September 5, 2008

Paging Joshua Micah Marshall

So. Whaddya think, Josh. Eagleton?

*

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:32pm
257 comments | Trackback

Comments (257)

  1. Oh. Thanks to topsecretk9 in the previous thread?

  2. You don’t need to thank me, thank Joe! :wink:

  3. From what I’ve seen Biden is trying to hang with Baracky like he’s all cool like that but it’s just an awkward spectacle. These people have no chemistry at all that I can see. Baracky is like the server of the month and Biden is the bitter assistant manager that should have left foodservice altogether when he didn’t get promoted 15 years ago.

  4. Comedy central these two. Eddie Murphy and standard white guy.

  5. I’m beginning to feel bad for Baracky as he figures out how completely he’s been played. He’s been trying really hard to get out of the Senate, but now he’s gotta be thinking about how all the other Senators will be laughing at him behind his back in January. And he won’t have an excuse not to be there either.

  6. But I’m the playa, dammit!

  7. He can sit at Senator Kerry’s lunch table I think if Kerry will let him. That would be a nice gesture I think.

  8. Newest, newest smear:

    “Sarah Palin’s Dark Secrets
    by Rick Egusquiza, Michael Glynn and John Blosser

    Sarah Palin is hoping to unite America as John McCain’s vice president, but her own family is divided in a vicious war that is exposing her darkest secrets and threatens to destroy her political career.”

    http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2008/09/full-text-of-sarah-palin-story-in.html

  9. Touche

  10. Can I do a smear please:

    I want DNA to prove that O!’s kids aren’t really Rev. Wrights. Now if possible. You know Michelle liked Wright’s church.
    /smear off

  11. Breaking news:

    O! caught with Ayers in San Fran bath house in 1998.
    /smear off

  12. Dre

    More please.

  13. I’m too lazy to do smears, so I’m just going to roll up stuff to call them on the DMG harlot table.

  14. Obama is a Saucy Tart.

  15. Rats, forgot to say

    “this is political war goddammit and RUMOR IS TRUTH! and TRUTH to POWER!”

    or whatever it is the left says.

  16. dre, please don’t bring their kids into it. We’re better than they are.

  17. The wheels are coming off:

    “Redeemer of mankind can’t stop whining about being “bullied””
    http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=16969

  18. “dre, please don’t bring their kids into it. We’re better than they are.”

    Sorry forgot the /smear /sarc tag

  19. Well, I heard that Governor Palin went back in time to kill the guy who went back in time to kill Hitler.

    True story.

  20. Dre

    I did have quiet the chuckle when the (strong narrator voice) “Todd Palin’s business partner filed a motion to seal his divorce records” boner Andy was sporting again turned out to be that people like Andrew “underwear inspector” Sullivan were harassing his 11 year old son and he’d like to protect him — blew up in the excitable face yet again!

    Andy’s jumped onto more Kosified truther theories in like the last 4 days it is a wonder he draws a paycheck

  21. Obama has a genuine flaw when it comes to women, thats for sure. Don’t know how many journos have sunk their teeth into that aspect, but its absolutely obvious now.

  22. Todd Palin’s business partner filed a motion to seal his divorce records

    like that’s gonna stop O!

  23. Me, I’m glad all this dirt’s coming out. My life is becoming more complete by the hour. It’s amazing how, when you acquire information you didn’t have before, you wonder how you lived without it.

    Like how I think back to my undergrad years and there was no Internet. How DID we manage?

  24. Andrew is a malicious old woman I think but it’s more that he lacks self-respect. I don’t know how to help him.

  25. What’s interesting is that apparently Jake Tapper is the only honest enough to reporter to report Joe Biden’s devout campaigning for McCain.

  26. Actually, I wouldn’t doubt at all if M’chelle was all like “you gonna let this white girl get over on you?” and now O! is getting all “we won’t be bullied!” in result.

    Cherchez la femme when it comes to him, I think.

    OK OK I worked at that smear. I surprise myself, I do.

  27. Jake Tapper would be so fired from NPR. Kind of like Juan Williams but more explicitly.

  28. Ace has been kicking St. Andi’s ass all over the internets for the last week or so. Good times. Good times.

  29. like that’s gonna stop O!

    Well especially when like Obama’s business partner liked pentagon bombings.

  30. Sarah has had a stormy relationship with Bristol, said the family source.

    Okay, this is out now. Stormy relationship with her teenage daughter, people. She’s toast.

    Plus, it’s an unnamed source, which are usually good for stuff like who Bush tortures and stuff.

  31. I thought the we won’t be bullied line was some spooky shit to hear while his media was busy lighting up the crosses in the Palins’ yard.

  32. So, how many points down will O! have to get before Joey B. comes down with a mysterious illness; one that requires that he leave the campaign trail for immediate, lifesaving treatment…

    And then, Hillz-a-poppin !

    He probably got the idea tonight listening to Jon-Bon sing “Livin’ on a prayer“.

    But the yokes on him, Hillz or no, all the PUMA’s can think of is 2012, “A Pantsuit Odyssey…”

  33. Sarah has had a stormy relationship with Bristol, said the family source.

    No! You don’t say! I betcha NO mother to teen daughters have EVER experienced that…. evah.

    (mom of four daughters..and the scars to prove it)

  34. Baracky likes to intimidate and beat up some women, though. Won’t face McCain, nope. He’s old but he can fight, see? Gotta pick your battles wisely is what he learned from community organising.

  35. darn it, Darleen, you beat me to it. but, FTR I was going to use OMG!!!eleventy!!! that like, NEVAR HAPPENS.

  36. He can sit at Senator Kerry’s lunch table I think if Kerry will let him.

    Somebody needs to get his belt and shoelaces if that is the case.

  37. Ayers and Dohrn did more than initiate Barry and Michelle into politics

    /smear

  38. Wowsers its late. kthxbai

  39. $30,800 a plate !!! WTF were they eating; fresh young intern???

    Oh, silly me, that’s Billy Jeff’s fave, and he’s got other engagements, Don’t cha know…

  40. Bob Reed

    Except Slo Joe has been waiting over 30 years for this chance. He’ll have to be dragged, feet first, from the ticket. He will NOT go quietly.

  41. (mom of four daughters..and the scars to prove it)

    I know Darleen. I felt guilty about my insolent little fuck routine I presented to my mom as a teenager just reading it. My mom is a number to be sure, but I was still a little crap. And she loves me and I love her.

  42. Yea, I guess you’re right Darleen. This is the closest Joey will ever get, to getting close to the White House…

    But you know O! m is wishen he had told Michelle to STFU and taken Hillz in the first place…

  43. Bob

    O! may be regreting taking Biden, but he didn’t/doesn’t have the balls to let the Clintons anywhere near his campaign.

  44. Juan Williams was my neighbor on Whittier st. in the Takoma section of the District four doors down back in the day, though that was back in the day he was busy being accused of sexual harassment of a colleague at the Washington Post, so he kinda kept to himself and I didn’t have the balls to be bothering him and shit. Sometimes it seems as though he understands the world. Other times, not so much.

  45. “Except Slo Joe has been waiting over 30 years for this chance. He’ll have to be dragged, feet first, from the ticket. He will NOT go quietly.”

    – He even said so right out with his “I respect McCain completely….I would be honored to run with him or against him.” In other words either ticket, its getting toward sundown in his career.

    – Believe it. Someone in Obama’s camp has a political death wish if they were the source of this idiotic selection. Biden would be a roadside IED for any candidate, let alone one that has zero experience and is running solely on a basis of cult personality and identity politics.

    – Joe is the very embodiment of the Washington good old boy club, except with a mouth big enough to start a farm tractor.

  46. BBH

    Think about this as a measure of the quality of the VP picks

    Sarah is announced spends days being viciously attacked with some of the most bizarre, sexist, bigotted lies, smears, slanders – etc by the Dems and their minions

    Joe is announced and the Republicans are pratically giddy with delight.

    Hmmmm?


  47. Comment by Spies, Brigands, and Pirates on 9/5 @ 10:16 pm #

    dre, please don’t bring their kids into it. We’re better than they are.

    No, you’re not better than they are. Not even close to being as smart, either.

  48. Sdferr

    It’s like he drifts in and out of reality…like this I know to be true, but when I say so, I become not of the “good opinion” of the establishment so I have to drift back into their good graces.

  49. The surprise announcement of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has raised the question of how well she has been vetted. Now it can be revealed, thanks to our reporters doing the work the McCain campaign refused to do.

    When Palin was known as “Sarah Heath”, and a student at Iditarod Elementary in Wassila, she was in fact the only “Sarah” with a surname starting with “H”. The diary of classmate, Amber Tompkins states unequivocally, “Sarah H. has cooties!”

    Democratic strategist Joe Trippi said “Clearly, the McCain campaign didn’t do their homework here. Had they selected a serious running mate, after a proper vetting process, they wouldn’t have this embarrassing situation on their hands.”

    When reached for comment, McCain campaign capo Steve Schmidt looked furtively around, and blurted out “Is Peter Funt out there somewhere?” His failure to deny this serious allegation truly speaks volumes.

  50. That National Enquirer story uses the word “incredible” a lot.

    And unlike Vizzini, I think the Enquirer knows exactly what it means.

  51. Steve Schmidt

    he’s the new Karl Rove, isn’t he?

  52. Michelle Obama’s birth name is Michael Vaughn Robinson. She was born intersexed but decided to be assigned to female gender at age 13. Andrew Sullivan accidently discovered this fact when rummaging through the Obama’s medicine cabinet after excusing himself to the bathroom for a little “relief” and finding female hormones. His attacks demanding Palin’s gynecology records is classic misdirection.

    /smear

  53. so the kittens are reacting to McCain’s biggest campaigner and the reasoning here is just well amazingly good

    This is one of the reasons I want to get Joe Biden off the Judiciary Committee and into the White House. He can’t stop himself from completely undercutting his argument by telling you first what a nice guy he is about to criticize.

    Put the man who can’t stop himself a HEARTBEAT away form the Presidency! (it’s like they think the Presidency like putting someone in the broom closet fer grisssakes – OFF THE JUDICIARY!)

    Courtesy Sage Digby comments

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/4230894262931260743/#795099

  54. Damn thor, you are so right. No difference whatsoever.

    Just people.

    Not smarter nor more virtuous. Are these more wishy? Idealistic?

    Fuck no. Just the same damn meat sticks. Piffling along.

    Do they drink with more gusto? Hardly.

    Know where they’re going? Not without you they don’t. Do they? No, couldn’t be so.

    A lesser breed. A lower species. An altogether less useful type. Why bother with them? Ugh. So beneath the learned, wherever they may be. Oh, for saviors, the world for saviors.

  55. That’s nice, thor.

    Your candidate still whining about getting beaten up by a girl?

  56. “….Not even close to being as smart, either.”

    – So thor-boy. You call whats happening to the laim-brain press right now as blowback from their handling of their viceral hate for a strong, bright, capable women is smart?

    – This could have been the Lefts “RatherGate” moment, and thor is yammering about “smart”.

    – They ran a poll tonight to see what people thought of the varacity of Oprah’s “explaination”. Did they believe it or not. 3% yes, 97% no.

    – The wheels are falling off the “perception” wagon, and thor is standing in the rowboat up to his ass in water, bailing as fast as he can.

  57. Your candidate still whining about getting beaten up by a girl?

    and the whining is rich coming from “100 years of war in Iraq” and “John McCain thinks you have make 5 million to be rich” etc… Sometimes I wonder just how stupid O! thinks we all are.

  58. Two things I think are going on here.

    1) Biden thinks he is actually being smart by preempting any criticism he might receive when he “goes after” McCain/Palin later. He thinks this type of stuff will give him a pass over the next few weeks. Straight Talk meets Tough Love.

    2) Ever the opportunist, Biden is covering his bets buy promoting this book (Nightingale’s Song). It’s not out of the realm of possibilities that he or someone close to him has a financial stake in it.

    Win Win.

  59. “Sometimes I wonder just how stupid O! thinks we all are.”

    – Thats not something we have to wonder about maggie. He told us in San Francisco. We’re all bitter “clingers” if we don’t ascribe to his brand of “Eurothink” elitism.

    – His latest screwup – going on O’Reilly, may be the last stick of dynamite in his political aspirations.

    – Bill is a total flack. Has next to no perception of most of what he “analyses”. But even he was able to make Obama look inexperienced and doubtful. And I’n sure they agreed on the lines not to cross before the interview. The surge discussion was actually painful to watch.

    – I like Obama as a person, but his suit looked even more empty than usual. Hes a nice guy. President? Maybe way down a list of 5,000 people. 10 years under his belt, and hes going to be dynamite. The Left actually did him a great dis-service by running him too soon. Right now, don’t stick a fork in him hes way under cooked.

  60. 1) Biden thinks he is actually being smart by preempting any criticism he might receive when he “goes after” McCain/Palin later. He thinks this type of stuff will give him a pass over the next few weeks. Straight Talk meets Tough Love.

    for some reason, this made me think of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

    BIDEN: Yes, McCain and I have been friends for a long time. He’s a great guy… for me to poop on!

  61. I like Obama as a person, but his suit looked even more empty than usual.

    Yeah, he had a haunted, deer-in-the-headlights look at the beginning of that segment.

  62. Comment by Victor. on 9/5 @ 11:47 pm #

    Occam’s razor…brain fart Ad nauseam

  63. I don’t know why I just can’t stop giggling and fucking giggling at Joe Biden.

    Help me people.

    and I just can’t get this image

    http://flapsblog.com/2006/01/12/samuel-alito-watch-biden-skip-hearings/

    outa my fricken head!

  64. - As if the Obama campaign doesn’t already have enough “problems” to deal with, someone in the campaign leaked the details of the “Eagletoning of Palin” project.

    – They are really scared of her. Panicky might be a better word. But when you look at the fact that shes got more experience than him, and hes at the top of the Dems ticket, that shes a smart, able, and accomplished Conservative woman, with a barn burning record to run on that embarrasses their own candidate, she simply represents their worst nightmare.

    – Every attack will leave them standing there with a tiger behind the door, and a very large spear square between their own shoulder blades.

    – Must be damned interesting around O! headquarters these days.

  65. BBH

    - Must be damned interesting around O! headquarters these days.

    They can’t even butch the bitch up! He’s whining about that bully chick.

  66. - Which is the kiss of death for Obama if he takes that bait. He puts himself in the position of running against Palin, and its all over.

    – Kirsten Powers pointed out that Obama is already masking a mistake by letting the McCain people pull him off the change message over to the experience message, which is a loser for them.

    – I noticed today that O! was trying to veer back to the changiness theme, but the “hopiness” is not being deployed as much.

    – I think McCains line “change is not a plan, and hope is not a strategy” has left a mark.

  67. Comment by dre on 9/5 @ 10:05 pm #

    Newest, newest smear:

    Give it a few minutes. I’m sure there are more smears on the pipelinr.

    I hate to say it, because I usually just sit here and fume (and post), but thank you, Sarah – I am in their faces with the truth. Many can’t even concieve of it, but I actually turned a KosRhoid the other day. Even a lot of those morons are wondering what the hell Obama is doing.

    Obama is a total moron (as are his “campaign managers”), and appears determoned to show the whole world what a venal, low-life piece of shit he is. (Damn! I promised myself I would never write like a KosRhoid. Well, at least it was only myself that I promised).

    Go, Obama, go!

    Keep putting out those FUCKING LIES, you assholes! If Palin gets dropped, I will write her name in, and starve to get everyone I canm to do the same.

    Obama’s campaign is full of crap and lyong assholes (mostly on the MSM), even bigger lying assholes than Bill Clinton’s was.

    We need to all get on this personally, and ridicuke these pieces of shit who are willing to say or do anything to destroy Sarah Palin and her family. And I am talking on a personal level, not on the web.

    More Dems than you can believe are ready to flip.

    Fuck them! I hope there are a lot more people like me, who haven’t said a public word but wonder if Gore and Kerry, who are going to get in the face of ANYONE who dares, repeat these horseshit lies.

    The left is left speechless when you hit back, instead of slinking away.

    I’m there. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THESE FREE SPEECH BULLIES! I am in these stupid blank faces from now on, and I hope there are others will join me. Iven the left is starting to realize what a lame, lying, piece of nut house that Obama is.

    I am not backong down anymore. What the left has tried to do to Sarah Palin is absolutely despicable!

    Just stand up and tell the truth to these left wing zombies. Don’t back down. I guarantee I won’t ever back down again in the face of these leftist socialist zombies that fill out the left, and lust for control of others brains.

    That’s what America has always been about, but we have always been taught to “work it out”. Too bad for us Neanderthals, eh?

    Obama’s Song (Actually, “RE: Your brains”)

    “All we want is eat your brains
    We aren’t being unreasonable,
    No one wants to eat your eyes.

    All we want is to eat youe brains
    I think we’re at an impasse here
    Maybe we could compromise?”

    (Jonathan Coulter, again!)

  68. OOPS!

    Jonarhan Coulton

  69. BBH

    Obama went straight back to the deck. He’s different and black he says they will say he is.

  70. Yup.

    I am a hillbilly! How about: “Jonathan” instead of that thor-ish thing that actually makes me feel like I am escorting the Messiah myself, because I am so smart!

    SMERT! SMIRT! SMYRT! SMARF!

  71. - Apparently the Obama campaign is already free-flow bleeding enough from this really stupid attack plan on Palin thor, something you seem to be still unaware of.

    “Obama spokesman Bill Burton, asked to respond to Gutman’s remarks, said “Obviously these comments do not reflect our frequently stated views that families of the candidates should be off limits.””

    – Now which is it. Does Obama think this sort of approach is a good one, and therefore every candidate, including MEN, should be accepted or rejected on some PC opinion about how, and if, they can conduct their own family affairs?

    – BYW. The Palins seem to be unaware of the “family crisus” that the Left is trying so hard to sell. Maybe the Obama people should call them and tell them about it.

    – I can’t tell you how much I hope the legacy media, and Obama surrogates keep chomping on this bone.

  72. OK.

    This time I mean it! My Swiffer is singing “baby Come Back”, so I’m gonna go see if it is serious, or just teasing me.

    Hasta vagina (or swiffer, as the case may be).

  73. OK, I wasn’t so sold that the Kwame Bling Brother Mayor resigning would have that much effect even though they are runing ads now there since Obama praised him as a reformer (Kwame seems more like a community organizer though)

    and looks like the city council, including Judiciary chairman’s wife, soon to be Council president, Monica Conyers is about to be invited in to the grand jury –

    http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/17404351/detail.html

    the lady mentioned here was the first to be approached and apparently they have Monica on surveillance taking the money in person envelop style aka WORSE than Abramoff style.

  74. Geez guys — Thor’s just highlighting the 1.5’s duplicity.

    Double speak. We love children! (ice pick at Piper’s throat)

  75. Wait, Joe said

    “And there was a place literally down on the docks, where Zorba lived I think, and so I had to go to the fancy thing and I come back down and I find it, and we’re wandering through these alleys on the dock — you’re gonna get very angry at this Jill — but I walk around the corner and there’s these cement tables like down at the shore you know, the cement base ,the cement table, and I walk in and Jill and John are standing up on the table drinking ouzo dancing with one another, and I’m thinking, ‘I’ve never trusted John since then, Jillie.’

    but on 60 minutes last week he said he does not drink

    “I’m the one… [that] doesn’t drink,” Biden pointed out.

    / it’s something that needs to be aired and explored, of course

  76. How does this compare with the MSM reaction to John Edwards decision to run for the Presidency while his wife was suffering from cancer and raising children?

    Seems like a real dissonance here.

    I know that outlets like MSNBC praised Elizabeth Edwards at every opportunity for having the unnatural strength that allowed John to “run off” to his auditions, while she managed a household, parented the kids and fought cancer. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!!

  77. Heh

    I’m actually reading the 60 transcript that no one listened to because God was busy loving Democrats by hitting New Orleans with a hurricane, but dang! what a goldmine missed

    “Well, one of the reasons that I love Joe and one of the reasons I think he’s going to be such an effective vice president is he’s blunt when he’s right, and he’s blunt when he’s wrong.

    No comment.

  78. How does this compare with the MSM reaction to John Edwards decision to run for the Presidency while his wife was suffering from cancer and raising children?

    Victor

    The deciders are just pissed. The deciders are trowing a temper tantrum ala Jennings.

    They didn’t ever in the wildest imagination (which is pretty limited) think the Maverick would have the stones to pick a viable, resonate candidate that would disrupt their O! party. They just knew it would be a boring pick and so they were having the time of their life covering their ONE.

    In fact, the “McCain didn’t pick the base favorite for political expediency and deeply ingrained sexism, because her daughter was pregnant” stories were already in the pipeline I am sure.

    Couple that with the fact that angry fem journo nazi’s don’t like it when women have a gaggle of children, raise them, make PB and J’sbring home the bacon to a diaper changing studmuffin fisherman with a twinkle in the eye and smile too? Their very victim martyr mantra is erased in a nano-second. They belittle stay at hoe moms. They have nanny’s for their adult vacations.Sara Palin LIKES to juggle both. They hate it.

    Also, the many democrat metro-pussies men married to them, they have to question their pussification..it’s messy and mind blowing.

  79. …he’s blunt when he’s right, and he’s blunt when he’s wrong.

    Well, that’s interesting. I just had a Democrat friend (and favorite bartender) who’s been a Hillary supporter say almost that exact same thing to me about an hour ago. Talking points, perhaps?

  80. sean M

    But tell me why being blunt, right or wrong, is an asset

    Does it mean he’s wrong alot, but blunt — Boy, I just fucked up again! I mean, I really fucked up again by golly!

    or does it mean he’s blunt when he JUST HAPPENS to be right “I fucking told you I was right, I told you, I knew it, knew it, knew it – told you”

    or does it mean that Biden doesn’t know what the fuck he’s saying, but if it turns out to be wrong or right he’s just blunt about it?

    I don’t get it.

  81. Comment by Topsecretk9 on 9/6 @ 3:12 am

    I think it’s pretty much the former. She basically claimed that when he was wrong, he would stick to his statements. I don’t think she necessarily thought that was a good thing. Just that he was tenacious, either way.

    She doesn’t like Palin, but she admitted that picking her was a great move. She’s the kind of lib who likes to talk politics without demonizing her opponents, so I love shooting the shit with her.

  82. Pingback: Tennesseefree.com » Joe Biden praises John McCain (much to the chagrin of Democrats). Is Hillary ready, waiting to take over for the soon-to-be- rapidly sinking Obama?

  83. I think the being blunt thing is to explain away all of the insults that he will make in the future – like the next time he goes into a 7-11 and calls the clerk ‘Apu’ and asks if his god would like a peanut.

    Joe Biden is what happens when Homer Simpson becomes a senator.

  84. “blunt” — the other word for Biden is “obtuse”. They’d prefer not to use it.

    Regards,
    Ric

  85. Anecdotal evidence of the day. My bro’s MIL has never voted for a Republican. Liberal to the bone. She’s voting for McCain because she’s so impressed by Saracuda and is now working on my sil to do the same.

  86. The Obama campaign just released their latest slogan:

    “Kinder, Küche und Kirche”

    It’ll go viral. Just you wait and see.

  87. What’s the over/under on the obligatory “Secession if McCain Wins- have your Jesus Land” talk?

  88. BBH, sorry, but I must disagree. I don’t care if it’s 10 years, or 10,000, that closet Commie douchenozzle Obama should never be allowed within 20 miles of the WH. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying it could not happen. Given the dumbing down of the US populace (that he is even occupying the position he has now speaks volumes on that score), it’s quite possible he could end up POTUS in a few years. But he would still be an unmitigated disaster for the country.

  89. “Given the dumbing down of the US populace (that he is even occupying the position he has now speaks volumes on that score), it’s quite possible he could end up POTUS in a few years.”

    I’ve got a question for you, sir. Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how much of the U.S. population believes in witchcraft?

  90. >>What’s the over/under on the obligatory “Secession if McCain Wins- have your Jesus Land” talk?

    This is probably the first election where both sides have that going.
    For example, if McCain loses, I’m moving to Alaska.

  91. #90

    – Who said anything about POTUS. I picture him as the heir apparent for Senator anvilhead.

  92. OT:

    I see where some of the left are apoplectic over the video presentation containing the 9-11 footage at the RNC, and others noting that the parts containing uniformed soldiers were fake, stock film made with actors not real soldiers.

    They must be slipping though, I can’t find anyone denouncing the use of all those American Flags- cause that shit was just wayyy out of bounds!

  93. Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 9/6 @ 7:13 am #

    #90

    – Who said anything about POTUS. I picture him as the heir apparent for Senator anvilhead.

    ******

    OK. I can live with that.

  94. Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/6 @ 7:09 am #

    “Given the dumbing down of the US populace (that he is even occupying the position he has now speaks volumes on that score), it’s quite possible he could end up POTUS in a few years.”

    I’ve got a question for you, sir. Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how much of the U.S. population believes in witchcraft?

    *********

    C’mon, Brownie. Surely you have something approaching a point, aside from the blindingly obvious one.

  95. So.. Let me get this straight: Obama is calling Sarah Palin a big bully? Well, isn’t that just precious.

    What’s he gonna do, send his brownshirts after her?

  96. Palin IS a big bully!

    She sentenced Yukon Cornelius to 20 years hard fkn labor in a peppermint mine!

    She banished the Misfit Toys to a barren island to fend for themselves!

    Palin?! More like Stalin!

  97. “C’mon, Brownie. Surely you have something approaching a point, aside from the blindingly obvious one.”

    So… I’m not sure if you’re saying that I don’t have a point or if you’re saying that my point is too readily understandable, but at any rate, let’s skip this whole conversation.

    “What’s he gonna do, send his brownshirts after her?”

    Probably! Because he’s a Nazi and he has brownshirts!

  98. - Nanuck of the North meets Metro-effete-man.

    – “Call of the Soccermom” – (a sequel to Blazing saddles)

    – Except in this one, hes the one that ends up tied to the railroad tracks.

  99. Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/6 @ 7:54 am #

    “C’mon, Brownie. Surely you have something approaching a point, aside from the blindingly obvious one.”

    So… I’m not sure if you’re saying that I don’t have a point or if you’re saying that my point is too readily understandable, but at any rate, let’s skip this whole conversation.

    **************

    Oh puleeeze. Brownie, you are such a pussy. You come in with some nonsense about witchcraft, get Bear Slapped for your trouble (I have little patience for rhetorical games) and are now going to go off in a huff. Poor pussito.

    And to answer your question, no. I have not. But after you asked, I did a quick net search, and apparently the number of people in the US who believe in witchcraft is somewhere between .1 and .3% of the population.

  100. She runs a fkn police state!

  101. Probably! Because he’s a Nazi and he has brownshirts!

    Obama a National Socialist? That shoe fits pretty well, doesn’t it?

  102. ‘Course after Palin’s speech he now has brown shorts..

  103. And let’s not forget O!’s desire to establish a national security force on an equal footing with the US military. The Nazi brownshirt/shorts types LOOOOOVE that sort of thing.

  104. [Sob!] Poor Nanuck. He was paddling his kayak way up north in the Arctic Ocean when a storm blew in. He knew he had to act fast or he would freeze, so he built a little fire. The fire burned a hole in the bottom of the kayak and it sunk. He drowned. Proving once again that you can’t have your kayak and heat it too..

  105. “Oh puleeeze. Brownie, you are such a pussy.”

    Okay, we’ll table that allegation for the moment until such time as we can define our terms.

    “You come in with some nonsense about witchcraft…”

    I asked you a question which you didn’t originally answer so much as dismiss. Apparently, I was “Bear Slapped” in the process. I am very ashamed.

    “I have little patience for rhetorical games”

    … but plenty of patience for name calling.

    “And to answer your question, no. I have not. But after you asked, I did a quick net search, and apparently the number of people in the US who believe in witchcraft is somewhere between .1 and .3% of the population.”

    Actually, it’s more like twenty percent according to several polls conducted by Ipsos, the AP, and Time.

    “Obama a National Socialist? That shoe fits pretty well, doesn’t it?”

    Yes, very good. That is a link to a series of web pages in which Obama supporters are referred to as brown shirts by Godwin enthusiasts. A winner is you!

  106. Very good, Brownie! You’ve proved you can follow a link. Now read what some of those folks have to say about the tactics of Obama’s supporters and come pack and tell us they don’t act like browshirts.

    Putz.

  107. let’s skip this whole conversation.

    Another lie from Brownie, there’s a real shock.

  108. - Obama said yesterday “…[that] can’t be the reason you don’t vote for me….Your guns….don’t worry…..we aren’t going to mess with them.”.

    – Axelrod must bounce back and forth between Valium and Four Roses.

  109. Axelrod’s probably been huffing kittens again.

  110. “Another lie from Brownie, there’s a real shock.”

    A lie is a willful misstatement of fact. What exactly did I lie about? And what other lies have I been telling, Javert?

  111. Speaking of which, I’ve got to got to brunch with the MIL. I could use a couple kittens myself right now.

  112. “Very good, Brownie! You’ve proved you can follow a link. Now read what some of those folks have to say about the tactics of Obama’s supporters and come pack and tell us they don’t act like browshirts.”

    Okay. They don’t act like brownshirts. Brownshirts had a tendency to assault people in the street, smash out the windows of Jewish shopkeepers, and otherwise use violence to achieve their political goals.

  113. Oh, God. Barrett, not again.

  114. Because someone ignorant of the facts can’t really be accused of lying!!

  115. Ric said it better than I ever could.

    I don’t know whether the leftoids have actually studied Dr. Goebbels’s work, or if they’re just reinventing the wheel, but they’ve got the basic structure down pat: Lie. When challenged, change the subject, preferably derailing the discussion onto irrelevant details. When that gets firmly wrapped around the axle, re-tell the original lie, louder. The truly golden opportunity comes when they’re insulted, because that provides an opening to lose the original subject entirely and substitute discussion of the ancestry, philosophy, and personal hygiene of the people involved — and that, in turn, feeds their egos enormously.

    Note, too, that every really useful lie contains a grain of truth. When challenged on a lie, pick out that irrelevant detail and pound on it. The old saw about lawyers fits: When the Law is against you, pound the facts. When the facts are against you, pound the Law. When the Law and the facts are against you, pound the table.

    http://proteinwisdom.com/pub/wp-trackback.php?p=1423

    So Brownie, unless you have a point, and wish to offer it up, all you bring is lies.

  116. And throwing feces isn’t really assault!!

  117. And smashing the windows of Starbucks? That’s political theater!!

  118. “So Brownie, unless you have a point, and wish to offer it up, all you bring is lies.”

    Unless you can point to a lie, all you bring is libel.

  119. So sue me.

    About as much chance of that as you actually making a point though.

  120. “And smashing the windows of Starbucks?”

    Are you referring to the Seattle riots? Those were a strain of anarchists, not Democrats. You can actually see the clips of who did it. The other, more mainstream protesters were screaming at them to stop.

  121. “About as much chance of that as you actually making a point though.”

    I can’t sue you for libel and I wouldn’t if I could, as I really have nothing against you even though you seem to despise me for some reason or another. Again, though, I wonder if you feel any shame for calling someone a liar and then declining to point out any lies when asked.

  122. You know why I’m calling you out on your lies, and you know that I’ve linked back to the threads containing your lies. You also know other people on that thread called you on it too.

    Do a search if you feel the need.

  123. If nishi and thor are to be banned for hijacking every thread they participate in and making it about themselves, why does Barrett get an exemption? Frankly I find him much more tedious and boring.

  124. 126 is addressed to the commenters, not JG.

  125. Some, seem to think there’s hope for this one. Perhaps time will tell. Socializing a lefty is alot like potty training a two year old.

  126. I don’t make the thread about myself, Mr. Moe. Go back and read this one, for instance. Someone made a point to the effect that only a decline in education can explain the possibility that Obama might be president. I asked a question that was intended to make a point. And then people started insulting me as usual, with one brilliant fellow explaining to me that I have just been “Bear Slapped,” which is very disconcerting since I have no idea what that entails or if I might die from that or what. Nonetheless, I am trying to discuss whether or not Obama’s supporters are actually brownshirts, and then, of course, you write a comment about how I’m hijacking the thread.

  127. Barrett isn’t a lefty, that is where you guys keep fucking up when you engage him. His only point is he is smarter than you, and he uses sophomoric debating tricks to try to prove that to himself. All he is really proving is that a lot of you guys didn’t have debate in high school.

  128. * Watching paint dry.

    * Reading the telephone book like its a novel.

    * Counting the number of thorns on your rose bushes.

    * Waiting for Obama to take an “unchanging” position on any issue.

    * Adding up the number of words Barrett has typed in the lat 5 we4eks that actually say anything.

    – One of these things is exactly like all the rest. Press hard, and use only black ink. When time expires, close the folder, and hand it to the instructor.

  129. Okay, I’ll leave if I’m not wanted. Have fun agreeing with each other!

  130. Someone made a point to the effect that only a decline in education can explain the possibility that Obama might be president. I asked a question that was intended to make a point.

    Then make the point. Ignore the distractions and make your point. It really isn’t that difficult.

  131. Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how much of the U.S. population believes in witchcraft?

    I’m not totally sure where your snark is aimed, there. “Believes in witchcraft” covers a lot of ground; Rule #1 applies.

    There are a lot of Christians who “believe in” witches, magicians, and other magic workers — I don’t have the New Testament verse at hand, but one Gospel mentions a magician, and tells people to ignore him. Mainstream Christians, including most Evangelicals, believe that all miracles (defined as reversals of entropy, whatever the details) come from God. A magic worker can therefore fall into one of three categories:

    — God providing lessons for Christians, á lá Job (very rare);
    — People exploiting a heretofore obscure feature of the Creation, i.e. scientists and/or clever engineers;
    — Charlatans.

    On the other hand, I have a number of acquaintances who are subscribers to one or another version of Wicca and could therefore be characterized as “believing in witches”, although that’s a trivialization. Of the sample before me, one hundred percent are also fully-paid-up members of the BDS Brigade, and are either full-throated Obama partisans or disaffected Hillaryites, with the latter probably a slim majority.

    None of the people I know, either in person or via the Web, who believe in witches also think that significant portions of public policy should be based on witchcraft. (This is not to say that there are none; in a population of three hundred million with a reasonably-sized sigma, there are a lot of weirdos lurking under the wings of the distribution.) There are, however, a remarkable number of people of my acquaintance who fully subscribe to pre-agricultural zero-sum economics, either under the rubric of “socialism” or as “hard money” libertarians, and not only wish but demand that public policy be based entirely upon it. Compared to that, a belief in witchcraft is merely a benign eccentricity.

    Regards,
    Ric

  132. I’ll leave if I’m not wanted.

    Be honest now.

  133. This is a comment board, Barrett. It moves fast sometimes, and you can’t hang a question out there and actually wait for the person to answer it like you would in normal conversation.

    Ask the question, then tell us the answer, then explain its significance in one post.

  134. Barrett isn’t a lefty

    You may very well be correct. Perhaps if Barrett chose to offer something of substance he would actually render the assertion debatable.

  135. All he is really proving is that a lot of you guys didn’t have debate in high school.

    Really? That’s the kind of crap debate classes teaches you?

    What a waste of money, brains, and time.

  136. and others noting that the parts containing uniformed soldiers were fake, stock film made with actors not real soldiers.

    If they used present serving soldiers they would be bitching it was in violation of some arcane act yada yada…all liberals do is bitch. Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch.

  137. That’s the kind of crap debate classes teaches you?

    Competitive debate is about winning. You argue an assigned position with no regards to your personal belief. A common tactic, especially in situations where the facts may not be on your side, is to derail the debate into meaningless side topics and quibbles about definitions and distract your opponent to the point he fails to make his case. In the real world, or the blog world, it is mostly handy in teaching you to recognize the tactics.

  138. In a single debate that may be an acceptable tactic. The problem occurs when such tactics are employed in the long format of a blog and its comment section.

  139. “Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how much of the U.S. population believes in witchcraft?”

    – Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how many members of the Democratic Senate believes that the government could effectively run the nations entire healthcare system when they can’t even keep the Capital building bathrooms stocked in toilet paper?

    – Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how many members of the American electorate think that the future depends on men fucking men, drive up abortion clinics, and Uncles marrying their Nieces?

  140. Barrett isn’t a lefty

    Something tells me Barrett’s opinion of Barrett means having his own party.

    Libel!

  141. Or, slander!

  142. Oh shit y’all.

    @ Politico:

    As for the men in the audience, they were excited to see Palin in person, too, if for different reasons. “She’s good-looking,” exclaimed Scott Kennison, drawing playful rolls of the eyes from the women surrounding him in Cedarburg.

    This is the first instance I’ve seen of my recommended anti-Palin strategy — replace her image with the image of her-as-seen-by-her-male-fans, caricatured as groupies — in action. At her first public appearance, too.

    It’s not as subtle as it should be. The instruction to women — how to react to men liking Palin (which they’ll inevitably transfer to Palin herself) — is too blatant. No female eyeroll, especially in a group, is “playful,” for one. That’s just transparent.

    But it’ll work, if it catches on.

  143. - psycho. I’d like to have a penny for every male that thought he could maneuver a determined female away from her intended goal, much less an entire group of females.

    – Sleeping in the fucking garage is no way to go through life.

  144. I’ll leave if I’m not wanted.

    It isn’t about you or your ego. Really.

  145. I’ll leave if I’m not wanted.

    – Its hard to say. Have you ever posted anything?

  146. #146 BBH:

    The female of the species is deadlier than the male is a cliche for a reason. I.E.: a mother bear and her cubs, getting between.

  147. ““Another lie from Brownie, there’s a real shock.”

    A lie is a willful misstatement of fact. What exactly did I lie about?”

    That you’re not a pussy.

  148. Oh.

    “A lie is a willful misstatement of fact.”

    Not according to tthe fascist left in this country.

  149. “Brownshirts had a tendency to assault people in the street, smash out the windows of Jewish shopkeepers, and otherwise use violence to achieve their political goals.”

    Yep, sounds like your run of the mill reactionary leftist to me.

  150. Okay, I’ll leave if I’m not wanted. Have fun agreeing with each other!

    FWIW, which is probably not much, I don’t particularly care whether you choose to stay or go, Barrett. You tend to bring more snark than actual discussion, and there’s not really enough of the actual discussion that makes me think I’ll either miss you or wish you gone. Mostly I wish that you’ll bring better, more direct and more courteous points. That last, because I don’t think you’ll find that you can out-rude most of the regulars.

    Not that you asked outright, but there was a sort of implicit consensus-seeking quality to your parting shot.

  151. BB, why not just make the point? The hyperliteralism and attempted logic-traps fail.

  152. Oh, and if Barrett thinks we all agree on…well, much of anything, he hasn’t been paying attention. I know that BBH and I have wrangled on for the better part of a couple-hundred-comment thread in the past, and I’ve probably gotten into it with a few others, some of which don’t come around here much anymore.

    Vercingtorix, for instance. I like the guy, but he’s almost always turned up to 11.

  153. psycho is smart. Barrett is still finding his PW voice I think. Me I can be patient.

  154. I don’t know how to better explain it…John McCain is the nicest, most sincere man to ever bang my wife. Me included. Now let me talk for a couple of hours in front of this campaign sign for some guy I met the other day.

  155. You shouldn’t bang Joe Biden’s wife, Johnny. My mother banged Joe Biden’s wife once.

    Once.

  156. Uh oh. I have done the eyeroll.

  157. Is Verc still on the intarwebs, I hadn’t seen that name used in some time?

  158. - Sarah- Am I right or am I right. My mother didn’t raise any stupid kids.

    – I so want the Left to keep gnawing on this “get Palin” chew toy.

  159. I saw Vercingetorix a couple of weeks ago on a righty blog I hadn’t visited before. Can’t come up with the blogname at the moment.

  160. Re:
    BBH #45 & #64

    “Someone in Obama’s camp has a political death wish

    someone in the campaign leaked the details of the “Eagletoning of Palin” project.”

    Since the Clintons have had a (inter)national political machine for at least 16 years and Obama is new, albeit having the Chicago machine’s help, it has always been my belief that Bill & Hill have operatives inside the Obama campaign. Little nudges are all that are needed to blowup the Obama campaign.

  161. I’m hungover and incapable of putting together a thought-out post today, but I do wish to save several things: 1) Barrett is a libertarian and, though he has a nishi-esque revulsion to flying spaghetti monster worshippers in the abstract, on a personal level he seems a very nice guy. He’s also funny. I like him.

    Having said that, he does, as a style here, bring a kind of haughty defensiveness to both his attacks and rebuttals. Much like Hubris, who for whatever reason drives me totally fucking insane.

    But I am genuinely interested to hear BB’s views. If only he’d state them more straightforwardly, at least at the beginning, I think he’d find the reception to be a little less uninviting.

    Ric sussed your point about witchcraft, Barrett, and supplied an oblique answer to your oblique question. I’d like to hear your response — as well as a more direct response to Cave Bear: has the American electorate been dumbed down? I tend to think they have been — that our educational system is designed, in some ways, to produce little “progressives” these days. Probably overstating things, but, as I’m hungover, I may as well go balls to the wall provocative.

    TODAY I AM JOE BIDEN!

  162. And the wheels on the bus come off and off…

  163. I think Slow Joe will last thru Oct 2, after which he will suddenly come down with a non-life threatening disease that will force him to retire from the race.

  164. I’d not dislike the guy, except that one someone was pressing him on one of his B.S. statements rather than a usual dodge he chose to try and pass it off on me, by name. I was AFK at the time, but JHoward was there and did call him on it. I later confonted him, but he descended into litigate the points mode.

    So, yeah I am tired of his schtick. If he changes his schtick I’d back off.

  165. #153 Slart:

    A couple of days ago there was a post and comment thread on Future Combat Systems. You said something and (I got to the thread late) I dropped in a comment stating that not all new ideas in weapons pan out, and I cited the magnetic influence pistol for torpedoes. I didn’t provide links, but a quick search would reveal information on the subject.

    Now, my comment wasn’t a deep, thoughtful comment, but I gave enough support (I think) to my comment that if anyone wanted to address it it could be addressed on the merit of what I said. I didn’t drop a snark and a link, (when I snark I am not being serious) I provided what I thought was enough support for that comment.

    That, I think, is what Barrett is missing. Write the comment with enough argument in the comment to support the opinion, citing through a link as necessary if the information supporting the opinion is new or obscure. And if it is just your take on an event, then expect one heck of a scrum as everyone here has an opinion about the meaning of an event.

    My opinion, have at it.

  166. When someone, not one someone.

  167. #160 ThomasD:

    I think Verc had a dust-up with a guy named Gaius a while back. Didn’t go so good.

  168. #161 BBH:

    - I so want the Left to keep gnawing on this “get Palin” chew toy.

    Like I want thor and nishi/matoko/qu…whatever to search out a larger audience.

  169. Anyone got a link to the Engleton project?

  170. Jeff, I’d turn your argument just slightly and say that the education system has been tweaked to generate, not so much progressives (really don’t need too many of those), as to generate those who will be dependent on what progressivism ‘offers.’ Building the market, as it were.

  171. Does taking Yager shots at 1 AM last night make me a bad person?

  172. I killed a bottle of wine AND a martini last night. But, with enough water, and a few tylenol before I went to bed … I was pretty much ok this morning.

  173. And, I get a bit of a kick out of BB. But, in most of his comments, he appears to be smirking at us.

  174. No Tylenol after wine. You have mere hours to live.

  175. I think most people can safely live their entire lives without tylenol. Ibuprofen is my paincrusher of choice.

  176. ut oh.

    I’m not supposed to take tylenol anyway (the one kidney thing), but honestly – I’ll do anything to avoid a hangover.

    And, FTR, martinis are the grossest things ever. Blech. All my years of making ‘em as a bartender … but, just yuck. Reminds me when I tried a Rusty Nail, because I always thought they smelled so good.

  177. You know, it may have been ibupofren … I get those names mixed up (acetaminaphin and ibuprofen.) No, I think I’m safe.

  178. Barrett Brown is (or seems to me) a libertarian of the “pox on all your houses, and your little dog too” school. I’ve been quite disappointed in several commenters’ responses to him, especially when they seem to regard him as simply a better-spoken version of thor the nihilist. Since I’ve leaned that way for as long as I can remember, but regard the absolute version as the ultimate in simplisme, I don’t have much trouble figuring out where he’s “coming from”.

    To be fair to the commenters, the Left’s pejorative versions of Iraq, the War on Terror, “eavesdropping on citizens”, and a number of other issues have considerable (perhaps deliberate) similarity to those of absolutist libertarians on the same subjects. If you skim Barrett’s posts, or don’t stop to think about the terms of discourse, it’s easy to misperceive what his argument is all about. Unfortunately Barrett also has a conviction of his own intelligence and essential Rightness that rivals nishi’s, so when a response is out of line he comes back with sneers and snark instead of explaining what he’s about. MikeyNTH has the right advice for him, but BBH and JD (in particular) need to stop and think a moment before expostulating. The absolutist libertarian position can be a little tough to assimilate if you don’t share it, but it’s worth listening to even if you don’t agree.

    Regards,
    Ric

  179. Okay, I’ll leave if I’m not wanted. Have fun agreeing with each other!

    I know JUST the debate; Welfare and FATHER’S RIGHTS. That one always warms my heart.

  180. Candor, in both the present day and obsolete meanings, is what BB needs to engage others in his ideas.

  181. Good luck with that, SarahW.

    The fundamental basis of the libertarian philosophy is that Government is wrong from the get-go and cannot be mended. Libertarians soon discover that this is a very difficult concept for most people, almost all of whom expect to get something out of Government — security for conservatives, social work for “progressives” — and end up being defensive, sarcastic, or some combination when discussing it.

    Barrett Brown is from the far end of that distribution, whence emanates the notion that since Government is always wrong it is bootless to discuss differences among types or varieties of Government. From his POV, simply taking a side between two competing forms of Government is sufficient to make you foolish, at best. It isn’t possible to choose the lesser of two evils because the evil is so deep-rooted as to render it a distinction without a difference. He thus finds advocacy of any candidate as sneerworthy as that for any other.

    Regards,
    Ric

  182. On candor:

    “Mazarin never told lies, but always deceived you; Metternich always tells lies, but never deceives you.”

    ~ Talleyrand

  183. The absolutist libertarian position can be a little tough to assimilate if you don’t share it, but it’s worth listening to even if you don’t agree.

    Ric, I was the one who cut and pasted your description in this thread, if you don’t think much of Barret’s actions fit the bill then I’ll gladly stand corrected.

    And I’d honestly like to hear someone make a stand in favor of libertarianism. Not because I stand ready to refute it point by point, but because it would be nice to hear someone honestly representing himself instead of playing trollish games.

  184. So, Ric, What does he advocate? Or does he merely criticie everything? Sniping at whatever either side does?

  185. #182 Ric Locke:

    Praise from you is praise indeed. “I can live for two months on a good compliment.” – Mark Twain

  186. How can anyone possibly believe BB is a libertarian? Does he not advocate for statist candidates here on a continual basis?

    I understand libertarians having problems with the foreign policy of conservatives, but I would think they would be repulsed by any democrat domestic policy you could name, save legalizing drugs.

  187. #185 Ric Locke: I have always thought that the true libertarian novel was Robinson Crusoe.

  188. From his POV, simply taking a side between two competing forms of Government is sufficient to make you foolish, at best. It isn’t possible to choose the lesser of two evils because the evil is so deep-rooted as to render it a distinction without a difference. He thus finds advocacy of any candidate as sneerworthy as that for any other.

    And yet his sneers are reserved for only one side.

    His method of “discussion” is childish, dishonest, and seems more intent on starting fires than spreading light. Someone truly interested in engaging and persuading doesn’t spit on people who dislike his tone, but rather moderates his tone to something the audience finds less offensive.

    Barrett’s a lot like Semanticleo — he spouts something arch and impenetrable, that doubtless seems extremely apropos and witty to him, then unleashes a tirade of insults when someone fails to get it.

  189. What’s interesting is that apparently Jake Tapper is the only honest enough to reporter to report Joe Biden’s devout campaigning for McCain.

    McCain needs to call Biden and hint at a nice, juicy Cabinet position in a McCain administration.

  190. Does he [Barrett Brown --ed] not advocate for statist candidates here on a continual basis?

    I think you need to look back at his posts a bit, Log Cabin. What I see him doing is presenting a statist position and equating it to some position advocated from “our side” of the debate — that is, saying that the details may be different but the positions are morally and practically indistinguishable. If he is repulsed by a policy of Democrats, he is equally repulsed by those of Republicans, because they both proceed from an ideal of Government and are thus equally vile.

    And yes, Carin, “sniping at whatever either side does” perfectly fits the case. If you win the rat race, you’re still a rat. It is a position often taken by those libertarians who choose to argue in public. I consider it self-defeating, but others obviously don’t agree.

    I don’t have time to fully state the libertarian argument, but all libertarianism proceeds from some version of the Non-Aggression Principle: Use of force or violence to gain a benefit, or to impose your will, is always morally wrong. The competing principle is the Unforced Exchange: when an uncoerced trade occurs, both sides profit. In that view the fundamental principle of all Government is coercion, and Government is therefore always morally vile. From there it splits into anarchists, who hold that Government should be eliminated because it cannot be made morally good, and minarchists like myself, who hold that it is sometimes necessary to choose between different levels of vileness; and from there it further splits into n! factions, where n = the number of libertarians present.

    Regards,
    Ric

  191. thanks ric, I now have a greater appreciation of where our latest sooper jeenyus is coming from. He’s not a leftist.

    He’s still amazingly dishonest and otherwise trollish in his behavior.

  192. And yet his [Brown's -- ed] sneers are reserved for only one side.

    That’s because he perceives this discussion as being advocacy for one side. I haven’t followed him around the Net, but if he were to post on a leftoid blog I would expect the commenters there to perceive him as an arch-reactionary.

    As I say, I don’t approve of the tactic, but it’s a fairly common one for those of that philosophy.

    Regards,
    Ric

  193. Ric’s opinion of Barrett’s position is interesting. (Barrett bugs me because of the reasons cited in the thread — and because as someone who also abhors social government, he lets our side down.)

    So, in short, what is the label for someone who does indeed abhor social government, finding it just one enormous unenumerated right, but who believes the sheer evidence of a nuclear age cannot allow a policy of universal non-violence.

    US government has developed a propensity for and expertise in legislating almost anything imaginable, a state of affairs “conservatives” sleep soundly through to an alarming degree. In that be ye Libertarian. But in adopting such an “arch-reactionary” response, the Libertarians Ric categorizes wreck much of the reforming this country’s government so desperately needs.

    I’ve suggest a week spent at your local statehouse to see just how corrupt lawmaking has become, the remedy for such must not derail a strong national defense. Neither candidate offers even a sliver of hope for at least one of those ideals, and in one case, both. So what is this position called? I mean besides “screwed”.

  194. I haven’t followed him around the Net, but if he were to post on a leftoid blog I would expect the commenters there to perceive him as an arch-reactionary.

    Honestly, I doubt it. He earns his salary by playing up to the bigotries of the lefty elites; he’s not going to poison that well.

  195. The mere presence of government, any government, would seem to disallow universal non-violence.

  196. I don’t mind BB. It is not like I see him calling people cudlips or cunt on a daily basis.

  197. I could be wrong about Barrett Brown — I notice he hasn’t weighed in — but all I’m really asking is that the possibility be considered when responding to him. He is not a knee-jerk leftoid, and responses that presume he is are off the mark and result in far more heat than light.

    ThomasD: you are absolutely correct. That is one of the reasons minarchists exist. (Note that my attitude differs from what you will find if you look up “minarchist” from libertarian sources. N libertarians -> N! factions.)

    …what is the label for someone who does indeed abhor social government, finding it just one enormous unenumerated right, but who believes the sheer evidence of a nuclear age cannot allow a policy of universal non-violence.

    Why, mine, of course :-) “pragmatic minarchist”. Other Governments exist and are willing to use force and violence to preserve themselves and achieve their ends; organization contra that is necessary, and under present conditions that means another Government. That does not give our Government a license to do as it damn well pleases in all cases. I believe it at least arguable that the vector sum of the attitudes of the Founders pretty well fits that definition.

    Regards,
    Ric

  198. It is not like I see him calling people cudlips or cunt on a daily basis.

    He uses prettier language, but the sentiment is the same.

  199. I used to be a libertarian (small l), still get Reason, but fell away from them over the terrorist issue.

    I believe their position, like that of socialists, sounds good but fails to account for actual humanity. As long as there are sociopaths and psychopaths among the human race libertarianism is a pipe dream.

    Unlike socialism it is not malignant and doesn’t end up killing millions. It can be of some use, but the far end of the spectrum is as removed from reality as the left wing socialists.

    It is best as a counterweight against the tendency of governments and bureaucracy in general to expand forever.

  200. Libertarians aren’t anarchists. We recognize the need for a government. We don’t recognize the need for surrogate parents after we reach adult hood.

  201. Random space bar spasms are not indicative of any particular political persuasion.

  202. I’ve suggest a week spent at your local statehouse to see just how corrupt lawmaking has become…

    Has become????

    The world of machine politics in the USA started as soon (or before) the ink was dry on the US Constitution.

    John Hancock was a smuggler! Don’t try to tell me he didn’t have a habit of buying off local officials!

    Become corrupt? Politics always is corrupt! Because there is a lot of money involved there some where.

  203. b moe-

    If nishi and thor are to be banned for hijacking every thread they participate in and making it about themselves, why does Barrett get an exemption? Frankly I find him much more tedious and boring.

    He’s a “self-professed libertarian” Bob Barr voter who hates Republicans because they want to criminalize drug use and discriminate against the gays.

    IOW, he’s as much of a “libertarian” as Townhouse Gleen- because it’s damned important for “libertarians” to co-ordinate their daily Democratic talking points…

    I speak as someone whose last Pres. vote for a Repub was Reagan 84 and I campaigned for both Marrou in 92 and Browne in 96. Bob Barr is a smarmy, moralistic, two-faced asshole- and the Libertarian Party lost my vote with his nomination.

  204. I heard somewhere that a Libertarian is a Conservative with a vice.

  205. I don’t have much use for the Libertarian Party these days, but I still can’t find anything that describes my beliefs better than libertarianism/classic liberal. Sucks being a freak sometimes.

  206. I got a bunch of vices, Mr. Pink.

  207. The world of machine politics in the USA started as soon (or before) the ink was dry on the US Constitution.

    I love ya Mikey, but unless you’ve seen what goes on as a matter of course right now, you might miss the difference. Short version: Constitutional validity is stone dead. Anything passes. The State is the biggest employer, is it not?

    To excerpt B Moe, we’re in thrall to surrogate parents after we reach adulthood…and which party makes little difference.

    I suspect it didn’t used to be that way.

  208. Not to this degree, JHoward, that seems obvious.

  209. And, FTR, martinis are the grossest things ever

    You are the spawn of Satan, Carin. Martinis are the best food ever. Less fattening than beer, too. Maybe (and I say this with all possible caution, knowing you’ve bartending history) you’re doing it wrong.

    Regarding whether Barrett had a tenable POV, I say: how would we ever know? He hasn’t done any sort of job presenting his POV. He has, though, done a subpar job of throwing down teh snark.

  210. Have you ever looked at any polling data of the sort that covers how much of the U.S. population believes in witchcraft?

    I believe in witchcraft.

    Barrett Browns, not so much.

  211. BB,

    State your case, or we’ll shoot this dog.

  212. BB states his case here in a post titled Palin Drones. He doesn’t do a much better job than we’ve seen thus far. The highlights:

    1. Republicans are teh stoopid.

    2. Republicans are sexist hypocrites because some Indiana delegates have buttons suggesting that Palin is “hot.”

    3. Palin is a hypocrite on fiscal responsibility because she was happy (Bragging, I tell you! In a note scribbled in the margins of a photocopy of a news article!)to have gotten federal money for an airport paving project along with money from the State of Alaska for several infrastructure projects. I suspect Barrett either missed or wants you to miss that this is mostly Alaska’s money and not Congressional pork.

    4. Mayors bring home federal pork. (I might have actually learned something new here. I’ll have to look into it and check with my Congressman. Oh, wait. That’s Patrick Kennedy. Perhaps I’ll ask a bowl of fruit instead. I’ll get back to you.)

    5. Conservatives will never talk about this.

    6. The Simpsons sucks.

    7. ???

    8. Profit!!!

  213. Libertarian principles are just boffo IMO, the only real problem is when they butt up against the state of nature, then the utopianism stands in high relief to reality. That is why I would never describe myself as a libertarian, even though I am regularly accused of being one by hard core statists.

    The Declaration of Independence is my core political document. Particularly the section that begins ‘[w]e hold these truths…” and ends with ‘future security.’ Everything else (that includes the Constitution) is a matter of fitting policy to the principles.

  214. Libertarians are OK ‘cept their base is always runnin’ out to score more chronic. Prolly why they don’t get a lot done.

  215. …then the utopianism stands in high relief to reality…

    You see libertarians as utopianists? One of those words does not mean what you think it means.

  216. #217 ThomasD,

    First the mayo and now this.

    We are going to sound like sock-puppets if this continues :-)

  217. How so, Bmoe? Utopia is often thought of as a place with little to no formal law, where people are free to choose most any pursuit so long as it does not ‘harm others,’ and war is generally anathema.

    Utopianism is not solely the province of socialists or other control freeaks.

  218. Utopia, ultimately, speaks of a place that can never be. Universal non-violence, due to the inherent nature of man, is a place that can never be.

  219. Libertarian principles are just boffo IMO, the only real problem is when they butt up against the state of nature

    No snark intended, but “conservative” principles are just boffo IMO, when the real problem with them is that after they’ve been replaced with Republicanism, they deny sane economics and enumerated rights such as they do today and by chronically doing so, they become just another stripe of statism. Ergo, they’re not even remotely conservative. Anyone who thinks that a 35% business tax, a bureaucracy of almost incalculable size, the largest national debt in history and exploding, and a staggering loss of personal freedom is conservative is mistaken.

    Everything else (that includes the Constitution) is a matter of fitting policy to the principles.

    Except when policy is made by idiots in statehouses who couldn’t spell constitutional, much less implement it.

    I respect where you’re coming from, but the reality is chilling.

  220. This is more the definition I was coming from:

    “Utopia is a name for an ideal community, taken from the title of a book written in 1516 by Sir Thomas More describing a fictional island in the Atlantic Ocean, possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system. The term has been used to describe both intentional communities that attempted to create an ideal society, and fictional societies portrayed in literature.”

    Most people who truly understand libertarianism realize that a libertarian society is quite the opposite of that. We don’t strive for perfection or or some artificial construct of fairness. Laws are to protect individuals, their health and their property, not to create or influence some societal ideals. Societies and culture evolve from natural behavior, however messy that may be, not by decree from some pseudo-intellectual planning board.

    Also, the anti-war, non-violence angle is a new development within the Big L Libertarian Party, most likely due to the influx of stoners, I would guess. It is not inherent in libertarianism as a political system.

  221. JHoward, I find nothing to disagree with, as most always the Devil is truly in the details. That is one of the important ascpects of libertarian principles, it specifically recognizes every individual their own primary agent.

    ditto, BMoe, the only quibble I would have is the idea that you can have laws without, ultimately, resorting to violence, for all law is really just a manifestation of state sponsored violence.

  222. I should have said ‘all man-made law’ since we should distinguish them from the laws of nature.

  223. See, I’d likely call you two libertarians, primarily because you identify yourself as such. But since you also seem to agree with those principles spelled out by Jefferson, and those really don’t seem to jive with the hard core libertarianism – as spelled out by Ric – (which is mainly what I was addressing) it sounds like were still at the stage where there is as many strains of libertarianism as there are libertarians.

    Which makes it really hard to get excommunicated, I imagine.

  224. And Republicanism I find no problem with, insomuch as it is simply a belief in representative government. The Republicans I often have problems with insomuch as many are simply statists who most closely resemble progressives, other than the fact they are working from a slightly different laundry list.

  225. BMoe, the only quibble I would have is the idea that you can have laws without, ultimately, resorting to violence, for all law is really just a manifestation of state sponsored violence.

    I agree, and said so in my last two sentences.

    it sounds like were still at the stage where there is as many strains of libertarianism as there are libertarians.

    Absolutely. Libertarianism is really more a mindset than a concrete political philosophy. The Libertarian Party doesn’t have any kind of moral authority to define libertarianism, any more so than the Democrats get to define democracy. It is just a name to stick at the head of a ballot, when you get right down to it. I have voted Libertarian in the past, and considered joining the Party, but the isolationist turn they have taken post 9/11 has completely turned me off.

  226. I’d say the Libertarian mindset is often quite concretem, and often is where the problem lies. Having a political philosphy, or other guiding set of principles is all well and good (boffo to me.) The question is how do you, having agreed to work together as a ‘government’ temper those principles when faced with real world problems, ones that typically do not lend themselves to binary solutions? I see many professed libertarians who become locked into such absolutist positions, whereby they have chosen one given right as sacrosanct without recognizing that the issue (or issues) may involve any number of competing rights. Often this is done so definitionally, with deep semantic games being played over the meaning of those key words of ‘individual,’ ‘health,’ and ‘property.’ While simultaneously failing to recognize that ‘government’ requires some form of consent, and thereby acquiesence, and that the solution to any given problem will often involve more than one solution, and sooner or later we will all end up at least slightly compromised.

    The net result being a large number of otherwise educated, thoughtful, and likeminded (at least speaking personally) people who end up self marginalized due to their absolutism.

    Bismark’s comment on laws and sausages being apropos, but he never said don’t eat the bratwurst.

    TT

  227. Perhaps I am not making myself clear, a democracy is a type of government, a republic is a type of government, a monarchy is a type of government, in that they all describe how decisions are to be arrived at. The decisions themselves could be quite varied in their bias toward individualism/statism/populism or whatever. Libertarianism, in its original sense, has more to do with the principles guiding the democracy/republic/monarchy or whatever. The why as opposed to the how.

  228. No you are probably the one being clear, I think I’m the one not communicating well because what you describe is what I intended to describe. Where I see trouble is people who attempt to replace government with something that is ultimately (just as you describe) a set of principles.

  229. JHoward:

    I know this is trite as an example but Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall were in the last century. Plenty of corruption went around then, before then, after then, and now. It isn’t new. G.W. Plunkitt wasn’t a rarity either, although he was much more canny in his skulduggery.

    http://www.uhb.fr/faulkner/ny/plunkitt.htm

    I think it looks worse today because we are actually experiencing it, as opposed to reading about what happened to a lot of people we don’t know a long time ago.

  230. My last was in response to #211.

    #212 B Moe:

    Wanna bet? (N.B. – rhetorical flourish – I don’t bet on any thing, except a mild flutter once or twice a year on the state lottery). :)

    Look up the Tom Pendergast machine and Harry Truman. Truman was honest, but he had to use the machine and do favores for the machine to get anywhere in politics. And his first election to the US Senate was due to the machine’s efforts to rig the vote – so obvious that he was originally known as ‘the senator from Pendergast’.

  231. Where I see trouble is people who attempt to replace government with something that is ultimately (just as you describe) a set of principles.

    Most real libertarians I know are perfectly happy with a constitutional republic. In fact, I prefer it. I just want a constitution that means something, and that severely limits the powers of government, especially by limiting centralization of power.

  232. I was referring more to the nannystatism part of the discussion, Mikey, rather than the machine aspect. Political machines were more powerful back in the day for sure, but the Constitution hadn’t been raped to the point the Feds could control so much of our lives. It was possible to escape the localized tyranny of the more egregious machines if one so desired. Today that isn’t possible, it is nationwide.

  233. I’m reminded of a comment on early Christianity, made often enough by themselves: Three Christians equals six heresies, that is, each one’s view of the other two. Libertarians are very like that.

    What has poisoned the well as regards libertarianism is that most libertarians (and all Libertarians) have taken “hard money” as a basic. The only people who also regard it as a fundamental are the Left, and the result is that what are, putatively, libertarians are slowly gravitating toward a remarkably Leninist view of events.

    Regards,
    Ric

  234. I rather doubt they had “zoning inspectors” back in Truman’s town in his day, riding around looking for violations of the “too high grass” regulation and handing out tickets to the beweaseled miscreants who’d failed to mow before the weeds reached the cutoff height of 16″.

  235. I was discussing monetary policy with a good friend the other day, who happens to be a very reasonable center-leftist, and we were floating ideas on how to establish a standard metric for money. Other units of measure can be tied to concrete things, like one gram is the mass of a cc of water at a specified temperature, and so on, but money is tricky because their is no item of unchanging value to which to tie it. Gold changes value like anything else, thereby skewing the measurement of everything else when it does.

    We were trying to come up with some fixed way of actually delineating the value of a dollar. He had an idea, I think it was borrowed and modified but I don’t remember from whom, that it should be tied to labor, as in the minimum wage. That rather than trying to adjust the minimum wage to fit the economy, it should be used to measure it. His idea was to say the $5, or whatever, shall be defined as the minimum amount of reward it takes to get someone to get off his ass to work for one hour.

    I hadn’t thought about it until just now, I think the idea might be worth a post in the pub to discuss. I will try to track down the origin of the idea tonight if I have time, or if someone else knows, feel free to have at it.

  236. #236 B Moe:

    Nanny-statism is a different animal, to be sure. But corruption follows politics as it follows any human endeavor where there is money and power to be made.

    The surprising thing is how uncorrupt much of American politics is – when it is compared to history and compared to other current nations.

    Personal example: I sold a house in Dearborn a few years ago. All I had to do to get the city inspector to sign off was get a ‘back flush’ valve attachment (a couple of bucks at ACO) for the outside faucet. (The valve keeps water in the garden hose from being sucked into the house if there is a water main failure. If you have a chemical sprayer attached to the hose at that time you get the fertilizer or pesticide/herbicide sucked into the house’s pipes).

    No payments,nothing. Pretty good, I think.

  237. But corruption follows politics as it follows any human endeavor where there is money and power to be made.

    Another reason to limit the scope and budget of government. Crooks will have to work at it just like the rest of us.

  238. #238 Sdferr:

    Try any county/city contract, who was to be hired, etc.
    And building inspections were part of life then. See also my link to G.W. Plunkitt and what he described as ‘honest graft’ and dishonest graft. “Nice bar you got here; shame if anything happened to your liquor license.” “Nice hotel you got here; shame if the fire marshall came through with a nano-fine toothed comb.”

    You may think this is all ‘nanny-statism’ but much of that kind of corruption was well-set before anything like that was done. It. Ain’t. New.

    BTW – the old term for ‘community organizer’ was ‘ward-heeler’.

  239. Reasonable building inspections are fine, I’ve dealt with them most of my life as a builder. I’ve dealt with graft seeking inspectors as well (without giving in to their money grubbing).

    Assholes driving around in pickuptrucks looking for picayune violations of trivial codes to bring in the scratch to justify their salaries is a new one to me though, I must say.

  240. #241 B Moe:

    I don’t disagree with that at all. But if you have steamboat inspectors making sure that the vessel’s boilers are up to the job, then you will have people trying to bribe the steamboat inspectors.

    Or you just let the steamboats go as they will, and let the survivors (or their estates) sue the steamboat operator after the boiler explodes. I would rather the boilers were inspected and go after corruption. It seems more responsible to me.

    We can debate the limits of government power, but as long as humans live in non-blood-related groupings, there is a need for government regulation of some kind. IIRC, the Babylonians figured that out. See: Hammurabi’s laws.

    http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

  241. What has poisoned the well as regards libertarianism is that most libertarians (and all Libertarians) have taken “hard money” as a basic. The only people who also regard it as a fundamental are the Left, and the result is that what are, putatively, libertarians are slowly gravitating toward a remarkably Leninist view of events.

    An oversimplification, Ric. What has poisoned the well as regards libertarianism is that most others have taken “hard money” as the basic for Libertarians when the reality that the fractional reserve system is irreparable and challenges to the monetary status quo are therefore calling for sound monetary policy.

    Amazingly, the only other people who also value sound monetary policy are certain members of the Left, bless their little souls, who have bothered to do the math. (See Calculated Risk, Mish, the iTulip crowd, Oacono, others.) The result is that some from all stripes are slowly gravitating toward a remarkably conservative view of events, albeit from different angles. Strange bedfellows, and all of them rightly concerned.

    That you could so misconstrue such a thing should give you pause. That you’ll as likely respond with an open-ended lecture on economics (this isn’t just economics, its a policy issue) might as well. I won’t even get into what’s going on in monetary circles myself.

    The short version is that there’s little that’s conservative about the way US monetary policy and US government federal spending policy behave — for example, the US lags only Japan in business tax rates and is the greatest debtor in the world, owing some sixty trillion in obligations, etc, etc, etc. It’ll surely be more of the same under Obama and only ever slightly less so under McCain.

    Neither of us know the endgame for this experiment. But it’s looking a lot more like an exponential problem than it is a stable system.

  242. Correction: Iacono.

  243. Or you just let the steamboats go as they will, and let the survivors (or their estates) sue the steamboat operator after the boiler explodes. I would rather the boilers were inspected and go after corruption. It seems more responsible to me.

    Or you can hire private, third party inspectors who, unlike the government, will be held financially and legally responsible if something bad happens, in which case the cost effectiveness of bribery is rendered basically moot.

    Full disclaimer: I am a third party special inspector in the construction industry, so my opinion may be slightly biased.

  244. I like Barrett Brown. He seems to deliberately misunderstand you every now and again, which is just like my ex-wife, but at least he is funny. And a libertarian. And not as chubby.

  245. Anything shorter than Capital is an oversimplification, JHoward. There simply isn’t enough room in a blog comment to do the job adequately.

    Here’s another oversimplification: “Money” is a symbol. Money is to wealth as language is to concepts; by exchanging and manipulating the symbols of language, we transfer and modify concepts; by exchanging and manipulating the symbols of money, we transfer and modify wealth. If it’s “hard” — has a value of its own — it isn’t a symbol, it’s the thing itself, not money, but trade goods.

    Consider the uncoerced transaction: A has X, and B has Y. If A would prefer Y and B prefers X, both A and B have made a judgement of value — to A, Y is more valuable than X, and contrariwise for B. If they then exchange possessions, each of them has something of more value than before — that is, both have more wealth; and because both have experienced an increment in wealth, the society in which they are embedded is richer. This cannot occur in any case where the value of X and Y are defined outside the transaction.

    When I was in the Far East I first heard the story of the three Chinese who were shipwrecked together on a desert island. When rescued twenty years later they were all immensely wealthy from trading hats with one another… now consider pictures of Earth from space. It looked much the same two hundred years ago, when there were perhaps half a billion people on it. Today it isn’t any bigger and has nothing on it that wasn’t there before, yet six and a half billion live there, and on the average they’re eating better. That increment of wealth came from somewhere — or did it? It’s a hat trick.

    Certainly the fractional reserve system has problems, but most of them come from the fact that it’s counterintuitive. Going backward, to a pre-industrial system of defined values however derived, would put a straitjacket on economics, making it in fact the zero-sum system the Left assumes without thinking. That wouldn’t be a service to anyone including the Left, and the (perhaps subconscious) realization that this is so is the main reason you and other hard monetists don’t get traction in debate.

    Regards,
    Ric

    PS — B Moe, the idea of a labor standard of value goes ‘way back. Like a lot of other good ideas it would work perfectly in a totally stable economy, but say the standard is digging one meter of ditch, half a meter deep and wide, through a carefully defined standard soil. What happens when some wise guy shows up with a DitchWitch? Now consider Spanish galleons in the same light.

  246. Ric, all that’s irrelevant…and of course money is a symbol; you keep proving my point about projecting onto “Libertarians” what I, for one, am not advocating. What I’m advocating is the view that the current system is a fraud. How to solve it is literally anybody’s guess.

    What that is is a tiny lesson in one localized episode of exchange. What it’s not, of course, is a lesson in the beginnings of the inevitable nationalization of the central banking industry that’s globally intertwined.

    Are you really suggesting fiat currency and the debt-as-money system propped out to sixty trillion dollars are conservative? Or classically liberal?

    Or to put it a different way, you almost couldn’t have picked a worse day to defend the Fed, the US Treasury, and current banking practice. The fear is palpable.

    The system is suspect. How Libertarians propose to replace it is another subject. Quaint old Paulian goldbuggery are nearly as irrelevant as primitive lessons in rudimentary economics.

  247. Further, Ric, the problem may be as systemic as this: How do you pay back, in dollars, dollars lent into fractional reserve as debt?

    In other words, with each buck automatically incurring interest times roughly ten re-lent instances of that same buck, and all as the simple effect of their simply existing, where will you find the interest bucks?

  248. “…What that is is a tiny lesson in one localized episode of exchange…”

    Aren’t there actually in fact 6+ billion human beings on the planet now? And isn’t there in fact at least an order of magnitude larger number (and perhaps more) of such “localized episodes of exchange” taking place every single day that passes? (Has anyone attempted to reliably enumerate all such instances successfully? How to account for the black economies and barter economies all over the globe, I wonder?) Is any economy ever anything but the sum total of such localized instances (episodes)?

    So we might say in answer to your question, in wealth creation over time, JH, don’t you think? After all, dollars are lent with time passing in mind and a risk premium is built into the interest rate of these transactions.

    On the other hand, if you want to create a new economics from scratch, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon us to spell it out in detail before we ask our interlocutors to grasp what we have come up with de novo? What sort of proposals will make the cut as plausible solutions if we can’t quite pin them all down just yet? We can work backwards, as with your rejection of gold backed currency. What else must we reject? And so on, until only a hand-full or fewer solutions seem credible.

    Otherwise, yelling that your hair is on fire (with all due respect to your superior knowledge of these subjects) just causes me to want to throw you to the ground and roll you around until the fire is out.

  249. Well pardon me then, Sdferr, because surely there’s nothing wrong when nationalization is the only short-term solution.

    I mean that more seriously than it probably sounds for I too would rather think it didn’t exist.

  250. Who said there is nothing wrong? And who that “it” didn’t (doesn’t) exist?

  251. JHoward, so long as you continue, as evidenced by your #251, to regard money as something real and tangible for which “supply” and “demand” are more than metaphors, your advice will continue to be rejected as ill-informed and therefore defective.

    When the bank lends a dollar, that dollar comes into existence at that point. It appears, out of less than air, out of nothing. It is valuable because the borrower can buy things with it; the borrower can buy things with it because it is valuable. There are no antecedents, no supports, and no “backing”. It’s turtles all the way down.

    Regards,
    Ric

  252. Of course 255 is as pointless as the discussion itself it, Ric, and arguing this with you is almost as productive as straightening out Sdferr’s straightening out my grammar. IOW, if you don’t cotton to 251, please do it with at least an eye to the bulk of 250…

    I challenge you, again, to take a comprehensive view of monetary markets in 2008, compare notes to the warnings made over two hundred years ago, and present a believable case that this is all conservative. Again, a very bad weekend in a very bad year in a very rapidly declining decade in which to make such a claim.

    It’s not like thousands didn’t see this coming. “This” being only the tip of the iceberg. Lousy leftists, right?

    Look, you don’t know the endgame. But you can probably figure out how living on the future for 50 years winds up.

  253. Hummph. I didn’t realize I was straightening out your grammar, JHoward, so I guess that is a good thing for me to know.

Leave a Reply