Why Your Vote Doesn't Count, Obama's Failed Narrative, Four More Years of War!: November Reason Preview!
Matt Welch and Kennedy discuss what's in the new issue of Reason.
"People vote not because of what voting can accomplish, but because they like to vote," writes Katherine Mangu-Ward in "Your Vote Doesn't Count," the cover story of Reason's November 2012 issue.
Reason TV's Kennedy talks with Reason mag Editor in Chief Matt Welch about the new issue, which is on sale now. The November issue features a special election preview section that handicaps the most libertarian candidates running for Congress, an in-depth interview with budget-slashing Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), and a richly reported account of how Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) scrambles the minds of left-wing progressives.
November's Reason also includes Welch's "Four More Years of War," an analysis of the failed foreign policy that is shared by Republicans and Democrats, and Peter Suderman's "Obama's Failed Narrative," which looks at the ways the president mistakes his often-eloquent way with words for an ability to change the real world.
To learn more about the new issue of Reason - and to access our online archives - go here.
A year's subscription is just $14.97 and subscribers receive their copies a month before any of the content goes live at Reason.com.
So subscribe now to get the nation's only magazine of "Free Minds and Free Markets" delivered directly to your door, your Nook, your Kindle, or other e-reader. The first issue is free if you're not satisfied.
About 3 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein and Anthony Fisher, and edited by Swain.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSHvgaUWc8
That is all.
You didn't build that!
(Now wait for Team Blue parrot to yell, 'out of context!')
Nah, they just yell this.
Speaking of context, NBC news refuses to run the Obama "we need to redistribute" tape because they say it hasn't been authenticated? WTF? Do they think it might be an Obama impersonator on the tape? It is a tape of the guy saying it.
They're still in gatekeeper mode and have yet to figure out that it's obsolete.
Well, it's so much at odds with his other statements and policy, I can see why they'd question it.
Didn't WaPo already confirm that it is, in fact, the Redistributator in Chief?
I am pretty sure the Obama campaign confirmed that.
I just assumed we'd seen this before. This is new video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4
Here it is.
Wow. They're not even trying to hide the fact that they're Obama fluffers anymore. Fucking pathetic.
What the fuck is it with that woman?
I can't decide if I want to fuck her, sew her lips shut, or sew her lips shut and then fuck her.
I don't get it. I don't think she is attractive at all. She is not unattractive. But I am not seeing how she gets so much love on here.
I don't get it either.
She's geek pretty.
Tina Fey is geek pretty. Kennedy is just plain.
Tina Fey is kind of a douche, Kennedy is kind of a douche.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
That douche or not Tina Fey is a lot prettier than Kennedy and both of them put off the same geek vibe.
So you're saying that according to your tastes, Kennedy is not pretty. Kennedy is geek pretty whether you acknowledge it or not.
No. She is not very pretty. She is very plain as a matter of fact.
In other words, geek pretty.
You mean a woman who wears glasses?
All the snark you guys put into writing? She puts it into body language and voice. She's got more and better snark in her little finger than you guys do in a week of pontificating. You guys are just correctly jealous.
Well, there you have it folks. We're all just jealous.
Tell me, did you come straight from Jezebel with that one?
Felicia Day is geek pretty. The other two, well, are something different from that.
Exhibit A
The woman in the middle hunched over the little girl is geek pretty.
No thank you. I'll take the blonde.
The woman hunched over the little girl looks like smeagol.
Exhibit B
Every woman on this page that ISN'T an actress is geek pretty.
She must be giving Matt bareback anal.
What the hell is wrong with y'all?
Kennedy is smart, talented, and confident. She is pretty easy on the eyes too. She doesnt have a single unattractive quality as far as I can tell. I would be happy to enjoy her company while you yahoos go flick boogers at each other.
geez.
If by "smart, talented, and confident", you mean "dumb, talentless, and confident", and if by "easy on the eyes" you mean "looks like 12 yr old boy", then yes.
Libertarians understand free speech better than most. What some don't seem to comprehend is fucking manners. The introverted attitudes are somewhat embarrassing.
If you guys want hotter libertarian girls, I suggest you stop acting like total fucking idiots towards women. Incentives and all.
On the Internet men make porn sites some of the most visited, yet no woman is actually found desirable in online conversation between men. Seems like some just want to argue.
Thank you very much
.,.,