Gary Johnson

Media Would Rather Talk About Gary Johnson's 'Aleppo Moment' Than a Damning New Report on Hillary Clinton's Actual War

While mainstream journalists yuk it up about Libertarian's "disqualifying" mistake, they are nearly 100% silent about the massive UK parliament report exposing Libya as a trumped up and abysmally planned intervention

|

I get the criticism, and contributed to it: Libertarian Party presidential nominee looked bad while again brainfarting a not-particularly-hard TV question about the world he intends to president in. But there's a galling media double standard at work here. You will find more examples of mainstream journalists calling Aleppo Moment 2.0 a "disqualifying" gaffe—here, and here, and here, and here, for example—than you will, I don't know, EVEN MENTIONING THAT THERE WAS A MASSIVE AND DAMNING UK PARLIAMENTARY REPORT EVISCERATING HILLARY CLINTON'S PET WAR.

I write about the fundamental unseriousness of America's "serious" political media over at CNN Opinion. Excerpt:

"This policy," the conservative-led [parliamentary] committee concluded, "was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the [British] Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element. By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-(Gadhafi) Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa." […]

Aside from a handful of mostly ideological outlets, the US news media declined to even note that the Democratic presidential nominee suffered a comprehensive rebuke to her oft-repeated assertion that Libya represented American "smart power at its best." As The Atlantic delicately put it, "The British public has been engaged in a debate about war that has been largely absent from the U.S. presidential election." […]

[I]f there's anything more obnoxious than cheerleaders for Donald "bomb-the-sh—out-of-ISIS" Trump mocking Johnson for foreign-policy ignorance, it's supporters and enablers of Hillary Clinton rolling their eyes theatrically at a presidential candidate who was against the Iraq and Libyan wars in real time, who wants to pardon rather than imprison Edward Snowden, and who comports himself with occasionally awkward humility rather than with the polished and delusional omniscience that we've unfortunately come to demand in our presidential candidates.

Read the whole thing here.

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.

237 responses to “Media Would Rather Talk About Gary Johnson's 'Aleppo Moment' Than a Damning New Report on Hillary Clinton's Actual War

  1. A committee dominated by the British conservative party? They just don’t want strong woman leaders.

    /sarc

    1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6570 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $98 per hour. Go to this website and go to tech tab to start your work… http://tinyurl.com/GoJob92

  2. sorta OT: Trump supporters sent threatening letters: take down your signs or else

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlyP0ik-pqg

    1. Seems like I’m hearing about a lot of those tolerant leftards threatening people lately.

      -jcr

    2. I get the videos of retards trying to steal signs. That strikes me as organic youth ‘tardery

      threatening letters? not so much. smells like it was organized, and therefore probably actually done by trump supporters to gin up news in Florida making the opposition look slimy.

      it just doesn’t strike me as something any real organized political advocacy would do . (e.g. no pro-hillary people would say to themselves “threats are a great idea! we get all the bad publicity and none of the actual effect”) If you do that sort of shit, you do it the way the sign stealers try and do it = quick, drive by, and easily deniable as the acts of ‘one lone jerk’.

      letters aren’t like that. it intends to leave proof of itself behind.

      that doesn’t mean it was necessarily anyone connected to the trump campaign; but it smells to me like some organized effort to ratfuck in some key areas.

      Florida, its worth noting, is probably the single most significant battleground state. they mentioned on the news tonight that the candidates have made twice as many trips there in the last few months as the next highest other competitive states.

      1. One word:

        Glitterbombs.

        Yes, lefties are this stupid.

      2. “…making the opposition look slimy.”

        Outside forces are not the ones making them look slimy. I think you hold the left in too high regard.

        They have a long history of these kinds of tactics. No, they aren’t thinking it through as in “threats are a great idea! we get all the bad publicity and none of the actual effect”. These are rogue supporters acting out of pure emotion. That is just the nature of lefties. Still, you aren’t going to see Cankles step up anytime soon and condemn these acts.

        1. They see themselves as brave and heroic, the good guy beating up the villain. They are fighting to defeat the forces of evil by any means necessary (TM).

      3. “Republicans out there: thank you so much for this. Thank you so much. You must be so [expletive] proud that your candidate takes a concrete position on something, and it’s: no fat chicks,” Mr. Maher said.

        Finally a good reason to vote for Trump.

      4. Eh, either way I dont really care. Let’s not go all Anita Sarkeedian here.

  3. 3 Latino Gangsters destroy Trump sign & Pull Gun & threaten to kill Trump supporter

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

      1. I read that as Love Trump’s Hate.

  4. SJWs whine after Trump supporter points rifle at them after they stomp on his Trump sign:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adxVav5Ts-o

    Top comment made me larf:
    “It’s so outrageous that this man can defend himself and his property from my desire to silence his speech and break his stuff. I should be allowed to shit on everyone else’s rights all I want without consequences.”?

    1. Pretty interesting spin. They admit to being vandals who got away Scott free, but are deeply concerned that this guy only got arrested for shooing them away from their criminal activity with his gun.

      And they claim they feared for their lives, yet their response was to stand around and argue and video the guy holding the rifle, not run for the hills.

  5. Trump sign set on fire while family at home:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCYJECqu4Z0

    Elsewhere, oversized Trump sign set ablaze for a 2nd time:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxvrCOzNd8M

    1. Might as well have shot them all.

  6. LIBERTARIAN MOMENT !!!

    The media’s mocking Johnson because he’s a threat to Hillary. If he weren’t a threat they wouldn’t mention him at all.

    1. The GOP was going apeshit about Johnson in 2012 and Rob Sarvis here in Virginia when he ran for governor and senate. However the democrat candidates won in both cases by much narrower margins than predicted. The data later showed that this was due mostly to millennials voting libertarian, so I’m surprised that team blue didn’t know well ahead of time that GJ would be a threat to Hillary since they are so smart and all.

      1. Ah, I remember the Team Red shills here going nuts about Sarvis. Good times.

  7. heh. I like this ‘in your face’ Matt Welch.

  8. OK-so GJ is an idiot, pothead, goofball, whatever the media wants to call him. It now seems that the number one qualification for being president is being media savvy even though actual governing happens off-camera as it always has. So you can know how to spin nonsense to the point of it sounding intelligent (Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Obama, Hillary), or excel at telling the media to go fuck itself like Trump. Gary can’t do either and is paying the price.

    1. You kinda had a point brewing in there, then you lumped Bush in as knowing how to spin nonsense to the point of it sounding intelligent.

      1. Some, such as Hillary, did find what he said to be intelligent. She voted for the Iraq War.

        1. Nah, she’s just a neocon in progressive clothing.

          And actually he wasn’t an idiot. Just not eloquent. And often wrong, though not always stupidly so.

          1. The lefties constantly made jokes about GWB putting his foot in his mouth, but he was great at coming up with simple statements that had a certain appeal, even if they were BS. I’m thinking of “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists…” and “We are going to war to liberate the Iraqi people…”

            His whole thing was that he was came across as a likeable, if slightly dull, frat boy, and if he wasn’t the son of Bush I, he would be selling insurance somewhere. Ditto for Jeb. If Gary was related to some political dynasty, he may well be a front runner.

            1. Just as an aside, I believe Hillary was the first person to utter that phrase after 9/11. IIRC, on 9/13.

            2. It’s pronounced ‘terrist.’

    2. There’s a reason trial lawyers make up most of the governing class instead of say economists or engineers or people who know useful things. The one thing about governing the former are better at is winning elections.

  9. Even the vermin at CNN are beginning to notice that sign theft almost exclusively affects Trump supporters:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5iWqEFVOgw

    1. I can say that sign theft is not much of an issue here in south Florida… I just saw my first Clinton yard sign, and I saw two Trump bumper stickers. That compares with the one Bernie T-shirt I saw last weekend.

      So there aren’t really any yard signs for people to steal. Or maybe they are really, really good at stealing them? I kinda doubt it. Our mayor is up for re-election and his signs are everywhere.

      But the national race does seem to be heating up. I even saw a single Trump TV commercial this week. That makes a total of 1 Trump commercial I’ve seen, ever. That compares with at least several dozen Clinton ads. Possibly over 100. And I DVR everything I can, so she’s made them pretty unavoidable.

      Either way, there are still more Obama bumper stickers in the wild than there are Clinton and Trump bumper stickers combined. And I live in a deeply blue county. Yet there still is more visible Trump support than Clinton support, despite the fact that most people would never admit to supporting any republican, let alone Trump.

      1. I live in central Arkansas, and my Johnson sign is literally the only presidential sign I’ve seen. Anywhere.

        1. I live in central Arkansas, and my Johnson sign

          Thread winner right here.

        2. Annapolis, Maryland. Three Johnson signs, one Jill Stein sign, no Trump or Clinton signs. There was a Bernie sign up for a long time but they finally took it down about a month ago, replacing it with nothing. I haven’t seen any Trump stickers, but only one Hillary sticker, not counting a weird panel van parked right outside public housing that has a bunch of Hillary “H” stickers making a big arrow on the rear door pointing towards the bumper. I think it’s a trap.

          1. There was a Bernie sign up for a long time but they finally took it down about a month ago, replacing it with nothing.

            Well, that says it all, doesn’t it.

          2. I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw a yard sign for a presidential candidate here in Ohio. It’s like they’ve gone out of style since 2012. Water cooler conversations in academia are of course thoroughly anti Trump and anti Johnson. They practically report on every gaffe he makes in real time. It worries me actually that people who are supposedly so smart must be checking buzzfeed every thirty seconds for the latest dirt on trump and Johnson like gossip-addicted schoolgirls.

      2. There are a ton of political ads for two of the three House races in the local TV market.

        1. I remember when I lived in DC. Election time was awful, every commercial was a campaign ad for some asshole in MD, VA or the District.

      3. Southern NH: I’ve seen Trump signs and bumper stickers. Only a handful of Clinton bumper stickers. No signs. I’ve heard Clinton ads on the radio.

  10. I have been primarily interested in these moments of cognitive dissonance.

    The contrast of the stories that are being ignored with what they pick up to push the agenda. It really makes me wonder what they think they are doing.

    I have no inkling that anyone espousing the notion that Johnson blew it when he fumbled the “admired foreign leader” question is being disingenuous. Even though they are pretty consistent in saying “he couldn’t even name one foreign leader”.

    But the list of real stories being ignored is long. Not gaffes, but real issues.

    Trump: hiding something in tax returns
    Clinton: What was the quid pro quo for all of those massively over-compensated speaking appearances?

    Trump: Called a woman insulting names 20 years ago.
    Clinton: Assassinated the character of several women who accused Bill Clinton of crimes ranging from sexual harassment to sexual assault to rape.

    Trump: Might not fully understand the implications of Russian attempts at cyber-attacks
    Clinton: Set up an email server in her home in order to evade open records laws, placing classified communications within easy reach of foreign espionage.

    Trump: Proposes tax law that might benefit his family.
    Clinton: Got direct and indirect payments in the hundreds of millions from people and nations with business before her in government.

    Johnson: Had a fat guy in a thong at his convention.
    Clinton: Had her party chair rig the primary.

    Trump: Not a conservative
    Clinton: not a liberal

    1. Doesn’t matter. Democrats are always right, they have science on their side, or at least fucking love science. They are Darwin’s chosen people.

    2. Pretty sure it is beyond question that most of the media lists strongly to port, enough that when some proggie gripes about ‘right wing’, the cite is Fox and Fox alone; no others demonstrate that bias.
      And the media do so, since they are ‘advertising delivery vehicles’. Most of the population adheres to the ‘gummint can give me free shit’ fantasy, so they watch and read the outlets that suggest same, drawing the advertisers thence.
      Add to that, most of them hope to get maybe a minute or two of attention, so detailed analysis is not gonna sell half-page ads.
      Yep, most of the media is going to ignore substance which pretty much shows the lying hag is an un-indicted felon and a corrupt influence peddler who’d probably would have offered Chelsea in a package deal with the Lincoln bedroom if she could get any takers.
      Cont’d.

      1. Cont’d:
        Trump’s a buffoon which isn’t a surprise to anyone other than SIV, so he makes an easy target. But then the media suffers from TDS (per Ken S.); they’ll jump on any Donald statement that can be spun as detrimental. And, again, he makes it so easy! Dealing with his valid comments would mean effort and would ass no cred in the bizz.
        So, Johnson? Well, he owns some *serious* PR gaffes; hey, he prolly doesn’t get an advance list of questions, and it’s not like he has spent his entire life studying to become the artful dodger.
        Long story, short point: You are correct, and it is 100% predictable and the only defense we have is the constitution. We ought to be fighting tooth and nail to make sure scumbags like Roberts never again get appointed to SCOTUS.

        1. Note that the media jumped all over Trump’s answer to the ‘which foreign leader do you admire’ question too. There was no answer to that question that the media wouldn’t have picked on

          1. I keep trying to tell that to my friends who are all sharing terrible hit pieces on this.

          2. Hillary could have said Kim Jong Un and the media would have sucked her clit harder than Warty rapes our moms.

        2. …probably would have offered Chelsea in a package deal…

          Would NOT. Not even with Crusty’s dick.

    3. Trump; Looks like a small animal died on his head.

      Hillary; Looks like she was badly embalmed, and the animatronic motors that keep her moving are underpowered and failing.

  11. The Clinton campaign continues to be the richest source of bathos in the known universe:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHGPbl-werw

    1. That’s a pretty dishonest commercial. And it works.

      My wife is completely susceptible to this line of argument. She won’t hear any discussion of it… he’s a pig because he calls women names. Done and dusted.

      I don’t know where this notion that you can’t insult a grown woman comes from, but it is really Alice-through-the-looking-glass material to have feminists arguing that Trump is evil because he calls grown women names. You’d think that people arguing for equal treatment would be fine with name calling. But maybe they aren’t really being honest with themselves. They sure don’t seem to mind calling Trump names. Or poking fun at his appearance.

      Heck, Hillary Clinton had the “meanest” moment in modern Presidential debate history, calling both Trump and his supporters Racists. Not obliquely suggesting they harbor racist feelings, but outright saying they are racists. Repeatedly. But nobody is worried about the optics of her impolite behavior.

      I really can’t see what they are trying to accomplish, other than make sure their team wins and everyone else is silenced.

      1. Hey, Trump insulted women. Bill only raped a few.

      2. Hillary also earnestly said once that war was harder for men than women because women had to support themselves when their men die. She essentially dismissed men’s lives as less important than women’s feelings and comfort. Do we have the right to get upset about that?

    2. You hear that, teen girls? You’re all Rosie O’Donnell.

  12. OT: Immigrant from China makes epic speech against gun control

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck0jZZHjJJo

    1. Given his personal experience I doubt he thinks that the people he is addressing are arguing in good faith or that what he is saying will hav eany effect on their positions. That things would have turned out differently had the students in Tiananmen square been armed is exactly why the gun grabbing pols want to confiscate guns.

      “Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.” – T. Jefferson

      1. I’ve never seen that Jefferson quote before. Pretty fucking sweet.

      2. Ah. Just looked it up. It’s spurious. Still a pretty pithy quote.

        1. That’s just what I thought, pretty sure if TJ had really said that, It would have become a well known quote by now.

  13. I get the criticism, and contributed to it:

    Criticize the Libertarian Party presidential ticket? That takes balls, man.

    1. Right, it’s not like you’ve been licking Trump’s balls.
      You’re as dishonest as eddie, for pete’s sake.

  14. What’s happening is that GJ-despite his gaffes-is a serious contender that’s picking up endorsements left and right. I watch on Facebook how many “liberals” are giving the man a beatdown without checking his record, yet will embrace Hilary and her mess in a heartbeat.

    This also shows how brainwashed the voting public is: we follow along with the two-party system without reservation. We forget that it was said system that contributed to dashing the Bill of Rights and Constitution after 9/11. We’re so “security-addicted” that when a candidate comes along trying to reclaim our liberties we circle the wagons.

    The American voting public is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome!

    1. “The American voting public is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome!”

      Only if the Stockholm hostage-keepers promised ‘free shit’.
      Disagreed: The voters are suffering from the presumption they can get that guy over there to buy them lunch and it won’t cost anything.

  15. I was caught stealing signs once. Next time up I got a fastball in the ribs.

    1. +1 AJ Piersynski

      1. I loved him as a Twin.

  16. Just read an amusing piece from the Washington Post. The comments are full of even more fun than the laughable article itself. The Hillary shills in that comment thread are incredible. How can there be people that stupid who continue to exist? I love the posts trying to scare people about the “dark nature” of libertarianism. Oh my God, a world with no Department of Education or Environmental Protection Agency?! We’d all be idiots running around in a pollution filled world with no clean water or air!

    Link

    1. The scariest thing about the WaPo forums is that that’s what people who live here are really fucking like. There’s a guy down the street who is as nice a person as you’d care to know. A bit flaky, a little granola for my tastes, but a generally decent human being. I posted one article about how Clinton’s foreign policy record sucks, and his immediate response: “Oh, well, I guess we should all vote for Trump because he’ll save us from the terrorists, huh???” I mean, fuck dog whistles, we’re talking Manchurian Candidate shit here. And I’m gonna say 65%-80% of the people living in the urban/suburban DMV are like that to some degree.

  17. This is interesting

    I like the media/leo “high power” appellation. Dead wife’s best friend was driving the truck when gun-grabber prominent lawyer hubbie got scared of #blm-types and got his gun which “went off” when they “hit a bump” and killed his high-power wife. They drove past the best hospital in town to watch her die at another good one twice as far away.

    Revolver’s don’t just “go off” unless you pull the trigger. Something that requires serious intentional force.

    1. If you’ve ever driven on the downtown connector you’ve seen the “Corey” smokestack. If you fly you’ve seen their work.

    2. “The .38 revolver I had in a plastic bag in my lap while I was sleeping just went off when we hit a bump and I shot my wife in the back, right through the seat. I’m against gun violence, so my gun violence isn’t irony nor hypocrisy, just tragedy”. It’s a cliche for a reason.

    3. Gotta love the use of passive voice in that article.

    4. Wow. It looks like we are way off base accusing gun grabbers of projection when they say ordinary people will lose it and kill their spouse on a whim if we let them have guns.

      Who’da thunk it?

    5. Do you see a sign out front that says Dead Bitch Storage? Cuz storing dead bitches ain’t my fucking business.

  18. Excellent documentary on Adam Smith.

    Johan Norberg is fantastic at presenting. Something about his voice is just perfect. No homo.

  19. I’m glad matt’s covering the libya thing, and i think its a bell that should be kept ringing. hillary is the war-candidate; and not just ‘in spirit’, but in actual track record. it should be shoved in people’s faces every day.

    that said – i dislike the “whataboutism” rhetorical attempt to connect gary to Hillary, and say, ‘by contrast, he’s not even remotely bad’.

    yes, sure. but i think the point is really that Hillary is 100,000X more awful, and that the 2 don’t even compare. Gary’s brainfarts don’t belong in the same zip code as any discussion of hillary’s penchant to overthrow regimes on a whim. Its just 2 different issues that are on different levels of significance. The media’s burial of her actual track record is something deserving of its own daily reporting – not something only to be whipped out when people start saying mean things about Governor Dopey

  20. Is there a place to park EC predictions?
    I’m saying the hag at a minimum of 310; a ‘mandate’ defining the pathos of the Trump candidacy, rather than any real preference for the hag.
    Wife and I spoke about this last night; along with the ‘no taxation, no representation’ requirement, I suggested we get a “NO” check box along with a “YES” one; I want to directly record my displeasure with excrements like the hag and the loudmouth. She liked it; we live in SF and there are MANY “no’ vote candidates.

    1. According to RCP’s no toss-ups maps, it’s currently 292-246 Clinton.

      1. What’s crazy is the way it’s looking this morning, I can’t see a state going to the LP that can keep hillary from 270

  21. OT: Don’t know if it has been discussed here, but looking into the woman that Hillary says Trump fat shamed. You can’t make this shit up. You would think they would have looked into this a bit before mentioning her name in a debate. Luckily the media is covering for her. It looks like Ms. Machado has been busy. Making porn (she’s good), being the getaway driver in a murder with her ex boyfriend, and giving birth to a child of a narco. Hilarious stuff.

    1. I can see why it would be hilarious, but I can’t see why it matters. None of that is relevant to being called fat by Trump. Those facts aren’t pertinent to the fat-shaming at all.

      This all just looks to me as if people have their opinions, some* of them irrational, and rather than bolster or explain these positions with simple exercises in logic, people point fingers and yell, “BAD!”

      Trump fat-shamed a beauty pageant contestant. BAD!

      Machado had a baby with a drug dealer. BAD!

      BAD! BAD!

      But these things are not actually connected, so people seem to miss the essential points.

      Trump didn’t set the beauty standards. Machado wished to make a career move out of her looks, and in America that carries a few requirements. If someone wants to be professionally beautiful, basing their employment value on how strictly they meet those standards is entirely reasonable. Trump may have had a fine point.

      We don’t need to find equally silly irrelevant reasons why Machado is a bad woman, and that makes calling her fat okay. It was already okay. No need to question whether she was having BAD SEX to get there.

      *It’s the weekend. I feel generous.

      1. I agree, whether or not Ms Machado was the getaway driver for a murder, starred in porn films, and produced a child with a high level Mexican narco is totally irreverent to her weight gain during her reign as beauty queen. The fact that Hillary name checked a person with that kind of past during a national presidential debate as one of her supporters is hilarious. And the media ignoring all of that and running with the “fat shaming” bs is hilarious and sad.

  22. Steven Colbert does his duty, spends 7 mins on Gay Jay. Fair and Balanced.

    1. It wasn’t the whole seven minutes, he did manage to get in a dig at Trump as well.

      Best part of that clip was when he joked about the military support for GJ – of course they support GJ because if he doesn’t even know where Syria is, he can’t very well send them there, can he? Ha, ha, ha. And everybody applauded! Colbert naturally got snarky about the audience applauding ignorance. Fuck you asshole – the audience knows damn well what’s going on over there when the “smart” people who know where Syria is but have no idea why we should care or what we should do sends troops over there anyways. They’re applauding the idea of not sending troops to the Middle East, and if you had an honest bone in your body you’d remember all the Bush-bashing you did over his sending troops and you’d admit that being ignorant of where Syria is might be a step in the right direction. But you ain’t got an honest bone in your body, do you? If Hillary’s got a war-boner you’re gonna grin like a shit-eating dog and suck it.

      But like I said – their attacks on GJ mean they see him as a threat, they’re not ignoring him. Which is good for the LP.

  23. This is one of those moments you have to appreciate the intellectual honesty of the NeverTrump and the NeverClinton Bernie bros.

    Because according to Clinton’s lapdogs, Gary Johnson is disqualified due to the Aleppo gaffe, but Hillary Clinton isn’t – This woman, who used a private server and passed classified info through it for the sake of convenience and meddled in places where she shouldn’t have, resulting in crisis like Aleppo.

    I don’t think Trump will win. But I’m really hoping that GJ makes Clinton sweat. Trump could win big states like Florida and Ohio with Johnson taking away some key votes away from Clinton. That’s going to put a major scare into the democrats even if Clinton wins the race. They couldn’t stop the GOP from making huge gains with OBAMA as the president. What would happen as Clinton in the white house?

    The Obamacare mess is coming straight for her and the economy will continue to become uberized. She’s going to crash and burn, and Gary Johnson will have the last laugh.

    1. What Obamacare mess?

      Premiums in the individual market will jump by at least 50% in Minnesoda. Marked as a win, because if they didn’t bump them that much, all the insurers would have exited and there would have been no insurance for individuals.

      Oh, and the regulators also allowed the insurers to cap the number of enrollees they have to accept. That was to “encourage” people to sign up early.

  24. GJ is a laughing stock in all 57 states.

    1. Hey, Obama was really tired when he said that. It’s racist to even bring that up! Johnson though, he doesn’t even know where Aleppo is? DISQUALIFIED! /prog

      1. And The Great Orator was only in deep distress for the loss of those corps-men.

  25. Somebody should sit Gary down and drill him with the stock libertarian answer to virtually every question of government policy until it becomes a knee-jerk response – when it comes to government policy doing nothing is not a “no response”, doing nothing is quite often better than doing something.

    Just look at the government’s track record on fixing problems and then realize that they spend just as much to not fix a problem as they do to fix it, twice as much to make the problem even worse. For all the good the government’s done, they’ve spent 20 trillion dollars we don’t have to do it – did we get value for our money? Have we fixed 20 trillion dollars worth of problems? What would you have done with 20 trillion dollars? Would you have pissed it away like they did? Hell, admit it – you could have spent 20 trillion on hookers and blow and been better off than you are now.

    1. Don’t just do something, stand there!

    2. Somebody shoulda sat Trump down and actually prepare him for the debate, but unfortunately neither will happen if the candidate isn’t open to it or asks for it. And if their campaign managers are unable to convince them that this is needed, then they deserve each other.

    3. .Somebody should sit Gary down and drill him with the stock libertarian answer…

      Great idea! What’s the stock libertarian answer about abortion?

      Also: Gary isn’t exactly running as a doctrinaire libertarian, if you hadn’t noticed. He long since chose in favor of mushy progressive Republican answers .

  26. Media Would Rather Talk About ANYTHING OTHER THAN’ Than a Damning New Report on Hillary Clinton’s Actual War.

    Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe and other silliness just make it a little easier to do so.

  27. Three points:

    “In March 2011, the United Kingdom and France, with the support of the United States, led the international community to support an intervention in Libya to protect civilians from attacks by forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi.”

    Point 1) This part of the report abstract was left off the quote above. It’s closer to the truth than calling it, “Hillary’s War”.

    The truth is that the UK and France were going in by air with us or without us, and the Qataris were going in on the ground regardless of our participation.

    The other truth is that the people of Libya were rising up against Gaddafi regardless of what the UK, France, Qatar, and the United States did.

    Let’s not pretend that Libya would look like it did before the Arab Spring if only the United States hadn’t supported the UK and France, and let’s not pretend that Libya would have been now like it was before the Arab Spring if only the British, France, and Qatar hadn’t intervened without us.

    If the United States hadn’t joined in supporting the coalition, the UK, France, and Qatar would have gone without us anyway. That’s one of the reasons Obama jumped into the coalition–ahead of his reelection, Obama didn’t want it to look like he was no longer the leader of the free world.

    Regardless, if the UK, France, and Qatar hadn’t elected to intervene, Libya wouldn’t be today like it was before the Arab Spring. Libya would probably be like Syria.

    1. The truth is that the UK and France were going in by air with us or without us, and the Qataris were going in on the ground regardless of our participation.

      So from the standpoint of the US participation, then, it really WAS “Hillary’s War”, as she was instrumental in the US joining an “already-in-progress-intervention”.

  28. “By the summer of 2011, the limited intervention to protect civilians had drifted into an opportunist policy of regime change. That policy was not underpinned by a strategy to support and shape post-(Gadhafi) Libya. The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa.”

    Point 2) The result of the occupation was not chaos. Chaos was the result of the Arab Spring.

    Notice, we have not removed Assad from power in Syria. Does anyone believe Syria is a result of our intervention? It’s true that ISIS wouldn’t have been a force without our invasion of Iraq, but they simply took advantage of the chaos brought by the Arab Spring–they were not the initiators of the Arab Spring any more than Hillary Clinton or Obama was. The people of the Arab World were fed up with their dictators and rose up against them for reasons that have nothing to do with the United States. Not everything that happens in the world is the result of American action (or inaction). If we’d never intervened in Iraq, the Arab Spring would have come to Syria anyway.

  29. Point 3) Note the highlighted part of the abstract I quoted above. It isn’t criticizing the intervention as much as it’s criticizing the coalition for not invading on the ground afterwards. That would have been so stupid. If Hillary and Obama are responsible for keeping us out of another Iraq style occupation, then they should be commended for it. Not condemned.

  30. If we’re going to talk about Hillary Clinton, why not point out that she . . .

    1) Took money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State,

    2) Put together a real estate deal that defrauded taxpayers out of funds meant to reimburse the proverbial “widows and orphans”, who lost their life savings in a non-FDIC insured S&L

    3) Illegally used FBI files to dig up dirt on the Clintons’ political enemies.

    4) Actively opposes our Second Amendment rights.

    5) Promises to bring us single payer in the form of a “public option” and letting people buy into Medicare.

    Are people aware that the Clinton Foundation intends to keep soliciting funds from foreign governments even if Hillary wins and becomes President?

    That is so much worse than anything Hillary has to do with Libya.

  31. THERE WAS A MASSIVE AND DAMNING UK PARLIAMENTARY REPORT EVISCERATING HILLARY CLINTON’S PET WAR.

    UK? The same UK that voted for xenophobia and racism??

  32. Minimize one slime-ridden bureaucrat bazaar and another set equally horrific bursts from the fucking soil of humanity’s submission. Political polarization of the masses fertilizes hell. The fucking extremes of man’s madness perpetually infect the brazen headquarters of faux morality and justice. The spirit of the nazi haunts all cultures while the soul of liberty scratches meager survival from the fringes of even the best of modern societies. The shattered plasma of mayhem satiates the thirst of tyranny, man. The largest groups appear to offer the least potential for long-term ethical and optimal societies.

  33. Most of the media is owned by elite members of the democrat party.

    Their candidate, Hillary Clinton, is a bigger war monger than Cheney, and supports the racist and un Constitutional war on drugs.

    So NO media, I will NOT hold my nose and waste my vote on your chosen candidate, the racist war monger, Hillary Clinton.

    1. Hillary will double down on the foreign wars and double down on the drug war, 100% guaranteed.

  34. Trigger warning – OT:

    Well, look here you baggers, you’ve been told that guns kill and that’s the only reason mass murders only happen in the USA.

    Man kills 19 in … Ooops, China with … Ooops, not a gun.

    1. I guess that’s one way to cover up something.

      Also this:

      “Because firearms are tightly controlled in China, mass killings are usually carried out with knives, poison, homemade explosives or by arson.”

  35. my Aunty Piper recently got a fantastic black Mercedes S-Class Sedan just by working online at home
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  36. my Aunty Piper recently got a fantastic black Mercedes S-Class Sedan just by working online at home
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  37. This looks like a job for…the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations!

    “During a brief, 21-second exchange filmed three years ago, [Icandy gay bar] proprietor Darryl DePiano is overheard conversing with another man; neither is shown on camera. The owner can plainly be heard saying, “Only [n word] ask for drink passes.”…

    “The video, which was posted on Medium, first surfaced in the comments section of an article posted to Philadelphia Magazine on the recent boycott of Icandy and Woody’s. The latter, which is arguably the city’s most popular gay bar, has been criticized for its dress code, which bans patrons from wearing Timberland shoes to the club….

    “”Consistent with our authority, we are holding a public hearing to provide members of the LGBTQ community a forum to speak about their experiences with racism and discrimination in the community,” Rue Landau, executive director of the [Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations], said in a statement. “The commission will gather information on bias incidents and discriminatory practices and make necessary recommendations for improved race relations in the LGBTQ community.”

    1. bans patrons from wearing Timberland shoes

      Maybe they don’t want people tracking in dirt. Or is this some racial dog-whistle I am not familiar with?

      1. I should have included this:

        “Given the shoes’ popularity with people of color, activists have argued that the prohibition amounts to “covert racism.””

        Woody’s denies it has such a ban; it’s a misunderstanding.

        1. Yeah, I figured as much. Those crazy people of color – what will they latch on to next.

      2. I’m sure my red wings would be welcome there!!1!

  38. Media Would Rather Talk About Gary Johnson’s ‘Aleppo Moment’ Than a Damning New Report on Hillary Clinton’s Actual War

    Welcome to the world of supporting a candidate who isn’t a Democrat.

  39. Yesterday I saw a prog millenial friend who knows I identify as a libertarian. First words out of his mouth:” so I guess you’re voting for that Johnson guy. You might as well vote for trump.”
    I didn’t even say anything and the guy went on a rant. Based on stuff like this and what I hear at work, the progs are really scared about hillary losing. It will be the most epic display of butthurt and derp the world has ever seen if she loses.

    1. You need to explain to them that for Hillary to earn your vote, she must be able to give you something in return (she should know all about quid pro quo after all). As a libertarian, she should be able to deliver on these simple promises:

      1. Appoint SC justices and federal judges who respect The Constitution above all else.
      2. No expansion in the size or scope of the Federal government and a balanced budget or spending cap.
      3. No expansion of the power of federal regulatory agencies beyond that which Congress originally granted them and is constitutional.
      4. Shut down the DEA, Dept of Education, and TSA/Homeland Security.
      5. No intervention in foreign conflicts that do not directly threaten the security of US citizens.

      A “no” answer to any of these means no vote for her highness.

      Or you could just tell them you’ll vote for Trump then…

      1. The problem is that the fucking proggies love everything you want to kill.

        I went a different direction with a proggie who pulled the same stupid argument with me. I said “No, I’m supporting the grass roots organization that had to fight its way onto the ballot in 50 states and is still being shut out meaningful coverage. You are supporting the big corporate candidate. Ironic, isn’t it?”

        Lots of stammering until she just shut the fuck up.

        1. Someone was talking about the no foreign leader Johnson liked as though it was evidence he was totally disqualified.
          “Yeah, he should have a buddy who’s running another country. Bush and Blair did some great work, didn’t they?”
          The subject changed to Johnson couldn’t name any leader period. Which is wrong.

          1. Tony managed to lie to the extent that ‘Johnson didn’t know anything about government’; I’m calling that the gold in the ‘spinning’ event.

        2. A few years back, I would have been baffled to meet a proggie who supported the DEA. Now a lot of them sound more and more like Nixon/Rockefeller Republicans who don’t mind locking up or killing innocent people, so long as they are the ones who are doing it.

    2. the progs are really scared about hillary losing

      The sense I get is they’re more scared of that meanie orange guy winning than anything else. I’m not seeing any enthusiasm for her; they know her platitudes are all horseshit and she’s not going to be the Robin Hood of their dreams.

      They’re more concerned about having to suffer the embarrassment of a Trump win while vacationing in Europe with their Canada backpacks than in missing out on whatever she’s offering.

      1. They’re more concerned about having to suffer the embarrassment of a Trump win while vacationing in Europe with their Canada backpacks…

        Awesome. The coffee all over is worth it!

        1. i don’t get it. is the idea that young progs pretend to be canadians while abroad to avoid being perceived as “ugly americans” by their idealized-europeoples?

          1. Yup. I can remember this from as far back as the ’80s.

            It was funny; the trope was to have a Canadian maple leaf patch on your backpack. Pretty much anyone who did was guaranteed to be an American. They might as well have had a stars and stripes patch.

            1. I did the “Eurail”/”Let’s Go: Europe”-guidebook trip right after high school.

              I think the only marginal difference between myself and the thousands of others who did it was that mine was entirely self-funded, and, being very money conscious… we ended up mostly taking advantage of the recently-fallen berlin wall, and mostly slummed around Eastern Europe.

              We made absolutely no apologies for being Ugly American teens on a drunken rampage everywhere we went. We slept in churches and pissed in rivers and brought a Public Enemy cassette to every bar we went to and demanded it be played immediately

              (*it was actually sort of a huge hit; hiphop was not well known in the Czech republic in 1992)

              I often wore a dirty knicks jersey wherever i went and was strangely disturbed when i saw this Mr Show parody of American Eurailers. I realized i had been a cliche.

              when i mention it these days, people often express disbelief that 18yr olds would be *allowed* to simply pick up a bag and vanish off to europe on their own recognizance. People act like that’s “crazy” now, when it was pretty much boringly normal at the time.

              1. * i think that mr show thing was more a parody of MTV programs of the time more than anything, but still… the stoned guys in the Anne Frank house was… eerily familiar.

              2. The people I ran into were generally a little older than 18 – either new college grads or taking a semester off in college.

                But, yeah, a generation ago nobody batted an eye at 18 year olds doing adult things.

              3. 18 is the new 8. Hell, the WHO now considers anyone under 30 to be a child because their brain isn’t fully developed.

            2. Yep.

              On my last trip to Australia, I was hiking in the Blue Mountains. As I neared the end of my hike, I saw a woman on the trail up ahead of me. She had a Canadian flag pin on her backpack. She tripped and fell.

              I asked her if she needed help and if she was OK. She turned down my offer of help saying she was alright. Her accent? Very much American.

            3. What’s funny is, I went to Europe with a friend for several weeks before I started law school. The most fun we had was when we ran into a German biker in Munich with a giant confederate flag patch on his vest.

            4. I am only Canadian from the waist down.

              1. Buldgey, like a moose!

          2. I know a guy who admitted that he had claimed to be Canadian while traveling in China. He said that one of the reasons was that it was just easier to say “Canadian” in Chinese. Okay. Years later I learnt a bit of Mandarin before my trip to China — I can guarantee you that it’s easier for any English speaker to say “American” than “Canadian” in Mandarin.

      2. And they still won’t backpack in Australia! “20%?! I’m not rich!”

    3. progs are really scared

      I, quite frankly, find this fascinating.

      We’ve discussed this here ad nauseum, but the common assumption is that libertarianism is closer to conservatism than it is to liberalism (new).

      So IF the old concept is true, that libertarianism can be loosely described as being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, AND if there are as many social issues as fiscal issues, one would expect that a libertarian candidate would draw from both sides equally.

      The argument to that, at least around here, has been that the meaning of liberal has morphed into progressive and where as, in the past, the liberal take on social issues was “leave people alone,” the progressive take is now “force our social agenda down people’s throats using government power.” The latter is clearly not a libertarian position and therefore, one would conclude that a libertarian would, today, pull more from the conservatives.

      But that’s not what’s happening. It may simply be a series of overriding factors, like who is more hated, Trump or Clinton. Or it may be that Millennials are so sick of the status quo that they’ll vote for anything that represents change.

      OR, it may be that the progressives are simply the vocal minority and there are still a fair number of new “old timey” liberals who put a great deal of value on true social liberty, and less so on fiscal issues.

      Regardless, I would never have guessed that GJ would be pulling more from Hillary.

      1. I think some younger people do mean well in their view of what is socially liberal. When we point out its by force, there’s a gun behind every law, some of them realize this gross misappropriated use of government. Keep government hands off, boycott or protest, convince others to be tolerant. These options they already do. We can’t com vice everyone. But on some issues more than others the force argument opens a door.

        1. The younger generation seems to think government should enforce their idea of right and wrong ( like legalizing gay marriage and having “free” healthcare), and they blame big businesses or conservatives or Christians when something doesn’t go their way. They need a boogeyman.

          Either they come around to the idea that government is the problem, or most likely just whine when the government fails them.

          1. I try to convince them. It works for very small time windows or on very specific areas. These people don’t do well applying current knowledge to new areas.
            I blame standardized tests.

            1. Yeah. It seems pretty simple to me: either they understand something like the sharing economy ( which I’m sure they all love), is the enemy of government, or if they expect government to take care of everything for them, like healthcare.

              It’s going to be the latter, which is why I’m glad I like whiskey.

      2. I think what it is, is that nobody is voting on fiscal issues or any issues other than (a) pure partisan hatred and/or (b) some culture war issue.

        So, the “fiscal conservative” side is a non-issue. The “culture war” side doesn’t map to “socially liberal” in any principled way; “social liberalism” has become code for “enlisting the jackboots to punish your enemies”.

        Who does Johnson take votes from in this irrational stew of hatred and cultural punishment? Beats the fuck out of me, but once he reverts to the usual sub-2% on election day, it won’t matter.

        Now, having the proggies lose their minds over him is a plus for libertarians in the long run – non-progs tend to like anyone the progs hate.

        1. nobody is voting on fiscal issues or any issues other than (a) pure partisan hatred and/or (b) some culture war issue

          This. And so it has ever been.

          1. Seriously. I haven’t heard anyone talk about the economy in months. It’s all “TRUMP IS HITLER” and “HILLARY IS A CROOK.”

            1. What’s an al-national debt?

                1. Let’s get to $20T. We can do it!

      3. the common assumption is that libertarianism is closer to conservatism than it is to liberalism (new).

        “common” by whom?

        The poles of ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are mostly arbitrary and temporal in any case. they don’t really mean anything unless you specify a policy, and even then its often a mess.

        there are modern conservative institutions now in opposition to free(r) trade, and modern “liberals” are increasingly passing laws trying to regulate sexual behavior.

        So much for the old saw, “liberals want to control what you do with your wallet, and conservatives want to control what you do in the bedroom”.

        1. “common” by whom?

          It seems to be the consensus around here and, IMO, by libertarians in general (notionally speaking, of course). There were very few here who predicted GJ would be taking votes from the Ds. The media, both right and left, seemed to think, at least initially, a third party Libertarian would hurt Trump. And there appear to be an awful lot of folks (mostly progs) who seem to think the definition of libertarian is “right wing extremists.”

          As I said, what’s happening in reality doesn’t align with what I’d have predicted from my notional observations. Something else is happening that wasn’t accounted for.

          1. It seems to be the consensus around here

            its become a running joke that any statements about the “H&R consensus” tend to wildly overstate the influence of a very few people.

            but i think its probably true that most people would agree that “what libertarianism is” falls closer to (fiscal) conservatism than to modern liberalism. most would agree that “Less Government in everything” is a shared stated desire by conservatives and libertarians; its just that Libertarians actually *mean it*.

            There were very few here who predicted GJ would be taking votes from the Ds

            I do recall many people noting how Bernie was getting huge swaths of the millenial vote; and that many of those people would either “not show up at all” for hillary, or potentially be 3rd party voters. I don’t know if that’s the same thing as what you’re saying.

            I’m not sure any of the votes GJ gets are ever really “taken” from others.. as though they naturally belong to one camp or the other. That any voters ever really “belong” to one party or the other in perpetuity might be the mistaken assumption. esp in the younger cohorts. I switched parties 3 times in the first 3 presidential elections i voted in. (*and haven’t voted for presidents since)

            1. I think option B for most GJ voters, including myself, is to stay home on election day. You would have to be seriously brain damaged to switch your vote to Trillary if you have even the most basic understanding of what libertarian means, and most of GJs fans probably already knew he wasn’t going to give them whatever free shit they want. So the D’s latest efforts to shame young GJ fans into voting for Hillary are not likely to work, and if they do, it will be to drive down turnout, not give her more votes.

      4. She’s the candidate of big business, anti-pot, anti-Uber and Airbnb, pro-war and dismantling rape allegations against her philandering husband. Trump is the only reason she isn’t doing worse.

      5. But everything is economic. Lefties aren’t interested in allowing things. They want them mandated or at least funded.

    4. I love that, a variant on the “wasted vote” argument. As far as I’m concerned, a vote for Trump is a wasted vote. Johnson is far more “legitimate” a candidate than Trump, and if you just don’t want Clinton in office you might as well vote for someone with some executive experience and at least something like a platform.

  40. Min wage laws and mandated benefits do NOT put anyone out of work!

    “Citizen’s Band and Pinkie’s Bakery close in SoMa”
    […]
    “In what’s becoming a familiar refrain for Bay Area restaurateurs, Storms cited a number of other factors that led to the demise of the restaurant and bakery, including increases in the minimum wage (set to rise to $14 an hour in July) and, in San Francisco, city-mandated employer health care spending.
    […]
    “It’s almost impossible for the little guy,” said Storms. “I don’t understand how San Francisco expects businesses besides Chipotle to succeed.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/restaura…..449230.php

    1. “It’s almost impossible for the little guy,” said Storms. “I don’t understand how San Francisco expects businesses besides Chipotle to succeed.”

      Psst, Storms. You can move, dude. Oh, and not continue to elect people who actively fuck you.

      1. I thought you said erect, and though “well, yeah.”

      2. San Fran doesn’t want any business to succeed (other than the tech biz, maybe). That’s your mistake. They’ll be coming for the Chipotles of the world next, never fear.

        1. I guess all those quaint local shops they say they like just fall out of the sky or something.

          1. Mix in a little “You didn’t build that”, and that’s basically what they believe, yes.

    2. Six months from now, the article featuring locals complaining that all the restaurants are turning into Chipotles writes itself.

      1. Demolition Man predicted the wrong Mexican chain.

  41. This can’t be true. Krugabe says the only reason this thing isn’t a total landslide for Hillary is because of the relentless unfounded attacks on Mrs Clinton’s character and and misrepresentation of her record in the mainstream media.

    1. Our far right-wing media hates her so very much.

  42. Gary should stand in front of a mirror and practice saying, “That’s a question which deserves more serious consideration than I can give it right now. I’ll have to get back to you.”

    The Voting Public is an idiot.

    1. Or he could be honest and say, I don’t know about that but I’m assuming it has to do with another one of Hillary’s disastrous policies since you’re inferring it’s a problem. Then there is the standard libertatarian response when the media ask you what you plan to DO about some problem. Nothing.

  43. I hope we get a new thread today ’cause I got somethin’ to talk about.

    It really sucks when there’s so much going on that isn’t being covered–and Robby just wants to talk about the ninnys on the quad.

    I’m not sure what Robby did in PM links yesterday was supposed to be funny, giving us all the finger, or both, but it sucked.

    Even when trolls think they’re being funny, when they come into a thread and divert the conversation with spam, we call them trolls. What do you call it when a writer does the same thing in threads?

    1. What do you call it when a writer does the same thing in threads?

      “Boy, Robby really Weigeled the links today, didn’t he?”

      1. Yeah, if things stay true to form, Robby should be getting a job at the Washington Post explaining libertarian millennials to the Post’s geriatric, boomer readership right about now.

        If you want someone to explain libertarians to the world, who better than Robby?

        The Weigel never pulled anything like yesterday though. The Weigel’s disdain for us was supposed to be a secret.

        1. What happened in the links?

          1. In one of Robby’s typical stories yesterday, we were making fun of the fact that all his stories are the same.

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/09…..li#comment

            The same ol’ criticisms about them . . .

            Later, Robby put up his PM links:

            https://reason.com/blog/2016/09…..orilla-mas

            Notice anything interesting about the PM links?

  44. Last living Doolittle raider recalls raid

    On April 18, 1942, Doolittle and co-pilot Richard E. “Dick” Cole sat in the cockpit of their B-25 going over a preflight check list with the engines running.
    “I was setting the engine cowl flaps and watching to make sure the engines didn’t overheat,” said Cole, now 101 years old and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel.
    “It was a bit hectic,” he said, because crews were scrambling. The mission launch was moved up by 12 hours because of fears that Tokyo had been tipped off.
    As a result, the B-25s would have to take off hundreds of miles farther from Japan than planned. That meant the planes wouldn’t have enough fuel to guarantee they’d land safely in China.
    “We were the first plane,” Cole said. “I remember I was hoping that we had done everything that we needed to do to make the takeoff. “

    1. For them, Pearl Harbor was their 9/11.

      After four months, it was time for payback.
      The mission — depicted in the 2001 film “Pearl Harbor” — called for 16 US B-25s to take off from an aircraft carrier near Japan.

      Please tell me that the American public is not legitimately stupid enough to have to have Michael Bay movies referenced and Pearl Harbor described as ‘their 9/11’. Cause I’m really hoping it’s just CNN being morons.

      1. Whoa. I read the article and completely missed that.

        I’ll take “CNN being morons”. And then go hide for missing that line.

      2. They do have certain similarities.

        Recruiting offices filled after 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, and Americans became wildly patriotic in the aftermath.

        Our foreign policy changed dramatically after both of them. Isolationism became an ugly word in the aftermath of both of them.

        I remember talking with a Vietnam vet about Pearl Harbor the day after the attacks. The lunch room in our office building overlooked the runway at LAX.

        As much of a shock as Pearl Harbor was, at least the Japanese targeted our Navy. If Pearl Harbor jerked us out of our isolationism (Republicans didn’t leave isolationism behind until Goldwater’s anti-communism came to the fore), 9/11 made it so our military wasn’t just about fighting foreign nations anymore.

        I saw Pearl Harbor when it came out in the theater, and I thought t was kind of offensive. The spirit of it was looking back to Pearl Harbor with nostalgia. Wan’t it great that this happened to our nation, brought us together, and made men and women out of these boys and girls who were just worried about dates, dances, and cars before?

        It would probably seem even worse watching it after 9/11. If one is so easily associated with the other, am I supposed to be grateful for 9/11? I don’t think anybody would make that movie with that message today.

      3. For them, Pearl Harbor was their 9/11.

        Boy that’s some quality prose, right there. Top. Men. at work in our elite media.

      4. Please tell me that the American public is not legitimately stupid enough to have to have Michael Bay movies referenced and Pearl Harbor described as ‘their 9/11’. Cause I’m really hoping it’s just CNN being morons.

        Forget it. They’re rolling.

    2. In related news, the newest bomber, the B-21 has been given the name “Raider”

  45. Only three members of the Flying Tigers left

    Warning: auto-play video

    Frank Losonsky was just another 20-year-old soldier from Detroit, Michigan, but his life took a historic turn when a recruiter offered him the adventure of a lifetime.
    Would Losonsky be willing to board a ship headed to Asia and join a group of volunteers helping China fight off Japanese invaders?

    Losonsky said yes.
    That was May of 1941. Now, 75 years later at age 96, Losonsky is one of three known living survivors of what’s arguably the most famous fighter plane outfit in history: the Flying Tigers.

  46. A brief video about a Soviet folly, an abandoned mining town in Svalbard.

  47. Former NH legislator not only smoked pot in the state house, but he sold it as well.

    Former Nottingham state representative Kyle Tasker, described by one legislator as the “Club Med of weed,” used marijuana in the State House and sold it to a handful of state legislators, an investigation by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office revealed.

    Three members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives said they bought drugs from Tasker, one said she smoked pot with him and a fifth House member, believed to be linked to drug sales himself, died before prosecutors could interview him.

    None of the legislators will face criminal charges, the report concluded, because there is no drug evidence that could be linked to them and no testimony beyond interviews with these legislators who were given immunity for offering truthful information.

    One other note about Tasker:

    And Tasker already faces felony drug and firearm charges in Rockingham County that stem from him allegedly trying to lure a 14-year-old into a sexual encounter that led police to a stockpile of drugs and guns in his home.

    1. About the NH legislators that bought pot from Tasker

      Pamela Tucker, Greenland (Republican)

      The report says Tucker purchased marijuana and two vials of marijuana elixir from Tasker. The elixir was needed for sleep and energy, she told investigators. She also accompanied a friend to Tasker’s house to pick up marijuana.

      She told investigators she used the marijuana for personal problems, but she stopped purchasing it because it was hypocritical to do so as a legislator opposed to its use.

      Tucker is a four-term lawmaker who was deputy House speaker under Bill O’Brien and has run for House leadership positions. In mid-February, Tucker announced plans to challenge Frank Guinta for the 1st Congressional District seat, but two days after Tasker’s March 1 indictment, she dropped out of the race.

      An attack of the conscience?

      1. Not an attack of conscience. That would be if she never ran at all. This was getting out while the getting was good, because she figured he roll over on her.

        If she really thought smoking pot while supporting the imprisonment of pot smokers was hypocritical, she would have either changed her support of imprisoning pot smokers, or turned herself in.

    2. Dude, check out my fuckin’ politician-badge! this shit is sooo easy. you just wear a suit and lie to people”

  48. If you don’t believe in bombing foreign countries, you must be a racist.

  49. I just read (some of) that WaPo anti-third-party piece somebody linked above.

    Is there one single person, anywhere, who thinks any of the establishmentarian news outlets wouldn’t be braying “VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!” as loudly as possible if they believed Johnson would take more votes from Trump than Hillary?

    1. Well, all the people in all the newssrooms across America I’m sure believe that.

  50. To be fair, it’s become quite the task to keep up with the names of all of the war besieged shitholes in the middle east.

    1. Hence, “the middle east”.

  51. Weekend link dump

    French predicted to be most spoken language by 2050 because of population growth in central Africa:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..-2050.html

    Trump getting 3x more support from blacks than Mitt Romney:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLcXg2V6xYI

    1. French predicted to be most spoken language by 2050 because of population growth in central Africa

      Central African kleptocrats not hardest hit.

    2. French predicted to be most spoken language by 2050 because of population growth in central Africa:

      I have confidence that AIDS and Islam will keep that in check.

      Trump getting 3x more support from blacks than Mitt Romney:

      I hate claims like this; they seem to fail to appreciate that “300% more than 0.1% is still just 0.3%”.

      i.e. journalists like to use “multiples” when describing differences between small numbers. its misleading because the absolute differences tend to still be very minor.

      they also do similar frame-of-reference misleading w/ large numbers when convenient, to suggest unimportant-changes are important, or vice versa. Like how Obama “cut the deficit by 50%”… from $1 trillion to a mere half-trillion. When a half-trillion dollar deficit is still far far higher than the any historical average.

      call it, “tallest-midget”-bragging, or something.

      1. I have confidence that AIDS and Islam will keep that in check.

        I can only conclude that embracing democracy, the rule of law, and economic diversity and thereby choosing not to have so many babies doesn’t seem to be in the picture.

      2. 300% more than 0.1 is 0.4, not 0.3. 0.3 is 200% more than 0.1. The way I remember it is 100% more means double.

        Anyway, the point is Trump is supposedly driving away black people, but it turns he more popular with them than the last GOP nominee.

        1. The last GOP nominee was running against a black candidate. Trump is running against a white woman who called young black men superpredators and is generally a terrible candidate.

        2. 300% more than 0.1 is 0.4, not 0.3. 0.3 is 200% more than 0.1. The way I remember it is 100% more means double.

          …forest, meet trees.

        3. Trump is supposedly driving away black people, but it turns he more popular with them than the last GOP nominee.

          “Supposedly”.

          That there’s a vast difference between media-described reality, and actual reality, is usually taken for granted.

          My point before was that “more than Romney” is so low a bar as to make his greater-pull among the black vote still laughably negligible.

          its not much different than the LP ambition to do “far better than they’ve ever done” in this historic-year-of-3rd-party-opportunity… where the upper limit of LP success is probably around…. 5%?

      3. Romney got what, 5% of the black vote? If Trump got 3x that, it would be 15%, which is pretty big. That by itself might be big enough to flip all of FL, VA, and OH to Trump.

        1. You’re comparing “Poll Support” to “actual vote results” and treating them as 1-1 related.

          They’re not.

          Gary Johnson polled as high as ~10% of the vote in 2012, and Reason suggested his 6% poll results in Sept 2012 might actually carry through to the eventual November vote…

          When, of course, he got ~1%.

          I have no doubt Trump will do “better” than any GOP candidate in recent memory. Maybe “ever”.

          But “better” will still be piddling. I think the reason he’ll get those votes is complex, but mostly has a lot to do with dissatisfaction with the Dems and a minority of them willing to punish them – at least by staying home, which most do anyway.

  52. Legal defeat for the gay-marriage crowd

    A federal judge says North Carolina can keep its conscience law by which magistrates can recuse themselves from performing marriages. Other magistrates, with more flexible consciences, fill in for the objecting magistrates, who are assigned to nonmarital duties.

    The plaintiffs failed to show they were harmed by the recusal of 5% of the state’s magistrates. There’s no indication that the plaintiffs were obstructed in getting a morally-flexible magistrate to solemnize their nuptials.

    But the judge, who is pro-SSM, had some obiter dicta:

    “In a hearing on the case in August, Cogburn said he was bothered that when magistrates who claim a religious exception fill out a form saying so, court administrators appear to require that it be kept secret.

    “Gay couples who come before a local judge for an eviction or small claim have a right to know if that judge won’t marry gays, he said.

    “”When litigants come to you, they have to know they are getting a fair shot,” Cogburn said.”

    Apparently if a magistrate doesn’t want to officiate at at Adam and Steve’s wedding, that means he might not be fair to Steve, in Steve’s capacity as a landlord, seeking to evict a deadbeat tenant.

    I don’t see how that follows, but I’m not a federal judge, am I?

    1. Let me paraphrase:

      “I don’t have a good legal basis for punishing these bigoted haters, but I sure wish I could at least order them to wear some kind of badge to let everyone know how horrible they are. I mean, anyone who won’t officiate a gay marriage has to be a hater, and haters gonna hate, so there’s no way they won’t do everything they can to screw gay people every chance they get, amirite?”

      1. Forcing them to perform gay marriages would obviously make them much more even handed when hearing cases involving gay landlords.

        They wouldn’t resent it at all. Right?

    1. Man, I wish Hitchens still here to comment on this election…

    2. It’s always a treat – albeit a disturbing one – to witness the level of profound ignorance people display.

    3. Isn’t that why they invented down votes?

    4. To be fair, the OP was an Aleppo reference.

  53. I’ve been mostly following all the news on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie getting divorced.

    Oh, yeah – and that little story about Pakistan and India maybe getting into it on the Kashmiri border. But that’s probably nothing.

    1. Look, I’m told I have to keep my blood pressure under control, I’m not going to read about a potential Indo-Pakistani nuclear war.

      1. Anyway, I’m sure if it happens I’d find out about it.

        1. Maybe Obama can give you his newspaper when he’s finished with the comics.

          1. I was thinking more in terms of my electricity going off and me developing radiation sickness.

            1. What I’m saying is, I’d notice when it happens, why read about it in advance and get all worried?

    2. Pakistan and India maybe getting into it on the Kashmiri border. But that’s probably nothing.

      India and Pakistan are Too Faggy for War

      1. You keep looking around for John Cleese as officer-in-charge.

        LOL

        1. my question was why the dickens does every paki seem to be wearing a different style of camouflage print in every pictures I’ve seen. Some appeared to be wearing mismatched uniforms with multiple style on one soldier. Is there really that much different colour of conditions in Pakistan?

  54. OK, I’ll say it: almost 1:30pm and no new post? Not even a Linneken food article?

    1. Slow milk news day.

    2. Cocktails give them some terrible hangovers.

  55. female US chess champion boycotts tournament in Iran because of hijabs:
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016…..hijab.html

    SJW college students throw tantrum at college conservative meeting:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjiaCuS5rkg

    1. Very heavy, loud females with dirty hair wearing wearing sweatpants and stinky white T-shirts are going to rule us all until they die of diabetes.

    2. Nazi Paikidze, the reigning US Women’s Chess Champion, swore to boycott the 2017 contest, which is being held in Iran and will have an enforced Islamic dress code.

      ?_?

      1. She’s originally Georgian, like Stalin Georgia, not Peaches Georgia. It’s a legit name over there.

        1. Oh of course, I just thought it was both amusing and likely to be something that idiots will latch on to when she inevitably gets shit for her decision to tell some Islamofascists to pound sand.

    3. How the hell is the economy going to digest these morons?

  56. Young People Question Importance of The Constitution…because it was written by awful white men who owned slaves and stuff! And it’s written in this crazy old timey language that’s really hard to understand!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3myr7WdTgr4

    1. Don’t ever under estimate the power of the ‘those were different times and we’re smarter’ argument.

      It’s so neat the most clueless of people can latch onto it.

      Quite frankly, if you accept this argument you’ve lost the plot and if you’re an academic or expert e.g. Toobin) pimping variations of this argument, then you’re disingenuous.

      In other words, a progressive.

  57. Benghazi witch hunt!

  58. War-mongers gonna war-war-mong

  59. Hillary looked at the Iraq War and concluded that Bush’s only mistake was that he submitted it to Congress for a vote

  60. I looked at the bank draft which had said $7437 , I be certain ?that?my friend could realie earning money in their spare time on-line. . there neighbor has done this for less than twelve months and resentlly paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a great new Lancia . have a peek here?.

    ?????????? http://www.ReportMax90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.