.

              1. Yawn. You made a counterintuitive claim and I asked for an explanation. Evidence would be even nicer. But all you got is bald assertion, complaints about me personally, and a little bit of unjustified sarcasm.

                1. TEH IXPANIX ARE EVUL AND LAZY AND WILL ALWAYS VOTE FREE SHIT

                2. Just like when you didn’t get tenure, right Tulpa?

                3. No, I was being serious =

                  a previous incarnation with a very-similar claim said that the Democrats where poised for one-party rule, and when it was explained to that person that there are Zero actual viable democratic candidates at the moment besides Hillary… and that Hillary has some serious problems that necessitate the GOP being extra-specially retarded to offset….

                  well, the reply was that “Michelle Obama would leap into the fray and take the nomination”.

                  It was so stupid i just assumed it must have been you.

                  As for ‘counter intuitive’ = Your claim fits that description far better.

                  no, a less “enforcement-only”-based immigration policy would NOT result in losses of other liberties.

                  Quite the opposite = a more-restrictive immigration policy would be doubling down on our existing police state, resulting in the logical treatment of all US citizens as “potential criminals”, resulting in things like ‘Real ID’ and requiring employers to certify employees, creating permanent underclasses and extending police powers into every aspect of life.

                  Again = i don’t think you’re here for any honest discussion, and never have been. You’re just goading because its what you do.

                  1. a more-restrictive immigration policy would be doubling down on our existing police state

                    Possibly, but where did I advocate a “more restrictive” immigration policy? I just don’t want to grant illegals citizenship.

                    Just because totally closed borders leads to totalitarianism doesn’t mean that totally open borders leads to liberty — which is what I was asking you to provide evidence or at least a notion of the argument for. Unfortunately most roads lead to statism. Protecting liberty requires some adept maneuvering for which dogmatic principles of any kind are a devastating encumbrance.

                    1. Nobody cares what you have to say, Tulpa. No one. Not a single person. Do you know why? Use your thinknoggin. Try real hard.

                    2. oh, so now your previous declamatory statements that “freedom of movement” = “certain doom for liberty” is nuanced?

                      and its the other people who are ‘dogmatic’?

                      The reason you’re never worth wasting time on is because you never ever do anything in good faith. You’re just a bundle of intellectually-dishonest rhetorical devices.

                      I don’t think you could ever manage a single statement without needing to claim that a) you’re being mis-represented

                      (despite you saying baldly that “freedom of movement” will destroy other freedoms.)

                      and b) needing to simultaneously misrepresent the people debunking your statements, pretending THEY made absolutist claims instead of you.

                      (e.g. “” a less “enforcement-only”-based immigration policy would NOT result in losses of other liberties.””)

                      Which of those two statements is clearer and less ‘dogmatic’?

                      No one ever wants to talk to you because you seem to be too stupid to understand how transparent this dishonest M.O. is. Its *obvious*. Which is how everyone knows its you regardless of the handle.

                    3. I never said it was “nuanced” but it is a clear cause and effect relationship. As it stands now, the Dems only have to win blue states plus Florida once every 4 years to maintain White House occupancy. That’s why BO is pumping up executive power. In all likelihood the 2020 census will shift even more electoral votes to blue and newly-blue states, so the trend will become even more difficult for the current GOP to buck in 2024.

                      If you grant citizenship to illegals, Texas and Arizona probably go blue within a few years. Game over.

                      don’t think you could ever manage a single statement without needing to claim that a) you’re being mis-represented

                      It’s not my fault you guys constantly misrepresent my arguments and put words in my mouth.

                    4. Fucking Cunt

                      /Bearded Shultz

                    5. Huh?

                    6. Nate Silver disagrees with you.

                    7. In other news: the GOP is going to go extinct in a few years because of all the Democratic Irish, Italian, German, and Eastern European immigrants flooding into the country’s cities en masse.

                      Oh wait, that was 100 years ago people were making that argument… and still no one part system.

            3. From what I can see

              You need to have your eyes checked.

            4. “From what I can see, the only thing that would stop Democrat one-party rule”

              Uh how are we headed toward Democrat one-party rule when Republicans hold 31 Governorships, 54 U.S. Senate Seats, and 246 seats in the House? Not to mention the virtual wipe out of the Democratic Party at the state and local level in numerous states which even Democrats admit may take a generation to rebuild.

              1. The congressional gains are probably going to be erased in 2016. With regard to the Senate, it’s six years after 2010’s gigantic pickup, and thus a very difficult map for the GOP to defend in the Senate. And it’s a presidential election so scads of low info voters who didn’t even know there was an election in 2014 will be at the polls.

                My guess is that they retain the House with a smaller majority, and either barely hold on to 51 seats in the Senate or lose it. The presidential election is practically in the bag for the Dems at this point.

                Please note that I do not look on these events with any relish, just telling it like it is.

    3. If you had done your basic homework, you’d realize that is not true.

      Libertarians do believe you have an unalienable right as a human to live where you want. But that doesn’t mean citizen. Nor does it necessarily all libertarians are ‘no borders/open borders’.

      Really, if you wish to post here, try and refrain from the ad hominem attacks. There are differences of opinion on the borders/citizenship debate among libertarians.

  12. “She played up investments in renewable energy, fighting income inequality, even improving broadband standards.”

    I’m always amazed by idiots who claim American broadband is slow. Here’s a guy claiming America’s broadband speeds are really bad, but if you read to the end of the article, his OWN NUMBERS show that the US has the fourteenth fastest broadband speeds on Earth. Oh no! Fourteenth! Whatever shall we do if we’re barely outside the top ten!

    What’s even more astonishing about these dipshits, is that if you actually look at the countries ahead of the US, they’re all very small and very dense – South Korea, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Latvia, Ireland, The Czech Republic, Romania, Denmark, Finland and Norway. If you look at the speeds, we’re also basically in a tie with Norway, Finland, Denmark and Romania since our average speed is 11.4 Mbps while Romania’s is 11.8 and Denmark, Finland and Norway fall in between. Five countries within .4 megabits per second basically means those five countries have very similar broadband speeds.

    We have faster broadband than Canada, Australia, Germany, France and Britain, despite the fact that all of those countries have denser populations than the United States, but for some reason I’m not hearing crazy people howl about how terrible internet speeds are in the Great White North.

    1. But it would be faster if America passed the Faster Public Broadband Act and appointed a Czar of Fast Broadband. Why are you against progress?

    2. Not fast enough for L.A. They’re about to dump $3-5B to set up a municipal broadband provider.

  13. OMG…she is terrible. How uninspiring. Yet, I’m sure the DNC social media juggernaut will make her out to be the true second coming unlike the last second coming that wasn’t.

    1. Meanwhile they’re supporting her only because they’re convinced that if she’s elected, Bill will be pulling the strings. The number who seriously like Hillary must be vanishingly small, but a lot of people think there was some magic that Bill had, based on his terms as prez & how the country was doing during them.

      1. “The number who seriously like Hillary must be vanishingly small”

        meh, talk to any woman older than 50. She’s got the menopause vote on lockdown

        1. My mother and both sisters (all over 50) think she’s a vile hag, so there’s that.

        2. Well, the AARP may be the closest thing to an actual omnipotent Illuminati-type interest group that exists in the US, so that actually could be a big factor.

    2. What the hell does Shackleford mean by saying “It was not a bad speech by any means”? What the HELL?

      1. Shackford.

      2. in fairness = a speech that satisfies the audience is a ‘good speech’.

        it is not a measure of its actual substance = its is a measure of the performance, and how it meets the expectations of the audience.

        by the same token, Hitler was an *amazing* public-speaker. I mean, Toastmasters? look out

        1. Waal, maybe. I suffered through a few seconds of it in a Marco Rubio commercial, and if that was a satisfactory speech, it was a brain-dead audience. Hitler actually gave pretty good speeches, didn’t he? I mean, he spoke without reading from a script and he appeared to believe what he was saying.

  14. So how long does Gary Johnson have to wait to start campaigning to ensure he doesn’t run out of money?

    1. A couple days before the primary

      Anyway, i think his presidential aspirations ended when he went to work for Big Weed. More power to him.

      1. I’d like to think that in a Bush vs Clinton vs Johnson race, he would do much better than the 1% he got last time. I mean if that doesn’t wake people up, wtf will?

        1. “if that doesn’t wake people up, wtf will?”

          Stormtroopers at 1 am?

  15. A Hillary speech is to my ears like my girlfriends chili is to my stomach; smells bad before you eat it, and worse after you do…

    1. But you still eat it because you love her?

      I hope that doesn’t apply to Hillary.

  16. Interesting take on Fast Track:

    But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.

    What now proceeds under the banner of free trade thus looks much more like stealth integration?all the more so as the drafts of these trade agreements remain a closely guarded secret with national security classification. Admittedly, there may be reasons to have greater regulatory harmonization with the European Union, or Japan?or for that matter, China?but the Obama administration is not making that case to the American people. Nor are Obama’s current Republican allies defending global governance achieved via trade agreement. Instead, both sides recite old slogans about the benefits of free trade, even as the trade agenda has moved on.

    http://www.theamericanconserva…..ree-trade/

  17. but thought you were cut from a different cloth. Appears I was wrong. Sad.

    Concern Trolling for Dummies, ch 1.

    1. And trolling for any sort of sympathetic response. Slimy, besides.

    2. And way off the mark. I’ll crawl under the bar every single time.

      1. Not sure if self-awareness is good or bad for a slanderer to have.

        1. Libel, not slander. He’s a libeler, not a slanderer. See SF above.

          1. Thank you. Does that mean we’re not broken up anymore?

            1. She just called you a libeler and you thank her?

              1. That’s how reputations work, Tulpa. Lady B could piss on my leg and I’d thank her, because I know that she’d be doing it for the right reasons.

                (Disclaimer: I’m not into water sports and I never will be)

                1. No Playa, this is how reputation works. ” If a man builds 1,000 bridges and sucks one dick, they don’t call him a bridge-builder… they call him a cocksucker.”

                  Or in Tulpa’s case, sucked a thousand dicks and claims to have built a bridge that no one’s ever seen.

                  1. Hey, that’s pretty good. Especially since Tulpa’s a huge homophobe. Pitiful, right?

                    1. Can we really make any definitive statements about what Tulpa is? (Other than a mental patient) I mean, his socks argue with each other so much who can tell what he believes?

                  2. Oh, man. Thanks for the laugh.

                2. That’s how reputations work, Tulpa. Lady B could piss on my leg and I’d thank her, because I know that she’d be doing it for the right reasons.

                  Thanks for illustrating TEAM dynamics.

              2. She just called you a libeler and you thank her?

                No I didn’t. I corrected your terms.

                Based upon preliminary evidence and past experience, he suggested a possibility. That’s not libel. You seem kinda obsessed with him, though. It’s almost romantic. So, I’m warning you, hands off.

                1. Actually you did call him a libeler. Probably unintentionally, but you did open the whole can of word-nitpicking so deal with it.

                  I am sad because he once seemed like a good, if somewhat misguided, person. There are others here who have been irremediable since day one, and I really don’t give a shit about them. But, it’s sad to see formerly good people do bad things. Not as bad as Stannis Baratheon but that’s a whole other thread.

                  1. OMG. I totally nailed it.

                    Do you drive past Playa’s house hoping to get a peek of him through the curtains? You see his lovely house with warm light seeping through the windows and wonder what he’s doing right now? Do You fantasize trips to Vegas where you get drunk together, pass-out and spoon?

                    1. To be truthful Playa is teh sexy!

                    2. Uh oh. Did I get drunk and email nudes again? It was cold that day, I swear!

                    3. LOL.. no you showed the commentariat a photo of you and wifey with your baby, I think or the meet-ups one or the other or both.

                    4. I live behind gates for a reason.

                    5. I live behind gates for a reason.

                      Mentioning that online is not very good opsec, dude. You saw what happened to Miami Prepper.

                      [/helping enemies]

                    6. That sounded awfully threatening, Tulpa. Maybe you should rat yourself out. You know, since you’re a rat and you ratted out Reason. Do you remember? Remember the time you did that?

                    7. I have no idea who or what that is.

              3. She just pointed out you’re retarded. You should be thanking her to for the insight.

            2. I’m still waiting for my benefits.

          2. Words mean what people think they mean.

            There’s not much more ironic than a libertarian prescriptivist.

            1. That’s not ironic. You idiot.

            2. So, if I say I think you’re a pathetic moron do those words mean “manly stud” in your brain?

            3. The_Giardian|6.13.15 @ 3:56PM|#
              “Words mean what people think they mean.”

              Attention whore = tulpa!
              See how easy that is?

              1. The funny thing about Tulpa is that in addition to being ruthlessly obnoxious, being popular seems to really, really matter to him.

                I’ve never really thought of Tulpa as being especially libertarian, so that’s no reason for him to want to be here. And most people who don’t have that kind of connection to a group and get thoroughly rejected go away.

                With Tulpa, he still seems to think that if he just says the right combination of syllables, somehow everyone will realize that he’s the smartest guy in the room and greatest guy in the world.

                I don’t think Tulpa understands why we react to him this way, and I’m sure that’s part of the reason why he doesn’t go away. He doesn’t understand the irreconcilable differences, and if he doesn’t even understand the differences, how can he ever get that they’re irreconcilable?

                Tulpa reminds me of this chick.

                http://tinyurl.com/ofz54za

                And more of the same here:

                http://tinyurl.com/ppaj5dt

                1. I’m open to people with different viewpoints than mine. It’s the assholish behavior that bothers me.

                  He doesn’t see other people as human beings. They’re items for him to play with. And that’s why he’s all alone.

                  1. Yeah, I don’t think he has any conception that the way he’s acted for years is assholish.

                    It’s just like he can’t seem to take anyone arguments at face value either. He always reacts to your argument like you said something you never said–I think in part becasue he genuinely can’t fill in the blanks well enough to understand what people are saying. But then he’ll go to painfully obtuse lengths to insist that his reaction to what you were saying was correct, and you’re the one that’s being dishonest…

                    I keep hearing people say he was rejected for tenure, and I suspect it’s for the same personality reasons that he’s been rejected by the commentariat here. And I think he honestly doesn’t get it.

                    I suspect he has severe Asperger syndrome, or that he falls on the autism spectrum somewhere. And I suspect that because he can’t stop himself from acting that way even when he’s trying. …and he seems to desperately want to be accepted. And he seems to genuinely not understand why people don’t accept him. There are people who can work with him, but if he doesn’t go out and at least try to get some help, he’s gonna turn increasingly bitter. And it isn’t just that people in that situation sometimes do awful things, it’s also that he shouldn’t want to live his life being rejected by everyone and everything.

                    That’s a shitty way to live.

                    1. There’s certainly some stuff going on behind the scenes.

                      I’ve mad it clear that I don’t care what people’s beliefs are, as long as they’re sincerely held and they argue in good faith. Tulpa does that a very rarely. For all I know, this is his therapy.

                      I don’t know about his need to be accepted. He has a stronger need to be the smartest man in the room, and ends up looking extremely stupid in the process. It’s not a feedback loop I wouldn’t want to be stuck in.

                    2. You guys are so off base it would be funny in another context.

                      I know that I am never going to be seen as the smartest guy in the room at this place, and have acknowledged this many times. If anyone is desperate for attention and approval, it is the people obsessed with putting somebody else down, even to the extent of blatantly making false accusations against that person.

                      There are some who are irredeemable due to dogmatism and TEAM LIBERTARIAN spirit, but the hope is that there may be some people who gain some insight and knowledge from some of my comments. This is not to say that every comment is dripping with insight and wisdom, but everyone has something to contribute to an honest discussion. Which is why I cannot stand idly by while people poison the well and make false accusations against me.

                    3. I know that I am never going to be seen as the smartest guy in the room at this place

                      Understatement of the Year. You might not even qualify as the smartest guy in the room at your local ARC.

                    4. “Which is why I cannot stand idly by while people poison the well and make false accusations against me.”

                      Why did you keep coming back before now?

                      Do you even know the answer to that question yourself?

                      No one would ever say anything about you if you went away.

                      Why do you keep coming back to a place where everyone rejects you?

                      Do you know?

                      That isn’t normal behavior. And there a professionals that can help you figure out why–year after year–you continuously seek the approval of the people who despise you.

                      They can help you understand why other people despise you, too. How to avoid that sort of reaction from other social opportunities in the future! But you have to go find them and get help.

                    5. If you had a heart problem, you’d go see a cardiologist. If you have problems dealing with other people because of symptoms that look a lot like Asperger’s syndrome to casual observers, then there are specialists who can either rule it out or help you deal with it. And it isn’t about medication. It’s about learning to make sense of your social interactions with other people–and why yours always fail.

                      I bet I’m not the first person who’s mentioned Asperger’s syndrome to you, either. I bet you’ve heard it from other people before.

                      If I were you, I’d call one of these numbers to see if they can help you find someone that diagnoses or treats adult Asperger’s in your area:

                      http://tinyurl.com/o3qla28

                      The rest of the world isn’t going to change for you, and nobody’s going to save you–so you’re gonna have to save yourself.

                2. I don’t know if they’re real, but those text messages are pee-my-pants funny.

                  I think you like them, Ted, because he corrects her usage of ‘there’ in the first set.

                  1. Geez, sorry. Ken, not Ted.

                3. Ouch, Ken. You’re firing for effect and scoring direct hits.

          3. Also, Tulpa is exactly the kind of weasel who would rat us out. So even if he’s not lying, fuck him.

            1. I think we can trust Tulpa! When has he ever lied before?

              1. Do you think he’s drunk? He must be. This is sad.

                1. Maybe. Can’t say I’d judge though. If it were a nice day, I’d be at the beach with a few beers in me.

                  This seems to be more of a manic swing, though. His mood is all over the place. One minute, he’s pissed about his reputation that he never had in the first place, and then he’s trying to help us in the “marketplace of ideas”

                  It certainly falls outside the normal spectrum of human behavior, though. Most people would work on fixing it, but he seems to indulge it to excess.

                  1. I think he has a man crush. You should stop leading him on.

                    1. He came to visit me and he didn’t even knock on my door. Do I have to make the first move?

                    2. He didn’t knock on your door because he was staring at you through your bathroom window.

                    3. This is going to end just like Nightingale

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udw5bBitwE4

                  2. Right, it’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma that someone could both be kind to people who aren’t necessarily kind back, and be pissed that someone was making false accusations against him.

                    Now making false accusations, claiming it was OK because the victim is unpopular, then further insulting the target of said false accusations, THAT’s normal human behavior. We should all emulate such character.

                    1. You have more success with your Bo character. Why don’t you give up on this handle? You can always sucker some idiots into arguing with “Bo”. Moron.

                    2. I can’t believe you’re complaining about my character.

                      It really tells me all that I need to know. My expectations were already low, but I’ve lowered them even more.

                    3. Curious – are you Gay Tony’s Boyfriend? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. I am curious, however, who gets to climax first . . .

                    4. Are you from Philadelphia? Are you the monster who fucks beagles because your girlfriend twisted your balls so hard, you had to fuck her beagle?

                    5. You have a stupid name, troll.

              2. I think we can trust Tulpa! When has he ever lied before?

                What am I supposed to have lied about again?

            2. Come on gys, this isn’t Tulpa (actually Tulpa was before my time, so how would I know? But anyway).

              All Giardian wants is for us to see that he is his own man. His own special snowflake, not some alias. His asininity is truly 1 of a kind. No one could replicate it. He sputters like no sputterer before him.

              When Skakespeare first wrote Romeo and Julet, everyone said, “what the fuck? It’s just Pyramis and Thisbe all over again?” But he didn’t listen; he knew it was novel and published anyway.

              Same to you Giardian: don’t let them put you down; you keep on being your own kind of retard, and you’ll be the biggest retard of all. And someday, posters on here will be accusing every retard who shows of being Giardian. And you will smile, seeing that you have finally found your place in the sun.

  18. They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.

    I find it difficult, if not impossible, to read past the “Shadowy KKKorporate Puppetmasters” dog whistle.

    1. I think corporations are rent-seeking and hoping for some regulatory capture within the trade framework. It’s hard to tease out what the substance of any deal would be because of the secrecy, though.

      1. I’m sure Democrats are delivering for their donors.

  19. You get wood chipper, you get a wood chipper, everyone gets a wood chipper!!!

    / Hillary Goddamn Clinton

    Seriously though, love you guys in commentariat. I laugh, I cry, I get kicked in the nuts. Learned so much over the past years within this group.

    I do not always play Fallout, but when I do, I always shoot the slavers. May they always Fuck Off.

    1. I confess = I have Fallout-slaved.

      In fact, what disappointed me most about Fallout New Vegas was how little you could really take advantage of any plotline where you properly support Caesar’s legions.

      Like, why could you not betray Primm when they asked you to find a Sheriff to protect them…. and sell everyone there into Slavery? It seemed almost perfectly staged for exactly that option. same with Novac, or other at-risk communities.

      There were few options to really follow the Dark Side properly. I liked selling drugs to Fiends. But why no opportunity to run my own whorehouse? You kill the Gomorrah mafia bosses, but then….nothing. i was hoping i could turn the Mormon Fort into my own personal whore-slave-entrepot

      I fear Fallout 4 will be similarly too-vanilla, and bereft of any real opportunity to make Epic Evil choices like the blowing up of Megaton.

      1. Have not played New Vegas, yet. It is on the shelf, but have not gotten to it. On most games, that allow you to go both ways, it is hard for me do evil. I know it is game, but…..

        First time I played Fallout was 2, and absolutely loved building the 55 Chevy and taking out Hubologist. LOL Maybe I am little bit evil.

        1. New Vegas is great. Much truer to the feel of FO2 (best game ever, obviously) than FO3 was.

          1. Cool. I got week off from the plant may have to open it up.

            BTW did a personal best on squat … 505 x 2, just the other day. I am pretty excited. Working on Deadlifts now, and it is your fault, Warty, when you showed the Mark Ripatoe(?) video.

            1. Cool. How many years have you been training?

              1. Been going to the gym about year now. Have to be truthful. I am naturally pretty strong. Aerobics activity is my weakness though.

                1. Well that’s pretty fucking good then. Start competing in one of the strength sports so you can see if you’re a genetic freak.

                  1. Hmmm… never thought about competing, always thought my lifting weight is too light.

                    Bench, Squat, Dead Lift, Clean, 315, 505, 295, 185, respectively.

                    1. I think you’ve got your squat and deadlife reversed. Dead should be 505 and squat be 295. Because if you can squat 505 you are a friggin monster.

                    2. Either that or he’s half-squatting.

                      And that hurts. I am not a monster, I’m a man.

                    3. No, its correct. I still working on the dead lift getting form right, mostly just trying to hang on. I do not use the straps or anything.

                      I am not a freakin’ monster. LOL. I do have huge bulldog head. My mother still hates me to this day.

                    4. Well, here. Get that deadlift up in the 6s.

                    5. A lady who knows that is a lady that looks good in yoga pants.

                    6. I once went to a powerlifting meet and saw more than a few women who were squatting in the high 3s and low 4s. Sure, steroids, blah blah blah, but holy shit did they fill out their yoga pants well.

                    7. So, my dead should be more than my squat?

                    8. Usually, yes. Give yourself some time. Get your form right and you’ll get there. Enjoy the journey.

                    9. Am I to understand that you’ll be posting pics?

                    10. Thanks guys.. I will have pics when I get to lifting a respectful weight.

                    11. Bro, I don’t want to bum you out, but if you can BS 505 for a double and your DL is only 295, stop squatting. You’re wasting time. Your deadlift at a 505 BS should be somewhere close to mid 500’s, if not 600. You’ve got some imbalances. And that’s also evidenced by a north of 300 BP with that 185 clean.

                      Likewise, if you can squat 505 and only clean 185, you need a lot of work on your clean. A METRIC FUCKTON. A rule of thumb is that anything you can triple for a front squat, you should be able to clean. If you can back squat (and I mean a real, no bullshit, full ROM back squat) 505, that’s a mid 300’s FS triple, or thereabouts. You’re well less than a 100 lb below what those BS strength numbers should give you in the clean, and almost 200 lb in the DL. Sorry – But the great news is that you’ve got a 505 BS!!!

                  2. I see you as Warty Woodchipper.

        2. “On most games, that allow you to go both ways”

          Well, New Vegas allows you to do this… A Lot.

          As in, almost everyone is gay. I mean *uuurvryone* If you’re not “Confirmed Bachelor” and taking the Gay options whenever possible, you’re basically cut off from 1/3 of the game.

          1. Well, I mean, look at Benny’s suit.

            1. its a sportcoat baby, and its dee-lish

    2. I don’t post often but this ^^^, for a few years now. Always enjoy. Fuck the DOJ and other apparatchiks. Freedom of speech is inherent and they can fuck off.

      They are Nazi scum and they know it and still justify their actions in their own minds.

      1. And subpoenas read so much better in the original German, IMHO

        1. I write mine in Gujarati.

    1. Funny:) She was cute.

        1. That’s on a pass/fail scale, to be clear.

    2. Speaking of which, Salon has helpfully provided the answer to the implicit question Nick was dodging yesterday

      Amy Schumer = “Wait, we can be Black if we want?
      Salon Editors = “and the answer is still No

      Of course they don’t elaborate at all. Or say *anything*. Because that would actually require ‘reasons’, and in all likelihood, those reasons would run entirely afoul of *everything else in their entire fucking magazine*, and result in the spontaneous emergence of a progressive-victim-theory-black-hole which destroys 85% of the San Francisco Bay Area

      1. After thinking about it, I don’t think the loony NAACP broad did anything wrong other than lie to her friends. So she feels black. Good for her. Who’s to say she can’t call herself what she likes?

        1. Except that she received special benefits in the form of scholarships and employment by checking ‘black’ on applications. That’s fraud.

          If a trans lies about her birth gender to participate in a sport or competition that’s also fraud. It doesn’t mean she can’t participate; she just needs to disclose.

          1. So she fucked a system that deserved to be fucked. Why are you trying to make me like her?

          2. I’m just hoping we have case soon where a black person checks the white box so I can see all the logical contortions about why that’s different. And the whole idea that someone born with WHITE PRIVILEGE has to check a box to actually obtain a PRIVILEGE is delicious.

            1. I completely agree with you. The whole episode exposes the idiocy of handing our favors based on some vague concept called race. The best way to do away with this type of fraud is to do way with these stupid privileges, and we probably should be celebrating her for unintentionally illustrating this point. I’m sure it’s unintentional because she’s probably very much in favor of affirmative action and other race based privileges.

              1. “The best way to do away with this type of fraud is to do way with these stupid privileges, and we probably should be celebrating her for unintentionally illustrating this point.”

                DING DING DING DING

              2. Yeah, I have no doubt she’s a royal asshole. But that doesn’t change the hypocracy.

                1. My biggest problem is that instead of logical aguments they just throw stuff at a wall to see what sticks. But then everyone who disagrees with them is an asshole.

          3. Except that she received special benefits in the form of scholarships and employment by checking ‘black’ on applications. That’s fraud.

            To be fair, there’s no evidence she applied to Howard as black. And the only employment we know she lied on a form for was the ombudsman position in Spokane. And the city has said background checks were light and racial diversity was important.

            I have no problem with her presenting as black. It’s the fact that she lied about her past. This article in the EWU paper is basically a handy list of all of her lies. And then, yes, it’s the fact that these lies destroy her credibility that is a problem.

            But if one can essentially choose what gender to present as, and as a society, we’ve pretty much accepted this, then isn’t race the same thing? If diversity quotas will continue to exist, than isn’t the logical solution written and oral exams about one’s identity the only way to prove that you are truly what you say you are? I mean, rural Southern blacks are the same as Northern urban blacks, right? So either we end up in this Kafka-esque(yeah, I used this word) nightmare or we finally see the absurdity of identity politics. The phrase “hoisted by their own petard” comes to mind.

            1. Fun facts: Her parents did actually live in a teepee, three years before she was born. In a newspaper article in like 2008 or 2009(I forget and don’t have the link open anymore) she described herself as “trans-racial.” Commenters(awful people!) on articles about her mentioned that she was not black going back as far as like 2008 or 2009(I think Buzzfeed has this). The editor of the paper noted that those commenters also made other racist comments and were therefore not taken seriously at the time.

            2. And then, yes, it’s the fact that these lies destroy her credibility that is a problem.

              What credibility did she have before? I mean, at least from a libertarian perspective, it’s not like she was advocating sensible or valid political positions.

              1. I mean her life story: raised in a teepee, beaten by a white step-father in S. Africa, 2 y r old son thrown across the room by his father, death threats in Idaho, death threats in Spokane, raped in SF, black son who is 16 yrs her junior.

                I’m not commenting on my belief in any of this, but this is how she presented herself and people trusted this.

                1. I’m not commenting on my belief in any of this, but this is how she presented herself and people trusted this.

                  What difference does it make? The ideology she was peddling was a lie too. Now at least her life story matches her politics.

          4. Except that she received special benefits in the form of scholarships and employment by checking ‘black’ on applications. That’s fraud.

            I consider it performance art, demonstrating the absurdity of handing out race-based benefits.

            We need more people like her to make a mockery of “the system”.

        2. I think the “offense” was when people compared her to Jenner. I don’t know why that put their panties in a bunch but somehow they felt that slighted their national hero who once took his (at the time) step-daughter to her Playboy shoot.

        3. To my point

          The culture-warrior-left insists that we are an oppressive society for failing to accept that gender is a fluid construct and that we should be deeply respectful of how people identify themselves.

          I am fine with that insofar as they aren’t simply using it as a means to attempt to become media-censors and police all forms of human communication to ensure it is appropriately “gender-sensitive”. I.e. calling Cis-Centrists “hate criminals”.

          Tolerance, as i said the other day, does not require approval, or even respect beyond people leaving each other alone to their respective choices.

          By their own basic argument = i similarly think if a person feels like they want to identify as part of a different racial/cultural group, then fine. Go for it, Kicking Bird.

          Yet the Salonistas have some serious problems by trying to simultaneously claim that Race is biologically determined and gender is not.

          Which is why they wont even try, and will just pretend the case is self-evident.

          1. re: the case of “fraud”

            Yes.

            There’s no doubt there. The same would be true if a transgender misrepresented themselves as ‘naturally female’ in a marriage.

            (*this has in fact happened. and people didn’t find out for *decades*. Totally CREEEPERS)

            The point made was that by focusing on the ‘fraud’ and pretending that’s “the whole story”, its avoiding the difficult question both Nick dodged, and which Salon *answered*, but dodged any actual discussion of why.

            Can a person choose to be a different race? why/why not?

            Apparently gender isn’t “biologically deterministic”. (so they tell me) and that’s “case closed”. End of story.

            But if that’s actually so…. then they have a bit of an explanation to make as to why *any other biologically determined identity characteristics* aren’t also equally ‘fluid’.

            I don’t point out the hypocrisy because i’m “anti tranny”
            (that seems to be the strategy people are taking to avoid the discussion)

            i’m pro-Transracialism. *Provided you aren’t lying about it on college apps.

            We just need to change the application to include #Wrongskin checkboxes. I think a wider acceptance of #wrongskin would do much to expand our social landscape.

            1. I’m not anti-trans either. I think no less of Jenner than I did before.

              1. “no less of Jenner”
                Wait, isn’t there about six inches less of Jenner now?

                1. Nope- Little Bruce still exists, and is attracted to women.

        4. And then there is Trans-Abled

          http://m.torontosun.com/2015/0…..ing-bodies

          1. That was technically called “Body Integrity Identity Disorder

            Its been considered an ‘illness’ forever. Which means nothing of course, because hardly anyone seems to think ‘mental illness’ is actually real.

            That article claims it was only added to the DSM in 2013. Which is odd, because i’d heard it mentioned back in the 1990s. A friend’s uncle had it, and eventually cut a leg off.

            1. I heard on the radio the other day that they are getting a lot of support for doing these things. Very sad. That’s rough.

    3. So she is not Black? Se is Blue?

    4. The woman wearing the dress is blue black.

    1. Hmmm. Mexico City is home to a lot of Jews, but it’s also where Hitler retired after WWII. I’m confused.

    2. I’m……conflicted

    3. That’s exactly why we want to produce this play. To show the world the true Hitler, the Hitler you loved, the Hitler you knew, the Hitler with a song in his heart.

  20. Hillary supports the war on women who smoke weed.

    She is very sexist !!!

  21. Tulpa seems gone. So what does everyone think is up with him? Why is he so combative today? Drunk? Manic? Suicidal?

    1. That was… Unusual.

      Maybe he’s down playing volleyball in front of my house right now.

    2. He’s getting dressed for the party.

  22. So, I’m confused. The guy who said he wasn’t Tulpa then cites comments from another site that accused him (Tulpa) of snitching as being examples of libel?

    1. The real Tulpa is buried somewhere deep, deep, in the far back corner of the sock drawer. He can’t even reach out past the socks – they just push him back into his dark, lonely corner. And then they argue, a lot.

    2. I think Tulpa’s cheese has not only slid off his cracker. It managed to land on a dog turd and is covered with ants.

  23. Trunks? Check? Kids awake? Check. Sunscreen? Nope.

    Off to swim. Keep an eye on you-know-who.

    1. If I knew then what I know now I would have micturated on your precious beach volleyball courts when no one was watching me (which was probably most of the time).

  24. No time to see if someone else has caught this here yet, but:

    The financial industry…have created huge wealth for a few by focusing too much on short-term profit and too little on long-term value? too much on complex trading schemes

    She should talk??!!

    1. Are you kidding, who knows it better?

    2. Hillary Clinton = “How to Make Money on Cattle Futures Trading

      “Create Shell Accounts, Controlled by Professionals, and Take All the Profits from their Trading Decisions”

      I forget what this is called. It was on the Series 67… or 65. Maybe both. You can’t have a trading account under your name that is basically being controlled by a third party, with the unwritten agreement that you expect profits and that the third party will protect you from risk (and if they do so, recouping losses with their or other funds, violate additional federal laws). ‘Discretion’ of this kind requires formal agreements and statements of suitability that she probably couldn’t meet in terms of her liquid assets, as well as it also being an ethics violation for any ‘special persons’ who have connections to public officials, etc.

  25. I’m wondering if that arrow means she is a male trapped in a female’s body.

    1. Look at her marriage to Bill. Bill was fooling around with every female in sight, while Hillary was being “assisted” by Human Abedin, wife of Anthony Wiener. In that kind of soap-opera scenario, the revelation that Hillary has been a man all along, posing as a woman to help Bill get into the White House wouldn’t really be much of a stretch.

  26. to paraphrase today’s speech.

    “anything he did that you liked, i’ll do more of it! anything he didn’t do that you wish he had, i’ll get that done too! actually, just make a list and send it to my campaign. consider it done. trust me….so we’re all good, right?”

  27. I’d prefer to listen to an hour of chalkboard scratchings that listen to that stale old liar.

  28. Way OT: My 3rd grand daughter was born today. 7lbs 5 oz and lots of curly red hair!

    1. Congratulations.

    2. Congratulations!

  29. Do you suppose President Adolf Hillary will put us all in the same cell after she has us all arrested because someone said something about a effen woodchipper or whatever the hell?

    1. No way. That would be blazingly stupid even for her. It wouldn’t be 10 minutes before we would be trying to recreate this movie. Hopefully with better long term results. Though if they stuck Tulpa in with us we’d be recreating this movie instead.

      1. Ahhh Ha ha haaa!

  30. She’s just like Obama, only with more corruption, even less competence, and she’s a rich white lady! Everything a progtard could possibly want, right?

    -jcr

    1. Dude, do you have a YouTube channel called “NSResponder”?

      I saw this on YT, and figured it just has to be you:

      NSResponder 3 days ago
      I thought gophers were bigger than that. Maybe I’m thinking of prairie dogs.

      -jcr
      Reply ? 81

      1. I have an account on YouTube. I haven’t uploaded any videos, so I wouldn’t say I have a “channel”.

        -jcr

  31. Hi Scott,

    Sorry, I’m so late. How is Boy Wonder doing lately? Moving up in the polls or no?

    If I were voting for a 3rd term for a president that ended the Iraq war, presided over the legal recognition for gay marriage, refused to get involved in land wars in Iran and Syria, and presided over one of the steepest reductions in military spending since 1945 I would gladly vote for that. The problem with Clinton is that she represents a step backwards towards the old security hawks within the Democratic Party that still cling to the idea that spending over half-a-trillion dollars on defense spending and keeping thousands of nuclear weapons on standby is not completely insane. So, no, she isn’t worth voting for and neither are any of the Republicans running against her.

    1. Written like a true coprophiliac.

    2. There’s a lot of nonsense in that paragraph, but I particularly enjoy the “presided over the legal recognition of gay marriage.” I mean, he had nothing to do with it and didn’t support it for half that time (only did so because Joe Biden forced him), but he was THERE, damn it!

      1. I would say we desperately need to a fallback plan as it doesn’t look like Plan A– the rand paul revo[love]lution is going anywhere fast. I guess any of the anti-choice, anti gay marriage, bom-bom-bom-bomb Iran crew in the Republican Party will do.

    3. “ended the Iraq war”
      Ha, you don’t pay attention to the news do you.

      “presided over the legal recognition for gay marriage”
      Huh? Try the Supreme court buddy. Someone failed AP Gov in high school

      “refused to get involved in land wars in Iran and Syria”
      Ha! What an accomplishmen, he kept his intercentions to proxy wars and air wars. Wow. I suppose you’d commend your murderer for at least not raping you first.

      “and presided over one of the steepest reductions in military spending since 1945”
      You mean, the steepest reduction since George H.W. Bush?

      1. *Accomplishments, and *interventions, not intercentions. Edit button!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. 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.netcash5.com

  33. Sounds like one heack of a plan dude.

    http://www.Total-Anon.tk

  34. I won’t provide a link out of respect for The Jacket’s wishes, but you know which article this is an excerpt from.

    Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery.

    I guess he’s mentally ill too? Seriously, look in your mirrors, gals and fellas.

    1. Yep. Even the commenters on Bloomberg agree that her assessment of the commenters on reason is off base.

      And so are you. *She*, not ‘he.’ Virginia Postrel is a woman, last i checked. Or did you just assume that it must have been a man, because women can’t write articles, they belong in the kitchen! You sexist piece of shit!

  35. 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.Wage-Report.com

  36. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    =============================
    try this site ????? http://www.workweb40.com
    =============================

  37. 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.netcash5.com

  38. Hillary will be Obama’s third and fourth term if elected. The sad part is she probably will be elected in a landslide. Her new tax plan that she plans to outline will probably be as follows: Raise estate and cap gains taxes to 90% after only a $10,000 dollar exemption for non government people. While exempting government workers completely from these taxes, and politicians of course. On guns: Make the possession of a BB gun a fed felony. But, allow law enforcement access to grenade launchers. Open the borders completely to illegal immigrants so they vote Democrat. Exempt all government workers from all fed tax provisions, and double their pay and benefit packages. And instead of amending Obamacare, to take out the bad parts, she will just keep it as it is. Mandate that everyone learn Spanish or face a fine, just like not having government approved health insurance. In a few years after that, our jerk off high court will say it is legal under the government’s power to tax. With John Roberts probably writing the majority opinion, just like on Obamacares tax penalty provision.

  39. 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.netcash5.com

  40. But Obama is already Bush/Cheney’s 3rd and 4th term!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.