Libertarianism

Amash Says Cruz Isn't a Libertarian, Endorses Him, Wishes Trump Would 'Go Back to The Apprentice'

Reps. Thomas Massie and Justin Amash debate whether the GOP is libertarian enough.

|

Justin Amash
Gage Skidmore

Libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Justin Amash defended his endorsement of Ted Cruz during a lively discussion with student attendees of the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. on Friday. 

"Cruz is a person we can work with," said Amash. 

He was joined on the stage by fellow libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who hasn't endorsed anyone since the pair's first choice—Sen. Rand Paul—departed the race. 

"I'm still going to vote for Rand, in Kentucky," said Massie, who remained skeptical of Cruz. 

Amash conceded that Cruz is not a libertarian, and that he hasn't sounded like a libertarian in recent weeks. 

"I understand the rhetoric on the campaign trail is not what we want to hear," said Amash. "But you have to separate the rhetoric from the voting record." 

Amash maintained that Cruz's record suggests he's closer to libertarianism than Donald Trump or Marco Rubio are. 

"He's opposed intervention," said Amash. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is genuinely terrifying and "should go back to The Apprentice," he said.

Amash and Massie touched on a range of other subjects, including the federal government's efforts to compel Apple to decrypt the San Bernardino terrorists' cell phones. Both Congressmen think the government is in the wrong. 

"I hope they take it to the Supreme Court," said Amash. 

Massie also discussed the need for Congress to rein in federal authority by restricting funding. 

"If Paul Ryan passes an Omnibus bill, I'm not voting for him for Speaker," said Massie. 

Amash joked that this was hardly out of character for Massie. "I don't think he's voting for any of our Republicans," he said. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Christie Endorses Trump, Pro-Sanders Economist Debunked, Taste the Fruit Salad of Life: P.M. Links

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

  1. Is this a game of pin the intensifier to the word no? ‘Cuz the answer sure ain’t yes.

  2. Oh no he dint!

  3. I’m still endorsing Warty/Nicole 2016, myself. This time, why not the worst?

    1. A president with roid rage and clen-bacne? What’s the worst that could happen.

      1. Well…your mom. But I supposed Nicole takes care of that part.

        1. YOU BRING HER HOME SAFE THIS INSTANT

          1. Go to your room! This instant! Don’t make me tell Nicole about this!

    2. Cthulhu 2016.

      Why vote for the lesser evil?

      1. I really need to get one of those bumper stickers.

  4. Yeah, and Cruz does identify in debates and town halls, the Fed quantitative easing and monetary stimulus, that causes and purposefully targets some inflation percentage as the reason people can’t keep up when those inflation rates add up a lot faster than income growth over time. 10-20 years later, from th70s till now, people feel way behind.

    1. The beginning of the Rust Belt. Those of us who graduated high school after Nixon was ousted and had to look for jobs during the “malaise” came of age right behind the real Baby Boomers, but are still considered part of them. It sucked living in an area with a collapsed economy, but we didn’t have to deal with Vietnam. The exact years may vary according to when the steel mills in your immediate area folded.

  5. Cruz Vampire Bat:

    http://bit.ly/1WOZmRz

    1. Cruz is no Vampire!

      1. I totally see him cast in a B-horror flick. Totally.

  6. Amash is not a very good guy to listen to, frankly. He’s boring.

    1. Not nearly Trumpy enough, add a “disappointing” at the very end and inset a affirm “everyone knows/says/tells me how boring this guy is” somewhere.

  7. When I separated Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s rhetoric from his voting record, I liked him less and less.

  8. Of course the GOP isn’t libertarian enough. It never will be. The question is, is it more libertarian than the Democrats, the other party likely to win the presidency?

    As I keep saying, we didn’t get into the semi-socialist mess we’re in because the socialists turned up their noses at the Democratic Party. They infiltrated it, worked incrementally, taking whatever they could get, and took it over.

    When you get lemons, make lemonade. Trump is going to get the nomination and win the election. Our only chance at lemonade is to work with that, instead of just whining about it. Yes, Trump is no libertarian, but he’s not an ideologue, either. He’s a business guy, oriented to practical, cost-effective solutions. What libertarians should be doing is crafting and packaging liberty-oriented solutions that could be sold to Trump.

    Despite Nichole’s objections, this is not “technocracy.” It’s pragmatism and incrementalism.

    Example: Trump wants to make sure “everybody is covered” when it comes to health care. This does not necessarily mean single-payer. It could mean making healthcare and health insurance less expensive. Libertarians know how that can be done.

    Package our solutions is sellable form. It’s our only chance.

    1. Oh god I love it when the Hit&Runpublicans; start their selling of the GOP shitheel of their choice. It’s so fucking delicious. Watching you snivel and squirm and try to make your unpalatable guy palatable is so abjectly hilarious, and I don’t even vote. You do realize that you’re exactly the same as some TEAM BLUE shill making a case for Bernie or whoever, right? Your desperate need for your TEAM to win bleeds through so pathetically, so obviously, that I don’t even know how you look at yourself in the mirror each morning. Maybe you don’t.

      And you will do this, non-fucking-stop, until November. Because it really matters that much to you. Enjoy your meaningless partisan existence.

      1. Calm down, dude. I’m just pointing out that TEAM RED is worse for liberty, and a practical way of dealing with that.

        The socialists, who are anti-libertarians, have spent decades taking over the Democratic Party. The Libertarian Party can’t even slow down that process, but the GOP might be able to.

        Yes, the GOP sucks in many ways. No argument there. But anyone who wants to acknowledge that we are living in the real world, and not in some Platonic ideal world of pure ideology, should see that my attitude is better than yours. Refusing to play the game and whining from the sidelines never accomplished shit for liberty, or for anything else.

        1. “The Libertarian Party can’t even slow down that process, but the GOP might be able to.”

          Not if Trump is the nominee.

          “Refusing to play the game and whining from the sidelines never accomplished shit for liberty, or for anything else.”

          This is kind of true, but people like you are among the last we should be playing with.

          1. Christie in the cabinet? I’d vote CPSUA before I’d condone any of that shit.

          2. //Not if Trump is the nominee.//
            Which is precisely why you should vote for Cruz in the primaries. He actually believes in smaller government- and that is movement in the right direction.

        2. So…you’re doing exactly and precisely what I said you would do. And as I also said, you’ll be doing it all the way through November. Way to be as utterly predictable and mindless as I knew you would be.

          Shill shill shill! GO TEAM GO! God you’re fucking tedious.

          1. God you’re fucking tedious.

            Weren’t you referencing mirrors earlier…?

            1. Possibly, though if you’d like to make weak allusions to projection, you should probably do a better job of it. However, if you want to talk about earlier references, how about we talk about Ebola outbreaks, pants-shitter? And your credibility and track record?

              1. Ebola was a Mexican false-flag! WAKE UP SHEEPLE

              2. “And your credibility and track record?”

                It’s hard to talk about something that doesn’t exist.

              3. Being more concerned about Ebola than you were doesn’t make me a “pants-shitter.” You regularly go hyperbolic about stuff that seems utterly trivial to me.

          2. And with Scalia dead, expect the “MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVAR” calls to intensify.

            1. To be fair, this one is pretty important.

        3. I think you mixed yourself up there.

          Setting that aside, even from a purely practical POV, I think Trump winning sets the GOP in a very bad, unlibertarian direction. Notwithstanding your fantasies of libertarians (who exactly?) somehow selling Trump on practical libertarian solutions, the far more likely outcome is a GOP that is increasingly nationalistic, xenophobic, and unconcerned with free markets, debt, and government spending.

          1. Trump is more concerned with debt and spending than Hillary or Bernie. He’s more free market than either of them. I don’t consider nationalism to be necessarily anti-libertarian (though it can be). I especially don’t consider enforcing immigration law and not importing Muslims at a time when Islam is fighting all over the world to be “xenophobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear. There’s nothing irrational about fearing Muslim immigration, as anyone following European news can easily see.

            1. “Trump is more concerned with debt and spending than Hillary or Bernie.”

              That’s a low fucking bar, whoopee. I’m not even sure if the debt part is even accurate for Hillary. Trump’s tax plan would add a trillion dollars a year to the deficit, and he hasn’t proposed any sort of spending cuts to offset that. He’s repeatedly stated his opposition to entitlement reform, and his desire to increase infrastructure spending, build a wall, etc.

              And either way, I’m pretty confident that the GOP congress will be a lot more serious about debt and spending if Hillary is in the white house than Trump, as they always tend to care more about it when they’re the opposition.

              “I don’t consider nationalism to be necessarily anti-libertarian (though it can be).”

              Trump’s sort of nationalism doesn’t seem to be the libertarian kind.

              “I especially don’t consider enforcing immigration law and not importing Muslims at a time when Islam is fighting all over the world to be “xenophobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear. There’s nothing irrational about fearing Muslim immigration, as anyone following European news can easily see.”

              Fearing any and all Muslim immigration is an irrational fear. To suggest we either get swarmed by millions of Muslim refugees, or not accept any Muslims whatsoever is a stupid false dichotomy. It’s also an absurd and unenforceable policy, but I’m not surprised that you’re on board with it.

              1. “And either way, I’m pretty confident that the GOP congress will be a lot more serious about debt and spending if Hillary is in the white house than Trump, as they always tend to care more about it when they’re the opposition.”

                Exactly. Look how much they controlled spending since winning the House!

                Oh, wait….

                1. Spending increases since the GOP took the house in 2010 have been way lower than they were when Bush was president.

            2. Trump hasn’t just called for “enforcing immigration law”, he’s scapegoated groups, called for deporting US citizens, and called for illegally overhauling citizenship law without a Constitutional amendment (and possibly hinting that he wouldn’t even recognize the citizenship of existing children of illegal immigrants).

              More to the point, my comment wasn’t even specifically about what Trump explicitly supports, but the direction he’s point the party in. A large minority of the Republican Party supports banning Islam in the United States, and that group is significantly more likely to support Donald Trump than other candidates. This is not a good direction for the party to head in, and the notion that libertarians are gonna somehow hijack it is laughable.

              1. Cali nails it like a hammer made of words.

                Not only is The Trumptard Direction bad for libertarian-ism, it’s unelectable and politically toxic to the point that merely associating with it is bad for libertarians and the GOP.

            3. “Trump is more concerned with debt and spending than Hillary or Bernie. He’s more free market than either of them.”

              Facts not in evidence.

              “There’s nothing irrational about fearing Muslim immigration”

              Yes it is pants-shitter.

              1. Trump is a sloppy, big picture, deal maker, cheerleader guy. I’ve met many CEOs with similar qualities. He’ll get faceless technocrats to do everything. So, safer than a donkey.

                Trump was somewhat appreciative of Rand in the early debates. He might ask Rand to help in some fashion. The other guys he liked are Carson and Kasich. I can see him bringing in several of his competitors.

                1. Trump was somewhat appreciative of Rand in the early debates. He might ask Rand to help in some fashion.

                  More delusional fantasies. Trump doesn’t give a shit about libertarians and he’s not going to be handing out jobs to a marginal political group that only wins him 2% of the electorate.

                2. “He’ll get faceless technocrats to do everything.”

                  Again, more hope projected as fact. Like the delusion that Iran will never use a nuke.

                  1. not sure who can say “never”….”never” is a long time. But the delusion is clearly in saying Iran will use a nuke in your lifetime.

                3. He’ll get faceless technocrats to do everything”

                  Don’t you mean faceless bureaucrats? The kind that practically comprise a fourth division of government (executive, judicial, legislative and bureaucratic)? They’re the ones creating new regulations with no oversight.

              2. Yeah, it’s fine to fear Muslim immigration in Europe. But Hispanics aren’t Muslim. They are fucking Roman Catholic. The rate of Muslim immigration to the US is miniscule.

              3. ‘Yes it is pants-shitter.’
                The logic… it buuuurnsssss.

        4. Calm down, dude. I’m just pointing out that TEAM RED is worse for liberty, and a practical way of dealing with that.

          But you’re not being “practical”. You begin with a blatant false dichotomy and proceed from there to nonsensical conclusions.

          1. What is my “false dichotomy”? I’m advocating a variation of the Fabian socialist strategy, which obviously worked. Pure libertarianism will not win elections. Incrementalism can.

            1. The false dichotomy is “inevitable socialism” vs. “inevitable Trumpism”.

            2. You do understand that Nicole’s criticism of you regarding “technocracy” was a larger point about utilitarianism and the utter immorality of utilitarianism, right? Such as doing things like adopting “Fabian socialist strategy” in order to “win”?

              Of course you don’t.

              1. It’s immoral to have libertarianism “win” by incrementalism? That’s the sort of ideological purism that dooms libertarianism to lose. You seem to think “all or nothing” is evidence of some sort of advanced thinking or morality, but it’s actually childish and immature.

            3. Trump is not libertarian incrementalism. That’s what everyone else is saying.

              1. He’s one step back on libertarianism, Hillary is two or three steps back.

                1. Trump is more like five steps back.

                  BOTH Trump and Hillary would move the government towards more crony capitalism and bigger spending. In roughly equal amounts.
                  But TRUMP would ALSO be way fucking worse on civil liberties.

                  There isn’t a single fucking issue on which Trump would be in ANY WAY better than Hillary Clinton.

                  1. There isn’t a single fucking issue on which Trump would be in ANY WAY better than Hillary Clinton.”

                    Yes there is Hazel.

                    Trump represents a completely different money flow than either of the two party system does. If he is elected it will disrupt the standardized routine of who gets to spend the money after a new President is elected.

                    Presidential elections are all about who gets to spend the monies from the Treasury after the election. When one of the two parties is elected it’s pretty much a given who is going to get the money. T Rump is a new paradigm as to who that is.

                    That is why both parties hate the idea of T rUMp getting elected because he upsets the apple cart and new alignments and alliances must be formed on the fly.

                  2. ‘There isn’t a single fucking issue on which Trump would be in ANY WAY better than Hillary Clinton.’

                    Gunzzz.

                2. He’s one step back on libertarianism, Hillary is two or three steps back.

                  I think the logic is that if we go two or three steps back from a libertarian perspective, then we have more room to make a big leap forward….. or something. Makes perfect sense.

              2. I didn’t say that “Trump is libertarian incrementalism.” He’s not. I said that libertarian incrementalism has a chance with Trump, if libertarians tried instead of whining from the sidelines. It has no chance with Hillary or Bernie.

                1. Couldn’t you also make the argument that incrementalism has a chance with Bernie? He at least consistently favors a non-hawkish approach to foreign policy and supports a more liberal social agenda on some things important to me. For example, I do not consider the decriminalization of marijuana to be a small thing – I believe it could potentially be the first domino to fall in the drug war and will go a long way towards slowing our inexorable descent into a police state. Couldn’t you also make the case that Bernie’s disastrous economic plans could be gridlocked in Congress, minimizing the damage? Of course, like Trump, there are things he would do that would be awful from a libertarian perspective, but I believe him to come out ahead – all things considered. I would also say that it is no small thing that Bernie certainly appears sincere in his ideology and not simply out to gain power. In other words, I think he is a good person….I happen to strongly disagree with him on the role our government in my life, but I respect him and believe he means well. I do not believe the same about Hillary and Trump – or any of the other candidates left actually.

                  1. I respect him and believe he means well…..So did Musolini

        5. It would be easy to admit that yes, there is something to be said for facing reality and working with what we will have instead of moaning and whining and wringing our hands.

          But reality also says that “we” don’t have any pull with Trump or the establishment, not in this or any other world. You can pontificate all you want about the best way to work with Trump, but your fantasy world is no more realistic than a world where a libertarian could win.

          You may as well argue whether Asimov’s Foundation series is more realistic than Heinlein’s Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

          1. Moon is WAY more realistic!!! How dare you!

            More seriously, Foundation was so fucking terrible I just stopped reading it as a kid. I had read the Robot novels and was like “Asimov rocks!” and wanted more and then…Foundation. Ugh.

            (no one tell ProL I said that, he’ll hit me)

            1. Thank you. I tried to read them a few years ago. They are horrible.

              They are Paul Krugman’s favorite books for God’s sake.

            2. I read Foundation first and never read the Robots.

            3. The Foundation series was boring. I struggled through it. The characters were interesting, the whole “space journey and intrigue” stuff it turned into was mildly interesting, but it all had no real point other than showing the apparent infallibility of the control of the robot from the preceding series (which was much, much more interesting). Oh, and at the end of the series the robot, once revealed, kidnaps a child and enslaves them. For the good of humanity, of course.

            4. I agree. Foundation is terrible. Nobody in it has any real agency until the mole shows up because all that happens everything happens exactly has Hari Seldon predicted.
              Hari Seldon makes a prediction, and then the rest of the book is boring because you’re told in advance that that’s what’s going to happen. The mole shows up in like book four because, really, how many books can you write based on the premise that one super-smart guy can predict the future thousands of years in advance?

              1. I wonder what Asimov thought of chaos theory? I know he was still around when guys like Mandelbrot were fleshing out the math for things like strange attractors, fractal dimensions, and things like that.

        6. Why is your attitude better, Papaya? The GOP has no redeeming qualities. None. The last time they actually cut spending was in the 1950s. That is their only libertarian talking point, and they haven’t carried through on it for generations.

          1. I realize that we are comparing two hugely flawed options, but at this point the Democratic Party has fewer redeeming qualities. They are doubling down on socialism and identity politics. Fuck that shit. If Trump is the only chance to stop that “social justice” train wreck, then I’ll throw the dice with him. At least the GOP sometimes appoints judges who appreciate the Constitution, and sometimes slows the rate at which the government grows. That may be thin gruel, but it’s better than nothing.

            1. I agree with your general point but I think that the problem with your solution is that for many socialists, politics is their life. Most libertarians have a life outside of politics.

      2. What a spittle-flecked rant. Holy shit, get help.

        1. Epi likes to call people “pants-shitters” for expressing concern about something, but apparently doesn’t notice that he shits his pants while doing so.

    2. He’s a business guy, oriented to practical, cost-effective solutions.

      It is amazing how quickly that attitude can change once a person is exposed to the power of being able to spend money that is not theirs.

      1. I think Trump has a long history of experience in just that.

        You don’t think he runs his business with his own money do you? Guys like that hype themselves to investors, spend the investors money while skimming a hefty fee off the top for themselves and then if the endeavor makes money, fine. If not, so what. Go find another batch of suckers.

        Even better if they can shit the local government into subsidizing the endeavor.

        1. “if the endeavor makes money, fine. If not, so what.”

          Precisely. Trump actually had an interest in the outcome. He benefits from good reaults. The politicians ? Haha!! They just ask for MORE money.

          1. Trump actually manages to benefit from bad results (his companies going bankrupt) and then he brags about it.

    3. “is it more libertarian than the Democrats”

      No. It is not.

      1. Which party wants to bow down to the ethnic grievance/group rights lobbies? Which party wants to expand the welfare state? Which party wants “Medicare for all” and “free college”?

        1. Both, if Trump is the nominee (and probably otherwise). His white identity politics comes with a surveillance state, the police state required to ‘secure the border’ (from nothing), and free shit.

        2. The Republicans are *slightly* better on economic freedom. Lately they have gotten *slightly* better on the first amendment, but only because they have staid the same while the Democrats have gotten more hostile.

          The Republicans are *way* worse in just about every other area.

          The Democrats are *not* socialists. The Socialists are socialists. Even when Bernie says he is a “socialist” what he means is “New Deal Democrat,” not socialist.

          You want to see some examples of really vituperative hate? Read socialist and communist diatribes against the Democrats, the Great Traitors.

          Personally, I tend to vote Libertarian, because I can’t bring myself to vote for someone I despise and with whom I disagree in nearly every way because the “other” candidate is maybe marginally worse.

          Since my vote means nothing (CA will go to the Democrat no matter what I do), I see my vote as a way to show one more voter *not* voting for the statist assholes. That’s the only work I hope for my vote to accomplish, as there is nothing more my vote can accomplish.

          That is the best pragmatism I’ve been able to come up with for voting, rather than assisting these assholes in their claim that they have a “popular mandate.”

          1. The Republicans are *way* worse in just about every other area.

            So their worse on the right to bare arms?

            They are worse on nominating Judges to SCOTUS who will protect your property?

            The lunacy on both sides as everyone resorts to hyperbole while feigning their non-support of their preferred candidate just defies belief. It used to push my Angry button, but the springy thing on the back of the button is now broken, and it won’t come back out. My only option is dark laughter and pity for my children.

            1. I didn’t run down the list of all issues with exhaustive detail, as I don’t give a shit about these people.

              Republicans are OK on the 2nd, yes. Nominating justices who will protect our property? Our privacy rights? Our religious freedoms? I’m actually not excited about *either* party picking justices.

              “The lunacy on both sides as everyone resorts to hyperbole while feigning their non-support of their preferred candidate just defies belief”

              Sometimes people who claim to not support either Party actually don’t. I support Gary Johnson, and my support is in no way feigned.

              1. Sometimes people who claim to not support either Party actually don’t.

                For the people who say that they don’t but actually do, understanding this is beyond them. You *must* be for a TEAM, because they are! And everyone is like them!

                No matter how much you tell them you aren’t for any TEAM, they won’t believe you. And then when you poo-poo their candidate, to them that means you must endorse the other TEAM, because they cannot think outside of their binary partisan idiocy.

                Remember, partisanship makes people fucking retarded.

                1. Remember, partisanship makes people fucking retarded.

                  Or maybe being retarded makes you partisan?

              2. I’m actually not excited about *either* party picking justices.

                That’s where I’m at too. Whoever gets picked is sure to be terrible on some essential liberty or other. As bad as the court is now, I’m always worried it’s about to get worse when one of them croaks or retires. I suppose Obama’s picks could have been worse (maybe not Kagan). The best you can really hope for is strong partisan disagreement between the President and Congress.

          2. Republicans are also better on the second amendment, and a few other areas. I also don’t know if I’d say they’re “way worse” on everything else. Even in the areas where Dems are better, they still don’t tend to be very good.

            Also, regarding the first amendment, that may be mostly confined to the actual politicians. I’m not sure how good the base is on the issue, considering multiple polls over the last year have indicated that a very significant portion of the party would support shutting down mosques and making Islam illegal in the US (with another significant chunk “unsure”)

            1. I may have been hyperbolic in my statement, but that’s just because my central point is that the choice between super-assholes and super-duper-assholes, whichever one you think corresponds to whichever of the two dominant parties, is not a choice worth debating.

              I have never understood the mentality that says “that guy can’t win, so support this person you despise and who stands against everything you believe in, because he can *win*!”

              Democrats claim to want to assault freedom more than they really do, because that’s what gets them votes. Republicans claim to support freedom more that they really do because that’s what gets them votes. Both are interested in only one thing: getting elected.

              The two front runners are the two most despised candidates. That is no coincidence – we have gone into politics of “stick it to the other team at any cost.”

              I suppose the fairest statement is that which of the two major parties seems the most hostile to freedom depends on which freedoms you value more – they are both hostile to a great many freedoms, just different ones.

              1. I agree with you here, except for “Democrats claim to want to assault freedom more than they really do.” No, they want to assault freedom far more than they admit. They’d end the 2nd amendment and cripple the 1st in a heartbeat if they could. We’d have “free” healthcare, “free” college, slavery reparations, racial quotas, and equal-outcome laws up the wazoo. And when all that didn’t produce the results they intend, they would double down.

                1. “We’d have “free” healthcare, “free” college, slavery reparations, racial quotas, and equal-outcome laws up the wazoo. And when all that didn’t produce the results they intend, they would double down.”

                  I don’t think all of this is necessarily true of all, or even most, Democrats. A lot of Democrats legitimately aren’t on board with Bernie’s free college or single payer plans, and outside of college activist circles, I’d be surprised if most of them were ok with slavery reparations and quotas.

                  Granted, I’ll give you some slack here, as you live in SF, and I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them there wanted all these things.

                  1. Mostly I am just going by where the Democratic Party has been heading for 50 years: more socialism, and more identity politics. They have no internal, ideological brakes to apply. E.g. anyone who stands up to the racial grievance types is a “racist.” Any objection to any feminist proposal is “misogyny.” Etc.

                    Their worldview is such that they are simply never going to be satisfied with the results or their “reforms,” and they only know how to turn the knob in one direction. So it doesn’t matter that lots of Democrats may not want single-payer, because it’s what the ideological leaders want, and where the momentum is. All healthcare problems will be seen as the result of lack of single-payer. And when that fails, it will be seen as the result of insufficient taxes and spending.

                    1. “So it doesn’t matter that lots of Democrats may not want single-payer, because it’s what the ideological leaders want, and where the momentum is. All healthcare problems will be seen as the result of lack of single-payer. And when that fails, it will be seen as the result of insufficient taxes and spending.”

                      Who are you referring to as “ideological leaders?” There are plenty of prominent Democrats (Clinton, for example) that haven’t supported single payer. While it wouldn’t surprise me if it eventually it became the standard Dem position, I also don’t see it as inevitable. Most countries with UHC don’t have single-payer, so it’s not necessarily an automatic ending destination.

                    2. Most countries with UHC don’t have single-payer

                      I feel like people on both sides of the debate forget this (or ignore it) all the time. I find it a bit odd that the left is so enamored of single payer, since the countries with single payer systems really aren’t the best among places with universal coverage. But I guess the simplicity makes it easier to sell.

                    3. Calidissident, remember Hillarycare? Single-payer in all but name. It cost Bill Clinton the House in 1994. Of course she wants it, she just knows it’s political suicide.

                    4. Carter didn’t take the Dems that way. He did some bad stuff but he also deregulated a lot.

                  2. Also, regarding the first amendment, that may be mostly confined to the actual politicians. I’m not sure how good the base is on the issue, considering multiple polls over the last year have indicated that a very significant portion of the party would support shutting down mosques and making Islam illegal in the US (with another significant chunk “unsure”)

                    I don’t think all of this is necessarily true of all, or even most, Democrats. A lot of Democrats legitimately aren’t on board with Bernie’s free college or single payer plans,

                    So that’s not a “very significant portion” of Democrats? Does 81% count as “very significant?”

                    1. I don’t know why you quoted two completely different and unrelated sections. I never said that there wasn’t a “very significant portion” of Democrats that supported single payer.

                      I will concede ground on this, although I’m a bit skeptical of the numbers. Not so much for the Democratic figures, I just find it hard to believe that 60% of the country supports single payer. Also, I would be interested in seeing how it breaks down when voters are presented with alternatives. I don’t find it hard to believe that a solid majority of Democrats find single payer preferable to the current system, but do they find it preferable to other forms of universal health care? That’s a separate question. I feel like Bernie would be doing better if the entire Democratic party was on board with his platform and found it preferable to Clinton’s more moderate (though still liberal) stances.

                    2. I quoted the two sections to show your inconsistency. 58% supports “Medicare for all” which as we know isn’t the government or single payer. Yes, the electorate is that stupid, but I’m frankly surprised that you’re surprised at a majority of Democrats support single payer. That has been the holy grail for years if not decades and has only strengthened over time.

                      And Bernie sure is competitive with Hillary in the polls.

                    3. “And Bernie sure is competitive with Hillary in the polls.”

                      No he’s not. He’s going to get killed in the south.

                    4. “I quoted the two sections to show your inconsistency.”

                      What inconsistency?

                      “Yes, the electorate is that stupid, but I’m frankly surprised that you’re surprised at a majority of Democrats support single payer. That has been the holy grail for years if not decades and has only strengthened over time.”

                      Universal health care has been the goal, and there are many options besides single payer, which is evident from looking at different countries around the world. Neither Clinton nor Obama even tried to implement single payer. I’m not surprised that most would find it preferable to the status quo, but I would be a bit surprised by a poll that indicated that sort of overwhelming support relative to other forms of universal health care.

                      He’s still losing, and he is set to get crushed in South Carolina and on Super Tuesday, at which point Hillary is going to have an insurmountable lead.

                2. “They’d end the 2nd amendment and cripple the 1st in a heartbeat if they could. We’d have “free” healthcare, “free” college, slavery reparations, racial quotas, and equal-outcome laws up the wazoo. ”

                  I agree on the 1st and 2nd amendments, but the rest is just their propaganda. Like libertarianism and Christianity for Republicans, these are things the Dems will pay lip service to in order to get votes, but that’s not where their beliefs actually are.

                  Healthcare is an excellent example. I disagree fundamentally that the *party establishment* wants single payer. If they wanted it, what was stopping them?

                  People I know on the far left, and living where we do I’m sure we both know people who are way far left, *want* single payer very badly and feel deeply betrayed by the Democrats, who they feel are handing out money to their cronies under the guise of providing universal healthcare.

                  In other words, they perceive the situation perfectly accurately.

                  They, however, like Republicans, are willing to vote for people they despise in order to thwart people they despise even more.

                  The Democratic Party is *not* Socialist, and the Socialists hate them with the white hot passion of a thousand suns because they are the picture of the Bourgeouis Socialists Marx condemns in the Manifesto. But they do not hate them as much as they hate Republicans, who *are* the Bourgeois straight-up, so they will keep voting Democrat, as that is how our glorious system works.

                  1. Right, not *real* Socialists, they just play them on TV. Did you forget that the public option was originally in Obamacare? It took a united GOP and a fraction of Dems to mostly remove it (did you forget about the Co-ops?)

                    But they do not hate them as much as they hate Republicans, who *are* the Bourgeois straight-up, so they will keep voting Democrat, as that is how our glorious system works.

                    Which was rather the original point, wasn’t it?

                    1. I wonder – have you ever spoken with a real, live socialist?

                    2. See, as long as government doesn’t own 100% of the means of production, just 99%, then that’s not real Socialism. Technicality noted. And yet the Democrats are happy to continue to continuously extend the government’s reach into more and more private enterprise. The boiling frog strategy clearly works even if some purists scream that it’s not working fast enough.

                  2. A victory for the Democratic Party is no more a victory for Socialists than a victory for the Republican Party is a victory for libertarians or conservative Christians. It is only part of a broader coalition that has to satisfy many groups besides them.

                    Inevitably, though, the Party establishment, whichever of them, takes all the votes as affirmation of *its* agenda, and they dismiss non-votes as apathy.

                    That is why to me the only rational choice for a libertarian is to vote libertarian.

                    1. A victory for the Democratic Party is no more a victory for Socialists […]

                      The Socialist Party platform of 1928. Much of it achieved by the Democrats. Of course today’s socialists want to go farther, so sure, they’ll gripe, but that doesn’t invalidate my point.

                3. This is mostly fantasy. Canada’s federal Liberal government of the ’90s introduced the most fiscally right-wing budgets in living memory. It was amazing. *Nostalgia*

          3. I’m not sure how you can say that the party that came up with FREE SPEECH ZONES have stayed the same.

            As far as the 1st amendment goes, the current administration has only taken the *whole new paradigm* created by Bush and pushed it slightly. While the D’s want to overturn Citizens United, *so do the Republicans*.

            1. You raise an excellent point – neither party can really claim to support the First Amendment.

              1. But which one wants more “hate speech” laws? Which one is most eager for “campaign finance reform”? There are clear differences.

                1. Serious question: do you know of any actual plausible hate speech laws that have been seriously debated?

                  I think you might be able to argue that Democrats pose the most immediate threat to the first amendment given the current Supreme Court situation.

            2. It also bears mentioning that Trump is now fantasizing about strengthening libel laws so he can attack and shut down media outlets that criticize him, but please, tell me more about how much the Republicans love defending liberty.

              1. I haven’t looked into the libel law thing, but at its worst it would still be better than the hate speech laws the SJWs want.

                1. But again, your entire argument for supporting Trump rests on the unfounded assumption that not supporting him means that the enactment “the hate speech laws the SJWs want” and an entire raft of other ntolerables become inevitable, when you’ve done nothing to establish that that is the case.

                  1. that the enactment “the hate speech laws the SJWs want” and an entire raft of other ntolerables become inevitable, when you’ve done nothing to establish that that is the case.

                    You really think Hillary won’t continue Obama’s Title IX policies or enable this very sort of thing on college campuses and federal institutions? Shit, the Marines can’t even produce an empirical study on the effectiveness of women in combat w/o the SecNavy dismissing it outright. Think Hillary’s going to throttle back on the SJW Love Train when she finally has favors to call in?

                    1. Have no doubt that Trump could find justification for Title IX or anything and his retarded supporters would laud him.

                    2. I have no doubt the Hale Bopp comet will arrive sometime in the next 4 days.

                    3. What Red Rocks said. I didn’t mean that Hillary would ram some sort of hate speech law through Congress. But through Title IX, the administrative state, the appointment of judges, etc., she would certainly push in that direction. As would Bernie, who wants to prosecute Exxon for being climate change “denialists.”

              2. Either party could easily try and pass a hate speech law given the right scandal for motivation. They’d just focus on different beneficiaries. Though I think I’d feel safer under a Republican “dystopia” where you can’t curse or distribute porn, versus the democrat’s system where you can’t criticize islam or recognize the existence of gender or whatever. The latter seems far more big-brothery to me. Selfishness perhaps…

                1. Bra Ket, that seems sensible to me.

          4. +1 nutshell

          5. My philosophy as well. I will either vote for the libertarian candidate or write in Rand Paul.

          6. You understand why you don’t just stay home, then. Always vote if for no other reason than to send a message than yours is one vote the other parties lost. That’s all they care about. Staying home does nothing.

    4. I truly think that he would get behind a plan that removed the Corporate Tax Break for health insurance, instituted country-wide Health Savings Accounts, busted state control of coverage terms and then provided a subsidy (deposited into the HSA) for people at or around the poverty line. It isn’t libertarian, but compared to the existing system, it might as well be.

      The only thing remaining would be pre-existing coverage. I think they could do something like “No preexisting claims in the first [year/6 months/etc] of a policy unless you had continuous coverage”.

      1. (and this isn’t me endorsing Trump. I think he is terrible. But if he were president, I think GOP could get this sort of reform past him.)

        1. Yeah, like we should believe anything you say…. treaty breaker.

          1. Yeah, you and Russia sitting there bouncing around and waiting to hit me. I could read the signs. Between you skipping every other team, and France constantly flailing with convoys and one army attacks on England, I figured either everyone had checked out, or you were all already allied and waiting to pounce.

            Ah well, that forced me to move too quickly. Now it is going to be a long slog. The question is if I can get the stalemate line set in time. Probably not.

      2. Exactly. And while it’s not pure libertarian, it’s in the right direction. It’s the sort of thing I often read in the Postrel-era Reason.

        1. It’s also fantasy.

        2. Trump has virtually no specific plans for anything, and if he were to be elected, I think it’s fantasy to think that libertarians of all groups are going to be the ones to craft his policy agenda. Are the drugs in SF really that good? I’ve heard stories.

            1. His tax plan might not be bad if he accompanied it with plans to decrease spending and control the deficit but he hasn’t. As is, his tax plan would increase the deficit by a trillion dollars, with no offsetting cuts. He’s repeatedly indicated his opposition to entitlement reform and desire to increase spending in certain areas. He’s cited a couple minuscule cuts and the old canard of “waste, fraud, and abuse” (it’s kinda funny that Trump, know for being the un-PC straight talker, is using the same empty rhetoric that establishment GOP figures used for years to talk up their game on limiting government and spending). That’s it.

              1. Without having looked at it, are you sure his tax plan wouldnt increase total tax revenue? At least for states and localities? We are far on the wring side of the Laffer peak.

                1. Even the Tax Foundation (a conservative group) under their dynamic model (which accounts for projected increases in revenue due to increased growth from cutting taxes) has Trump’s plan decreasing revenue by around a trillion a year. I’m also not sure if there’s evidence to suggest that we’re on the wrong side of the Laffer peak.

                  1. On corporate taxes, America might be on the right (ie wrong) side of the Laffer Curve, but on other taxes it is clearly not.

                    1. I’d agree with this. We could probably boost revenue by cutting the corporate tax rate, but I don’t think the same is true for other taxes.

                  2. I’ll put in my plug and say there’s no nobility to hitting the peak of the Laffer curve, not that you meant it that way.

                    1. I agree with that (I assume you were talking to robc, but I figured I’d jump in), I don’t want to hit the peak of the Laffer curve either, but it’s still relevant to know what side you’re on when assessing the impact of tax policy.

                    2. Right. As specified in the Constitution the Prez writes tax codes.

                      Oh, wait…

                    3. The real question is what might he say ‘no’ to. All else is possible.

                      What would a Trump -Comgress negotiation look like? He’s a schmoozer (to wit: Christie).

        3. Both of you are fucking Dreaming.

          I don’t know what flavor of kool-aid you drank , but you’re just 100% fucking deluding yourselves into thinking that Trump would be in ANY WAY friendly to libertarians. Not only is he openly hostile to many libertarian causes, he has given ZERO indication that he would be at all interested in libertarian policy solutions on ANY subject.

          You’re like a person who really, really, really WANTS to believe that their abusive boyfriend loves them and isn’t cheating on them, when he gomes home drunk and smelling like perfume every night and runs into the bedrooms screaming that he wants a divorce and he’s fucking someone else.

          1. No, they love Trump because he hates those goddamn Muslims and Mexicans, and sure does stick it to those PC elitists! That’s where their real priorities are. Why the fuck they even come to Reason is a mystery.

          2. I never said this was a certainty, just that it was the best shot for libertarians to turn lemons into lemonade.

            The abusive boyfriend analogy is inapt. There is going to be a President whether we like it not. The point is who is the least bad option, and how does one try to work with them. Throwing up your hands and whining from the sidelines may feel satisfying, but it has zero chance of changing anything. Trump represents a non-zero chance.

            1. How did the argument go from Cruz is no libertarian but his record is closer to libertarianism to lemonade and Trump? Papaya you sound no different than any another Trump supporter who when asked specifically what Trump will do, say ‘Make America Great Again’. Trump is a carnival barker, a two bit used car salesman, actually that is an insult to used car salesmen. He’s mussolini with a bad tan. He shouldn’t be at the top of any libertarian’s list. No where in his past has he exhibited Libertarian tendencies. Cruz is a viable option. Trump has no business being anywhere near the levers of power.

              1. I never said Trump was “at the top of my list.” Obviously not. I would prefer Cruz. But I am going by what looks inevitable, not by what would be ideal. It’s going to come down to Trump vs. Hillary. The question then is which one is better (or at least least bad)for liberty. In my view Hillary is more dangerous.

          3. It’s not a matter of being “friendly to libertarians”. It’s a matter of the resulting policies being more or less in a direction you want thing to go toward compare to the alternatives. There are good arguments than HC as president would give us more gridlock, which I often think may be a best-case scenario. The thing that concerns me are the Supreme Court nominees. The SCOTUS should never have become a quasi-legislative body, but it is what it is.

      3. Its not a matter of ‘getting it past him’. Its a matter that the current R party would never seriously propose any of that because they’d get their lunch eaten by their ‘free shit for everyone’ competitors – across from *and* in their on aisle.

    5. “The question is, is it more libertarian than the Democrats, the other party likely to win the presidency?”

      Not if Trump is the nominee.

      “Trump is going to get the nomination and win the election. ”

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      “Trump wants to make sure “everybody is covered” when it comes to health care. This does not necessarily mean single-payer. It could mean making healthcare and health insurance less expensive. Libertarians know how that can be done.”

      AHAHAHAHAHAH Yes I’m sure Trump is going to listen and being very open to libertarian suggestions.

      1. OK, smart guy, I’ll make my offer again: let’s bet. My bet would be: if Trump is the Republican nominee in November, he wins.

        You are absolutely sure that Trump will lose, so put up or shut up. Since you are so sure, you should be happy to give me odds. 10-1 seems about right, based on your level of froth.

        So how much do you want to risk?

        1. I’m not trying to get in on this bet, but I figured this would be a good time to plug my offer that I made in another thread recently*

          If Trump beats Hillary in the general election and Hillary does not win at least 13 states in the process, I will pay the other person $500. If she wins or loses with at least 13 states, I get $500

          *This came about because some one in the thread said that the over/under for states Hillary would win vs. Trump should be about 12, and SIV and John both agreed. I responded with my offer, and nobody took me up on it.

          1. That’s a bit too finely-grained for my analytical powers. I want a simple win/lose bet, adjusted with odds and not state counts.

            1. I wasn’t necessarily trying to bet you, more just anyone who saw my post. I just thought it was funny that none of the people convinced that Trump was gonna win 38 states or more were willing to even respond to my offer.

              1. I will take a hundred on Trump winning. I bet he beats her.

                Email Mainer or Warty for my email. I will pay if I lose.

                1. I never gamble, but I’d totally bet on Trump beating her too.

                  1. (on second thought, mr. lap would probably not like me taking that…oh well)

                    1. And I’d totally bet that you are completely cut off from contemporary North American culture through sheer force of mental will. And any polling data about Trump.

                    2. Ahem…

                      Trump 97% likely to beat Hitlary

                      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ident.html

                    3. Where’s your money, Cytotoxic? You are so, so sure I’m totally wrong, but now you’re wimping out.

          2. If Trump beats Hillary in the general election and Hillary does not win at least 13 states in the process, I will pay the other person $500. If she wins or loses with at least 13 states, I get $500

            *This came about because some one in the thread said that the over/under for states Hillary would win vs. Trump should be about 12,

            I don’t have that kind of money to gamble, but I’d be awfully tempted if you made it 16 instead of 13 states. Are we counting D.C. as a state in this?

            (I’d guess the following states, west to east, will def pull for her: HI, CA, IL, MI and all of the NE ones including MD. I’ll give you one of the two from WA and OR). Wouldn’t surprise me though to see her lose MI. With MI and the above, that’s 15 states.

            She’s getting less and less popular all of the time, and I think the gun thing, the server fallout, and low turnout is going to just crush her.

            1. She’s not getting less popular against Trump and those things aren’t getting any more potent against her.

              Trump is politically toxic. His negatives are sky high. He has no path to the white house.

              1. Then it should be an easy 100 bucks for you off Papaya then. I’m sure he’s good for it.

                1. I am good for it. I point to C. Anacreon as my reference.

        2. I don’t indulge the delusions of trailer trash with my money, even in a contest that is a lock.

          1. Your money may not be worth much anymore but at least it is is backed by maple syrup and baby harp seal pelts.

          2. Yes that and the fact that just a few days ago you turned down a friendly bet because you admitted you didn’t have an extra $20 bucks or so to bet with.

            At least you were honest about it, that day that is.

          3. Your money? Do you mean your allowance? Punk. I live in San Francisco, which has no trailer parks. I work in Silicon Valley. I’ve got money to bet.

            Or how about this, with something that represents odds: If you win, I’ll give up my screen name here, which I am attached to and have had since forever, and get a new one. But if I win, you GTFO of Hit & Run and don’t come back. It’s “a lock,” so you’re not taking a risk, right?

    6. “He’s a business guy, oriented to practical, cost-effective solutions.”

      Like having the government steal land from people for his projects and then declaring bankruptcy repeatedly.

      1. He rents politicians and takes advantage of the stupid laws they pass. Blame THEM

    7. What libertarians should be doing is crafting and packaging liberty-oriented solutions that could be sold to Trump.

      The only flaw with that plan – where did you get the idea that Trump has ever listened to anybody in his life, ever given a rat’s ass what anybody else thinks, has any plan whatsoever to do anything except what he feels like doing? I would suggest that making a suggestion to Trump as to what he might want to do is a sure-fire way to get on his shit-list of Irritating Pathetic Losers Who Think They Have Anything To Say To Me That I Already Don’t Know A Hundred Times More About Than They Do. Sad, Really.

      I was actually thinking of a way Congress might respond to a President Trump – tell him you agree with everything he says and that he’s wise and charming and good-looking for having come up with such great ideas. But, sadly, there are so many voters and taxpayers you have to listen to who are so blindly jealous of his wisdom and charm and good looks that it’s taking a really long time and a lot of hard work to persuade them to adopt such wise and wonderful plans. Then just go do whatever the hell they were planning on doing anyway. Never argue with the guy, always agree vigorously with whatever he says, then ignore him.

      1. “The only flaw with that plan – where did you get the idea that Trump has ever listened to anybody in his life, ever given a rat’s ass what anybody else thinks, has any plan whatsoever to do anything except what he feels like doing? ”

        He didn’t. Papayatard is working backwards from his infatuation with The One Who Will Drive Out the Mexicans Muslims. LEADER LEAD ME

      2. Do you think Trump got to where he is without learning anything, without listening to advisors? Of course not. Don’t be fooled by all the bombast. He has advisors, and has mentioned them. They’re not just for show.

        And I’m not saying this is a fool-proof plan, just that it’s the only hope. Rand Paul is not going to be the next president. Clinton and Sanders are totally uninterested in liberty-oriented solutions. On the other hand, Trump might be, and libertarians have more sway in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party. Those are our lemons, so we might as well try lemonade.

        1. Where is your evidence that libertarians have any meaningful influence in the Republican Party?

          They actively resisted Rand Paul running for office in Kentucky.

          1. I said “more sway,” not “meaningful influence” (though that happens at times). At least since the Reagan years, there’s been overlap between the two camps. E.g. the Cato Institute and the Heritage Institute agree on a lot of things, more than either do with any left-wing think-tanks.

            1. Beyond some agreement, and only some, on economic issues there’s a lot more disagreement between Cato and Heritage, e.g. on social issues.

              1. Both of them object to the “group rights” mania on the left.

          2. Who is ‘they’? Libertarians or the GOP who resisted Paul?

            1. I assume he meant the GOP.

              1. I think so too but just making slure.

                Get it? Because I’m drinking I slur and I made it fuck with the word sure.

                And you get ‘slure’!

                /pounds table laughing to himself.

              2. I did mean the GOP, they were dead set against Rand Paul running, had their own pick lined up.

        2. I think that I need tequila with those lemons.

    8. If you want to plan the best route to something this side of total Socialism, consider this: Trump gets elected, the likely only way we see anything like an economic recovery will be despite Trump, not because of him, and either way it’s an uphill battle for the private sector so an appreciable upward economic turn is doubtful. That gets pegged to the party in the White House. Trump isn’t a Republican but he’s got the R after his name. That means the left will probably see significant gains Congress the first midterms. So now you have Democrats controlling Congress. Two years after that, when most people are sick of Trump, he’s still the GOP’s guy because they can’t primary him successfully. A Democrat takes the White House and has Congress. They’re just as bad as the GOP on everything plus gun control and social justice initiatives.

      And none of this even covers the rudderless, crony-laden, state-can-fix-all administration that’s going to govern this country in those four years, and the economic havoc it will bring.

      As to your point the GOP being the better option than the Democrats for those choosing between the two, you can hang your hat on Justin Amash because, as far as I know, the Democrats don’t have an analog.

      1. This is a pretty depressingly true assessment. The fucking Fed needs to rip the bandaid off soon by hiking interest rates. Instead they are looking to institute neg interest rates. Trump will never use his bully pulpit to advocate something that is too easily painted as crashing the market. Never.

        Consider that Reagan was in a similar position at the beginning of his term. He supported the Fed, and it cost him Congress. His diaries at the time say he knew it would, but he did it anyways. Does anyone see Trump doing something similar? I don’t. Were he to win, he would immediately be buddy-buddy with Ryan to do whatever is necessary to keep the people happy.

        1. The Fed can’t raise rates because of what that will do to the deficit. And as long as reality is dawning in China and Europe continues its great march to the future one windmill at a time, we can get away with it. Maybe in 20 years India will matter enough to change that calculus.

          1. If China would just pull its head out of its ass and stop bailing out banks and over-capacity industry, they’d be in good times.

      2. Completely accurate. If anything, too optimistic.

      3. Related to, and agree with FoE’s assessment above, I leave this prediction from a lecturer at the Naval War College:

        Morally unmoored, emotionally unstable, a crony capitalist of the worst kind, Trump will be every bit as liberal as Hillary?perhaps more so, given his statements over the years. He is by reflex and instinct a New York Democrat whose formal party affiliation is negotiable, as is everything about him. He has little commitment to anything but himself and his “deals,” none of which will work in favor of conservatives or their priorities.

        His judicial appointments will likely be liberal friends from New York. His Great Wall of Mexico will never be built, and employers will go right on hiring cheap labor and outsourcing jobs, just as Trump does with his made-in-Mexico suits. His China Smoot-Hawley Tariff will never be implemented. His administration, led by a vulgar, aging man-child who is firmly pro-abortion, who jokes about having sex with his daughter, and brags about his wealth, will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable among us?including the unborn…

        [cont]

        1. Trump, of course, will dissemble and whine about all these eventual failures. His fans will excuse him, as they do now, but they have short attention spans and will vanish in later midterm elections and future presidential contests. His white nationalist supporters, clinging to him like lice in the fur of an angry chimp, will shake their fists along with him for a time, until they too eventually slink away. By 2020, his core constituency will be a tiny sliver of what’s left of the white working class, pathetically standing at the gates of empty factories they thought Trump would re-open.

          More to the point, after four years of thrashing around in the Oval Office like the ignorant boor he is, voters will no longer be able distinguish between the words “Trump,” “Republican,” “conservative,” and “buffoon.” He will obliterate Republicans further down the ticket in 2016 and 2020, smear conservatism as nothing more than his own brand of narcissism, and destroy decades of hard work, including Ronald Reagan’s legacy.

          A bit too So-Con’y for my liking, but I can see the obliteration of the GOP brand through his inability to give his followers what they’re craving.

          1. “jokes about having sex with his daughter, ”

            Wow. How awful. Trump has a racy sense of humor. His soul is lost! Hide the kiddies!

            1. As I wrote, it’s a bit too So-Con’y for me. Trump’s trashy as hell though.

              I really liked the “core constituency…pathetically standing at the gates of empty factories.” bit.

              We’ve seen his schtick before recently, with Schwarzenegger and Ventura’s Governorships. They blustered a lot, ran their plans into a hostile state legislature, and ended up broken. Trump has a few more toys sitting in the Oval Office, than either Governor did, but what makes us think he’ll end up any differently?

            2. Trump has a racy sense of humor.

              Seriously? Joking about having sex with your daughter is just “racy”?

              Are we back in the Bill Clinton years where we all have to agree not to discuss character?

              This seems like a great example of someone being a willfully blind Trump apologist.

              This will end well. How can it be that I’m now thinking that a brokered convention that installs say, Bush, might be a good thing?

          2. Is there a link to this lecture?

    9. Despite Nichole’s objections, this is not “technocracy.” It’s pragmatism and incrementalism.

      From a libertarian point of view, “pragmatism” is voting for the president least likely to get anything done because he is incompetent and Congress hates him. I’m still on the fence which of the current crop of presidential hopeful morons that is.

  9. You know who else isn’t libertarian?

    1. Fucking Hitler, that’s for damn sure

      1. I’m sorry. Did you miss Reason’s “the Libertarian case for Hitler” article.

        1. Vote Hitler, we think he was cool with drugs.

    2. PapayaSF

  10. Amash and Massie touched on a range of other subjects, including the federal government’s efforts to compel Apple to decrypt the San Bernardino terrorists’ cell phones. Both Congressmen think the government is in the wrong.

    “I hope they take it to the Supreme Court,” said Amash.

    If only there were some way Congressmen could affect what the federal government does.

    1. If only there were some way Congressmen could affect what the federal government does

      Did you miss the Patriot Act?

      1. The Sarco-Meter 9000. Carry it everywhere, use it always.

  11. OT: In an email sent to people she works with this week, which was obtained by The New York Times, Ms. Harris-Perry said that her show had effectively been taken away from her and that she felt “worthless” in the eyes of NBC News executives.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02…..tions.html

    1. Considering her ratings, she *is* worthless.

      1. And an idiot.

      2. Her tampon earrings didn’t help?

        1. Not enough, apparently.

    2. Ms. Harris-Perry said that her show had effectively been taken away from her and that she felt “worthless” in the eyes of NBC News executives. every fucking person in this world that has a pulse.

      FTFY, Mith Mewitha Hawwith-Pewwey

      1. Teasing people is funny when you’ve had a few.

    3. Did you read the comments?

      The NYT readership are maudtis mongols.

      1. Lindsey Milford, CT 47 minutes ago
        I am very disappointed with the state of Media. I think the Republican owners are forcing their hands. (It used to be the “liberal media.” Not so any more.) So much for free speech. MHP please find a new home. I am a fan and will watch.

        MSNBC=bastion of Republican control!

        This is what constitutes her audience.

        1. BUT THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA TEABAGGER!

    4. Thank you, I had to go and find my happy smiley face.

  12. If Trump is the nominee, not only will Hillary win the presidency but the GOP could get fucked in Congress and fucked in general for a LONG time. This idiot will be used by progs to define their opposition FOREVER. The damage can be mitigated by a third party libertarian-leaning conservative like Mark Sanford.

    Further, if Trump is the nom, it’s time for the GOP pols who are actually interested in freedom to abandon ship. It was one thing to be fighting the GOP establishment, it’s another to also be fighting the base. Make a new party called the New Freedom Coalition or something. It won’t be libertarian but it will be a voice of sanity and unlike the GOP it won’t be fucked by association with Trump. That GOP does not have a serious future.

    1. It’s funny to me that Trump insists he’s the only one speaking Truth To Power when it comes to standing up to the GOP establishment – isn’t that exactly what the TEA Party was all about and the LP before that, isn’t that what the whole Rockefeller Republican/Goldwater Republican split is about? And isn’t Trump about as big a paternalistic Rockefeller Republican as you can get?

      Also – you got any pull with the Canadian authorities when it comes to deciding which of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free are going to be allowed to immigrate into Canada from the US in about 9 months?

      1. Not yet….but you might not need it. Our immigration system is much saner than America’s. Its easier to get in.

        Saskatchewan has the few remaining jobs and Alberta is going to have some cheap housing soon. In a few years we’ll replace the idiots in Alberta’s provincial government with decent adults. The federal government will still be morons but they aren’t that bad.

    2. Ahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Funny cuz it’s true I guess.

    3. In the US electoral system, anything other than 2 major parties is unstable and unsustainable.

      1. Canada also has first past the post, and there are multiple parties at the federal level and in multiple provinces.

        1. Canada maintains its multiple parties through some fairly deep regional differences. There is no analogue to Quebec in the US, for example. You also don’t have presidential elections like we do, which puts pressure on smaller parties to either merge or go extinct.

          1. Exactly

    4. Put your money where your mouth is, guy. See my bet offer above.

        1. Cytotoxic is Guy Lafleur, pal.

          1. Damn it, I didn’t hit refresh.

          2. GUY LAFLEUR IS LEGEND.

            I’m convinced Vince Vaughan, noted Blackhawks fan, names his character ‘Lafleur’ in Dodgeball after Guy, Guy, GUY!

        2. Don’t cal him Buddy, Pal.

      1. Like I said, I don’t indulge the fantasies of know-nothing trailer trash.

        1. And with that, she flounced out of the room!

    5. With Hillary in the White House, the GOP keeps Congress, at least through the first mid-terms. As Hillary won’t do anything to improve the country’s economic outlook, and as the Democrats have been neglecting cultivating a new generation of politicians to come up the ranks, the opposition party likely keeps Congress in four years.

      Trump would be a non-issue. Presidential losers get little play, and I suspect that will apply even to Donald Trump.

      1. Yes, but the bureaucratic state continues its grind. WOTUS arguably gives the EPA complete control over every non-desert parcel of land in the US. I honestly don’t see a difference between Trump or Hillary.

        1. Trump would put the border patrol and other most police statey agencies on steroids and let them rape civil rights with his encouragement.

          1. That horse is already out of the barn.

      2. “Trump would be a non-issue.”

        We don’t know that. George Will wrote about that and made the salient point that the GOP has never nominated someone so asinine and anti-conservative as Trump. This could destroy them.

        The deadlock wouldn’t be so bad. We (and by that I obviously mean the Kochtopus) keep achieving state-level victories, like Bolick and pension reform.

    6. Ever since Mark Sanford’s “hiking trip along the Appalachian Trail (in Argentina),” he should shut the hell up, thank God he didn’t get indicted for embezzling state funds, and enjoy his status as Poli Sci instructor for whichever baby Ivy chose to hire him. The only damage he’s (slightly) ‘mitigated’ is the utter dumpster fire of his credibility.

      What a disappointing pile of fuck he turned out to be.

  13. Reps. Thomas Massie and Justin Amash debate whether the GOP is libertarian enough.

    There’s a debate about this?

    Why FFS?

  14. Trump is a modern day Pappy O’Daniel.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Lee_O‘Daniel

    1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Lee_O‘Daniel

      GRR. When are we going to be able to edit?

    2. Do it again.

  15. So for me it’s Cruz in the primary (independents can vote), and if Trump is the nominee, hope for a Russian-style ballot where you just cross off Hillary’s name without polluting yourself by checking off Trump’s name.

    If it’s a standard American-style ballot where you actually have to put a check by the name of the candidate you dislike least, then I would consider the Constitution Party.

    Or maybe marijuana will be legal by then so I won’t care.

    1. I guess I’m feeling like Julia Roberts’ colleague in Pretty Woman, if I have to kiss them on the lips the deal’s off.

  16. On Kennedy Amash said “I was elected a Republican and I’m going to support my fellow Republicans”… Can we please stop calling these guys libertarians?

  17. OT: TV question. On these very pages I read recommendations of The Man in the High Castle and Black Mirror. Watched MIHC and enjoyed it a lot (I have not read the book but I understand there’s a LOT of differences). As for BM, WTF people? Pig Sex? REALLY?!?!

    So, hoping to move away from the 50/50 success rate, anyone watched Orphan Black Good, bad, indifferent?

    1. You know when people say things like “Sure, the guys in Rush really know how to play their instruments. It’s just, I don’t like their music”? That’s basically how I reacted to Orphan Black.

      Granted, it’s this TOTALLY AMAZING ACTING TOUR-DE-FORCE because the main actress plays several wildly different characters. I thought season 1 was OK, but even then I felt like I was “appreciating” the show rather than genuinely enjoying it. My enthusiasm dipped even more in season 2, which I did finish, but I never bothered with season 3. Too many other shows on my plate, including TMITHC, which I might not get to until the summer.

      That said, maybe give Orphan Black a try, because my opinion seems to be in the minority.

      1. Seconded Mint Berry’s opinion

        Also, it’s not as smart as it thinks it is. I finally gave up on it during a scene where a couple of the main characters were being exceptionally stupid. Like Horror B-movie seconds-from-their-demise stupid. I turned it off in a rage.

        1. I don’t think it thinks it’s very smart. It is a very pulpy show, very willing to be silly and interested more in shocking twists than a coherent plot or theme.

          1. ‘…interested more in shocking twists than a coherent plot or theme.’
            Didn’t Lost get five seasons out of people hoping there was a coherent plot? I guess that only works once.

    2. I gave up on Orphan Black after two eps,

      Enjoying The Expanse right now, though.

      1. I saw the first 4 or so episodes of The Expanse and it was real good, although I don’t like the detective guy very much.

        1. Thomas Jane? Your opinion is the opposite of correct as usual 🙂

      2. I made it through about 4 eps of Orphan Black. It wasn’t bad; it just didn’t hold my interest.

        The Expanse is fantastic.

      3. Yes, The Expanse is good so far. I have to say so far because I’ve seen too many shows that are really good at setting up twists and intrigue only to end shittily when the writers had no idea how to bring it all together. But this show seems like it’s got a plan.

        Colony is also really good, so far.

        1. I was going to mention Colony. Watching the latest right now, in fact. Dude from Lost really seems to have learned some lessons. Such as pick up the pace. Really liking it.

        2. The Expanse is based on a series of books so it should avoid that…

    3. Re: Black Mirror, watch Episode 6 “The Waldo Moment”, in which the Trump phenomenon is presciently explained.

      1. That is the one I kind of disliked. Maybe I’ll check it out again if I can find it.

    4. Thanks for the responses.

      Also for the suggestion on BM: we watched “White Bear” which was decent (although also an idea that’s been done before in different ways).

    5. As for BM, WTF people? Pig Sex? REALLY?!?!

      It’s an anthology – you get something totally different every episode.

      Do stick with it, it’s quite good.

  18. So Emma Watson’s OMGYES.com sex advice site is a pay site that seems to give you tips on things like multiple orgasms, I guess through “research”. I’m not usually one to go “hahaha betas”, but it really does seem like a site for suckers who feel pretty insecure in the bedroom. From the FAQ

    OMGYES isn’t about the basics. It’s not a how-to guide. Most of the techniques and ways to intensify pleasure are things that had literally never been researched before.

    Somebody should tell them not all research in college happens in a lab.

    1. OMGYES isn’t about the basics. It’s not a how-to guide. Most of the techniques and ways to intensify pleasure are things that had literally never been researched before.

      Does “rub things until she goes ‘Oh, yes! There!’ and then keep rubbing there” really require rigorous academic inquiry?

      1. If I’m the one doing the rubbing, then yes, yes it does.

        1. Dude.

          Bring out your inner Mediterranean.

    2. “Somebody should tell them not all research in college happens in a lab.”

      Not all research happens in college either.

      1. I WAS TRYING TO BE CLEVER!

        But yes.

    3. At first I thought you meant she had started the site. That poor girl. I’d volunteer to show her a thing or two if I weren’t married.

  19. I drew a Venn diagram to see where my beliefs overlap with Trump and another where they overlap with Hillary. Oddly, the overlap on both was the same. “Makes other team distrustful of state power”.

    1. Trump makes BOTH teams distrustful of state power.

      1. No he doesn’t. Stop lying.

    1. That is a damn good metaphor. Or documentary, not sure which.

    2. The best Trump-related joke I’ve seen recently is the Trumpstaffel logo on 4chan. Brilliant. “In less than ten minutes, history was made.”

    1. Oops, wrong link, and I must say that was the filthiest porn I’ve ever seen.

      Here’s Trump’s real campaign song.

    1. You burn in hell.

      1. Certainly pre-liposuction.

  20. It’s Friday evening…time for some Heinichen

  21. I’m voting for Trump. A principled politician.

    He prefers the popular side of any given issue. And that is a principle.

    1. Yeah, Adams has some good stuff there.

    1. She looks fucking intense. But she’s good at what she does.

    2. Nice tits. But I’m not very good at Spanish.

      1. How are you at Italian?

  22. I want Hillary to be president so everyone here can go back to hating the same thing

    1. See? I support the *community*. You should all be ashamed of your selfishness

      1. So, Hillary would be HnR’s Goldstein?

        1. She’d be our Big Sister.

    2. Libertarians should thank trump for revealing most conservatives as partisan half wits.

      1. True. Trump has revealed that a large chunk of the Conservative Movement is every bit as ugly, racist, and anti-intellectual as Liberals said they were. And that the Conservative Blogosphere is a wretched POS for the most part.

      2. Yep, and killing off the neocons.

    3. the world and everyone in it?

    4. Excluding for the writers, amirite?

    1. Good God, that is a relief. What an awful, stupid bigot she is. The bad part of that story is that it makes it sound like she is coming back.

      1. Ugh. that was supposed to be a reply to Trigger Warning below.

  23. Third-rate partisan hack walks off job, feelings hurt about lack of fucks given. Couldn’t have happened to a creepier nicer lady.

    1. About her demotion (?): “I don’t want to say it was “race-race” but it was race.”

      1. It seems she actually made comments, in her letter, which suggest she believes she is the victim of racism at MSNBC. Then she walked them back. It’s like she couldn’t help pulling the race card, or she knows she doesn’t have a leg to stand on if she cries RACIST, so she walked it back.

        All I know is that she’s a creepy collectivist hack. A coworker used to watch her bullshit religiously, and I caught her on TV with some other (recently sacked, if I remember correctly) MSNBC fuckwit blaming Detroit on the GOP and “right-wing policies.” I mean, come the fuck on.

      2. She feels worthless. For once her self image matches reality.

      3. Of course it is race just not in the way she thinks it is. It isnt her race, it is the naked racism that she constantly spews. Her ratings can’t be that good, can they? I mean, how many people can listen to someone as bad or worse than John Bull for an hour?

    2. I’ve only seen anything from her a few times, but from what I’ve seen, I think she is actually retarded.

      1. That is a cruel and heartless thing to say about retarded people.

        1. That made me laugh.

      2. You will show the nation’s foremost public intellectualis the proper respect, buddy-bubble-boy.

        http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…..om/282836/

        1. “”But there is no one who communicates the work of thinking to more people with more rigor and effect than Harris-Perry.””

          I think this sentence is a case-study in “Te-Nesi Coates-ness”. It says absolutely nothing… but creates the appearance of certainty about that nothing.

          it also battles itself between merely being ‘factually incorrect’ …

          (e.g. – *as the host of a low-rated show on the 3rd-rated cable news program, there are obviously more people who communicate better to larger audiences)

          …to being either meaningless, or internally-contradictory. “Communicating the work of thinking” is just “communicating”. And communicating with “rigor”? makes it sound *hard*. Its “effect”? measured in what?

          It would be easier to say, “MHP is the smartest person on TV”. But then… that sentence is too simple and easy to understand, and therefore far too easy to point out how absurd it is.

          Which is why people like Coates write the way they do. The vagueness is an asset that helps avoid anyone contradicting them. Because no one really knows WTF they just said.

          1. “…communicates the work of thinking to more people with more rigor …”

            Whut?

            1. He said more twice. What more do you want? More?

            2. I interpret it to mean that MHP has to exert a lot of effort to think and it shows.

      3. Probably bi-polar and off her meds.

    3. ‘”Bonnie Revoner3 hrs ago

      I like that she is not going down in silence. She may have burned some bridges, but, sometimes to you have to burn down the house to rearrange the furniture.”

      Sometimes i just love these people.

      1. I can’t even parse that comment. Something about burning the village in order to save it. Progs are too stupid to live. Goddam.

      2. Isn’t Melissa’s real name ‘Abby Normal’?

        1. ARE YOU WATCHING YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN??

          I am. You totally just saw that on TV, didn’t you?

          1. I TOTALLY JUST DID!

            1. (fist bump)

              1. This movie is the best.

          2. It’s creepy, isn’t it, the coincidences?

            1. “PUT. THE CANDLE. BACK!”

              I just watched it again, too. Thank God for TCM.

    4. Regardless of her claims, it’s not “her” show; she works for MSNBC and works at their pleasure.

      1. ‘…and works at their pleasure.’
        Mmmm do you have a newsletter that I might subscribe to?

  24. I am beginning to find this passionate, thoughtful and extended debate about who is the least stinky turd tedious.

    I spend most of yesterday casting and most of today cranking away on my Forster; a much more productive way to spend time. I am going to shop online at Midwayusa.com. now. I need some 338 Win Mag brass.

    Also, I have notice quite a number of snarks lately about stupid yokels who are scared of brown people. I can’t say if they are based on mendacity or simple mindedness but they are way off base. By including the ‘brown’ in that they are calling people racist. I am sure some of that is directed at me and I take issue with it. I have made it clear many times that I do not hate or fear brown people. I hate backward/ evil people which makes me an equal opportunity hater race-wise. I am also an equal opportunity liker. I like people who have good character and principles. Smart is not a requirement but it is a plus. Race has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    I take issue with culture, particularly barbaric ones. With regards to the culture in question there are plenty of white, brown, black and yellow people in it. Those of you making those snarks are doing yourselves no favors by making dishonest accusations.

    1. One commenter in particular initially asserted that the crime problems in Europe that are a direct result of muslim immigration were complete fabrications. After the evidence that it was very real became undeniable that commenter changed positions to ‘well, thats just the price we pay for progress’. That is astounding. This is a fanatic, and an evil one at that. ‘We’ aren’t paying the price. He isnt paying the price. The sixteen year old girl who had her neck broken while she was gang raped and then had sticks, leaves and dirt stuffed into the vagina, ass and mouth of her body is paying the price. The young women being burned alive for dishonoring their families are paying the price.

      Skyrocketing crime and the welfare rolls swelling with people who openly despise western civilization is not progress.

      The rest of the ‘you just hate brown people’ people take some steel wool and soap and go scrub the proggie out of yourself. Then we can talk.

      Also: fuck character limits.

      1. Yeh maybe true but we should keep in mind the Muslim population of Europe stands around 5-6%.

      2. We are so screwed. I have more respect for the Muslims than I do for self loathing useless assholes like that guy.

        1. You know that guy. You are about the only one who will torture yourself by arguing with him. Next time you see him do something less painful and more productive: stab yourself in the eye.

          1. That’s because I am smarter than both of you and not afraid to show it.

            1. Get lost fascist retard.

            2. Cytotoxic is so smart he doesn’t have $20 for a “sure thing” bet.

      3. .’We’ aren’t paying the price. He isnt paying the price. The sixteen year old girl who had her neck broken while she was gang raped and then had sticks, leaves and dirt stuffed into the vagina, ass and mouth of her body is paying the price. The young women being burned alive for dishonoring their families are paying the price.

        As fucked up as those situations are I do not see how one can harmonize your position with the basic libertarian aversion to collectivizing entire groups of people based on the actions of individuals.

        I mean come on, you must also concede that a lot of Muslims are normal human beings with the basic desire to better themselves, right? How is it morally just to deny them opportunity to escape the shit hole they had misfortune of being born in?

        1. So what? A lot of Germans were great people who hated the Nazis. It sucked to be them. The existence of nice people doesn’t obligate the rest of us to give our civilization away.

          1. I wasn’t aware we had a collective obligation to guard “our” civilization, whatever the hell that means.

            1. That is because you are fat dimb and happy and have no idea how lucky you are to live here and not in the Middle East or Africa.

              And even if you feel no obligation to do anything in return for your good fortune, the government sure as hell does. The government has an obligation to protect the public safety.

              I am sure you think that is horrible. And that is why a libertarian society is utterly defenseless and unable to cope with an actual hostile and alien culture.

              1. That is because you are fat dimb and happy and have no idea how lucky you are to live here and not in the Middle East or Africa.

                I’m certainly glad I was not born into a region of the world that’s been fucked over repeatedly by the Europeans. Why would you think I’m not aware of that? Are the Middle East and Africa shitholes because they’re inhabited by people with inferior cultures or civilizations?

                And even if you feel no obligation to do anything in return for your good fortune, the government sure as hell does. The government has an obligation to protect the public safety.

                Yeah I feel the love and compassion every time I look at my paystub right up until the moment I open Reason and read the daily list of ways the government hurts people with that money it takes from me.

                I am sure you think that is horrible. And that is why a libertarian society is utterly defenseless and unable to cope with an actual hostile and alien culture.

                A libertarian society requires virtuous citizens. I already posses the virtue of knowing what my rights are and the rights of others and doing all I can to respect those rights.

                A raping horde of Muslims is certainly dumb to those rights but so are the people cheering for Trump or Bernie or Hillary. “We” seem to be doing a damn fine job destroying ourselves from within and I don’t think you can pin that on the immigrants John, I think that mostly has to do with people who think like you.

                1. Yeah Geoff. Let in the population of Egypt and see how virtuous your citizens are. And if you think those place are screwed up because of Europe and not because of the cultures that were already there, you live in a fantasy world but I already knew that.

                2. “I’m certainly glad I was not born into a region of the world that’s been fucked over repeatedly by the Europeans.”

                  At which point were they fucked over? Before or after they invaded Europe, and which invasion?
                  Don’t try the anti-colonialist nonsense, just can that shit.

                  “Are the Middle East and Africa shitholes because they’re inhabited by people with inferior cultures or civilizations?”

                  Yes. That is not to say that every individual there is inferior or that ever individual in the west is superior. In the general sense of culture and civilization the answer is a resounding yes.

                  1. “At which point were they fucked over? Before or after they invaded Europe, and which invasion?
                    Don’t try the anti-colonialist nonsense, just can that shit.”

                    Um. Probably after. When the Europeans were in charge.

                    “In the general sense of culture and civilization the answer is a resounding yes.”

                    Not if you actually know anything about why places prosper. Places prosper because of rule of law and good institutions and private property rights. That’s why Dubai and Hong Kong and too a lesser degree Morocco are prospering while Algeria is not so much.

                    Culture only matters in so much as it gets in the way or helps the formation of those institutions. The history of Singapore shows that you can bypass culture.

                    1. Dubai? Dubai’s “prospering” because of oil and an Arab minority that lives fat off the work of an extremely poor foreign labor class–people who build those fancy high-rises in 120 degree heat and 100% humidity and whose families have no recourse when they get killed in construction accidents because they have no fucking rights at all to speak of.

                      This is why your posts are such an indictment of free-market SJW-ism. You don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about and then cite a country where the actual, no-shit exploitation of foreign workers takes place as if its one to be emulated.

                3. Are the Middle East and Africa shitholes because they’re inhabited by people with inferior cultures or civilizations?

                  Yes. Those cultures are hugely problematic from a Western perspective, not to mention a libertarian one, for too many reasons to list. One reason is that Islam is as thoroughly anti-libertarian as a religion can be. It’s not “collectivizing” to group people by what they believe.

          2. The country isn’t going to become an Islamic dictatorship if we don’t enact Trump’s ban. Jesus Christ, get a grip of yourself. There’s a middle ground between thinking no Muslim immigrant could ever do anything bad and pants shitting about how we are all gonna be living under Sharia law in 5 years if we don’t go full Trump.

            1. And remember, he’s the voice of reason.

            2. This is a nonsense straw man argument. Obviously we won’t have sharia law. But more Muslim immigration means we will have more supporters of sharia law, more terror supporters, more terror attacks, more calls for a surveillance state, more Jew-haters, more gay-haters, more women-abusers, and more anti-libertarians. Why would any libertarian want those things? Because of some Platonic ideal of “freedom of movement”? Screw that. We don’t live in an ideal world.

              Islam is on the march, and at war with the rest of the world. It’s a greater long-term threat to liberty than Communism was, because it’s a religion and more widely spread. Every Muslim country sucks, and every country that gets more Muslim sucks more, as Europe is learning the hard way.

        2. I have explained all this in great detail before.

          Any muslim who wants to put his fortune and his ass on the line to come here because they want to be an American, because they like what they see here and want to be a part of it, because they believe in the principles this country is founded on I encourage them to come. I know a few and they are great people, definite plus’s for our society and our country.

          Rounding up people willy nilly and shipping them here en mass, not knowing who they are and them having no idea about the things previously mentioned is just stupid.

          1. Also, those people showing up here on their own tend to do so with their families because they are decent people with good family values. They also tend to open businesses.

            The single males that show up, leaving their families behind I have no use for. And don’t tell me that is a myth. The make up the vast majority of the ones showing up in Europe and 75% or so of the ones slated to come here. They are the scum of the earth and that includes the white ones, the brown ones, and the black ones. They aren’t worth the bullets it would take.

            1. “The single males that show up, leaving their families behind I have no use for.”

              That’s nice, but what ‘you have a use for’ isn’t my problem.

              “They are the scum of the earth and that includes the white ones, the brown ones, and the black ones. They aren’t worth the bullets it would take.”

              That’s some good fascistic collectivism right there.

          2. There’s really no other way to do that though. There’s always going to be negative aspects to integrating foreign peoples but also positives.

            I simply do not think it’s moral to play utilitarian on such an unknowable issue. You could have made the case 120 years ago that importing all those Italians would bring in crime and not be wrong since we got the Mafia out of it. But also great food and individuals that would make lasting contributions to American society.

            Same for Jews, Poles, Chinese, Greeks, etc.

            1. There are always negative aspects that no open border libertarian ever has to experience. It is forever someone else duty to sacrifice for libertarians’ ideals. You guys are noble like that.

              1. “There are always negative aspects that no open border libertarian ever has to experience.”

                Because they don’t exist or are too minor to bother mentioning. That being said, I’d totally put you on the line for my rights. That’s why you’re in the military right?

            2. And Mafia movies.

            3. Agreed there are always negative aspect and that we can absorb them. However it would be less than wise to not try and mitigate that. The mafia guys at least showed up with their families; I mean, who has stronger family values than the WOPs? They came here and put skin in the game, invested their lives in the place and the lives of their families.

              The local mafia hasn’t had any real power since the mid seventies. They all got old and their kids took the mafia money and went to school. They are all doctors and lawyers now. The shit we had to put up with was worth it.

              Those guys bought their own tickets here. They may not have been stellar humans but they had some redeeming qualities and were an overall plus.

              These are very different critters than what we are talking about currently. Why would or should we take in adult males who have abandoned their families in the midst of war, never worked a day in their life, and hate everything we stand for? It would be smarter to shoot our dicks off.

              1. “Why would or should we take in adult males who have abandoned their families in the midst of war, never worked a day in their life, and hate everything we stand for? It would be smarter to shoot our dicks off.”

                More collectivist lies and BS. “This TIME our pants-shitting will be vindicated! Totally different from every other time!”

                1. More collectivist lies and BS.

                  Don’t you have an immigrant neighborhood to not be living in right now?

                  1. I work in a workplace of immigrants.

                    1. So what? I did too, in high school. It’s telling that you have no problem working with them (probably because they’re covering for your lazy ass) but wouldn’t actually live alongside them.

            4. But also great food

              Fucking christ. A stable society is made up of a hell of a lot more than autistic epicureanism.

            5. Grand Moff, you would have a point if it weren’t for the fact that Muslims are terrible at assimilating, and the fact that it’s often the descendants of those nice Muslim immigrants who become radical. That’s precisely what happened in France. The Muslims who came over from the colonies in the ’50s and ’60s were little trouble. Hey, cous-cous in Paris! I had it decades ago. But their grandkids are the ones burning cars and joining ISIS.

        3. “…you must also concede that a lot of Muslims are normal human beings with the basic desire to better themselves, right? How is it morally just to deny them opportunity to escape the shit hole they had misfortune of being born in?”

          I do concede that and have many times. I support them coming here.

          It isnt, and I don’t. Show me you are a normal person. Put your ass on the line. Sell everything you have and bring the wife and kids. I will actively assist you in building a life.

          1. They have no obligation to indulge your demands.

        4. How is it morally just to deny them opportunity to escape the shit hole they had misfortune of being born in?

          I am perfectly OK with them escaping their shitholes. I just don’t want them here or in any other Western country, because, unless they abandon the religion and culture that created their birthplace shitholes, they will simply carry the seeds of shitholeness and plant them somewhere else. Let them go to Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim country.

      4. “After the evidence that it was very real became undeniable that commenter changed positions to ‘well, thats just the price we pay for progress’.”

        If you’re talking about the ‘Swedish rape epidemic’ or the ‘no-go zones’ then that is a crock of shit.

        “Skyrocketing crime and the welfare rolls”

        Citation?

      5. What Suthenboy said.

    2. While I probably don’t agree with you about the degree of danger posed by Muslim immigrants, I certainly don’t think that racism motivates your views on the subject, or those of most regular commenters here that share those views.

      1. If you don’t think they are an issue, go live in the Middle East for a while. I will never understand why libertarians seem to honestly think everyone in the world thanks like they do and can be reasonable freedom loving people if only given a chance.

        1. I didn’t say I don’t think there is any issue. I am for freedom of movement, so my natural position is to be against restrictions on immigration. That doesn’t mean we have to actively work to bring refugees here from anywhere.

          1. And if people want to come here for the purpose of terrorizing you and enforcing their values on your society, does their right to move give them a right to do that? What if people have no interest in adopting a culture or values and come in numbers that overwhelm the locals, that is okay? The locals are just fucked?

            1. Is that what’s happening?

              1. Yes. And if it isn’t it certainly will if something isn’t done. In a situation like that libertarians are worthless and in fact on the other side. Every ideology has its limits. And what is happening in Europe right now is showing libertarianism’s limits.

              2. “Is that what’s happening?”

                In some places, yes, and not an insignificant number.

                I think you and I agree more than we disagree Zeb. I am a staunch defender of freedom of movement also, in principle. In practice it really only works inside a civilized country; a place where people respect each other, what some call a ‘civil society’.

                As an extreme example consider how open borders would work for Israel.

                1. It’s funny you mention Israel-even they don’t ban Muslims from entering.

                  Israel could have open borders. They just need to crush their enemies in the liberated territories, which they must do regardless.

                  1. You really are a special kind of fucking retarded.

            2. And I’m not sure what kind of libertarian thinks that immigration means you have to allow people to terrorize you and enforce their values on you.

              1. As I said, we agree more than we disagree.

              2. The strawman John loves to sodomize before or after setting alight.

      2. I appreciate that. An honest disagreement and/or debate I can respect.

        It is the accusations of racism I can’t stomach.

        1. As for the danger part I don’t think the people I listed above as desirable immigrants pose any danger whatsoever, we agree there. The undesirable ones, not so much.

          1. As i said to john above, while I am for open immigration, I don’t think that means we are obliged to actively bring in refugees if it seems likely to cause problems here.

            1. Not paying people to come over here seems like a great way to separate productive migrants from unproductive ones. Unfortunately some of the Reason writers seem to throw incentives out the window when it comes to open borders.

              1. paying people to come over here

                When does that happen?

                1. Never. It’s another nativist lie.

                  1. To be fair, in my experience, 99.9999% of the population has no fucking clue how the refugee/asylum process actually works, much less the immigration process itself.

                    And I’m getting sick of educating them without pay.

                    1. I’m sick of the fact that they don’t give a shit how it works. “WHYCOME FAGGOT LIKE MOOSE LIMBS?”

                    2. Probably because the same twerp wouldn’t actually live in the same neighborhood as them while espousing their virtues. Progs do love their diversity at a distance.

                    3. “And I’m getting sick of educating them without pay.”

                      God, you poor thing.

                      What suthen said

                    4. Both you and Suthen owe me a dollar.

                2. It happens when we buy their tickets and house and feed them after they are here.

                  Some Europeans have gone so far as to require property owners who own more than one property to sell their extra properties to make room for immigrants. I guess a delusional someone is going to say that, a law on the books and being actively enforced, is bullshit also.

                  1. “It happens when we buy their tickets and house and feed them after they are here.”

                    Canadian levels of aid to refugees are not high and I doubt America’s are higher.

                    “I guess a delusional someone is going to say that, a law on the books and being actively enforced, is bullshit also.”

                    I’m not delusional so I’m not the one you’re talking about, but I’m going to ask for a citation anyway. A good one. I can believe it. Southron Europe is cray-cray.

                  2. Suthen, you’re a good egg, but you are the 99.9999%. You do not “buy” their tickets unless you donate to one of the 10 nonprofit voluntary agencies, like Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services, Catholic Charities, or the American Refugee Committee, approved by the government to sponsor refugees. There is no public agency of government that physically sponsors and bears the cost of bringing refugees here as that is prohibited by law.

                    Once they arrive in country, you do not clothe, house, or feed them unless you donate to one of the 10 charities who have sponsored them and are legally required to ensure they do not become wards of the state as signing an Affidavit of Support on their behalf is a legal requirement of sponsorship. Now, it is true that the The Office of Refugee Resettlement provides cash reimbursement to states to cover the cost refugee medical screening and health care for up to eight months from the date of a refugee’s arrival. I share everyone’s beef with that.

                    As for what goes on in Europe, I don’t give a shit as I’m not a European. Neither are you, Cytotoxic, lap83, or Zeb, last I checked, so I don’t see how that’s germane to the current conversation.

                    1. HM, aren’t the citizens of, e.g., Minnesota partially on the hook for refugee’s getting onto programs like those mentioned in this Star-Tribune article on Somalis in Minneapolis? FTA:

                      “…The number of So?ma?li adults and children who participated in the state’s family cash assistance program jumped 34 percent from 2008 to 2013, to 5,950. At the same time, food assistance participation increased 98 percent, to 17,300 adults and children, which does not include U.S.-born Somalis. Census numbers place the Minnesota Somali community at more than 33,000, a count Somali leaders say underestimates its size by tens of thousands.

                      The Minneapolis School District responded to a ma?jor up?tick in new So?ma?li stu?dents by launching the NABAD program, an acronym that’s also a greeting in So?ma?li. The dis?trict is al?most 10 percent So?ma?li this fall. The new class?rooms ? two last year, eight this fall af?ter prom?is?ing early re?sults ? fea?ture an English language learn?er teach?er and a So?ma?li-speaking aide. Students spend a school year there before joining the mainstream.

                      The charities you mention might foot the initial bill of getting them here (ignoring that they’re using tax-deferred or exempt status to do so.), but it sure looks like MN taxpayers are getting hit with a larger burden than otherwise.

                    2. The charities you mention might foot the initial bill of getting them here (ignoring that they’re using tax-deferred or exempt status to do so.), but it sure looks like MN taxpayers are getting hit with a larger burden than otherwise.

                      The relationship between a municipality or state and the sponsoring agency can be contentious because of this very issue, as I have seen in my own community whose mayor called for a moratorium on resettling refugees for that very reason. On the other hand, FL taxpayers get hit with a larger burden than otherwise from all the old New Yorkers and such coming there to die.

                      In both cases, the state has the choice of eliminating the social services that make it an attractive place for both populations to relocate.

                    3. Oh, here’s another fun fact. In the United States, refugee status only lasts 1 year. At the end of the year, the refugee is required to file an I-485 (Adjustment of Status) or go home. At this point, the refugee undergoes the same background checks and processing any other immigrant undergoes when applying for lawful permanent residency (LPR). If they pass all that, they are issued their “green card”. When someone gains LPR status, they are prohibited from using most of what we call welfare (SSI, TANF, and Medicaid, but not Section 8) for five years.

                    4. And all of them naturally file that Adjustment of Status, right? Like everyone who comes here on a student or tourist visa?

                      There certainly isn’t any fraud in welfare administration either.

                      I mean, if we’re going to recite fairy tales to each other, I’m a fan of the Just So Stories. Probably why I can’t look away from the evolutionary psych discussions that go on here…

                      AFA the NY snowbirds heading down to FL to die, don’t they get hit with property tax (off their rentals if nothing else), sales tax, and other taxes that (supposedly) defray the costs of the civic services they consume? FL might get screwed by the medical costs, the snowbirds incur, but means-testing and Medicare should help with defraying the State’s end of that burden.

                    5. And all of them naturally file that Adjustment of Status, right? Like everyone who comes here on a student or tourist visa?

                      There certainly isn’t any fraud in welfare administration either.

                      If P, then Q will occur./ Q is undesirable./Therefore, P is false. is what we call argumentum ad consequentiam, an informal fallacy. If you want me aboard the eliminate welfare train, then I’m sold; however, I don’t see how the existence of welfare fraud determines the truth value, either way, of the statement “the government pays people to come here”.

                      AFA the NY snowbirds heading down to FL to die, don’t they get hit with property tax (off their rentals if nothing else), sales tax, and other taxes that (supposedly) defray the costs of the civic services they consume? FL might get screwed by the medical costs, the snowbirds incur, but means-testing and Medicare should help with defraying the State’s end of that burden.

                      Refugees don’t pay sales tax, etc.?

                    6. But, what kind of wait time are they looking at? Many legal immigrants wait over 10 years to get a green card from the time of application. Do “refugees” get a preference? That’s a good incentive to get here with this status.

                    7. I did not know this. I stand corrected. I was under the impression that there were sponsors who performed the services you mention but did not know they bore the cost as well. Why is this not mentioned anywhere else? I don’t understand why such a highly contentious issue would not be laid out more clearly so that…Ohhhhhh. Ok.

                      Now, if you will simply give me your banking information I will gladly pay you that dollar.

    3. I spend most of yesterday casting and most of today cranking away on my Forster; a much more productive way to spend time. I am going to shop online at Midwayusa.com. now. I need some 338 Win Mag brass.

      What rig are you running for the .338? Long range target, bears/elk, or just shits n giggles?

    4. Very well said, sir. Very well said indeed.

      Personally, I don’t dream of a perfectly homogenous culture, but I am generally a melting pot theorist and believe that “incoming” cultures need to respect some existing cultural limits. In other words, you may or may not spank your little kid and I’ll figure that’s up to you, but when you punch him in the face, I’m going to object.

      .338 wing sounds awesome. I’m a fan of things that THUMP…but not trump 🙂

  25. When I get back to this computer, there better be some response to my posts, otherwise I’ll wonder why I bother trolling at all.

    1. This makes alot of sense, anon bot 5000, my sister makes 3.85 an hour sitting at home with my cousins’ brother’s friend who has never wored but took home 35,783.16 last week, jodomofoto/forkme.comk

  26. Personally I started out my political journey as a conservative and over time, and through introspection and logical examination of my various beliefs and prejudices, became a libertarian. My gut tends to be conservative still as the freedoms I personally most value are freedom of economic action, the right to bear arms, freedom of association, and above all freedom of speech and thought.

    cont.

    1. cont.

      The introspection convinced me that my conservative bent was because most of those freedoms are the ones ostensibly supported by conservatives, and that simple fairness and consistency required that I move toward libertarianism as other people clearly valued other freedoms more, and conservatism, while ostensibly supporting economic liberty, arms, and association, was unfortunately tied to puritanical restrictions on sexual behavior and drug use, and to enforcement of social norms by law.

      I still have a nagging belief, no belief is far to strong, a nagging hope? fantasy? dream? that the Republicans still have some trace of a conservative approach to economics and small government. Unfortunately they seem to constantly delight in proving that dream mistaken. We seem to have come to a place where the Republicans all lie about wanting small government, fiscal conservatism, lower taxes and spending, and balanced budgets, while truthfully claiming to want to bring swat teams to bear on violations of social norms, and to drop bombs on people I have no quarrel with. The Democrats truthfully claim to want big government, more taxes and spending, while lying about wanting to let people live their private lives as they choose and lying about wanting to drop bombs on some other people I also have no quarrel with. None of the candidates is adopting ANY even incremental liberty position! A pox on both their houses!

      1. Why do you think conservatives are the ones who want puritanical restrictions on personal behavior? Have you been in a coma for the last 20 years?

        It is not conservatives who are trying to turn every form of sex not governed by a signed contract into rape.

        1. see my comment about the Democrats “Lying about wanting to let people live their lives as they choose.” I agree that the Democrats want to micromanage people’s lives in every area, but when the big Republican issue is opposing gay marriage, it is clear that they are not pushing the pro liberty side of their coalition.

          Also notice you are quoting my discussion of R v D. I still consider myself conservative on the Classical Liberal portion of conservatism. But not on the Judeo Christian values part. Which is sort of what libertarian means isn’t it?

          1. sorry Mischaracteriozed what you were quoting.

          2. Gay marriage is a pimple on a gnats ass compared to what the progs want to do. They want to repeal the 1st amendments and you are whining about gay.marriage. Seriously who cares?

            1. You are missing my point, which is that in this election cycle the only conservative issue any R seems to raise is opposing Gay Marriage. THEY are focused on it, not me. I do not care at all about gay marriage one way or the other. I consider it an utterly trivial issue. I intellectually agree that as a libertarian IF we are going to have civil marriage it should not discriminate, but I don’t have the slightest emotional concern about it as an issue.

              If the Republicans were actually running in opposition to prog attacks on the 1st Amendment I would be cheering them on, THEY AREN’T, they are running on :
              1. Invade Syria
              2. Build Big Wall
              3. ZOMG gays gettin married
              4. Make glowing sand bounce

              1. Like Hillary won’t invade Suria. And controlling the border is a legitimate government function.

                1. Did you read my post and get the idea I was attacking Republicans in support of Democrats? How? My whole point in all this was that I started out a conservative republican, full on, family campaigned for Goldwater before I came along, Reagan worshiping Dyed in the Wool Capital R Republican, and moved to libertarian. The idea of Hillary as President is so disgusting to me I might vote Trump and clean the shame vomit off my ballot.

                  I even agree with controlling the border, I am not an open borders guy. But when the debt has crossed 100% of GDP, the 1st, 2nd, and 7th amendments are being attacked daily, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th and 10th have been effectively removed from the law, entitlement spending growth is locked in by baseline budgeting at a pace where it’s growth curve is effectively GUARANTEED to eventually cross the revenue growth curve, meaning MORE than ALL the money will be owed in entitlements (hint when that happens the wheels come off the bus and people are shooting in the streets), I cannot get excited about deporting what is in my experience a largely law abiding, hardworking, population.

                  1. Wow that is a run on sentence even for me. (sorry, philosophy major don’t ya know. you read a few Germans and see how long your sentences end up!)

                2. ” controlling the border is a legitimate government function.”

                  Only to the extent that they keep out threats. That’s not what is happening.

                  1. Having a bunch of drug cartels operate across the border that cut off heads for sport would be considered a legitimate threat in most sane societies.

                    1. There’s no evidence that’s leaking over to America or that ‘defending the border’ is going to counter the insanity caused by drug prohibition. El Paso is just across the border from a very dangerous part of Mexico. No crime epidemic.

                    2. There’s no evidence that’s leaking over to America

                      Wrong.
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/us/23border.html

                      or that ‘defending the border’ is going to counter the insanity caused by drug prohibition.

                      Keeping it wide open isn’t doing so hot either.

                      El Paso is just across the border from a very dangerous part of Mexico. No crime epidemic.

                      Those cherries don’t pick themselves, you know.

                    3. RRR,

                      Is org-crime related kidnapping still one of the biggest crime drivers in the Phoenix and S. Arizona? I had thought it was increasing by a lot, and that cartel business disputes were behind a bit of it.

                      AIUI the cartels really tried to keep a lot of their shenaniguns out of big border towns like El Paso and the lower Rio Grande Valley. But I’d heard that Phoenix was a small exception to that observation.

      2. And how many times do you see Reason bringing up entitlements and welfare spending vs. fighter jetz? For a mag supposedly representing small government why do we go months at a time neglecting the largest (and growing) portion of spending? At the end of the day I am convinced there are no real libertarians. The spectrum is basically the reciprocal function 1/x with goal of evaluating at 0.

        Lim 1/x x goes to 0- = liberaltarian
        Lim 1/x x goes to 0+ =conservatarian

        1. I think all libertarians have a bent one way or the other, but I think most of us at least try to recognize that the other bent’s positions are also libertarian. We just yell at each other a lot in the process, because playing nicely is a plot by gubbmint.

          1. You must be a yokel.

            1. are yokels classical liberal conservatarians? If so sure I’ll be a yokel.

              1. Welcome, Cousin Cletus, you may pick up your worn overalls past the cows.

                1. Do I get a cute cousin?

                  1. Yes, but she’s also your sister and your daughter.

                    1. ahh the old family tree is a tumbleweed, round and chasing its tail.

                  2. Do I get a cute cousin?

                    No, you wrote this:

                    I cannot get excited about deporting what is in my experience a largely law abiding, hardworking, population.

                    That makes you an effete, cocktail-swilling Cosmo whose partner is Nathan Lane’s character from The Birdcage.

                    1. But I did say I oppose open borders. So the Cosmos won’t let me in. Hmm I have been exiled from the cosmos…

                    2. Meh, wouldn’t have lasted much longer anyway.

                    3. ” I oppose open borders”

                      Then you’re not a libertarian.

                    4. ” I oppose open borders”

                      Then you’re not a libertarian.”

                      That is a pretty authoritarian pronouncement. Please justify it.

                    5. Shut up, yokel.

                    6. ” think all libertarians have a bent one way or the other, but I think most of us at least try to recognize that the other bent’s positions are also libertarian. We just yell at each other a lot in the process, because playing nicely is a plot by gubbmint.”

                      I think Cytotoxic is trying to prove my optimism ^ wrong.

                    7. Freedom of movement and association are part and parcel of libertarianism. That means open borders, with only filters to keep out real criminals, spies, and terrorists.

                    8. “Freedom of movement and association are part and parcel of libertarianism.”

                      I would agree that this is true within a libertarian society. It does not follow that it is true between that society and a non libertarian world.

                      ” with only filters to keep out real criminals, spies, and terrorists.”

                      Ok so you agree with me that a society can exclude people on some basis, which would mean no to open borders. I explained my position on immigration elsewhere but in a nutshell it is:

                      Open borders (with similar caveats to those you express) to anyone seeking to enter as a guest worker, citizenship requirements tightened, but available without quota or limit. (I would require a more thorough and deeper understanding of our constitutional framework, but anyone who was willing to learn it and accept it would be welcome)

                    9. “It does not follow that it is true between that society and a non libertarian world.”

                      Yes it does. Freedom does not end at the border for citizens of a free nation. See also ‘free trade’.

                      “Ok so you agree with me that a society can exclude people on some basis, which would mean no to open borders. I explained my position on immigration elsewhere but in a nutshell it is:

                      Open borders (with similar caveats to those you express) to anyone seeking to enter as a guest worker, citizenship requirements tightened, but available without quota or limit.”

                      We may just have a different definition of open borders. Freedom doesn’t mean anarchy.

                    10. “Yes it does. Freedom does not end at the border for citizens of a free nation. See also ‘free trade’.”

                      It is a goal to be sought, but the fact that you are free in Canada and want to go traipsing around Zimbabwe, will not stop the Zimbabwean Dictatorship from imprisoning you.

                    11. Like almost everyone else here you will be one or the other today or tomorrow depending. No two people here agree on much other than self ownership and the NAP. There is a lot of spirited discussion and a few shit slingers but you look like you will fit in fine.

                      As for Cytotoxic, pay him no attention. If you read up you may notice his provocateur act and the failure of anyone to respond. That is not for no reason.

                    12. “Like almost everyone else here you will be one or the other today or tomorrow depending. No two people here agree on much other than self ownership and the NAP. There is a lot of spirited discussion and a few shit slingers but you look like you will fit in fine.

                      As for Cytotoxic, pay him no attention. If you read up you may notice his provocateur act and the failure of anyone to respond. That is not for no reason.”

                      I like to argue, and Cytotoxic doesn’t seem that bad to me, he at least makes arguments. That is great by comparison with Michael Hihn with whom I spent yesterday arguing. I am actually a bit concerned about Hihn, he seems a bit unbalanced, and seemed convinced I was insulting him and bullying him.

                    13. It’s pretty obvious Hihn is mentally ill.

                    14. Hihn thinks anyone who says a cross word to him is bullying him. He’s as bad as the wilting flowers on college campuses.

                    15. There is a tiny kernel of corn inside his massive shit: the “rich” subsidize the middle class. We have more middle class welfare than we do welfare for the poor.

                    16. Ok, Cyto, I mostly agree with you. But even I am not a complete literal open borders person.
                      I do want vastly easier legal immigration, including a means for currently illegal immigrants to naturalize. But even I would restrict immigration from a few select groups – specifically Sunni Arab Muslims. But that’s like 1% of the annual immigration flows.

                      What boggles my mind is how people can shit their pants so hard that a bunch of Spanish-speaking Roman Catholics are coming here. Like that’s such an alien culture. OMG, they’re going to bring their Hesus-worshipping ways and their tacos and flamenco dancing! UNREAL!

        2. I think you may be right. I am as fed up with the conservatives as you are with the libertarians.

          It is all virtue signaling and class snobbery on all sides. I am sick of the entire lot of them.

        3. “And how many times do you see Reason bringing up entitlements and welfare spending”

          Fairly often.

          1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh, you were serious. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

            1. Yes, and I am also right. They should bring it up more often, but on a fairly regular basis we’ll get a reminder that we’re fiscally doomed. And by we I mean you. And by you I mean us.

              1. “Oh and entitlements are a problem” is not bringing the subject up. But gosh, this would be an interesting thing to talk about.

                1. “”Oh and entitlements are a problem” is not bringing the subject up.”

                  Um. Why not?

                  1. Seriously? Literally (and I mean literally the way it is supposed to be used) throwing 10 words at it while spending paragraphs talking about other significantly smaller sends a clear message and it’s not the one the voices in your head are whispering.

              2. Oh, and about that not going months at a time…

                Gee, seems like I can count months between those already weak postings.

                1. Can’t talk about the third rail! Just ignore it, it will go away. Of course it will likely take the last vestiges of our civilization with it when it goes, but it will in fact eventually go away.

  27. there are no real libertarians

    Wait – I thought there were no real Scotsmen.

    1. Real Scotsmen would be real libertarians.

      1. Well in that event, NA Skippy, they’d be easy to identify since they’d all be wearing my favourite colour – plaid.

        1. Prove you are entitled to wear that plaid laddiebuck or take it off!

        2. Can’t do plaid.

          1. Can’t do youtube at work. That better be Spaceballs.

            1. Blasphemer!!!! That be The Tick.

    2. If I self identify as a real Scotsman does that make me a libertarian?

      1. Iya!

        1. I am wondering if there is enough true plaid.

          Given straffinrun’s environmental influences, it seems to me that there is more than a little Japanese colour-scheme in his kilt than is appropriate.

    3. C’mon Charles, there are plenty of real Scotsmen, just no true ones.

      1. So If I claim that no true libertarian would ever deny another libertarian’s libertarianism, do all the Scots explode?

  28. Harvard abolishes ‘master’ in titles in slavery row

    “…It will mean changing the job titles of 24 members of staff – but will not affect other uses of “master”, such as a master’s level degree.

    “Harvard academics say that the word “master” derives from the Latin term “magister” – a form of address for scholars or teachers. It is similar to terms such as “school master” or “head master”.

    “But protesters have argued that whatever its original derivation, the word now has connotations of slavery.”

    That sounds like intellectual masturba…uh, I mean jerking off.

    But then there’s this:

    “Student campaigners are also calling for a change in the official seal of Harvard Law School, with a sit-in being held this week.

    “The seal includes the coat of arms of 18th Century college donor Isaac Royall, who as well as establishing the college’s first professorship in law, was a notoriously brutal slaveholder.

    “Isaac Royall, whose money helped to endow the university, has been accused of burning slaves alive.”

    1. So bdsm is now THE RACIST?

      1. For a second I was confusing BDS with BDSM.

        One is a bunch of racist perversion, the other involves sex play with whips and chains.

      2. For a second I was confusing BDS with BDSM.

        One is a bunch of racist perversion, the other involves sex play with whips and chains.

        1. And computers are racist too. They have master and slave drives. And cars are the racist with their master break cylinders.

          1. What is *really* happening when someone digitally remasters something?

            1. Forcing it to admit its name is Toby.

              1. The real villains are easements. They make even land Dominant and Servient.

              2. Next thing you know they’ll say there’s something sinister about this guy.

          2. And computers are racist too. They have master and slave drives.

            Not if they have John Brown’s RAID arrays.

          3. Computers don’t have master/slave drives anymore. Haven’t for almost 10 years. More importantly they got rid of those fucking Molex power plugs.

            1. Hey. I did a stint at Molex. Even designed a one bit (no shit) computer for them.

    2. I’m not going to be niggardly in my enjoyment when I watch The Masters this year! I haven’t seen it in a coon’s age!

      1. Just don’t enjoy yourself *too* much, or they may have to haul you off in a Paddy wagon.

  29. I’m going to hire illegal immigrants to vote for Trump.

    1. And then not pay them.

      1. It wouldn’t surprise me if Trump is already doing that.

        1. probably both parts

      2. Let them rape your orphans. Win/Win

  30. As fucked up as those situations are I do not see how one can harmonize your position with the basic libertarian aversion to collectivizing entire groups of people based on the actions of individuals.

    This is an easy issue to address. One can’t worry about the sin of collectivism entire groups when your civilization ceases to exist. Go preach to the fucking Roman Empire about the sin of collectvising all those Huns. Oh, you can’t. Because the Roman Empire doesn’t exist any more. In part, because of the Huns.

    I find the idea that one cannot collectivise groups pretty stupid. Muslims, public sector unions, the Huns, the Wermarcht, cops, SJW’s, congressmen, the KKK, and bowling alley enthusiasts. These are groups that I believe I have every very good reasons to eye with suspicion. I’m not willing to risk getting fucked over by any individual that makes up these groups to maintain being an orthodox libertarian. So I gave up libertarianism. If that makes me a racist, a prick, a dick, an idiot, a ME TRUMP LIKY ME DO, a pants shitter, fine. I don’t care.

    If Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, is the law of the land, the government isn’t going to be protecting me. None of the fuckwits here are ever going to lift a hand to protect me. I am on my own.

    1. The people on here collectivize cops and other Americans all of the time and usually with good reason. But mention that maybe Muslims are fucked up and crazy and OMG your THE RACIST. It is fucking retarded.

      1. That’s because there isn’t a good reason with North American Muslims.

        1. If you can find any North American Muslims who want to immigrate, sure. That might be difficult since those are already here.

          God you are stupid.

          1. ” But mention that maybe Muslims are fucked up and crazy and OMG your THE RACIST.”

            Ah, see that? You failed to make the distinction.

            Of course freaking out over foreign Muslims is also retarded. I work with tons of them and they are the ones usually getting stuff done in the lab. And they are from Saudi Arabia, the worst of those countries. The ones from Albania I bet are even better.

      2. And a pants shitter, John . Don’t forget being a pants shitter.

    2. Muslims, public sector unions, the Huns, the Wermarcht, cops, SJW’s, congressmen, the KKK, and bowling alley enthusiasts.

      Well, Goddamn I’m a member of every one of those groups. Guess I’m not getting any party invites from Boner.

      1. You are the guy who is always in the SS uniform at the bowling alley. I hate Nazi bowlers.

        1. They always lose because they’re too nervous about knocking over the white pins with a black ball.

      2. Are you sure? There will be hookers, blow, liquor of your choice?

    3. Because the Roman Empire doesn’t exist any more. In part, because of the Huns.

      The Western Roman Empire….the Eastern half hummed along quite well for about another 1000 years until the Ottomans arrived on the scene.

      1. And then everybody tripped over the Goddamn things and fell, broke their necks and died.

      2. Yeah, but those fags are purple on CKII and a bitch to get my heir to marry into. Fuck ’em. The (Holy)Roman Empire is where it’s at.

        1. Y U NO play Sword of Islam and attempt to push the Almoravids north of Al-Andalus?

          1. Because I wasn’t interested enough to buy any expansion packs. I got the freebies that include India, and I have conquered every single territory of the known world inc. that, but that was before they patched to make assassination harder limiting the Causus Belli ops.

    4. The Huns were a military force. The Muslims are not. If your hairs get on end ever time you see a group of Muslims, you’re an idiot.

      Why the fuck do people like you and John come here? Do you get a sexual boost out of ranting and raving over teh foreign hordz to people who laugh at you for it?

      1. Better than waiting for your MakerBot to print you one, I guess.

      2. No. The Huns were a people.

        Why the fuck do people like you and John come here?

        So what am I allowed to say? Huh? What is the party line I supposed shout? BTW, shut up you fucking Canadian. Except for Rush, William Shatner, and John Candy, what the fuck has the Northern United States ever given us? Just shut up and do as your told. Becuase you know you will.

        1. He is 12 years old, lives in a Canada, has never met a foreigner much less an actual Muslim in his life and oh yeah he is an idiot.

          1. Some how, I think if his cracker ass was thrown in the middle of Raqqa, he wouldn’t be so Kumbya with the locals.

        2. “No. The Huns were a people.”

          Led by ATTILLA THE FUCKING HUN which has no goddamn equivalent in this day and age.

          “So what am I allowed to say? Huh? What is the party line I supposed shout?”

          “Open borders are good and here’s how we should work towards and implement them”. Glad to see you’re falling in line.

          “Except for Rush, William Shatner, and John Candy, what the fuck has the Northern United States ever given us?”

          Shit, you got me there. Worse, Rush and Shatner suck! Um….oil? Wait you got tons of that. Maple syrup? Damn you have more and more of that too. Ah! A sane immigration policy. And ReBoot!

          1. Hey, you forgot Wilf Carter, Gordon Lightfoot, Ian and Sylvia, and Hank Snow.

            1. Although Gordon, Ian and Sylvia never lived in the USA. Me wrong.

              1. My best friend looks like KD Lang, and he’s a man in his 30s. That is the only reason I know the lyrics to the song “constant craving.”

          2. Yeah but you have Scott. He’s a dick

    5. To be fair Troy, most of the Wermarcht were draftees who had little choice in being there.

      You are dead on about bowling alley enthusiasts though. *shudder*

      1. Well, where else does one go to bowl?

  31. A libertarian society requires virtuous citizens.

    True. And we don’t have virtous citizens. Look how many people are willing to live on the dole. Look how many people who are advocating for the fucking criminal cunt Hillary. Look how many people who vote for incumbents with the motivation of that because there guy has been in there a long time, it increases the probablitlity that their congressman can steal money from other districts for them.

    So I ask myself, I can’t act/be/actualize a libertarian. So what the fuck am i supposed to do? I got the choices of a socialists, a crony criminal, and an entertaining fascist to choose from. WTF

    1. You may have other choices, depending on whether or not you’re a teetotaler.

    2. Troy muy grande boner|2.26.16 @ 10:01PM|#
      “A libertarian society requires virtuous citizens.”

      It needs some, but it also needs the ‘tough love’ that comes from virtue, not universal ‘virtuous citizens’.
      I’d say it could tolerate a level of ‘non-virtue’ as well as any other arrangement, and it might have the advantage of providing incentives toward virtue compared to the alternatives.

      1. It needs people who can at least be deterred into respecting other people’s rights. If a significant number of citizens are willing to die to enforce their values on the rest, you won’t have a libertarian society anymore.

    3. People act according to incentives. They are always trying to maximize their value. Therefore change the incentives, change the behavior.

      Price Virtue below Vice and you’ll get more Virtue.

      Even people with faulty ethical compasses can be incentivized to pursue Virtue.

  32. That is because you are fat dimb and happy and have no idea how lucky you are to live here and not in the Middle East or Africa.

    And even if you feel no obligation to do anything in return for your good fortune, the government sure as hell does. The government has an obligation to protect the public safety.

    I am sure you think that is horrible. And that is why a libertarian society is utterly defenseless and unable to cope with an actual hostile and alien culture./

    This can’t be said enough!!!!

    /yes 4 exclamation points.

    1. “That is because you are fat dimb and happy and have no idea how lucky you are to live here and not in the Middle East or Africa.”
      Uh, assertions may be comforting, but they aren’t anything other than assertions.

      “And even if you feel no obligation to do anything in return for your good fortune, the government sure as hell does. The government has an obligation to protect the public safety.”
      Yes, it does, so long as the population *charges* it with doing so and arranges to fund it so it can. This sounds suspiciously like “the government” exists as an alien entity to the population

      “I am sure you think that is horrible. And that is why a libertarian society is utterly defenseless and unable to cope with an actual hostile and alien culture./”
      Beat that strawman to death!

      1. And that is why a libertarian society is utterly defenseless and unable to cope with an actual hostile and alien culture./

        This isn’t an assertion, this is a fact.

        1. No it isn’t stop lying.

          1. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between being wrong and lying. On requires a intentional misrepresentation of a material fact, the other is just a mistake. Hey, if you don’t get the difference, that’s OK. Neither did my torts teacher.

            1. At this point, it’s such a stupid thing to say that it just has to be a lie.

              1. Stop lying.

        2. “And that is why a libertarian society is utterly defenseless and unable to cope with an actual hostile and alien culture./”
          This isn’t an assertion, this is a fact.

          It would be a fact so long as I agreed with the presumption that a l’tarian society would not agree to some form of mutual defense. I’d say it would be more likely in a larger society, which might serve as a throttle on the size of a functional l’tarian society. And, of course, it depends on the definition of a ‘Scots Society’.
          Certainly not claiming that the WWII US society was truly “l’tarian”, but it wasn’t too far off, both in time and structure; I’d have called it about as good as a nation that size can be prior to that slimy wanna-be dictator. And Yamamoto famously stated that the US could not be invaded since there’d be an armed citizen ‘behind every blade of grass’.

          1. I think Switzerland had a shot at it, they seem to have shifted toward welfare state pretty hard though.

  33. “A libertarian society requires virtuous citizens.”

    Not really. It requires good institutions and rule of law. The people can’t be totally insane and violent but they can be bad people and still, under threat of law, not assault and defraud each other. A lot of violence is driven by government prohibitions.

    1. “A libertarian society requires virtuous citizens.”

      Not really. It requires good institutions and rule of law. The people can’t be totally insane and violent but they can be bad people and still, under threat of law, not assault and defraud each other. A lot of violence is driven by government prohibitions.”

      I read this as pointing out that the citizens must be virtuous enough to refrain from voting themselves largess. A libertarian society can survive crime, it can survive, and even thrive with violations of social norms, it cannot survive a majority of the populace discovering that they can vote away other people’s property and rights.

      1. But it can’t survive democracy. Death to democracy.

      2. Look, all you have to do is stop building fighter jetz and hand out all welfare as no strings attached cash and everything will fix itself. Well, that and pot. Everything else will fix itself. Promise.

    2. We don’t have the rule of law. We don’t have good institutions. We have an oligarchical corptocrasy.

      1. No we don’t. Argentina is like that. The value of your posts suffers for lack of perspective.

        1. Lois Lerner/IRS
          VA
          EPA
          DOJ
          CMS

          My God you’re right! We are the perfection of gov’t institutions!

          1. Stop strawmanning.

            Point is, this is not as bad as things can get. Things can get much scarier than this.

            1. That is kind of like bragging about being the tallest midget.

            2. Good news: they are!!

              1. “Good news: they are!!”

                and the rate of increase of the rate of increase of worsening keeps increasing

          2. Careful Skippy. When you call him out on his bullshit, his head hurts. Then he yells at his mom. Do the poor woman a favor and give her a minute of peace by not responding to him. Even if he is hopelessly wrong.

            1. Is it my fault she can’t stock enough frosted blueberry poptarts? Bitch.

  34. Trump is one of those guys who thinks screwing people out of the money they’ve earned is “just good business.”

  35. So Ireland. It seems the austerian coalition will lose their majority. And Peter King’s buddies will get around 15% of the vote.

  36. Over 400 comments? I did all scrolling, and I’m going to assume this was just one entire Gene Wilder appreciation thread.

    1. Ah, so close. Russell Crowe, actually.

    2. Also, Cytotoxic is probably a Barenaked Ladies fan. Think about it.

      1. I’m going to watch “The Producers” while pretending it was.

    3. Well, Young Frankenstein was on TCM last night.

  37. little cat paws
    scratching eel tracks into
    the goddamn temple of my
    head under the riverboat
    of zip zop zap twang twainz
    schmuz schmang shmawg dawg doge
    sleep ninja kilt twizzle cloud samurai
    fucking awesome grating song shit

    1. Man, we needed you like an hour ago, AC. Is it true you work at the Lima refinery? I got family up that way. I always thought you were the sound guy for Monster Magnet.

      1. no. jesus christ, fuck that horrible asshole nasty bro in law of mine. I will cut his throat.

        1. The one at the refinery or the one who does the sound for Monster Magnet? Because I like Monster Magnet.

      2. He does both, all while having a fat cock, dear.

    2. Ding A Ding Dang my Dang A Long Ling Long !!!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCh9OhDiCI

  38. Zero Mostel’s hair is the funniest part of “The Producers,” which is a ridiculously funny movie.

  39. If you want to eat your brain on a sandwich
    get killed by a large oak tree branch
    that cracked your skull open.
    arise like a good progressive
    act as if tragic never happened
    scoop the brains of yourself off the leaves…
    you can do this because you are goddamn stupid and
    war more stupid than goddamn evangelicals… so yea,
    dead progs arising like poltergeist jesuses
    can toast Honey Wheat bread
    and spread their odd death brains on tight brown bread
    and eat this shit and jog around some goddamn lake in
    some fucking weird board game part of Murica.

  40. At the risk of starting another shit storm my wife is watching Brain Games on TV.

    I just heard the term ‘God Spot’ in the brain.

    *facepalm*

    Yeah, there is a God spot in your head, it lies between your ears, your forehead and the nape of your neck. That doesnt mean there is a God.

    1. Now, everyone realign with your new team and have at it.

      1. They also just said musical chords can orchestrate with your belief in a higher power. “Thats why many churches have really big organs with really big pipes on them.”

        Yeah, that is what I was worried about.

      2. Honestly Suthenboy I’m an Apatheist of the Pyrate persuasion. =D

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeqBwrg3H7M

    2. Actually, it would be interesting to compare the brains of atheists and religious people to see if there were any significant differences.

      1. I think we all know which side would have the sharper mind. In fact, I think it is pretty obvious that one side would be far superior to the other.

        1. Mind does not equal Brain. Of course their minds are different, they hold vastly different world views; I would be interested to see if there were any physical differences in brain structure.

          1. I know, and it would be interesting, I just wanted to not-so-subtlety instigate.

          2. “Mind does not equal Brain.”

            Something I would only be willing to discuss after hard and fast definitions for both are established.

            1. after hard and fast definitions for both are established.

              Brain = the squishy thing you can touch

              Mind = the not squishy, perhaps not a thing, you can’t touch

                  1. Hey that’s a real thing, don’t knock it.

              1. Very good.

                First I assert that there is no thing that is not a thing or that cannot be touched. A thing that is not a thing and cannot be touched is indistinguishable from nothing.

                The mind is an illusion resulting from the extremely complex interaction of the minute parts of the brain. If you don’t believe that try destroying parts of the brain and watch the ‘mind’ change dramatically.

                1. Yes I caught it despite being a bit drunk.

                  Hard and fast definition includes the attributes squishy and can’t be touched.

                2. “The mind is an illusion resulting from the extremely complex interaction of the minute parts of the brain.”

                  Oh, boy, there might be a rabbit hole just in front!
                  Not sure it’s an “illusion” so much as a conscious “construct” that we all use as the internal interlocutor; what some might call “the conscience”.
                  I am certainly not claiming it exists independently of the physical brain, just that it is a product of that brain, not an “illusion”.

                  1. I think we just used different words to describe the same thing.

      2. I am sure there are but figuring out cause/effect might be difficult. Thinking using certain parts of the brain strengthens that part of the brain making it larger and not thinking in certain ways atrophies the part dedicated to thinking that way shrinking it.

        Having certain parts of your brain initially larger causes more thinking along the lines of that part of the brain and the inverse for the parts that are smaller when you are born.

        This might be sorted out by looking carefully at baby brains and then following them as they grow to adults and seeing what the correlation is or if there even is one.

      3. Heroic Mulatto|2.26.16 @ 11:21PM|#
        “Actually, it would be interesting to compare the brains of atheists and religious people to see if there were any significant differences.”

        I’m presuming you mean physically.
        Agreed. I am mystified that anyone finds a mythical being both required and extant and have been as long as I can remember (say age 4 or 5). Pretty sure there wasn’t much ‘programming’ prior to that, since dear ol’ Mom was a bleever and dear ol’ Dad wasn’t, so any innuendo would’a gone both ways

        1. It is not mystifying at all. It is perfectly normal and natural. We are wired for it.
          Catch me when I am sober and I can explain it quite simply.

          1. “We are wired for it.”

            Shermer calls it a similar name, but I seem not wired for it, and I harbor serious doubts I “am alone in this universe”.

            1. Shermer lost me a long time ago.

              Just watched the last segment on the show and they had self professed atheists tested. Given items they told were special ( a pen Einstein wrote the theory of relativity with and a sweater worn by Jeffery Dohmer ) they showed either revulsion or reverence. They referred to these people as skeptics and then showed that they engage in magical thinking. I would say they are just not skeptical. Their motives for claiming to be atheists are not what they say they are.

              You are not alone in the universe. I have no belief in magical thinking whatsoever. The pen is just a pen. The sweater just a sweater. Genius and evil do not coalesce in physical objects nor does the passage of time cause magic to concentrate in physical things.

              1. “Shermer lost me a long time ago.”

                I’m wiling to cut him some slack; we had an e-discussion a couple of years back when he jumped on the ‘reasonable gun control’ bandwagon. He finally admitted that for all the good intentions, the ‘reasonable’ limits had no effect whatsoever. And his books certainly piss off lefties; all good there.

  41. i always look back before I roll back because my lovely punk ass doggy is layin around this place.
    I think I am going to kill my agile cyborg account tonight. fucking cannot trust people.
    agile dies tonight.

    won’t matter. but agile cyborg is dead tonight. every fucking one of you wonder stars have slivers of special lights as I do. slight dances in the letter woods. we recognize each other no fucking matter…

    1. Don’t Go !!!!

  42. Jesus. Do you all feel better? Rough week?

    I’m gonna go check out some HuffPo comments to restore my faith in public dialogue.

    1. “I’m gonna go check out some HuffPo comments to restore my faith in public dialogue.”

      I had to double check because I was just sure that had to be Crusty.

  43. I actually spent my first week on this board convinced that Agile Cyborg was someone’s turing machine/thesaurus randomizer. Then I saw them answer a personal aside and was freaked out.

    1. He is a Turing machine, so you should be freaked out.

    2. Agile is special, no doubt about it. He is treasured here and for good reason.

    3. AC is a God among Men. If you are leaving ac Then I will listen to an Anthem to you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo6UX5PXvlk

    4. Riding spectral unicorns across the astral plane has never been the same

      1. True, what with Ethereal-Qaeda setting IEDs in the mindpaths.

  44. Very short book review:
    “Conquering Tide”, Tolls.
    Good. One of the few books on the Pacific war that *never* confuses N-S or E-W; why is that?
    Also not so good; maps are cheap. Put ’em in regarding any action you’re writing about.

    1. “More maps” is almost never a bad idea.

  45. And to think, Bob Uecker used to steal scenes from Mr. Belvedere.

  46. Trump threatens Bezos.

    “I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought The Washington Post to have political influence, and I gotta tell you, we have a different country than we used to have,” Trump said. “He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.”

    That’s so precious, Donny.

    1. Coming from an Asshole who just Loves Eminent Domain. Precious indeed.

    2. I want nationalsocialist jesus freak and soviet communist party politicians threatening corporations. I want them to remember that and write campaign donations to the LP.

  47. Well, the wife is asleep on the couch.

    Goodnight all. Gotta go tuck her in.

      1. Somehow I always imagine Suthenboy riding in an airboat across a swamp with a mysterious cigarette that refuses to go out. It is a good thought and then I continue to read.

  48. Lefties thrilled with the second coming!:

    “Pony dressed as unicorn escapes human clutches, prances around town for several hours”
    […]
    “(you can’t tame unicorns, you know)”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..856398.php

    Bernie hasn’t yet figured that out.

    1. “”We are living in a world in which a handful of high-tech companies, sometimes working hand-in-hand with governments, are not only monitoring much of our activity, but are also invisibly controlling more and more of what we think, feel, do and say.”

      this must be the religious thing hardwired in the brain people were talking about.

      1. Apophenia 2016

        1. That’s when you see jesus in burnt pancakes.

          This is more “forces we can’t see (but know just enough to be stupid about) secretly control everything” which i think is different and more basic and universal.

          1. Seeing Jesus in burnt pancakes would be ‘pareidolia’ (a subcategory of apophenia).

            Apophenia is the general term for inferring patterns of causal agency in otherwise random or incidental data where none actually exist.

            There might be a better term for “forces we can’t see but know enough to make stupid ascriptions about?” thing. I simply had a spontaneous urge to say “Apophenia 2016”.

    2. Hey Fruity Ass. =D

      The public has been exposed to that type of propaganda for years. In economics it’s called The Law of Diminishing Returns.

      Think of Carl Roves “Whisper Campains”

      Social Media, same thing. =D

      1. It’s not new, true. The article goes into that. But what’s new is the centralized, invisible control that Google and Facebook have. The article talks about experiments they did, in which they had people research candidates using a search engine that skewed results by pushing either positive or negative results, and got disturbingly strong results. The people in charge of Google (and Facebook) are Hillary fans. They have the motive, means, and opportunity to adjust people’s search results and Facebook walls invisibly. They can datamine their users and skew what just the undecideds see.

        1. I refuse to be manipulated. I’m voting for Trump.

        2. I don’t see how even the Google corporation can induce me to vote for Hillary, unless they’ve got access to some really powerful Haitian zombie powder.

          But even if I were a zombie, I would still hunger for brains, and Hillary doesn’t do it for me.

          1. (Oh, no, I conflated Haitian zombies with the undead Romero variety)

          2. If you read the article (*cough*), you’ll see that it’s about swaying the undecideds.

    3. Needs moar bubblegum.

  49. What the hell did you feral mammals get into last night? AC said he’s missing some of his stash!

    1. The usual clusterfuck with intermittent shit storms. It was entertaining.

      Mmmmmm hot coffee.

  50. “He’s opposed intervention,” said Amash.

    Uh, yeah, don’t let all that carpet bombing stuff fool you.

  51. Sounds like a pretty good plan to me dude,

    http://www.Anon-Net.tk

  52. 600. Ok stop.

  53. “Massie also discussed the need for Congress to rein in federal authority by restricting funding.

    “”If Paul Ryan passes an Omnibus bill, I’m not voting for him for Speaker,” said Massie.

    Conservatives, too, have been very angry over the fact that Congress has not used its power of the purse to slow down or stop the federal government.

  54. Gosh, next thing ya know God’s Own Prohibitionists will be debating whether the Ku Klux Klan and the Prohibition Party and National Socialists are “really” libertarian. With friends like these…

  55. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  56. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  57. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend 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. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  58. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend 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. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  59. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend 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. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  60. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  61. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  62. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  63. Hitler was a man we could deal with, too. Yea, he was dealt with….at great cost!!!!

  64. ot: Ethan Hawke is one of the most insuffreable pricks in hollywood. I have no inside info i just observe.

  65. Also 100 percent ethan hawke in NOT his real name.

  66. ot again: When can we call out Neil Degrasse Tyson? He’s become prog circus boy.

    How bout we start saying science equals an observation produces a hypothesis and then that hypothesis is tested to see if it can be fallsified against results. Global warming cannot even be tested let alone falsified.

    He who has extrordinary claims…..etc. Let he who claims it PROVE IT. Also since when does the scientific method include policy prescriptions? If i didnt know better i would think that scientist are trying to legislate throug… fuck it that latin phrase that means through science.

  67. Where in the scientific method does it say we have to go commie? Even if their specious claims are true.

  68. Oh yeah Amash is awesome and we need more like him cuz that will do a lot of good. How come a libertarian magazine doesnt research the electorate in his district?

    Maybe find out what makes them special. Maybe even how we could start to make our own districts that way. I know maybe an explicit run down of Amashe’s district and what makes them libertarian as opposed to every other congressional district in America.

    Get in the dirt Reason u have ure marching orders. We know what makes Amash special. Tell us what makes his voters special.

    Find a director to do a doc. Then send ure best reporter and turn it into a movie. Then get that shit into sundance. Then reach young people. Then u have something.

  69. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  70. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  71. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  72. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

  73. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  74. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  75. Logan . if you think Albert `s posting is terrific, on saturday I got themselves a Chevrolet Corvette after bringing in $9913 recently and would you believe, 10-k lass month . this is certainly the most-financialy rewarding Ive ever had . I began this eight months/ago and immediately made myself over $82.. per/hr . check this site out…
    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ————? http://www.Wage30.com

  76. just before I saw the bank draft that said $7985 , I have faith …that…my friend woz trully making money in there spare time at there computar. . there uncle haz done this 4 only twenty months and just now repaid the mortgage on there mini mansion and bought a brand new Dodge . learn the facts here now……

    http://www.Wage90.com

  77. I can’t vote Cruz tomorrow, the evangelical
    In him is overpowering, Rubio is my choice

  78. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  79. Cruz is libertarianish. He is more libertarian than his competition now that Paul has dropped out.

  80. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  81. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend 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. This is what I do..
    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.WorkPost30.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.