text:
George Will: "I owe my current happiness to Barack Obama"
In this interview excerpt, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist George Will explains why President Obama puts "the spring in [his] step."
For the full interview, click here.
Approx. 30 seconds.
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.
Glad you are so happy George. Some of us don't think of this as some fun political "game," and are pretty pessimistic about what Obama is doing to this country, including some terrible things that will persist long after he is out of office.
He may be making a legitimate point though. At this point any of my progressive friends who aren't consummate TEAM D players are getting really antsy over the way he's acting. Had he boiled the frog slowly he would've been able to push the country further in the shitter before people started realizing something was going very wrong.
I agree that some of his policies will have us over a barrel for the foreseeable future though (fuck the ACA). If I believed the Republicans could follow through on a libertarianish agenda then I think I'd be happier about his strategic overreach.
At this point any of my progressive friends who aren't consummate TEAM D players are getting really antsy over the way he's acting.
Antsy enough to demand that he be stopped? If not, they're as useless as the conservatives who mumbled to themselves about Bush's spending splurge for 8 years while not criticizing him, and while pulling the lever for his allies.
The agenda of this administration is not to make everyone like them, it's to consolidate power to an extent where it doesn't matter whether anyone likes them. I say the administration because BO is a featherbrain who just likes to go around giving speeches and feeling important; it's the ghouls in his inner circle who are guiding things.
What is your proposal to replace the ACA?
Wingnuts want to bypass "states rights" and sell flimsy insurance "across states lines".
Yes, double air quotes intended. They contradict themselves that much.
It just seems reasonable that anyone bitching about the ACA should be required to offer and defend their alternative, even if it's the prior status quo.
It makes me nervous when something becomes merely an object of two minutes hate.
---"It just seems reasonable that anyone bitching about the ACA should be required to offer and defend their alternative"---
No. If I am required to offer an alternative before bitching, it means that I must, in the first place, agree with you that it is Government's or "Society's" responsibilty to to supply everyone with free health care and we are just quibbling about the means to accomplish that.
I reject your premise, therefore I am not required to offer an alternative.
That's not what I said. Merely repealing the ACA means adopting the prior status quo as your preferred system, which is a combination of single-payer for certain groups and a complicated and expensive insurance system for others, also created by government. If you think healthcare should be a luxury rather than a basic service, I totally respect that as at least consistent with standard libertarian pyschopathy.
Tony, what happens if I don't buy insurance or pay the fine?
If you think healthcare should be a luxury rather than a basic service, I totally respect that as at least consistent with standard libertarian pyschopathy.
Next thing you know people will be thrown out in the wild to pay for their own clothing. And housing. And have to bankrupt themselves just to buy transportation and electricity. Let alone food. Food, Tony! Our very sustenance! Left to the vagaries of vicious capitalist money-lust. Can you possibly imagine that? PAYING FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET!?!?! PSYCHOPATHY! MADNESS!
Just think of how many people have been savaged and killed by the psychopathy of non-aggression. Thank God there's been the cooling, rational hand of progressivism at the helm to keep us all safe and happy. Without calm, cool heads in seats of power with warheads and jackboots at their disposal to affect policy we might be overrun and decimated by the libertarian horde.
Re: Tony
---"It just seems reasonable that anyone bitching about the ACA should be required to offer and defend their alternative"---
---"That's not what I said."---
It's exactly what you said,and I reject the idea that I, being opposed to ACA, need to supply an alternative. ACA is bad policy on its own and I don't need to supply a "better" policy before rejecting a bad one.
That's just ACA derangement. You can't say you want to get rid of the ACA but don't think the prior status quo was better--you are implicitly saying that it is.
The status quo was better, the ACA just shovels more shit onto a broken system. There were a couple of good provisions in it but they were a sugar pill for a bad law. That being said the status quo WAS BROKEN deeply, horribly broken. Nobody here thought the status quo was "good" but it isn't hard to be "better than" the status quo + ACA. Like I said my primary complaint is that it's papering over the problems from our current system, it doesn't do anything to seriously address them.
Merely repealing the ACA means adopting the prior status quo as your preferred system, which is a combination of single-payer for certain groups and a complicated and expensive insurance system for others, also created by government.
More shitlib nonsense from King Shitlib himself.
Of course to debate it would mean one would have to understand it, something that even the people who voted for it don't. Legislators, bureaucrats, insurance companies, insurance agents, nor people have the vaguest idea what the hell ACA is. You are attacking people for being against something NOBODY can even possibly understand for not understanding and counterpointing it.
That's socialism, or religiosity in general, in a nutshell. Throw out a bloated and undefined idea that no one can really pin down in any real, material way, and even IF people try and debate you the definition simply changes, and even IF one decides to spend the time debating and finally backing the Faithful into a corner after much labor, then they simply resort to The Leap "counterargument" and you realize you've wasted your time.
To answer your original question as to what to replace ACA with, as always, the sum total of individual human behavior and choices free from force and violence. Of course, for the religious, allowing free flow of ideas, labor, and love is "evil" that can only be fought with whatever cultural homogeneity their minds can contrive, turned catachismic, and unleashed violently against the masses. Laws such the ACA are precisely this, because if it were so patently obvious a path to follow, violence made "law" would not be necessary.
I avoid your contributions, generally, but this seemed like an opportunity to say this - I don't ask you to change anything about what you believe, I simply ask that you not use violence or threats against other people, or hire agents to do so on your behalf. Your beliefs are not so perfect or pure that Force is justified. Find ways to further your beliefs without Force, and support those who hold your same beliefs but please review their actions to see if they resort to violence at the root, most importantly the State. I can agree on certain points with just about every point of view on the spectrum, left-right/secular-religious/liberal-conservative. I just can't justify the use of offensive Force when life and property is not clearly and presently at risk.
Why? A law that wreaks so much disaster upon us, that makes things so much worse than the status quo, why should anybody be required to offer an alternative?
The status quo ante (before the abominable "health care" asskick was forced down our unwilling throats) was better than this, MUCH so.
We've been over this dozens of times. There are many things that can be done to make healthcare cheaper and better, but someone like you doesn't want to hear them. Only a top-down solution is a solution. Healthcare is a "mess" because of top-down solutions, so why would more work. You want to see lower cost, better access, and better care? Increase supply (it is kept artificially low), have providers compete on price, and have consumers pay more at the point of sale, especially for for non-catastrophic care. Just start there, and the things will get immensely better.
Thought you were a businessman rectal obstruction?
Repeal ER must-treat laws, Medicaid limo laws, laws encouraging health insurance and employment to be linked, AMA deciding how many students med schools can graduate, ease licensing restrictions so more RNs and PAs can provide services without working for a doctor, etc.
It's not fair if you're going to eschew applying libertarian principles. Why not just do what has worked everywhere else? Universality, I neglected to mention, should also be a goal--though it is also part of the cost solution. Your proposals seem designed specifically to reduce healthcare availability.
They probably seem designed that way if you're a moron.
I forgot who I was talking to, sorry.
Increasing doctors will reduce healthcare availability?
You're at the point where stupidity and lying intersect.
I'm not sure doctor supply has anything to do with access. People have to be able to afford care.
"I'm not sure doctor supply has anything to do with access. People have to be able to afford care."
As usual, Tone-deaf, you're wrong.
Many CAnadians don't have a family physician because there aren't enough to go around and we aren't graduating enough. We have to import them from Lower Slobovia. So "universal access" is just a marketing slogan for mush-brained Canuckistanis who fear Teh Market.
My work brings me in contact with a lot of Federal claims adjusters. Some of them are great and fairly and intelligently deal with healthcare claims, but some of them are the same people who fuck with you when you have to go to the DMV. They can be spiteful and petty and they make people's lives hell. The adjusters are arbitrarily assigned. I don't know if universal care would look like this, but my experience in the field makes me wary of it.
Well I work in the private sector and it's not exactly a well-oiled machine of competence and efficiency either.
Well I work in the private sector and it's not exactly a well-oiled machine of competence and efficiency either.
I would never deny that. The libertarian impulse is to create opportunities for more competition and therefore more choices to escape shitty providers. Currently my only real choices are HealthNet and Kaiser, what a fucking joke (although Kaiser has gotten quite a bit better than they once were). My worry is that with universal care you won't have any recourse if you get saddled with an adjuster with a chip on his/her shoulder.
"...a well-oiled machine of competence and efficiency..."
Like the IRS?
It's not fair if you're going to eschew applying libertarian principles.
It sounded to me like he was embracing rampant deregulation. Is that not libertarian enough for you?
Tulpa, add "loser pays" in lawsuits. And if loser can't pay, loser's lawyer does.
Good list.
Bottom line: let insurance be truly insurance not pre-paymentm while making providers directly responsible to the consumer for the cost and quality of the care, and things will change big time. Does anyone else think it is odd that the federal and state governments, not exactly paragons of cost-effectiveness, are going to regulate the healthcare and health insurance fields to make them better?
Tony| 9.14.13 @ 9:56PM |#
"What is your proposal to replace the ACA?"
False dichotomy. Repeal; no replacement required.
So your proposal is to return to the prior status quo, with per capita spending on healthcare in the US twice that of other advanced countries despite having, at best, no better healthcare outcomes.
Let me go on record saying that's an inadequate proposal.
So you ask for an answer and then don't reply when you get one. I'm beginning to think you're a troll.
Are you talking about Tulpa's? That one was a little more thought-out, so I'm working on a reply. You, predictably, are just for whatever Mitch McConnell is for, even though you stupidly don't realize that's where you're getting your "ideas" from.
Oh, you are Tulpa.
"Let me go on record saying that's an inadequate proposal."
Yeah, but you're an idiot. So what? Fuck off, asshole.
The "no better healthcare outcomes" is such a crock, based on the old saw "lies, damned lies and statistics."
Example: USA has infant mortality rates worse than many nations.
Reason this is so: Many countries count deaths within the first 24 hours of delivery as "stillbirths" -- which are thus labeled deaths during pregnancy, which do not count against infant mortality numbers. Some countries even count any death up to the end of the first week of life as a stillbirth. Next, due to the vastly superior health care technology and level of care which is available in the USA, many pregnancies are brought to term in the USA which would have just been aborted in those wonderful other countries with universal health care.
There are other reasons as well, but infant mortality is really apples to oranges when comparing the USA against other nations. You can find similar issues with all of these health-care-between-nations comparisons.
All you need to know should be this -- tell me the last time you heard of a wealthy individual leaving the US to get a surgery or procedure in another country. Yet the affluent of the rest of the world come to the USA for this reason. The USA has the best healthcare money can buy. Now you might be able to argue that this level of care is not accessible to all -- but our quality of care is unmatched.
It is certainly arguably the case that, like education, the US has the best available healthcare in the world, provided you can afford it. But you didn't address the other half of the problem: healthcare being double the cost per capita. Even if this were a simple choice between best quality vs. universality and lower quality, I'm not sure other systems don't come out ahead. And you wouldn't be right that on a society-wide scale (rather than just what affluent people can get), the US does better than other countries with universal systems. Nothing else has worked, so what's wrong with trying it? That it doesn't confirm your silly antigovernment bullshit ideology? Not relevant in my book.
The cost of health care is due to government interference. Medicine is our most-regulated industry, bar none.
Actually he would be right that the US does better on actual medical outcomes. Five year cancer survival rates are highest in the US. Screening for common cancers and other diseases is higher in the US. Uptake of new drugs and useful drugs in general, e.g. statins, are higher in the US than in your mythical national health systems in all other industrial countries. Corrected for irrelevant factors such as car accidents and homicides the US has among the highest life expectancies in the world in spite of our high rate of obesity. The US also funds much of the world's new drug development because we have one of the few free markets. It would be nice if our Canadian and European friends would actually pay for themselves for a change, but the Left has never been about personal responsibility. Someone else should always pay the tab...
But keep squeezing your Krugman plushie and hoping that either Stiglitz or Saez will ask you to the Leftie Prom.
So your proposal is to return to the prior status quo, with per capita spending on healthcare in the US twice that of other advanced countries
It might be worth pointing out here that health care spending under the ACA will not be one iota lower, and may actually increase quite substantially. If you think the tradeoff for that will be improved quality, I'd be very interested in hearing how that happens with more patients being treated by the same number of doctors and facilities, barring some miraculous medical technology advancements that completely replace a substantial number of physicians.
Sorry Tony, I didn't catch that you were replying to me. My main concern is that the ACA papers over existing problems rather than taking care of underlying causes. I don't think our current and frankly terrible medical market can be swept away and neatly replaced with a "free market", but I'd like to see a slow dismantling of the policies put in place in the past to solve no longer existing problems (eg: benefits in lieu of raises under great depression wage freezes) and then work from there. I'd be willing to discuss a range of options at that point, but I want them to be based on a much less distorted health market than the one we currently have.
To cover low/no income I'd probably suggest HSA accounts that disburse a small percentage as an annual rebate on under utilization after the account is fully funded for a few years with exceptions for vaccinations and annual checkups. Then throw in guaranteed catastrophic.
Wow. You trundle along accordingly then BAM! Then throw in guaranteed catastrophic.
A big statement there.
Palin's Buttplug| 9.14.13 @ 11:06PM |#
"A big statement there."
Yeah, and you can see how smoothly this disaster has been unfolding, right?
Tell us again about the 19 companies offering insurance in CA. Tell us of all the deadlines that have been met. Tell us again about how 17K New Yorkers will get cheaper coverage while X million will pick up the difference.
Oh, hell, just stuff it up your ass, shreek.
I think HSA + catastrophic would still be a money saver for the taxpayers, would lead more intelligent utilization of healthcare services and would have very good health outcomes. I think it'd be less paternalistic, easier to navigate and easier to administer than the constellation of existing health programs (at least in CA) including MediCal and Healthy Families.
It should be noted that I think that this will still distort the market in weird ways, but if we're going to do it, I think this is better than what's on the table.
I agree.
I am not afraid to slightly venture off the Libertarian plantation.
I agree.
Is this some kind of reverse psychology?
I kid, but only a little bit.
I can only applaud you for having specific thoughts on the matter.
So this is what's become of my life. Once long ago, hard partier in the wild streets of Montreal to reading Tony and Palin pontificate with one another.
I need a shot of bourbon.
I'm having a 3 rum & coke float, myself.
I can only applaud you for having specific thoughts on the matter.
Really? It's not like "just have government guarantee everyone health care" is a well though out, specific answer.
I propose a free market for medical care and insurance.
That makes too much sense. The grifters, extortionists, and control freaks will not allow a free market.
What is your proposal to replace the ACA?
What we had before was better. Not great, but better. Rather than address what was broken, those in power chose to re-invent the healthcare system. , which almost never turns out well. This happens too often. If you're of a mind that nationalized health care is required, though, it would be infinitely better and wiser to have started with only catastrophic health insurance. This should have been the first step. If paying for contraception or other minor expenses was really necessary, *then* coverage could have been expanded. Also, since this would have morphed into government paying all expenses anyway, it would have been much better if this were done gradually over many years to allow the system time to adapt. There were several actions that could have been taken without committing to a complete reworking of health care. Now we are just replacing one set of skewed incentives for a different set.
"it would be infinitely better and wiser to have started with only catastrophic health insurance. This should have been the first step. If paying for contraception or other minor expenses was really necessary, *then* coverage could have been expanded."
That's how the Canadian system was originally hatched. And see the mess we're in now.
For a 30-second video, ever heard of a fucking transcript?
(It's the principle of the whole thing. Enbedded video can be a memory hog, and having to download the thing is an extra step. But, once again, the clicks and page views are more important than the content.)
Yes, I've complained about this before. Transcription software + an intern is all they need. I almost never watch the videos because I can read much faster.
You know they would make each question a separate page just to piss Ted off.
Amen. I loathe places that use a high bandwidth medium when a low bandwidth one will do just as well if not better.
It's not like George Will will have everything he owns confiscated by an interagency drug task force.
It's not like I care what this Denim hater thinks.
Did he make fun of your tuxedo at some point?
As he should have. The jacket had notched lapels! Can you imagine?
Oh HM, the Canadian Tuxedo is an assault against good taste no matter how it's cut.
Next time a Canadian gets uppity with you remind him that horrific denim-on-denim violence is done in Canada's name TO THIS DAY.
The mere existence of that thing, even as a concept, enrages me.
What in the name of all that is decent is that?! I knew that Canadians were all a bunch of supine, sister-screwing monarchists with deeply disturbing attachments to the "sport" of hockey, but the depths of their depravity were unknown to me until today.
Wait, this depravity wasn't always lurking in the backs of your minds when talking to Pantsfan?
Of course -- but like Sandra Bullock in The Net, I had no idea how deep the conspiracy went.
Also like Sandra Bullock in The Net, I have no idea how the internet works and thus it always surprises me when things worse than Meatspin are linked to by Reason's commentariat. Damn you, jesse -- thanks to you, I now support a nuclear first strike on Montreal.
thanks to you, I now support a nuclear first strike on Montreal.
I understand now, Canada makes people into war-mongers. Finally, a war proposal we can all agree with Cychotoxic on.
Yay! Only Canada could bring harmony to the HandR board.
Yes, apparently we can all get behind mutually assuring Canada's destruction.
The moment I realized you could not be defeated, Cyto, was when several months back I was trying to raise support for enslaving your nation, and you were the most enthusiastic supporter of the idea.
This may the be the nicest thing anyone has ever said aboot me at H&R.
I'm from Montreal.
Hit Quebec City. That's where all the clowns are in the National Assembly.
What if we gave you a heads up before the bombs go and you brought us ALL THE POUTINE in exchange?
Actually bring me a Montrealer as well, you seem to be an attractive lot.
Hot chicks per capita for sure up here.
Give me the heads up but I've never eaten a poutine in my life. That "cheese" is just to gross.
Make it a smoked meat.
Hot chicks per capita for sure up here
Wrong type of Montrealer, Rufus, although you should probably bring some of the lady kind too, I wouldn't want to seem like I was bogarting the hotness.
Poutine is delicious, but part of my family is from upstate NY and they love some squeaky cheese curds, so it wasn't a tough sell. I've been meaning to try the smoked meats, worth tracking down?
I'd say yes. Worth a try. You're not too far a drive so why not? God, if I can wade through Plattsburgh you can come here.
Bit of a drive from LA where I currently am, but maybe I'll go deeper into Canada than Niagara next time I go out to visit.
Come on, Obama's not that much of a left winger. He's staunchly pro-Second Amendment, for starters.
Oh yeah, and as an adult he also joined a church that "mixes religion and politics," which liberals are supposed to consider a major no-no.
"This message brought to you by Pluggertarians For Obama."
Obama 2A Scorecard:
Two bills signed that expand guns rights.
Zero bills signed that restrict gun rights.
Facts - I bring them like always.
Cherry-picking - Shreek does is like always.
....stand by youuur man!
Shreeky.....you're a regular Tammy Wynette!
Oh, now we see why you're so horribly wrong on your football predictions - you have a different method of scoring.
Palin's Buttplug| 9.2.13 @ 5:57PM |#
If everyone agreed with me I would quit posting.
I won.
So Fuck off.
You won an argument on the Internet? Your mother must be so proud.
Palin's Buttplug| 9.14.13 @ 11:08PM |#
"I won."
Only when your dog keeps score.
And the 20 or so executive orders that he introduced? The fact that he has called for a reintroduction of the assault weapons ban? (1) All of the statements after Newtown, including the implementation of a national gun registry? (2) PB, I'll bet you $10000 that Obama, had he had a Democratic controlled House and Senate, would have passed plenty of restrictive gun control laws. More restictive than the two laws you cited are freedom expanding.
Engima, it's beautiful to be Obama. He can fail to implement policy and still, his sycophants will spin and claim victory.
A failed gun control bill suddenly becomes proof that he actually improved gun rights.
No budget introduced and absolutely no coherent economic ideas (outside the usual spending formulas) and somehow he spends less.
Bad management of the Syria-Penske file magically becomes an exercise in reverse-psychology mastery from Kerry.
In Obamaland, magic is illusion and illusion is magic as Doug Henning would say. He didn't say 'red line' someone else did. He didn't blame the video for Benghazi. He didn't play race politics with the good professor and Martin. He didn't say 'you didn't build that.'
All those were drummed up by right-wing nutters.
This is beyond Bizarro world.
He's the 'I didn't do it' President.
The buck keeps moving...
(2) PB, I'll bet you $10000 that Obama, had he had a Democratic controlled House and Senate, would have passed plenty of restrictive gun control laws.
He did have them for 2 years.
Two bills signed that expand guns rights.
It's not much of a right if it can be 'expanded'.
He's staunchly pro-Second Amendment, for starters.
That's sad.
We all know how fond Obama is of the financial services industry.
That makes him practically a republican, right?
OT: Just read this in today's paper letters-to-the-editor. The writer favors coercive Regional Central Planning for the future of land use in the Bay Area, because:
"Libertarian ideals would have the marketplace be the sole arbiter of worthwhile progress. If we've learned anything over the last few decades, it should be that laissez-faire capitalism benefits the uber wealthy and not the powerless."
I'm preparing to write my own letter in response. Any suggestions?
See if you can find out where we learned that. I'd like to move there.
Remind the readers that "the marketplace" refers to "the people", and that YES, individuals deciding for each of themselves what is "worthwhile progress" is better than Regional Central Planning deciding for everyone.
Remind "Coercive Letter-Writer" that CRP could very well make decisions about the "future of land use" that he vehemently disagrees with, and he may not have the numbers to get such decisions overturned. Point out that is the problem with CRP, as it makes land use decisions a "war of all against all" (to paraphrase Hobbes) for control of land use.
This could even degrade the conversations about land use into in-group/out-group "team" politics based on affiliations to particular groups rather than competing ideas about land use.
I assume that no force on earth can deflect this particular progtard from his chosen path and that you are writing for others who might be influenced by it. Might I suggest hitting hard on what the alternative to the marketplace be the sole arbiter of worthwhile progress actually translates to in real life.
I'd suggest attempting to play nice, at least initially. Ask rhetorically how the Regional Central Planning will be insulated from the influence of the uber-wealthy and politically connected, unlike every zoning board and redevelopment authority that has ever existed.
You know what they say about flies, gall, and honey.
Explain to him that purpose of these Regional Central Planing Agency is usually to keep the cost of land up and keep all those "brown people" he claims to love so much out of his city.
We give Big Government enormous power to muck up people's lives. The logical result of this is that people will go to great lengths to ensure that Big Government is mucking up somebody else's life. It's shocking that there are people who think the proper response to this is to give Big Government more power to muck up people's lives.
Not that the above will get through the letter writer's thick skull.
It's California Jake.
Yes, I have a pithy response: Detroit.
They've been lying to you.
Who's "they", American? Might it be the Joooooooos?
Despite the source, it's an excellent article and I urge you all to take the time to read it.
I did, and it's cherrypicking horseshit.
The author also clearly has little familiarity with STEM programs, since he thinks that they don't include any training on writing and reasoning; and he thinks that a little bit of STEM knowledge will enable one to be an effective engineer, since he's prescribing just increasing STEM coursework a little bit for everyone as a solution to the problem.
Just like any other job you need to have a pool larger than the number of jobs in order to produce competition. I'm surrounded by shitty engineers at my job...we could definitely use some competitors.
"he thinks that a little bit of STEM knowledge will enable one to be an effective engineer, since he's prescribing just increasing STEM coursework a little bit for everyone as a solution to the problem."
He thinks it will help them with life in general.(I disagree)
since he thinks that they don't include any training on writing and reasoning;
Huh? Where are you getting that? All the article has is a quote from the CEO of Lockheed-Martin saying that those engineers who advanced where the ones who had a broad base of knowledge, were well-read, and wrote clearly. That doesn't imply the curriculum of the hard sciences, engineering and technology doesn't include those skills. What he's saying was those that mastered those skills, were the ones who succeeded.
and he thinks that a little bit of STEM knowledge will enable one to be an effective engineer, since he's prescribing just increasing STEM coursework a little bit for everyone as a solution to the problem.
You're misinterpreting his argument. The author of the article believes that there is a problem of lack of basic scientific knowledge in American society. He believes a greater emphasis on sciences and math from the earliest grades could help rectify that.
Just like any other job you need to have a pool larger than the number of jobs in order to produce competition. I'm surrounded by shitty engineers at my job...we could definitely use some competitors.
What is the turnover rate like in your field, if I may ask? I'm curious.
This is where I'm getting it from; right before the Lockheed Martin guy. In the same paragraph even.
Emphasizing STEM at the expense of other disciplines carries other risks. Without a good grounding in the arts, literature, and history, STEM students narrow their worldview—and their career options.
I read that as cautionary, not a description of what he believes is actually happening.
If it is, that's a red herring.
None of the govt or corporate funding of STEM disciplines is going to lead to that.
Tulpa and Sevo both lack the ability to think critically. Notice how he always misunderstands people's arguments. It is easier for him to argue if he purposely misconstrues the opponent's argument. Sevo asks for a cite for: "Reason is always bitching about lack of Mexican workers leading to spoiled fruit that could have been harvested." Amazing that he can read Reason for all those years and not notice that argument. More likely he had nothing better to say.
JJ Thompson| 9.14.13 @ 9:37PM |#
"Tulpa and Sevo both lack the ability to think critically."
Thanks for the compliment.
I would agree with you on this much: once the stock market crashes and the social media pseudo-industry collapses, there's going to be a lot of STEM folks out of work. Wall Street and Facebook/LinkedIn/Google are a huge drain on the labor supply right now.
Look at the ruling class you'll find a lot of Jews. Did you know that over half of all Democratic party contributions come from Jews?
Did you know that 100 percent of the funding of the Continental Army's Yorktown campaign came from a Jew?
Jews outperform other ethnic groups in nearly every intellectual endeavor, for what little it is worth.
Your obsession with Jews is obviously blinding you to the Irish menace. Even our president is Irish, why can't you see the truth?
The first commenter at that link nails it.
Not all STEM jobs / qualifications are created equally - there ABSOLUTELY is a shortage of (good) software engineers. It's like saying we need 100,000 doctors but there are 200,000 unemployed EMTs so there is no shortage - very few EMTs are qualified to be doctors.
Lumping together physicists, civil engineers, biologists, actuaries, and computer science grads into one job category is ridiculous.
Agreed. I work in the actuarial field, and there is still demand for new actuarists.
The fact that the physics factory isn't hiring has really no bearing on how necessary certain STEM jobs are. It sure as hell won't change the fact that an MA in English or (if you're really stupid) wymyn's studies isn't going to add a lot of value to your resume.
Well if you need computer engineers, just say computer engineers, instead of "STEM." And did you know that computer science wages have gone down?
Lumping together physicists, civil engineers, biologists, actuaries, and computer science grads into one job category is ridiculous.
That's a good point, but I don't think that it addresses the gist of the article, which is if I'm 18 and I enter college to pursue a computer science degree see that there is a shortage of software engineers now, that shortage might not exist when I graduate.
*because I see
True, but it is not deceitful to say, "there's jobs out there for engineers and software engineers". It is incredibly deceitful to tell people to go out and get in debt for a degree in Latin American Studies or Archaeology, and that their dream job is right behind that door.
College is not for everybody, and shouldn't be advertised thusly -- but to the extent that it is, STEM is a lot better a way for a poor kid to become rich than most other (non-business) schools in a college.
True, but it is not deceitful to say, "there's jobs out there for engineers and software engineers".
Is it? Because I think the article makes a good point that it kind of is.
It is incredibly deceitful to tell people to go out and get in debt for a degree in Latin American Studies or Archaeology, and that their dream job is right behind that door.
That's true, but the part that's deceitful, for any degree, is that "a dream job" is behind any door. No degree guarantees a job.
College is not for everybody
For a poor kid trying to get ahead, absolutely majoring in a STEM is still the best option. But it doesn't guarantee anything the way having a well-connected parent does. And it only works if you're smart. And few people are. I worked in computer science, I would advise ability at least one standard deviation above the norm. Otherwise I would advise the liberal arts or business.
if I'm 18 and I enter college to pursue a computer science degree see that there is a shortage of software engineers now, that shortage might not exist when I graduate.
That's true in any field.
Also, the author is being a bit disingenuous by counting masters and bachelors and doctorates as separate STEM graduates who immediately enter the job market -- a lot of those bachelors recipients are going to grad school.
The author does pay some lip service to the fact that it's hard to nail down which jobs are STEM jobs, which is true. Scads of mathematicians and physicists are working on Wall Street, which is not a traditional STEM job.
Scads of mathematicians and physicists are working on Wall Street, which is not a traditional STEM job.
That's far from the worst outcome. You'll make good money in one of those jobs; definitely not exactly like working at Starbucks after graduating with a Masters'.
Agreed, that's one of the highest paying jobs a mathematician can hope for (as long as this market lasts, at least). My point is that it may not be counted as a STEM job in those studies.
Also, as Trouser noted, actuarial science. However, if you have a degree in math, you can generally get a job as an actuary. Hell, if you've been through Calc 3 and have a business degree, they might give you a shot.
Tulpa, I'd suggest this for you, but they generally want someone competent.
Tulpa, I'd suggest this for you, but they generally want someone competent.
Very cute, but I'm not on the job market at this time -- and being an actuary strikes me as a terribly boring job, no offense to TIT.
Though I was considering becoming an actuary out of college way back when. The first SOA exam is just probability, so most math majors should be OK, but the second one requires a lot of knowledge of finance. I know our department offered a special class for math majors who wanted to become actuaries due to so many flunking the FM/2.
No offense taken -- it's pretty damn boring, but it's also easy and pays the bills. Better than starving, and I'm not quite motivated enough to want to get a graduate degree in Mathematics.
If you're already making money, don't bother with the grad degree. These days one is really sticking one's neck out to get one. I kind of wish I didn't have mine.
So what's the result of this 'shortage'? Do things that were supposed to get invented get un-invented? Does Fermat's last theorem remain un-proven?
Sure, we'd all like a cure for cancer, not to mention the common cold, but how many STEM 'cells' does that take? If we get 10 more than we really need, can we kiss cancer and colds goodbye?
More shortly: Fuck anyone claiming some invented 'shortage'. If the money is there, there will be people to fill jobs.
Do things that were supposed to get invented get un-invented?
Yes, in a manner of speaking. Reason is always bitching about lack of Mexican workers leading to spoiled fruit that could have been harvested.
Of separate concern is us becoming dependent on other countries for technological advances, which is bad news since our dominance is based on technology. There won't be much point to arguing over the Constitution when we have to quake at the goings-on in Beijing or Moscow like the rest of the world quakes over what happens in Washington.
If the money is there, there will be people to fill jobs.
It's not flipping burgers or digging ditches. It takes years to make an unskilled person able to fill those jobs. Leave the Adam Smith for Dummies rhetoric for the kids.
..."Reason is always bitching about lack of Mexican workers leading to spoiled fruit that could have been harvested."...
Cite missing.
"It's not flipping burgers or digging ditches. It takes years to make an unskilled person able to fill those jobs. Leave the Adam Smith for Dummies rhetoric for the kids."
You bet! We need planned education in this case, since it's just so important that those 5-year plan quotas be met!
You've yet to establish why, assuming it does take "years", any approach other than Adam Smith is worthwhile. It's far preferable to your copy of Marx for Dummies.
"How do you know you have a shortage of something?"
"You have to pay for it."
But who determines what "we" need? The number of doctors is limited because the number of people admitted to medical school is artificially limited, not because people don't want to become doctors.
And there's always been a shortage of good anything-you-can-name.
Well, it's an insurance policy. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.
Tulpa (LAOL-VA)| 9.14.13 @ 10:39PM |#
"Well, it's an insurance policy. Better to have and not need than to need and not have."
And insurance policy backed with guns?
New York to owners and pets to be buried side by side
ALBANY — Pet owners can now spend eternity in the dog house.
A new regulation unveiled by the state this month would allow pet cemeteries in New York to accept the cremated remains of human beings hoping to be buried forever beside their beloved family pets.
The new rules resolve a two-year-old dispute that began when the state refused to allow the Hartsdale Pet Cemetery in Westchester to accept the ashes of a former NYPD officer who wanted to spend his afterlife with his three Maltese pups.
The cop's niece, upstate attorney Taylor York, took on her uncle's cause and battled the state to allow the burial.
"People do get a sense of comfort from knowing they can lie for eternity with their beloved pet, that they can be loved and protected in the afterlife just as faithfully as when they were alive," York said.
Um, a victory for liberty, I guess.
Government spying bad; corporate spying doubleplusungood!
Make no mistake, this isn't perfectly analogous to NSA surveillance. First and foremost, NSA is considerably more secretive, chiefly because it has to be given the astronomically high stakes of international espionage. However, as I've written before, it's purely hypocritical to single out NSA while ignoring corporate invasiveness, especially given how corporations utterly lack the kind of government accountability provided by the Constitution. It defies intellectual honesty to pick and choose which form of surveillance is acceptable and which form is egregious and outrage-worthy -- worse yet, it's highly questionable to at once condemn Google and Facebook for invading our privacy via NSA's PRISM database, while ignoring the fact that a civil liberties reporter's very own publication uses Google and Facebook (and dozens of other bugs) to invisibly collect information about its readers, then pays that reporter handsomely with the fruits of said data collection.
In other words, if your goal is to shame other organizations for violating your privacy rights, you'd better make sure your house is in order because, in the final analysis, privacy is privacy.
I guess a monopoly on force means nothing to the progressive since the profit motive automatically makes you worse than the state.
Goddamn Google, efficiently connecting me with purveyors of goods and services I may be interested in! How DARE they!
When you live in a zero-sum world..
especially given how corporations utterly lack the kind of government accountability
That's a classic bit of derp right there, though.
Of course corporations are accountable. If they piss off customers, their customers will go find someone else to provide a similar product. If I decide to boycott Amazon, refusing to buy products from it (by the way, Amazon doesn't demand that I tithe it a third of my income on the grounds that I might buy that amount of goods from it), Jeff Bezos doesn't send paramilitary troopers to burn my house down.
especially given how corporations utterly lack the kind of government accountability provided by the Constitution.
Hahahahahahahaha! How cute.
I wasn't aware that like the NSA that Google had the monopoly in violence. I wasn't aware Google could do more than try and sell me shit more efficiently. I'll see the equivalancy when Google can come to my house with costumed men carrying guns and bad attitude.
From comments:
"Since corporations seem to have undue influence on our government, with almost no moral compass and a prime directive of maximizing profits by any means possible, it should disturb you that they are spying on you, at least as much as you're disturbed by the government spying on you. Big corporations are every bit as dangerous."
Government can NEVER be worse than corparashuns. Only as bad but never worse. M'kay?
You should be disturbed. These big corporations can try to sell you more things you want, in their ruthless effort to make more money.
Be afraid!!
I'm waiting for Sadbeard to write about how corporations do have a metaphoric gun to our heads. You see, you're just a zombie vulnerable to a creative marketing fiend named Todd!
Her 10-point programme, drawn up with economist Arcadi Oliveres, calls for:
• A government takeover of all banks and measures to curb financial speculation
• An end to job cuts, fairer wages and pensions, shorter working hours and payments to parents who stay at home
• Genuine "participatory democracy" and steps to curb political corruption
• Decent housing for all, and an end to all foreclosures
• A reversal of public spending cuts, and renationalisation of all public services
• An individual's right to control their own body, including a woman's right to decide over abortion
• "Green" economic policies and the nationalisation of energy companies
• An end to xenophobia and repeal of immigration laws
• Placing public media under democratic control, including the internet
• International "solidarity", leaving Nato, and the abolition of armed forces in a future free Catalonia
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a black leather heel stamping on a human face - forever."
And 9 out of those 10 points were enthusiastically advocated by Father Coughlin, but fascism is "right-wing", you see.
The left-right spectrum, since about the that time, isn't about economics, it is about social views. Father Coughlin might have been a socialist but he opposed the war, for the wrong reasons.
"The left-right spectrum, since about the that time, isn't about economics, it is about social views"...
Uh, those 'social views' presume certain economic views, so they don't get to claim innocence.
Based on your past posts, you are just as much of a multiculturalist as the typical leftist but that doesn't stop you from being "libertarian" on economic issues. But you are right, by and large multiculturalists favor socialism, because for multiculturalism to work requires socialism. Your ideology, I guess, comes from denying the reality you see everyday and telling yourself that it's possible to have both racial equality and harmony and capitalism at the same time.
"...both racial equality and harmony and capitalism at the same time."
Both (snicker) of those things do not equal multiculturalism.
In practice multiculturalism is open borders and racial pride for everyone except White gentiles, which they are convinced will lead to those things. Sevo favors open borders and racial pride for everyone except White gentiles, but socialism is needed for racial equality and racial harmony is impossible.
Sevo favors open borders and racial pride for everyone except White gentiles
Ummm, what?
"Ummm, what?"
Thanks, RBS, I missed that bit of humor.
Confused. Wouldn't multiculturalism work better in a libertarian economic milieu because nobody would be resentful for paying for lazy [insert appropriate minority from socialist country]'s free shit?
Don't you know, jesse, that Singapore, with its four official languages, three major ethnic groups and religions, and immigration rate of which 1 out of every 3 Singaporeans are foreign-born, is a stagnant, socialist shithole full of ethnic strife and violence?
Singapore is a statist shithole, HM. You know what they do to you if you try to protest without the govt's permission?
It produces nothing of its own and leeches off the rest of the world as a tax haven.
Statist, yes. Socialist? Not so much. Shithole? Hardly.
Socialist? Not so much. Shithole? Hardly.
I never said it was socialist; and I guess we have different values in regard to freedom if you think Singapore is a tolerable place to live.
I don't know how someone can praise Singapore and turn around and complain about the US re: freedom.
I never said it was socialist;
I did, sarcastically, in reference to jesse questioning JJ's assertion that multiculturalism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
As for Singapore, you're right, it's a great place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there. But if you do visit, I highly recommend a trip to Lawery's The Prime Rib on Orchard Road.
Singapore was a fine place to live when I lived there. I have repeatedly pointed out that it isn't a libertarian paradise as some say. It's also more socialist than you are saying HM. A shit-ton 85% of people live in government housing for example
That's true Apa. Though I have a hard time describing the PAP as socialist. I don't think we have a word for what they are, except out of cyberpunk novels where the government is a megacorporation (i.e. Temasek).
Isn't the Central Provident Fund rather socialist?
ITT Tulpatard talks out his ass about Singapore.
Tax havens aren't parasitic. Kind of the opposite really.
Also ignoring the fact that Singapore has a highly diverse economy that includes semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, software, import/export, construction, and financial services.
Not to mention a branch of the muthafuckin' SHAW BROTHERS!
Manufacturing is about 25% of Singapore's GDP, and most of that is remanufacturing of stuff imported from else where.
Manufacturing is about 25% of Singapore's GDP
That's right, I said it had a highly diverse economy. You said it produced nothing of its own, which is simply not true.
Most of their manufacturing is remanufacturing.
People make money elsewhere and hide it in the tax haven. Of course they're parasitic.
"People make money elsewhere and hide it in the tax haven. Of course they're parasitic."
Who is the host?
Who is the host?
The places where the money is made.
"Who is the host?
The places where the money is made."
So you're arguing that money has to stay where it it 'made'?
No; I'm saying that Singapore is parasitic. A change in tax policies would bring their nation to its knees.
The people who make the money and want to keep it are the parasites?
The US could get by, albeit at a reduced standard of living, if they were cut off from the rest of the world. So could many countries.
Singapore would starve.
"Singapore would starve."
You know who else argued for autarky?
Say what you will about Juche, at least it's an ethos.
Singapore would starve.
Eh, that would be true of most cities. NYC wouldn't do much better, cut off from the rest of the world.
NYC isn't a tax haven. More like a tax precipice.
Tulpa, how about laying off Singapore and focus a little closer to home. Perhaps the U.S. can revisit its tax code?
Perhaps it can -- but the tax services lobby will never allow it.
You know how many accountants, lawyers, and preparers are going to be lining up to pick pears for $7/hr in Alabama if they simplify the tax code?
And it's in Asia, ruled mostly by Chinese people. It would be called apartheid if the Chinese were White gentiles. There is no free speech when it involved ethnic nationalism. They are not allowed to live in ethnic neighborhoods. Look at neighboring Malaysia, which has Malay rule and a prefrnce regime. Singapore would end up like Malaysia if it had real libertarianism. Only statism preserve the current order.
They are not allowed to live in ethnic neighborhoods.
That's completely false. Open any Lonely Planet guidebook to Singapore and you'll find directions to Singapore's Chinatown and Little India. I believe what you a referring to is the "Ethnic Integration Policy", which only applies to government housing.
"I believe what you a referring to is the "Ethnic Integration Policy", which only applies to government housing."
Which about 85% of Singaporeans live in.
The simple fact is that if allowed to express themselves in a free way the Indians and Malays would vote for leftist or ethnic-based political parties just like they do in India and Malaysia. They would live in ethnic neighborhoods and whine about "Chinese privilege" and demand racial preferences similar to what they get in Malaysia. In Singapore today the Chinese dominate the economy just like Whites in America do. Rather than evidence of the success of multiculturalism and capitalism, it shows just what is necessary to preserve capitalism in a multicultural society, autocratic rule and immigration restrictions.(If Singapore opened its borders it would be overrun by poor Indonesians very quickly)
Singapore is not an autocracy. It has a multiparty system; however, one party has been historically dominant. Yes, Singapore has draconian limitations and free speech and the press, but that's due to fears of the Malay Muslims as a 5th column in Malaysia historic hostility toward Singapore. As far as immigration restrictions, Singapore has a vastly more liberal immigration policy than the United States, and the vast majority of Singaporean immigrants are Hakka Chinese, not Indonesians, by the way.
Singapore has a vastly more liberal immigration policy than the United States
When you have a birthrate of 0.7 per woman you kind of have to.
Listen, I tried my best when I was there.
Placing a bet at the Hep-B roulette table, were you?
I dated in Bangkok. Hep-B would have been an antidote!
Yes, Singapore has draconian limitations and free speech and the press, but that's due to fears of the Malay Muslims as a 5th column in Malaysia historic hostility toward Singapore.
So now you see why multiculturalism isn't the greatest thing in the world?
As far as immigration restrictions, Singapore has a vastly more liberal immigration policy than the United States, and the vast majority of Singaporean immigrants are Hakka Chinese, not Indonesians, by the way.
That's by design, not just happening by chance. Like in Israel, they use immigration to strengthen the majority, not weaken it. Not very "liberal." In an open borders regime most of the immigrants would be Indonesian or Indian.
So now you see why multiculturalism isn't the greatest thing in the world?
Did I ever say it was? Though, I don't think it's the root of all evil, either.
That's by design, not just happening by chance
No, that's because the Hakka have historically been the largest group of immigrants to Singapore, even before it was an independent city-state. The Singaporeans also have a huge Filipino population of immigrants as well as other Southeast Asians.
Did I ever say it was?
You support it. Were you in Singapore you would tell them to be libertarians and let the poor Malay's in wouldn't you?
No, that's because the Hakka have historically been the largest group of immigrants to Singapore, even before it was an independent city-state.
Actually it is. They use "talent based selection" to do it. Look at India and Indonesia. Combined they have a population greater than that of China, and with many many more poor people who would jump at the chance of a living wage in Singapore. Have you ever seen a slum, HM? People don't like living in slums.
Were you in Singapore you would tell them to be libertarians and let the poor Malay's in wouldn't you?
No, when I was in Singapore, I didn't tell them to do anything, because I'm not Singaporean.
You are Trinidadian, right? Then why are you telling Americans what to do?
..."denying the reality you see everyday and telling yourself that it's possible to have both racial equality and harmony and capitalism at the same time."
Yeah, I guess you're right. Those guys Scrooge McDuck sends out to smack the black and brown folks up side the head are...
WIH are you posting about?!
No. The rich would continue to be mostly Whites and Asian and a few "uncle Tom" minorities. The Blacks and Mexicans would resent Whites and Asians even more because inequality would increase so much. Whites would now be allowed to put up "no colored's allowed here" signs, which they would. This shouldn't be new information to you, it's all happened before in America.
..."The rich would continue to be mostly Whites and Asian and a few "uncle Tom" minorities. The Blacks and Mexicans would resent Whites and Asians even more because inequality would increase so much."...
Ya know, JJ, you're just full of predictions about what would happen if...
Problem is, you don't have a bit of evidence for any of them. Just your run of the mill bigotry.
I have a history textbook. This has already happened. You have not one bit of evidence for your contention that there would be racial equality and harmony in a libertarian world.
How does that explain Switzerland, the US, or pretty much any of the bastions of capitalism?
If anything, the evidence indicates that socialism mostly works for ethnic enclaves like the ones that exist in Scandinavia?
"I have a history textbook."
Folks, we were gonna book him for the rest of the week, but given the response, he's fired.
IOW words it's never happened and JJ's 'textbook' is a collation of Ron Paul newsletters.
IOW words it's never happened and JJ's 'textbook' is
a collation of Ron Paul newslettersLRC.
IOW words it's never happened and JJ's 'textbook' is a collation of Ron Paul newsletters.
I don't think some of the left-libertarian supporters of Ron Paul here are going to like that comment.
I guess she doesn't know how it worked out last time Catalonia attempted to adopt a radical political and economic ideology.
George Orwell was disillusioned with state communism?
I know that when I look for advice about organizing the real world and solving real world problems, I always ask those who have voluntarily closed themselves off from it.
Also, there's this:
"As long as my religious life is full of love, I'll be here," she tells me. "But the moment this life turns sacrificial…Then it's my duty to abandon it."
1) Rallying cry of the progressive, right there.
2) Has she read her scriptures? Lots of stuff about sacrifice in there; not so much about proggie twaddle.
Last thing:
But it's the centuries-old economic model of Benedictine nuns creating useful goods to sell, that she cites most passionately.
Because there's certainly nothing wrong with forcing everyone to live by Benedictine vows, and naturally this medieval economic arrangement is fully scalable to all sectors of the economy.
"• A government takeover of all banks and measures to curb financial speculation"
Yep, the Fed isn't speculating at all, is it?
And it's 'not speculating' with the entire money supply of the US.
Isn't paper currency pretty much a form of speculation in and of itself? There's the value of the economy, and then the government prints money. If it prints too much, the size of the money supply increases faster than the economy, and the value of individual dollars goes down. If it prints too little, the money supply increases in size slower than the economy and the value of individual dollars goes up.
And she's against speculation. She must be for the gold standard!
"And she's against speculation. She must be for the gold standard!"
Pretty sure what this woman worships isn't logic, so I'm guessing she really hasn't given a lot of thought to her emotive positions.
She needs a man to tell her what to think.
Time for Germany to start bombing Spain again?
You know who else...
Oh, we already have a Mike Godwin thread? Carry on.
Other than abortion she isn't any different from an ordinary nun. The catholic church is to the left economically of the Democrat party. Most people don't know that.
Elective abortion is a natural right endowed to us by our Creator.
My Facebook feed has been flooded with this heart-warming commercial from a telecommunications company in Thailand
So, it seems that really happened? Wow.
From what I understand, Dr. Prajak Arunthong was a real person. He must have also been a level 30 Half-Elf Druid, as his last name means "Golden Dawn".
Or he's secretly an Italian neo-Nazi.
Excellent interview. One gripe. Marriage has nothing to do with equality. Legal marriage isn't a right, it's a state licensed status, entitling the holders to government and societal benefits not available to singles but which singles are forced to subsidize.
If supporter of gay marriage really cared about equality, they'd be demanding all persons, married or single, gay or straight, be treated the same. They aren't.
That are simply demanding that gay couples be given access to the benefits of the institutionalized inequality enjoyed by married straight couples.
"That are simply demanding that gay couples be given access to the benefits of the institutionalized inequality enjoyed by married straight couples."
Yes, and?
Yes, and why cloak your demand for a piece of the hustle, at the expense of others, as "equality"?
You're welcome to campaign all you please to get singles and marrieds treated equally, and I'll help you all I can.
Until then, singles should be treated equally, as should marrieds.
See A14.
Sevo, what do you look like? At the moment I'm seeing Gandalf.
Sevo, what do you look like? At the moment I'm seeing Gandalf.
I don't know why this made me laugh, but it did.
Until then, singles should be treated equally, as should marrieds.
See A14.
But they aren't, and there doesn't seem to be much movement on changing that. Whilst equalizing access to marriage benefits for gay couples is favorably compared to the abolition of slavery in both its character and urgency, including by the vast majority of the Reason commentariat, and universally among the Reason editorial staff.
"...demanding all persons, married or single, gay or straight, be treated the same."
"....demanding that gay couples be given access to the benefits of the institutionalized inequality enjoyed by married straight couples."
One of these things is just like the other. Nice try O'Rourke.
Benefits of institutionalized inequality for some at the expense of others equals equality for all!
Okie Dokie!
O'Rourke| 9.14.13 @ 9:35PM |#
"Benefits of institutionalized inequality for some at the expense of others equals equality for all!"
Did you bring that strawman all the way here, or find it on the way?
Strawman? The inequality is self evident.
What about your strawman?
I'll your sentence for you. Married persons deserve to be subsidized by single persons because...
O'Rourke| 9.14.13 @ 10:05PM |#
"Strawman? The inequality is self evident."
Yes it is, and no one is arguing it isn't. And yet you keep beating on it.
That's a "strawman", you idiot.
So you don't disagree with anything I've said, you just hate that it was said.
I have a gripe with the very Orwellian phrase "marriage equality." It is common leftist tactic to rename their programs to hide their real intent.(e.g. "affirmative action") "Marriage equality?" WHAT IS IT? It is saying that gay sexual relations are equal to normal sexual relations. A pretty radical idea considering half the country views such behavior as a rebellion against God. It can be justified with a libertarian argument. Make THAT argument, don't try to obfuscate the intent with liberal tactics.
As opposed to "4000 of Traditional Marriage" which is TOTALLY historically accurate.
"4000 of Traditional Marriage"
Homosexuality has always been disliked by society and that dates back way farther than 4000 years. "Marriage" might be a more "modern" institution but basic ideas upon which what you would call "homophobia" is based go back that far.
This is a lie. Greece and historical China were fine with gays. Have fun in history's fossil bed.
(AKA jesse's newest desktop wallpaper)
Greece was not fine with gays. A man who was exclusively homosexual, particularly if he allowed himself to be penetrated (which I'd imagine is inevitable if penetration is going on), was shunned from polite society in Athens.
The homosexual acts Socrates and friends partook in were just rubbing their dicks against eachother, or possibly against their legs, not penetrative sex.
Yes. The Santorum stayed on the outside of any body cavity as Jesus intended.
Athens was Greek, but Greece was not Athens. Thebes was all about the butt-hole, and Sparta could give a shit less where it went as long as you took time out to make a baby now and then.
..."The homosexual acts Socrates and friends partook in were just rubbing their dicks against eachother, or possibly against their legs, not penetrative sex."
Uh, OK. I guess that means marriage should be, uh,...
WIH does that mean?
Can gays get married if they don't stick it in all the way?
There is some evidence that tribal societies treated homosexuality as a normal thing. That's definitely the case with some native American tribes, which elevated homosexuals in social rank.
Homophobia is an invention of Abrahamic religion, as far as I can tell.
Yeah and dolphins and bonobos blah blah blah. Even though there's evidence that tiger sharks kill gay dolphins at a higher rate and with more taunting beforehand.
Are you trying to tell me you're not a flaming homosexual?
"Homosexuality has always been disliked by society"
OK, JJ, trying for the gold in "I'm an Ignoramus" competition?
Well, you just took it.
Don't sell yourself short, Sevo.
Asshole, when you're around, you're pretty much in the lead.
Riiight. 4000 Years of Traditional Marriage is ok in your book because ignoring a history of polygamy, polyandry, intra-familial marriage, women as property, a Roman emperor marrying his horse, the advent of women being allowed to own property in the marriage, ever changing concepts of divorce is fine since people have "always" hated gays, but the phrase "marriage equality" is Orwellian propaganda.
I'm guessing you haven't read any of the ancient epics. Gilgamesh and Enkidu say hi!
I believe Caligula settled for making his horse a senator and war consul. Which may or may not have been more degrading than marriage.
He's a moron, especially in that modern civil marriage is only a few hundred years old, but the phrase is still absurd since marriage inherently bestows benefits upon some but not others and allows them to be treated different before the law - the very definition of inequality. Even if you were to argue that it is intended to mean "equal access to marriage privileges", it's still absurd, since there are many more relationship configurations available to an individual that will continue to be denied access to marriage privileges, saying nothing of the fact that singles are still shut out entirely. "Marriage equality" as a stand in for gay marriage actually is a wanton abuse of language, he's just wrong on why.
normal sexual relations
What the fuck does that mean?
Hint, hint, nudge, nudge....
Using bed sheets between skin and cutting a hole so that the dick can slink through the glory hole?
You know.
And clean!
..."Marriage equality?" WHAT IS IT?"...
Not at all hard to grasp:
The government treats married couples (wrongly in my opinion) differently than two single people.
Until we get the government to quit doing that, it must treat all those who choose to be married the same way.
See how easy that is? It says nothing about icky things!
You're still doing the obfuscation. You never mention homosexuality. Why not? "The government is to give the same benefits to these homosexuals as a reward for their homosexuality that we are giving to ordinary heterosexual couples." This "I'm going to talk past you, not to you" is what the left does to avoid actually addressing the issue.
You never mention homosexuality. Why not?
Probably because it doesn't matter.
Couldn't have said it better.
Hey, JJ. Why does it matter to you? You got a leetle 'problem'?
It matters to a of of people. Again, talking past you, not to you, classic liberal tactic. "But affirmative action is racial discrimination? That doesn't matter."
JJ Thompson| 9.14.13 @ 9:59PM |#
"It matters to a of of people."
SURE it does, JJ.
Now would you please tell us where your daddy touched you?
You're saying you're mad that government isn't treating homosexuals as second-class citizens under the law, or even actively disparaging them as a social group. Understood.
Maybe if you actually read my comment before you post your you won't look like such an idiot. I clearly said there is a libertarians argument in favor of homosexual marriage.
I'm so happy you two found each other.
Until we get the government to quit doing that, it must treat all those who choose to be married the same way.
And gay marriage by itself does not accomplish that, so the term "marriage equality" as a reference to legal recognition of same-sex marriage (which is the only context in which the phrase is currently widely used) is still a disservice to language.
American, of course, is reasoning his way to that conclusion from the POV of a retard, but the retardation is in his logic, not necessarily the conclusion itself.
Facing a thread with both Tony and Shreek, you still manage to make the dumbest comment. Bravo, sir. Bravo.
"Until we get the government to quit doing that..."
if the goal was equality, people would be trying to make the government "quit doing that" rather than demand a piece of the action and fob THAT off as equality.
Yes, you sleazy twit, I see you've done nothing of the sort.
How do you know? Maybe he has, but the people who ostensibly agree with him were so busy calling him names like a 5 year old and berating him for failing to jump on their bandwagon du jour that he didn't get enough traction to make a difference? If the popular support and legislative success of a proposal is a prerequisite for your supporting it, you're going to find yourself supporting the status quo more often than not. But, you'll be in good company - you've got the full, lockstep support of Tony on this one.
OK, I clicked on it, and it took all of a couple of seconds to see it's a far-right screed.
Really hadn't noticed a *new* aversion to brown shirts; they've be pretty easy so despise for quite a while.
You really ought to avoid commenting on articles you obviously haven't read. It makes you look like a moron to those who do read it.
You should probably stop calling random blog posts "articles". You look like a moron.
OK, Hawk, tell me what I missed about how brown shirts are the new communists. Let's hear it.
Apparently, everything except the first several paragraphs. For instance:
Consider our late lamented "Arab Spring," a true "spring surprise" that is creeping closer and closer to having killed a million people. As Stalin said, of course, a million people is just a statistic. You need a visual. I like to work with Olympic swimming pools full of blood.
And why did the Arab Spring happen? It happened because our dear State Department incited revolutions across the Arab world. And why did State do that? They did it with the full-throated approval of the American people - all the American people, from left to right. As far as I can recall, UR and David Goldman were the only two pundits condemning this enormous crime, which has produced exactly the results we expected.
And what were the American people thinking? They were in a pure state of callous altruism. They thought, we'll help our little brown Arab brothers by supporting them in their enlightened democratic revolution. Mrs. Jellyby could not have expressed it better.
And why did the Arab Spring happen? It happened because our dear State Department incited revolutions across the Arab world.
Umm, no. If you're talking about pulling out the aid rug from under a disgusting dictator like Mubarak, well after the revolution is underway, I'm not seeing that as inciting a revolution. I'm unaware of any revolutions that succeeded outside North Africa anyway.
The 'revolution' in Egypt was coup by the military against Mubarak, to prevent his formation of a dynasty.
The 'revolution' in Libya was entirely contrived by outside interests for yet to be revealed reasons.
Hawk Spitui| 9.14.13 @ 10:38PM |#
"Apparently, everything except the first several paragraphs. For instance:..."
Uh, gee, that's an interesting pile of bullshit. I'm sure whatever you intended to 'prove' by posting that is just ducky, but it has nothing to do with the question I asked. Let's try again:
"tell me what I missed about how brown shirts are the new communists. Let's hear it."
Hmmm the whole "let your enemies take power and fuck up" worked really well for H.H. Asquith and Ernst Thälmann.
John Kerry: I Was (Secretly) For Diplomacy When I Spoke Against It
Secretary of State John Kerry said Saturday, after reaching a tentative agreement with Russia to disarm Syria of chemical weapons, that his earlier statement about the impossibility of such a plan was in fact "the language of diplomacy."
"I purposefully made the statements," Kerry said in Geneva, Switzerland, after reaching the framework of an agreement with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. "And I did indeed say it was impossible and [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad] won't do it, even as I hoped it would be possible and wanted him to do it. And the language of diplomacy sometimes requires that you put things to the test, and we did."
Do you see, you pacifists and NAP fanatics? Threatening to blow up another country is just another tool of diplomacy. Sort of like threatening to stab someone if they don't give up their wallet is just diplomacy.
And the State Department's immediate denial that he was making an offer was also "the language of diplomacy" too? Five year olds come up with more plausible lies than these dudes.
Since when has the threat of force, implicit or explicit, not been a tool of diplomacy, specifically dealing with a country currently engaged in military action?
I'm not saying Kerry is being honest here. If he is, then he deserves a gold star for being the canniest diplomat in 100 years. But it does seem to be the case that without the US's threat of force against Syria, there would have been no pathway to a deal on chemical weapons.
..."But it does seem to be the case that without the US's threat of force against Syria, there would have been no pathway to a deal on chemical weapons."
Yeah, asshole, we've already heard the apologias for Obama's foot-in-mouth disease.
I want you to say that of the two following scenarios:
100,000 Syrians die and Obama does irreparable political harm to himself, and
those Syrians don't die and Obama manages to get a political win,
that you prefer the former.
I'm not saying these are reasonable possibilities, I just want you to admit that the number one thing you care about is hating Obama.
"I'm not saying these are reasonable possibilities, I just want you to admit that the number one thing you care about is hating Obama."
You've posted some truly ignorant comments in the past, but you've just moved the bar.
I certainly do despise the lying asshole, but what that has to do with your fantasies is a mystery to me.
I want you to say that of the two following scenarios:
100,000 Syrians die and Obama does irreparable political harm to himself, and
those Syrians don't die and Obama manages to get a political win,
Both scenarios are irrelevant. The internal struggles of Syria are none of the United States' business.
If and when a Syrian warship floats off the coast of D.C., or the Syrians send their version of SEAL Team Six into Phoenix to assassinate one of their citizens, or commits some other act violative of American sovereignty or neutrality, then and only then, does Syria have a problem that the US needs to sort out with missiles.
So we're both in agreement that in order to deal with international standards and promote peace we need stronger, more functional international governance.
So we're both in agreement that in order to deal with international standards and promote peace we need stronger, more functional international governance.
Define the following terms:
"International Standards"
"Functional International Governance"
International standards = whatever standards the international community comes up with.
Peace = the absence of violent conflict.
Functional international governance = international law and cooperation working better than it does now to achieve positive international ends.
whatever standards the international community comes up with.
Hypothetical: So when Vladimir Putin convinces a plurality of nations that a good international standard would be to ban "homosexual propaganda," your answer is, shrug your shoulders and roll with it?
the absence of violent conflict.
North Korea is the most peaceful nation on Earth, by that low bar.
international law and cooperation working better than it does now to achieve positive international ends.
And postive international ends are....what?
You car insurance must cost a fortune since you clearly confuse the simplest of concepts like red light means stop, green light means go. No where in his post did he say anything about your precious world government.
Replace Syria with Iraq and try to keep smoke from pouring out of your ears.
Minor differences. Iraq didn't have WMD, and the threat didn't remain just a threat.
"Minor differences. Iraq didn't have WMD,"
Major lie, asshole. Ask the Kurds.
Oh, wait! The Kurds don't count! They're brown people who aren't brain-dead liberals!
They didn't have WMD at the time when those nonexistent WMD were the single justification for war in Iraq. Not only has an invasion on the scale of Iraq not been proposed by anyone with respect to Syria, not a single missile has been fired.
Iraq not been proposed by anyone with respect to Syria, not a single missile has been fired.
(a) Authorization. -- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to --
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.
I see nothing in there about "scale." Care to try again, Tony w/o spaces?
You have to pass it to find out what's in it. Just like a guy who got drunk and swallowed a cracker jack box whole.
If a single American boot hits Syria's ground, I'll buy you dinner at your favorite Applebee's.
Are you trying to trick me into going on a date? Like the guy who bet women that Dustin Hoffman was in Star Wars?
I thought I was offering a substantial wager. I'm sure you'd be a fine date, but I'd never set foot in an Applebee's unless I lost a bet.
Tony| 9.14.13 @ 10:26PM |#
"They didn't have WMD at the time when those nonexistent WMD were the single justification for war in Iraq."
You, asshole, just made that claim. Prove it.
Yeah, Saddam exhausted his chemical weapons Reagan gave to him in the 80s.
By 2003 all he had was bug-spray.
A threat that remains just a threat is not truly a threat.
And as far as anyone knew they did have WMDs -- Saddam refused to let inspectors in and refused to provide documentation of their destruction.
So you agree with Obama's tactic of making it clear that his trigger finger is really itchy.
As far as anyone knows to this day, Iraq didn't have them. You don't get to bitch about the Syria saga and defend Iraq and be the same person. Sorry.
I'm not defending the Iraq invasion, indeed I was against it.
It is you who have a hypocrisy problem when you praise threatening force in order to get what you want.
America's status as a superpower depends almost entirely on the threat of force implied by its military power. Besides, I don't understand the problem. Threatening force harms nobody, and if it can produce positive outcomes, it has actually helped people. I'm not defending this current policy necessarily but I'm not sure what your beef is. Now suddenly diplomacy is all meetings over tea? Assume you were going after the outcome of Syria ending its chemical weapons use (let alone its eradicating them, which may be achieved.) What do you do if you take threatening force off the table?
We should only threaten force in situations where we intend to use force. That much is basic national survival material. Further, I think we should only use force when force is used or threatened or clearly present against us. So no, we shouldn't have been threatening here, I don't care if Assad is boiling people in oil or impaling them or forcing them to watch the Kardassians' show -- it's none of our biz. If your conscience is troubled, grab an oceanliner ticket and a rifle and head on over there to fight for your beliefs.
You're trying to have it both ways -- claiming this is better than IRQ because we only threatened, not used. But we had to be ready to use or our threats are as empty as Caramel Nixon's skull.
Not killing anyone and achieving something is better than killing hundreds of thousands for no discernible purpose, if you'll permit me to go out on a limb.
Obviously threats of force must at least be seen as accompanying the will to use it. You disagree with the goal of forbidding Syria to use chemical weapons, but I asked you to propose a diplomatic means of doing that not involving the use of the threat of force. Whether it's right for the US to police other countries' methods of war is another debate, and my views are complicated on that.
Threatening force harms nobody, and if it can produce positive outcomes, it has actually helped people.
Hypothetical: I threaten to break your arms and legs with a lead pipe if you don't give me $100,000 to pay off my mortgage, you give me the $100,000 and I pay off the mortgage.
According to you, I've done nothing wrong since I haven't employed force against you, and I've achieved the positive outcome of paying off my mortgage.
That's not what I would define as a positive outcome, since the injury done to me was unjust.
You said nothing about justice before, only threats and positive outcomes.
But you're comparing the outcome of Syria being rid of nearly universally banned weapons and me being totally shafted.
But you're comparing the outcome of Syria being rid of nearly universally banned weapons and me being totally shafted.
Banned under a treaty that they are not a signatory to (and a treaty that the US has been in violation of since 2004. Unclean hands are unclean). Or is forcing treaties on brown people a good thing now?
You propose depriving Syria of millions of dollars in research and development efforts to their own detriment but in the name of a "positive outcome." I propose depriving you of money in the name of a "positive outcome." Not different at all.
Tony| 9.14.13 @ 10:30PM |#
'So you agree with Obama's tactic of making it clear he's an idiot'
I agree that you're an idiot who would be more useful to libertarianism being the resident supplier of fart jokes.
Bill Clinton thought Iraq had WMD. So did Gore, Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Maddy Albright, William Cohen, George Tenent and more. So did Russian, French, British and Italian intelligence.
Look it up.
They didn't launch a stupid war like Dumbya did. In the end the POTUS gets the credit or blame.
Barack Obama: I Inherited This ....
It's never Barry's fault. BOOOSSHH looms eternal.
Obama has done nothing but cut debt since the aftermath of the crisis that started under Bush, which is also where the massive debt started.
Obama has done nothing but cut debt
Then why are we talking about debt ceilings instead of debt floors?
Because there is an arbitrary, pointless debt ceiling law in place, and its only current purpose is to serve as a means for Republicans to hold the entire world economy hostage as a negotiating tactic.
Of all these things, debt included, which do you suppose is the worst problem? My choice is a major American political party thinking this is proper governance.
Because there is an arbitrary, pointless debt ceiling law in place, and its only current purpose is to serve as a means for Republicans to hold the entire world economy hostage as a negotiating tactic.
What happened, Tony w/o spaces? I thought threats were just good diplomacy. Did the handbook change in the last 10 minutes?
Within a country's political system it is reasonably assumed that the destruction of that country's economy is a bad thing and not a negotiating stick. But then, we have the tea party now.
Yes, sort of like the how the budget sequestration (which Obama proposed) was supposed to destroy the economy. Widows and orphans wailing in the streets, the oceans would rise, the living would envy the dead, etc., etc.
I have yet to take you nitwits' doomsaying seriously because it never comes to pass.
Because there is an arbitrary, pointless debt ceiling law in place, and its only current purpose is to serve as a means for Republicans to hold the entire world economy hostage as a negotiating tactic.
If that had been the case, the Dems would have repealed the Second Liberty Bond Act when they had control of both houses. Since they didn't, you're wrong--as usual.
Obama has done nothing but cut debt since the aftermath of the crisis that started under Bush
It almost makes me pine for the days of Clinton. What a time of youthful innocence. MTV still played music. Blowjobs were still sex. Gas was cheap. Booze and jobs were plentiful. Not every kid was ritalin-addicted zombie. Hollywood turned out such timeless classics as Highlander 2: The Quickening.
Cut debt? Cut debt?
Gross Federal Debt
FY 2014* $18.2 trillion
FY 2013* $17.2 trillion
FY 2012 $16.1 trillion
FY 2011 $14.8 trillion
FY 2010 $13.5 trillion
FY 2009 $11.9 trillion
What part of $$18.2TT $11.9TT do you not understand?
I know counting is not a core competency of the Left -we'd much rather talk about how we feel about math- but even a good little Super Junior Elite Team Blue member like yourself should be able to understand basic inequalities.
Yeah but didn't they vote for it? Accessory!
They were all wrong, then. I'm not sure logically how that justifies Bush and his actions.
Tony| 9.14.13 @ 11:00PM |#
"They were all wrong, then"
Yeah, you *know*, right?
Prove it, asshole.
try to keep smoke from pouring out of your ears
Minor differences
Too late.
Since when has the threat of force, implicit or explicit, not been a tool of diplomacy
Since time immemorial when it has generally been considered an act of war?
specifically dealing with a country currently engaged in military action?
You mean currently engaged in a civil war that in no way poses a threat to the United States?
I'm not saying Kerry is being honest here.
You cannot without being as big a liar as he is.
If he is, then he deserves a gold star for being the canniest diplomat in 100 years. But it does seem to be the case that without the US's threat of force against Syria, there would have been no pathway to a deal on chemical weapons.
Tony w/o spaces clearly recognizes that Syria's main arms supplier would have absolutely no influence on it. Nor does Russia and Syria being allies since 1955 give Russia any pull with the Syrian government. Nope. No sir.
Just Kerry and Barry playing 3-D chess like a couple of bosses.
Hey I'm totally willing to admit they are winning 3-D chess by sheer accident--which is the only possible explanation for how Deanna Troi beat Data at the same, despite her Kerry-like boasting.
Hey I'm totally willing to admit
they are winning 3-D chess by sheer accidentRussia saved Obama from his own stupidity, and America incidentally.
Glad to see you being reasonable, for a change.
Why on earth would Russia want to do that absent some more pressing motivation?
Putin is not acting to save Obama's bacon.
No, he's acting to enhance his own prestige and make BO look like a fool (not that that requires any work). BO being our head of state is the best thing that's happened to Russia since Klaus Fuchs. He makes Bush look like Otto von Bismarck.
Okay, the reason Russia has Syria as a friend is because the rest of the world, save a couple other autocratic shitholes, is not their friend. Whatever Obama's foibles, Bush needs no historical comparison beyond himself when it comes to US presidents making other assholes look good.
Dubya: Coalition of the Willing.
Chocolate Nixon: Coalition of Him and France.
Yeah, he's fucking winning at this whole foreign policy thing.
Bingo. Putin recognized he can use Kerry's and Obama's utter incompetence to enhance his prestige. They gave him all the balls in the court he can use. No American President I can think of has never been soundly beaten like this President. Not even Bush.
"Putin is not acting to save Obama's bacon."
It takes idiots like you and that lying bastard Obama to make Putin look like a statesman.
Proud of yourself, asshole?
It takes terminal Obama derangement syndrome for libertarians and conservatives to start getting batting eyelids over Vladimir Putin.
Putin is a clever and devious guy. You deny this?
He's a moral monster, of course, but he's eating our special snowflake in chief for breakfast, along the rubberface of state.
He would have a tougher time if he were dealing with a skilled dealmaker like Mitt Romney across the table, that's for sure.
No, the sick thing is you want him to be eating our snowflake, because no rational assessment of events suggests that to be the case. He's an international joke, even today. He's trying his hardest to become a serious person and for his country to achieve a semblance of its past glory, but none of that is really happening.
You just want it to be because it means Obama gets dinged. I don't encourage too-strong patriotism but this is getting absurd.
I'm having a hard time seeing what the US lost here. Yeah, Obama embarrassed himself, but US legitimacy and prestige is thankfully not tied to one man.
You just want it to be because it means Obama gets dinged.
Obama is already "dinged." He was dinged before the Russians decided to intervene.
2011: "Assad must go."
2012: "Okay, Assad doesn't have to go, but use of chemical weapons is a red line."
August 2013: "We think Assad has used chemical weapons and he must, must, must be punished!"
September 2013: "We'll leave Syria alone if they give Russia their chemical weapons."
Don't forget according to Kerry and Hilary Assad was a 'reformer.'
He would have a tougher time if he were dealing with a skilled dealmaker like Mitt Romney across the table, that's for sure.
Oh Tulpa, you are so funny when you REALLY go for parodying the progtads.
Tulpa thinks being a CEO is somehow comparable to governing in a democracy. Well, we've had a CEO president, and we know how that turned out. Granted, he was also a very bad CEO. Now if only nepotism weren't the lifeblood of conservative and libertarian politics.
Funny how we downgraded from CEO to community organizer.
On the present trajectory, even Tony may be presidential material within the next 3 or 4 election cycles.
Community organizer is more relevant experience in my book. But you mean "community organizer" in the way rightwing propaganda does: he was, and remains, black.
By community organizer, I mean "failed community organizer"
President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices.
As few as 19 of those 186 clients still own homes with clean credit ratings, following a decade in which Obama and other progressives pushed banks to provide mortgages to poor African Americans.
The startling failure rate among Obama's private sector clients was discovered during The Daily Caller's review of previously unpublished court information from the lawsuit that a young Obama helmed as the lead plaintiff's attorney.
Always with the race card. Obama's advertised himself as a former community organizer, not a blowhard liberal state senator, which is what he really was.
Riiiight. Trust-fund liberals don't engage in nepotism. Fuck off.
The Roosevelt, Kennedy, Clinton, Daley, and Jackson families would like to have a word with you about nepotism Tony.
It's more like Barclay turning into a spider and getting a disease named after him.
So from now on we'll say "Our only hope is for [politician] to kerry his way through this mess."?
It was our plan all along!
"I meant to do that" would be a charming catch phrase for a sitcom character who stumbles into a scene, causes chaos, and somehow resolves the situation through accidental incompetence. It's far less funny when it's done by the secretary of state.
On the other hand, both Bush and Carter must be relieved that their foreign policy stupidity will, by contrast, seem less egregious to history. I hope both parties remember to send Obama a card this Christmas.
Who invited the racist homophobic trolls?
Dunno, but we got a full order of 'em this evening.
Libertarianism. It's the group racist homophobes join when they're not Jesusy enough to be Republican and not meth-addled enough to be in the KKK. Everybody needs to belong somewhere.
I feel bad for you. The worst we liberals have to deal with are people who refuse to wear shoes or wash their hair.
So we get steaming piles of shit also.
Well, and the violence, but why ruin a good bullshit line, right?
Fuck you, Tony. Progressivism is full of hardcore anti-Semites, like Cynthia McKinney
Anti-Zionist would be a better description. She hates all White people and doesn't make an exception for the Jews.
The difference is Democrats are glad when she is rid of and don't elevate her as the standard to which all party primary candidates are measured.
Bullshit. McKinney's rants about the Zionist Banksters were the bass line of the screeching cacophony that was the Occutard movement. Indeed, McKinney is nothing more than Obama with Tourette syndrome.
You are a fucking moron of the lowest order.
Cynthia McKinney is a disgrace to Congress - and that is a fucking low hurdle to cross considering the trash there.
"Cynthia McKinney is a disgrace to Congress - and that is a fucking low hurdle to cross considering the trash there."
Yeah, except to blue-team assholes.
Oh, that's you!
You are a fucking moron of the lowest order.
Go fuck your mother, you mendacious twit. I have intellectually schooled you on this forum more times that I can count.
And now here is another time I kick your wrinkly old-man ass, considering you have the gall to deny that there is a distinct and rising trend of antisemitism among the Progressive Left.
You have never "schooled" me on anything, HM - you fucking dimwit.
Every time you run your damn mouth you prove my intellectual and moral superiority over you. And even if I didn't, I'm not a piece of shit homophobic gay-basher like you are.
Suck my dick, HM.
And there goes PB equating a homosexual sex act with an insult. Why do you hate gays so much?
Palin's Buttplug| 9.15.13 @ 12:04AM |#
"Suck my dick, HM."
Did your daddy say "no", asshole?
You have never "schooled" me on anything, HM - you fucking dimwit.
Schooling you is easier than beating up a kindergartner.
Oh please. Israel is an apartheid state. They settle their citizens on occupied land. Israeli settlers get to vote, and get government benefits that are denied to the majority Palestinian population. That is apartheid. I'm not saying the Palestinians are model human beings either, but the Israelis ask for a lot of what they get. The reason Europeans hate them is because Europeans have swallowed the pill of multiculturalism, that Jews tried so hard to force down their throats. Germany not wanting Turks to immigrate? America not wanting Mexicans to immigrate? Nazixenophobiaracism! Israel not wanting Arabs to immigrate? Wonderful Jews preserving their Jewish state!
JJ Thompson| 9.14.13 @ 11:31PM |#
"Oh please. Israel is an apartheid state...."
JJ is an idiot.
You are a hypocrite.
JJ Thompson| 9.14.13 @ 11:39PM |#
"You are a hypocrite."
I'm nasty, hateful and really arrogant, but a hypocrite, I ain't.
You're not worth shit.
Israeli settlers get to vote, and get government benefits that are denied to the majority Palestinian population
Why would the Israeli government give benefits to Palestinians? Isn't that the Palestinian government's job?
Why would the Israeli government give benefits to Palestinians? Isn't that the Palestinian government's job?
What Palestinian government? The Palestinians don't have a government, they have a Bantustan. The Israelis get to live in the West Bank but get government benefits and the Palestinians do not. In the West Bank there is a set of citizens that get preferences that allow them to live at a first world level. There is another set of non-citizens who don't get these preferences and are instead represented by a "government" which is in practice a satellite, a Bantustan with little real power. That sounds like apartheid to me.
What the hell is the West Bank? The Israelis are building towns in Judea and Samaria. You know Judea, the place were Jews come from?
And where do the Palestinians come from? Well I guess they don't matter because aren't real people. The Jews got 78 percent of the land. That is plenty. There is a word for what you support: Jewish supremacism. Just like the White supremacism of Apartheid South Africa.
And where do the Palestinians come from?
The Arabian peninsula.
Jus' sayin'
JJ Thompson| 9.15.13 @ 12:09AM |#
..."The Jews got 78 percent of the land."...
Yeah, except for those other parts where the non-jews got 100%.
What an idiot!
@HM Most of the Palestinians descend from those in Palestine prior to the Islamic conquest, not the Arab invaders. And by their own admission, the Jews stole the land from the Canaanites. No excuse for apartheid in my mind.
@Sevo, Dumbass, Israel got 78% of the land, much of it stolen from the 700,000 expelled Palestinians. Much more than their share of the population at the time of the war.
No excuse for apartheid in my mind.
And Hamas has state in its charter that it seeks to kill every Jew on the planet, be they man, woman and child. Is "apartheid" an excuse for genocide?
Notice my previous statement I'm not saying the Palestinians are model human beings either. Does threats of genocide justify apartheid? Because the ANC wants something similar. I'm not liberal. I think the Israelis would be justified in reoccupying Gaza, but not in building settlements or Apartheid.
Most of the Palestinians descend from those in Palestine prior to the Islamic conquest, not the Arab invaders.
That's a questionable assertion, at best. Ask most any Palestinian if they're Arabic or not and they'll answer in the affirmative.
"The point is not that the world community should not focus on Israel's disputes with its neighbors, but that it singles Israel out for its purported transgressions in a fashion that it does not for nearly identical disagreements elsewhere. Over 75 percent of recent United Nations resolutions target Israel, which has been cited for human rights violations far more than the Sudan, Congo, or Rwanda, where millions have perished in little-noticed genocides. Why is the international community so anti-Israel?"(from HM's link)
The exact same statement could have been made about Apartheid South Africa in the eighties. It's called a double standard.
MeKinney is even more of an idiot than Louis Gohmert, Steve King, and Michele 'Crazy WHoire' Bachmann and her queer Medicaid stealing "husband" - which you probably love.
Awesome! PB with the virulent homophobia that is his trademark!
Marcus Bachmann (if that is his name) is a fairy.
Jesus still loves him though - fairy to fairy.
"Jesus still loves him though - fairy to fairy"
And I'm sure you know this by personal experience, right shreek?
Palin's Buttplug| 9.14.13 @ 11:14PM |#
"MeKinney is even more of an idiot than Louis Gohmert,"
So you'll only *kinda* support her, right? But if she says 'Obama's just dreamy', you'll go all in.
Die in a fire, troll. Seriously. Die in a car crash, you sickening piece of human shit.
No, thank you.
"The worst we liberals have to deal with are people who refuse to wear shoes or wash their hair."
Wow, actual self awareness from t o n y, this is rare.
Thanks for the link. I love the part about how libertarians being almost exclusively white PROVES the entire theory of "race realism" (the new term for racism, apparently), because obviously only whites are smart enough to get it. Only Giotto could have drawn logic so perfectly circular.
I would have gone with Alberti but hey...meh.
More racist than liberals you can't get. It's just you can't join the liberal ranks, what, needing an ascot, locked-jaw, and pipe.
Biggest sacks of hypocritical shits this side of De Gaulle.
Libertarianism. It's the group racist homophobes join when they're not Jesusy enough to be Republican and not meth-addled enough to be in the KKK.
Sorry, but the KKK was just the militant wing of the Democrat party, back when it ever mattered.
You're an asshole Tony, you know that? I mean a fucking disingenuous twat. Like, a total 100% beef jerky jerk. Libertarians are the ONE single group of people that defend the rights of gays to the death and you pull that shit? I've not read ONE commenter on Reason that would not defend you. Not ONE and you chime in with a smug piece of garbage like that? You're not only a fool, but an idiot.
Liberals like your pseudo-intellectual pal Obama, on the other hand, would have sold you down the Arno rive for political expediency.
The jerk store called. They have your "Best seller" coupon ready for you.
Really? Because I estimate about a 70-30 split on these boards in favor of government continuing to officially prefer heterosexual marriage. You guys just wrap it in the fairy tale of getting government out of marriage, of course, but I only care about outcomes. And the outcome of wishing upon a star is that nothing changes.
WHAT?! I'm shaking my head in disbelief. First off, I have no idea how you arrive at that split and from where I sit NOWHERE have they done that. I really need a citation.
I think Tony's numbers are wrong, but I agree with his impression that some percentage of the people who argue that the state should get out of marriage are only vocal about it because gays are getting married. Sarcasmic and DJF come to mind on the issue, although Austrian Anarchy and I got into it on more than one occasion. I think the get government out of marriage issue is a legitimate one, but I've said on here repeatedly I support gay marriage because I have a very hard time believing that the government will get out of marriage.
In that respect Tony is correct when he says that the outcome of rejecting gay marriage because it isn't the ultimate good of dismantling civil marriage is that government continues to favor heterosexual marriage.
Because I estimate about a 70-30 split on these boards in favor of government continuing to officially prefer heterosexual marriage. You guys just wrap it in the fairy tale of getting government out of marriage, of course...
Getting government out of marriage = no ban on gay marriage. If that's not good enough for you, then what is? Some special ensconcing of gay marriage above other forms of marriage? And, how do you take that stance without falling prey to the same fallacious logic as those that prefer hetero marriage? Do polygamists diminish your gay marriage?
Apparently, libertarians supporting gay marriage isn't good enough, because it isn't big government enough for you.
Even in gay marriage, where libertarians are on your side, you can't help but sneer like an asshole. Quit finding an excuse to whine about everything. You sound like a spoiled child that complains, even when getting what she wants.
Ahh, the new "smart" on display.
Libertarianism. It's the group racist homophobes join...
It makes me nervous when something becomes merely an object of two minutes hate.
I was just wondering if there was some kind of weekend flame schedule that I'm not privy to. It seems to switch from abortion, to religion, to gay things, to something random, then back again with racism sprinkled in random places. It's hard to keep track of all derp some days.
Weekend threads are prime derpitory
Yeah, but compared to the crazy-one-who-shall-not-be-named pre-reg weekends...
It's our punishment for not commenting enough. The Jacket has loosed the Rockwellian hounds.
Our "John" is racist exhibit #1 as I have explained and proved before.
He is a Stormfront fellow in good standing.
Why do you insist on treating him like a rational human being, jesse? The post above mine should just reinforce that he's like a crazy man pissing himself and yelling at the boogie men in his head.
Am confused. Are we talking about PB and the comment right above yours here? Or are we talking about some other crazy that came out of the woodwork tonight?
Yeah, the comment right between yours and mine. That ridiculous sham of an opinion should be enough to dissuade anyone who reads Reason's comments that PB is crazy as all get out.
This is a fair point darius.
Libertarian ideals pretty much preclude the idea of thread bouncers. It is one of the philosophy's weak points.
Matthew Shepard killed in meth deal by one of his butt buddies
This would qualify as "old news" or "common knowledge" (PBS covered it years ago) but now there is a new book about it by a gay journalist.
If true, so what?
Did he deserve to die for doing meth?
You are a sorry excuse for a libertarian.
If true, so what?
Nothing. It's just the truth and it usefully illuminates how the truth is sacrificed to fit the narrative.
Did he deserve to die for doing meth?
Projecting the worst possible motives onto your opponent for saying something that makes you uncomfortable is a hallmark sign of a moron.
See Tony for plenty of examples.
The narrative that gays are disproportionately victims of violence and other social ills? Matthew Shepard could never have existed and that narrative would still be true.
How much of that violence is gay-on-gay?
The portion that doesn't consist of insecure straight guys looking to fight teh queerz?
If anything is to be learned from that new narrative it's that sexuality wasn't a factor. It would be an issue of the meth community and not the gay one.
The only stats I know off the top of my head are more radiant forms of victimization (I don't know about straight-on-gay bigotry-based violence), such as higher incidences of bullying, suicide, and homelessness directly related to sexual orientation.
If anything can be learned from this narrative, it's that politicians have no qualms over standing astride people's corpses to push their already-existing political agendas through, regardless that it has fuckall to do with the tragedy it's supposedly in response to.
See also: Newtown. 9/11. Columbine...
Then find another example and use that individual.
You are also a sorry excuse for a libertarian.
Matthew Sheppard deserved to live and decide what his life should be - period.
Matthew Sheppard deserved to live and decide what his life should be - period.
No one here thinks Matthew Sheppard deserved to die.
Well, PB does, seeing that he's a homophobe.
So did little Amber Alert.
That doesn't change my dislike for those damn beeping text messages on my phone.
I think he deserved to die. He was a sodomite and so he should be killed. I was talking about this with Rick Sanatorium lately and he agreed. We decided to put together an elite military unit fashioned after the National Socialist Einsatzgruppen, the Boy Scouts would be at the heart of unit, and it would be overseen by Sarah Palin. We would go from town to town with our operations. We hope to find loyal and willing collaborators among the millions of republicans in our patriotic, god fearing country. The only problem we foresaw was that local Muslim communities might try to protect the sodomites. We will shoot them if they get in the way.
JJ Thompson| 9.15.13 @ 12:00AM |#
"I think he deserved to die. He was a sodomite and so he should be killed...."
Yeah, you've already proven yourself to be a detestable piece of shit, so what?
Let me guess... nobody has ever threatened to shoot you for your brains, have they?
Jesus Haploid Christ, there is nothing in this world more tedious than a dick-waving closet case like you trying to show how butch you are by calling for violence against the gays who have the guts to admit that they like having sex with men.
Here's a little hint for you from a straight guy: we have no issue with gays. Truth to tell, I appreciate the reduced competition for chicks. If you want people to believe you're straight, the STFU about your lurid, violent fantasies about gays.
Now, fuck off and find yourself a competent shrink. You don't have to be this way.
Grieving parent beatifies slain, but problematic child, activists pick up the story and make him a poster child for the movement. There's truly nothing new under the sun.
You know what other slain, problematic child was made the poster child of a movement?
Horst Wessel?
Joan of Arc?
Jesus of Nazareth?
"As to be expected, Matthew Shepard Inc. is rallying to denounce the new narrative that his homosexuality had little or nothing to do with his murder."
The ugly face of ultra Neo-Progressive culture. The narrative must be defended even if it contains not a speck of truth. All who deny the narrative, or even question it, must be utterly, and completely, destroyed.
Damn this thread sucks.
Okay, new topic: is it still a rule that if you pay for a girl's dinner it's technically a date?
Good question; and if so, how much time does she have to pay you back to undo that liability?
For purposes of the Three Date Rule, it does not count. Unless she really wants to fuck you, in which case it counts for three dates.
If she wants to fuck me she'd better be paying for my dinner, or else I'll eat asparagus.
No means no and yes means yes, and the likelihood of yes is increased by the presence of large quantities of alcohol. Do females seriously determine their willingness to put out based on whether you sprung for the lobster? Man I pity you guys.
Do females seriously determine their willingness to put out based on whether you sprung for the lobster?
No the females are responding to his business lobes and gold-pressed latinum.
"Man I pity you guys."
Better than you pitching some lefty causes. What happens when he figures out you just wanted to get laid?
He's fully aware of that and so am I. We're both men.
Tony| 9.14.13 @ 11:55PM |#
"He's fully aware of that and so am I. We're both men."
So you lie and he lies? Good.
It's never a question of one of us not being in the mood or bargaining with meals. You do know what having a penis is like, right?
I am being too simplistic though. Gays certainly have issues with uncertain signals (they're not all ripped sexbots), and I've actually traded sex for food before. Strictly sugar daddy situation though, no mixed signals. And I was Cristal expensive.
So, you're a whore?
That explains a lot about your world-view.
I wouldn't associate with a woman who ordered a poor sea creature to be boiled alive.
This topic does not play well to my strengths. I suppose it depends on if you spring payment at the end with a "don't worry, I've got this" or if it was agreed that you were taking her out to dinner.
Well we had hung out a few times before but she never gave me any indication that I should make a move on her. So I figured she wasn't interested but we remained on a friendly basis.
Anyway, we hadn't seen each other in a few months since circumstances kept us both busy but she began texting me a few weeks back and tonight was the night we both had free time so she suggested we get dinner.
It was just a simple dinner, no real flirting or anything and when the check came I paid without hesitation and nothing was said of it.
I'm not complaining, I'm just wondering what it all means.
Maybe she was just hungry but wanted to save her money to do something she would enjoy more.
As in, fucking SeriousMan's best friend.
That's cold Tulpa.
::narrows eyes::
I'd put you on my list Tulpa but you're already on it.
I'll just have to give you Double Secret Probation.
My analysis: not a date.
She's supposed to fight over whether you pay if it's a real date.
I'm gonna go with not a date.
Overall it sounds like you behaved in a classy fashion, but there was no date-ness to the encounter, although I could just be misreading your misread of the encounter.
Thing is she's kind of socially awkward. She doesn't seem to be able to maintain eye contact with me or anyone, always glancing around. Luckily she's a first year law student so we had that to talk about and I could keep asking her questions.
I enjoy her company and she is cute, but she's very hard to read.
Try escalating to something unmistakably date-ey like dinner and a movie?
Yeah, I've got a friend who's starring in a musical production and she gave me free tickets. So I'll just wait a few days and ask her if she wants to see that.
NO! Dinner and a movie is so Beta! Someone with Game knows what women subconsciously want is a dude who knows how Alpha males act in nature. So what you must do is take her to a bar. Then, when you spot a rival male, you must rabbit punch him and when he bends forward in pain, you pull down his pants and underwear, mount him and vigorously thrust your penis into his anus, thus establishing your dominance for the whole pack to see.
Don't be a pussy.
As usual, HM's advice is way better than mine.
Tshirt idea:
Don't be a fucking beta,
Fuck a beta!
If you enjoy her company don't rush it. If she continues to go out with you, you continue to pay and she doesn't treat you like you're just a wallet. If it's not breaking your bank, be patient.
Everyone's in a goddamned hurry these days... now now now mine mine mine!
There don't seem to be any rules remaining (if there ever were outside of women's magazines), and I would need to see video or at the least multiple high-res photos of her the night of to determine if she considered it a date. If lipstick, décolletage, perfume, or glitter on clothing or body were present, $20 says it was a date.
Your average woman tends to think about implications of social behavior and how intersexual conduct is interpreted far more than the average man. On average, if a man has any doubt about whether it's a date, it's a date.
But you're not allowed to ask whether it was a date, as that would be insulting and spoil the game.
You may have a point there.
With my third wife it was easy to know we were on a date because she wore her new combat boots. And jumped on me spreadeagled as we got in my car leaving the diner.
If lipstick, décolletage, perfume, or glitter on clothing or body were present, $20 says it was a date.
Black summer dress, hair done, not a lot of makeup, but she obviously put thought into what she was wearing.
I did give her a goodbye hug that she returned.
Ok. But it's not true love until she agrees to bukkake.
That's what I keep telling my prospects, but for some reason I can't seem to get more than 30% of them to agree to a second date. Guess feminism worked and the modern woman just isn't into true love.
I blame the Twilight series.
Are we still talking about bukkake?
When are we not?
That was a date, bro.
Right now she's texting her friends about the hug, and they're debating whether it means you think she's ugly, or whether you're just gay.
When is it not a date? Oh yeah this is a libertarian website ;)
Y'all need some perspective
One second equally our time here since the Earth formed seems excessive. A relative estimate of something like .00001 second, or less, would be more accurate.
Maybe my comprehension is clouded. It's late, sort of. And I've had a little rum, lots.
Are Canadians even allowed to say y'all?
Only if y'all is followed by eh.
Southern canucks can.
So only if they're from Minnesota?
Minnesohhhhtans never say, "eh" or "y'all" unless they're transplants like my wife.
Not sure what the Human Rights Commission ruling was in the matter. Canadians don't move unless a master tells them.
Bookless library opens. This is not a repeat from a Borgias story.
Top Comment: "It can't smell as good as a real library."
With each passing year there will be less humans alive who can relate to that statement until eventually there are none.
Ah yes, the smell of homeless bums reading the morning paper.
Only halfway through, but this is a hell of an interview. Will's an incisive intellect--I always thought it would be entertaining to pit him against Chomsky in a debate and see if the universe implodes from what must be the critical mass of sarcasm and deadpan--and it's fun to watch him and Nick giggle over their Kronstadt-moment mindmeld while Matt fights the urge to scratch his absentee beard in bemusement.
I blame it on having Tank sing the anthem at the Mayweather fight.
I'm Young and I Need Health Insurance: Malik's Story
You're a very strange 23 year old Malik. Do you really think you need health insurance, or are just an operative for HealthCare.gov?
It's going to be great when Malik's employer has to let him go because he can't afford to keep him on the payroll.
Got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, comrade.
19 year old citizen walks neighborhood with rifle; anti-gun hysteria ensues
When you think of a Mexican, Canelo Alvarez is not going to be the first image that pops into your head.
Why it's almost as if Hispanic were a culture, not a race.
Tulpa thinks being a CEO is somehow comparable to governing in a democracy.
Actually, in the modern era, it kinda is.
Most of the regulatory agencies have more than enough legislative authority now to do virtually whatever they want without going back to Congress. Nothing - nothing at all - restrains the EPA now (for example) other than fear of public opinion and litigation. A determined executive who knew what he wanted and was willing to provide leadership could use the regulatory agencies however he chose.
And in terms of dollar outflows in the major human service agencies and for defense and transportation contracts, you give me control of all federal data and 20 guys who know how to write code and I'd brutalize the political and parasite classes so badly that their grandkids would shit their pants when they heard my name.
So the opportunity to govern like a CEO is lying right there. It's just that no one has picked it up. Dubya certainly didn't. As far as I can tell, he spent all his time hanging out in the basement using the Iraq War as his own personal Modern Warfare LAN game.
I think the issue is that our political leadership has no real interest in governing. In either party. They want to win elections, and have no real interests or concerns beyond that.
I remember the cheap shots this guy was writing about Libertarians back around the time of the Ed Clark campaign. I trust him about as much as I'd trust Bob Barr.
Yeah, I owe my current level of happiness to Obama as well, and I don't mean that in a good sense.