September 10, 2008

On earmarks and Bridges to Nowhere

From UC-San Diego Professor of economics, Garey Ramey, via email:

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has been criticized for lying in connection with terminating Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” project. This charge, however, reflects widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of the infrastructure budgeting process. While the U.S. Congress did reverse its 2005 decision that had earmarked $223 million for the bridge project, the project itself was not removed from the state’s capital budget. A total of $113 million was budgeted to the bridge when Governor Palin assumed office in 2007.

Among budgetary options, Palin could have drawn on Federal and State moneys to fund the project fully and move ahead with construction. Alternatively, Palin could have deferred the project to future years, possibly changing the funding allocation. In the end, she chose the radical option of removing the project from the capital budget, precluding any future funding allocations or construction. Her claim to have “stopped the bridge” is entirely truthful.

To justify her decision, she argued that the bridge project had become too expensive, and that the state should investigate more cost-effective alternatives. In political terms, her decision was viewed as a blow to the state’s Republican establishment, which had strongly championed the project. Without question, the episode buttresses Palin’s reputation as an executive who “stands up to her own party.”

Palin has offered a bit of misleading rhetoric, however, in discussing the bridge episode. She has stated that terminating the project amounted to telling Congress “thanks, but no thanks.” This suggests that Congress was attempting to force the project on Alaska, when in fact it had given the state discretion. Her decision should instead be viewed as conveying the message “thanks, but no thanks” to Alaska’s Republican Congressional delegation.

Palin’s rhetoric also gives the impression that terminating the project was tantamount to rejecting a Federal funding offer. The Federal contribution to the bridge budget actually amounted to only $36 million, or less than ten percent of the projected cost of the bridge. By terminating the project, Palin freed these funds for use in other projects, thereby reducing to some extent the need for future earmarks. In this limited sense the money was indeed returned to Washington.

It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska’s earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Governor Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.

You are now free to commence talk of change.

— Or, for he who is so inclined, compose vignettes about icy-dumb hillbilly labia, then prattle on about Celine.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 12:01am
443 comments | Trackback

Comments (443)

  1. - With all due respect to my fellow San Diegan, if I remember correctly the Feds were dangling the promise of matching funds if she chose to go forward, which would shed a different light on her “thanks but no thanks” rhetoric. I seem to remember her saying that in one of her speeches, but I could be wrong.

    – At any rate a minor quibble, and the good professors statement of the actual facts should hose down the rising moonbate noise machine like a pride of baby skunks in a self serve car wash.

  2. Hey, that’s great. She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser. Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut had done, you guys would be all over it. The GOP has fooled you before and they will fool you again. Or, more accurately, they will give you what you guys really want, which is a nationalist populist who will totally take on those effete, pinky-dependent arugula eaters, kill other religious zealots (which I’m totally for and which makes me question my libertarian credentials insomuch as that I really do want these expense missiles to be used to kill other religious zealots, regardless of efficiency or even common sense). So, yeah, go Palin, the chick who brought in ten times the pork for her little town as Boise got per capita but whom you guys nonetheless hail as some sort of Heinlienian reformer even though she’s clearly not. Also, again, I don’t mean to, like, come down on you guys! I’m totally, like, hip to your misguided nationalism and absolute disregard for actual principles! Let’s rap about it! But in all seriousness, Spore rules. You guys should all buy it and play it. I know you’re all too old and mature for video games and whatnot, but, seriously, check it out. It’s good stuff, fags. Peace out! Nightwish!

  3. Also, I apologize for the total disregard for grammar there. I’m all fucked up and whatnot.

  4. “Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has been criticized for lying in connection with terminating Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere” project. This charge, however, reflects widespread misunderstanding as to the nature of the infrastructure budgeting process.”

    This is putting it much more charitably than I would but I’m pretty tired of the press in all it’s forms doing the work of flacks while wearing the costume of the “last honest man” that Diogenes was searching for.

    I wonder if they (MSM) have ever heard of the story “The boy who cried wolf!”. What they have been doing in this past week may mean that even if they find that “smoking gun” no one will, by then, believe any story they tell. They are planting themselves in the fiction section. It will be hard to get out.

    Also, you sir have been doing yeoman’s work in this even while injured. My thanks.

  5. It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska’s earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Governor Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.

    Hater, liar, baby lover.

    She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser.

    Unlike my candidates who voted for it over Katrina human cannibalization and all.

  6. Unlike my candidates who voted for it over Katrina human cannibalization and all.

    whatevs, at least he didn’t change his mind, sweetie.

  7. - Barrett, so good to see you running around carrying your parties water bucket as usual, and no I do not believe your claims of little “l” anymore.

    – The project was already in place wheb she assumed office, ar which rime she evaluated the entire package and based on that evaluation, she killed it.

    – When exactly was this period when she was “for” it?

    – Apparently you’re living proof of a serious short coming of people in general to understand the budgeting process.

    – Either that, or you’re just parroting your fellow travelers.

    – By zealot, I assume, combined with fine examples of your other polemic rantings, your definition would include anyone with the temerity to attend a church.

    – What a twit.

  8. Big Bang Hunter-

    You have no regard for the truth. My libertarian credentials are public record. You are willing to respond in great detail to everything I write here, but not willing to look into information I provide you to the effect that I have been a libertarian since the age of 17. This is pretty much par for the course among people such as yourself, which, again, is why the powers that be in the GOP need not work too hard to trick people such as yourself into voting their populist theocrats into office. Of course, you yourself have outed yourself as a creationist, which is to say that you are a prime mark for other sorts of silliness. If I was a GOP strategist, I’d be sending you a basket of grapefruit every fucking day. You are a fine, loyal Republican, and your vote and support may be depended on. This is to your credit, sort of.

  9. whatevs, at least he didn’t change his mind, sweetie.

    Stedfast and unwavering were they in consistently voting for the bridge to nowhere earmark.

    I was told this stubborn insistence was all old and Bush like. Not?

  10. Professor Reynolds should know about this.

  11. I was told this stubborn insistence was all old and Bush like. Not?

    um…

    lemme get back to you on that.

  12. - Actually Mr. Twit, I am a fine example of an independent. But not, as you contend, a creationist, although if I were I wouldn’t be a bit timid in saying so.

    – You only think I’m a creationist because you got your ass kicked in that debate with me, one which you exited hastily when you ran out of bullshit.

    – You got out of dodge when I showed you that you had no provable basis for your half-baked contentions, without ever stating my own beliefs.

    – You have a very bad habit of trying to tell others what they think. I’m sure that works for you in your small pond where you can dazzle your synchophants. Here – not so much.

  13. When exactly was this period when she was “for” it?

    Supposedly, she voiced support for it during her run for the governorship; upon assuming office, she changed her mind for various and sundry reasons.

    Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut Palin had done, you guys would be all over it. [Bigotry excised for your sanitation.]

    What? We’d be all over it how? You seem to be saying that if Obama had (a) voiced support for an earmark while running for governor and then (b) changed his mind after assuming office because it was obviously a boondoggle (c) because things become politically poisonous after you assume office instead of before.

    Seriously BB, you’re getting rather tiresome, what with your willful misprision, unveiled bigotry, and wall o’ text answers.

    I mean, as soon as you show up on a thread, it goes like this:

    BB: Geez, Jeff, [ostensible rebuttal based on an extremely poor reading of Jeff’s essay].

    JG: No, BB, I very clearly said [direct quote from essay, which is, in fact, pretty clear].

    BB: Yeah, but [goalposts whiz by, on their way to who-knows-where].

    JG: WTF? I was discussing [topic], but now you’re on about [tangential topic, if we’re lucky].

    BB: [Further sneering and jeering, elitism, faux erudition].

    Commenters: [Jam spork into left eye socket to ease the pain.]

    I mean, dude. You seem to have the chops to be a good foil for Jeff et al., but you’re turning out to be a big disappointment, IMAO.

  14. - dicentra…It appears Mr. Twit did his usual dump and run routine.

    – I think at this point the wisest course is just to add him to the actus Talking Telephone Pole list and forget it. He seems to have mastered hyperbole, but little else of substance.

  15. Hey, it’s late even on the left coast, y’all. Prolly time for me to go home from work. Nothing like trying to debug a VPN connection to keep you up nights.

  16. Does anyone understand why the lipstick/pig comments Obama made would appear in video and audio so quickly and yet the “paper around an old fish stinks” comments, which, from the descriptions of the event by reporters occurred immediately thereafter in Obama’s remarks, have yet to make it onto the net (or radio or tv, for that matter)?

    Surely there was more than just the one recording device present at the rally, so simultaneous loss of tape and a dying battery couldn’t account for the lack. On the other hand, wouldn’t competition to break the story impel the possessors to get it out there as fast as possible, so again, given more than one device, I don’t get it……..

    Maybe I just convinced myself that there was only one recorder/camera.

  17. Dicentra-

    You’ve done a fine job of refuting your fictional version of what I’m written. Hard Mode – try to refute things I’ve actually said! It’ll be, like, harder! And more difficult!

    BBH-

    I look forward to you making an actual argument instead of just resorting to moderately literate ad hominem attacks. I also look forward to space elevators and nano-killer bots, old man.

  18. Sdferr

    nd yet the “paper around an old fish stinks” comments, which, from the descriptions of the event by reporters occurred immediately thereafter in Obama’s remarks, have yet to make it onto the net (or radio or tv, for that matter)?

    A really, really good question.

    I think only Politico reported the stinky old fish comment and not Tapper(IIRC, which Drudge linked) and then i have now other reporting on the “old stiny” reported. I gathered that the MSM knew including the second portion of his remarcks would be not gor so the deciders sef-censored.

    Too minimize tomorrows headlines? Yeah, most likely

  19. Ack – typos..

    I think only Politico reported the stinky old fish comment and not Tapper (IIRC, which Drudge linked) and then i have seen no other reporting on the “old stiny” reported. I gathered that the MSM knew including the second portion of his remarks would not be god and so the deciders/Obama supporters sef-censored.

    Censor to minimize tomorrows headlines? Yeah, most likely

  20. “It is important to note that Palin has worked to overhaul the earmark process, in parallel with Congressional efforts to limit the practice. Alaska’s earmark requests have fallen from 54 last year to 31 this year, with only four new requests. Total requested funding has dropped from $550 million to $200 million. Clearly, Governor Palin has made strong progress in reducing the use of earmarks in Alaska.”

    I don’t know where you found this little tidbit, but it does not contradict anything that either myself or your fellow “conservatives” have said about Palin, who, I would remind you, worked very hard to bring in $26 million in pork to her little town of 10,000, this being, again, about ten times per capita what Boise and similar towns brought in during the same year. You are free to ignore this, and you will; not a single one of you have made an honest effort to dispute it, which is understandable. Anyway, enjoy what’s left of your party. Thrice-divorced Pentacostals, overweight armchair military strategists, and young males from Queens. At least they’re not effette like Jefferson and Hamilton! Well done!

  21. Anyway, enjoy what’s left of your party. Thrice-divorced Pentacostals, overweight armchair military strategists, and young males from Queens.

    Fearful rednecks clinging to God and guns, middle-aged white women who support Clinton, mouth-breathing yokels from flyover country…

    …oops, that’s a majority of American voters, isn’t it? Well, thanks for playing, Barrett; better luck in 2012.

  22. Nice to see Barrette is still obtuse and ignorant. A little consistency in the world is a reassuring thing.

  23. “overweight armchair military strategists…” Do I detect a fleeting glimpse of the dreaded Chickenhawk? What’s your military history BB, or at least, what’s your weight?
    (Full disclosure, 163#, veteran)

  24. would remind you, worked very hard to bring in $26 million in pork to her little town of 10,000, this being, again, about ten times per capita what Boise and similar towns brought in during the same year.

    Would depend on the context, wouldn’t it? For example; Our little town got an enormous fed handout. Out of proportion to our size. Taken by just that it would look like we were sucking rather hard at the public teat. However the EPA mandated an immediate upgrade to our sewage traetment facilities-we’re a river town- and our potable water supplies-old deep wells.
    Whatever the case she seems to have served her constituents in, whatever that town is called, and the people of Alaska well. “O” not so much.

  25. BB’s military history involves an Xbox Live account and the video game “Call of Duty 4″

  26. Is it just me, or do folks like Barrett resemble nothing quite so much as a neo-Gnostic Tom Cruise berating our collective Matt Lauer?

    “You don’t know the secret history of Sarah Palin and the Dominionist Republican smear-/baby-making machine! I do.”

    Get out your Urim, Thumim and secret golden decoder glasses, folks, ’cause BB’s about to drop some knowledgeon y’all hicks.

  27. What I’d like to know is why BB thinks the Obama/Biden camp would be better for the libertarian principles he claims to desire? Is it just about abortion?

  28. What’s the problem with a bridge to nowhere?

    The bridge goes over the big water and then the big Starbucks truck drops a big Starbucks on the other side. Then all of a sudden, Nukflukbukchuk is serving steamy lattes at the Nowhere Starbucks. Now Nuk needs to get his Filet-O-Fish on. McDonalds pops up and Sergy Sergeyevich is on the fryer at 8.50 and hour. Soon the chirpy clicky chatter of Indian accented arguments fills the Nowhere Dunkin Donuts. And now you need a police force. Those donuts aren’t gonna eat themselves.

    thor opens up the local “gentlemen’s club”. Nowhere is somewhere now.

  29. Or, more accurately, they will give you what you guys really want, which is a nationalist populist who will totally take on those effete, pinky-dependent arugula eaters, kill other religious zealots (which I’m totally for and which makes me question my libertarian credentials insomuch as that I really do want these expense missiles to be used to kill other religious zealots, regardless of efficiency or even common sense).

    GET OUT OF MY SOUL, BARRETT BROWN!!!!

  30. I think he’s actually a Paulite, EG. Kind of a guess, since all we know for sure is that he’s in the “comedy industry.”

  31. You’ve done a fine job of refuting your fictional version of what I’m written.

    You mean like this?

    Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut had done, you guys would be all over it.

    Or this?

    they will give you what you guys really want, which is a nationalist populist who will totally take on those effete, pinky-dependent arugula eaters, kill other religious zealots…

    Or this?

    I’m totally, like, hip to your misguided nationalism and absolute disregard for actual principles!

    I did get a chuckle out of this bit:

    I look forward to you making an actual argument instead of just resorting to moderately literate ad hominem attacks.

    And in closing,

    I know you’re all too old and mature for video games and whatnot, but, seriously, check it out. It’s good stuff, fags. Peace out!

    I finally remembered where I know you from, Barrens chat!

  32. Having come from the federal bureaucracy, I can say that it is no surprise that the cost of the thing ballooned out of proportion with original expectations. That is the normal course of things once politicians begin specifying for things they have absolutely no clue about and then mandate the use of certain contractors or organizations: rarely is the best, most cost-effective route chosen

    Gov. Palin not only had the capital expenditures and construction outlays to deal with, but the headache of tracking all of the incoming funds. Then, the out-years would see not only the finishing of construction, but the bite of operations and maintenance, which runs between 10% to 15% of original construction cost and then adjusting for inflation (a ball-park cost estimator, only, as some projects have limited needs and others have more expensive ones). Every dollar put in on the capital construction side would see O&M raise by ten to fifteen cents for each and every out year and that would be adjusted for by inflation. That only comes from the State budget. That can be a ‘good deal’ on some pieces of infrastructure, but a ‘bad deal’ when costs skyrocket due to political incompetence. Especially if the contractor does ‘special work’, thus locking them into the O&M part of the budget later.

    I am not surprised that the media nor those outside of Executive experience understand this well: they can see it on the legislative side, but never having to execute a budget and then plan for the out-years means they gripe about the ‘rising cost’ of the bureaucracy that they helped to create. Even the WaPo can’t figure out a Fiscal Year, which caused some of their reporters to make asinine contract expenditure assessments on the USACE, and got a tart reply from USACE on that matter.

    Those talking about how to ‘kill a project’ don’t understand that even *that* has costs to it, as the staff and infrastructure to run the project need to be set up *first*. Gov. Palin had to shut that down, too… so when coming in as a new Governor she had to deal with understanding the budgetary cycle, capital and O&M, the laws guiding federal and state funds, how such projects get started, how they cycle through and how they close out. Her fishing business had that only in some areas, and the federal laws guiding those funds are quite a nasty shock to those looking to execute a budget on them.

    She took time to understand that, recognize the bad money already spent and kill the thing.

    I *like that* in an Executive: it is what they are supposed to do.

    And that is my problem with the top of the ticket in both parties: Senators are high on talk, low on budgetary matters and how to execute them. I would much rather vote for Gov. Palin and let the other three go… I don’t have that choice.

  33. FTR, dicentra’s comment was inspired ;)

  34. Hard Mode – try to refute things I’ve actually said! It’ll be, like, harder! And more difficult!

    What is hard is picking out your argument from your hyperbole.

    First comment:
    Hey, that’s great. She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser. Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut had done, you guys would be all over it. The GOP has fooled you before and they will fool you again. Or, more accurately, they will give you what you guys really want, which is a nationalist populist who will totally take on those effete, pinky-dependent arugula eaters, kill other religious zealots (which I’m totally for and which makes me question my libertarian credentials insomuch as that I really do want these expense missiles to be used to kill other religious zealots, regardless of efficiency or even common sense). So, yeah, go Palin, the chick who brought in ten times the pork for her little town as Boise got per capita but whom you guys nonetheless hail as some sort of Heinlienian reformer even though she’s clearly not. Also, again, I don’t mean to, like, come down on you guys! I’m totally, like, hip to your misguided nationalism and absolute disregard for actual principles! Let’s rap about it! But in all seriousness, Spore rules. You guys should all buy it and play it. I know you’re all too old and mature for video games and whatnot, but, seriously, check it out. It’s good stuff, fags. Peace out! Nightwish!

    Looking at her “pork” most of it appears to be for a commuter rails project (15 mil). Another million for a homeless shelter for kids and a mental health facility. I see – ALL OVER THE INTERNET – people decrying Palin for her pork, but I can’t seem anyone who is parsing that any of it was waste.

  35. Thrice-divorced Pentacostals, overweight armchair military strategists, and young males from Queens.

    Heavens! Whatever will we do without the Urbane Manhattanite libertarian ponce vote?

    Tell me something Barrett, and Nishi too if she is lurking, what mental processes leads one to unblinkingly accept that the entire universe spontaneously exploded out of an absolute void, but finds the notion that universe may contain an intelligence more God-like than themselves absurd?

  36. What I like, B Moe, is the insistence from some (nishi being an example, though some of the ID/creationist extremists have the same attitude) that it’s simply not possible that a divine (omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent) creator couldn’t be so subtle that we wouldn’t be able to distinguish its efforts from random chance.

    It seems much more honest to say, “The evidence within biology, geology, and cosmology simply does not speak to the existence or non-existence of a divine creator. Anyone who says otherwise is not being honest with themselves or with you.”

  37. And, as I’ve said before, the whole thing’s a stupid objection.

    The process exists. There is no dichotomy whatever between (1) taking advantage of it while it exists and (2) thinking it’s a stupid process and wanting to change it.

    Regards,
    Ric

  38. This comment caught my eye:

    My libertarian credentials are public record.

    Credentials? There are credentials? What is the issuing authority? What happens if you fail to give the proper libertarian response? Do you get demerits, and if you get too many are you put on probation, maybe even suspended?

    I consider myself conservative, but I don’t recall receiving any credentials, or licensing from any board of supervisors.

    Credentialed libertarian. Is that like regimented chaos?

  39. BB,

    Let’s assume for the moment that Palin was indeed for the bridge before being against it. Let’s assume that she got pork for her town as mayor.

    Now, tell me what Obama has ever done in his life to demonstrate that he is a (a) a reformer; (b) willing to take on his own party; (c) able to accomplish anything to create change; (d) or any actual accomplishment (aside from simply being elected)?

    What is it about Obama’s platform that you claim is more closely aligned with libertarianism? What has Obama ever done in his life to demonstrate that he believes in smaller gov’t; less taxes; or any other liberterian principle?

    In other words, aside from calling Governor Palin names, what is your point?

  40. Credentials? There are credentials? What is the issuing authority?

    I think the office is in the same building as the International Anarchist Collective.

  41. Pingback: Tennesseefree.com » Bridge to Nowhere: the Executive vs. the Legislative

  42. Mikey,

    You have to understand, these trolls actually believe that if they come to conservative websites and claim to be lifelong conservatives; lifelong republicans and/or lifelong libertarians, then when they argue against anything any of those categories stand for, we are all so stupid that we’ll say – “wait, a lifelong conservative thinks McCain is evil? It must be true. I have to question everything I believe in now.”

    b/c they have tied up identity (race, gender, sexual orientation) with politics so closesly, they think we do the same. they think that being a conservative is merely an identity, and not a thought out philosophy, and that they can change minds simply by pretending to share our identity while having different opinions. It really shows how idiotic they and their “philosophy” is rather than “persuading” any of us. But, b/c of their identity politics, they simply cannot see or understand it.

  43. “this little Pentacostal nut had done”

    What was I saying about libertarians being antagonistic to the religious again? BB, you seem to be a bright boy (when you’re not drunk). Shave that shit off of your comments and maybe, just maybe, classical liberals/libertarians that don’t hate the religious and who do frequent this site may read the rest of your comments. IOW, quit being a douchebag.

  44. Rob @ #36,

    LGF’s Stinky Beaumont sums it up well in this oft repeated mantra:

    Belief in God does not preclude belief in evolution.
    Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God.
    Do not trust those who insist otherwise.

  45. Pingback: World Threatens Harshness

  46. B Moe,

    Tell me something Barrett, and Nishi too if she is lurking, what mental processes leads one to unblinkingly accept that the entire universe spontaneously exploded out of an absolute void, but finds the notion that universe may contain an intelligence more God-like than themselves absurd?

    nishi has stated unequivocally that she believes Allah is the creator of the universe. And yet, she ridicules the notion that a creator created life.

    No, I don’t get it either.

  47. #27…Yep. That and bongs. I’m pretty sure it has something to do with bongs. Abortions and bongs for everyone! The economy related shit he spews? Distractions as he knows the dems are worse. He also knows that sometimes politicians of all stripes have to make concessions and/or go against their convictions. But the bottom line is hates the religious.

  48. I am sure it is very libertarian to type things like this “this little Pentacostal nut”. I mean being very pro-freedom and all that you are, it also comes with the awesome responsibility of ridiculing any thoughts that you disagree with.

  49. Besides, Nancy Pelosi had 91 million in earmarks for fiscal 2008 ALONE. And, they’re complaining about Palin’s 6 year record or something?

    Perspective. Lost.

  50. Is it really a libertarian principle to call someone a liar because she changed her mind?

  51. Pork Barreling and Earmarking. Both practices of an agricultural age or milieu mostly forgotten.

    Hell, in our time we don’t even raise hogs with decent fatback. We’ve bred the condition right out of them. You can’t get a three inch thick slab of back fat if you try. I’ve asked young butchers assistants for help who’ve never heard of such a thing. And then of course follows the obligatory “What would you want that for?”. [Shakes head]

  52. I would simply point out that Baracky and Biden voted for the Bridge to Nowhere every opportunity that they had.

  53. This comment caught my eye</blockquote

    Mine, too, but I dismissed it as more typical BB snark. That’s what happens when your comments are more than half snark: people stop treating them as anything other than occasional entertainments/annoyances.

    So, BB doesn’t take us seriously, and it’s highly mutual.

    Oh, and: Pentecost. Just because I’m picky about spelling, and all.

  54. Ah, frack. Malformed HTML. Adjust expectations accordingly.

  55. Bob Barr, Slart, who could take that seriously?

  56. My libertarian credentials are public record.

    So why aren’t you touting Bob Barr instead of that statist weasel Obama? Some fucking credentials.

  57. I once considered yself libertarian; in fact my current configuration seems kinda Conservatarian these days.

    IAC, I don’t remember the part of the libertarianism that is anti-Christian bigotry. I do know that’s a feature of todays Secular Progressives and Marxist/Communists.

  58. I remember kids like “Bend-over-and-Bare-it” Brown from my teaching days. They liked the BOHICA so much, I had a wall full of ass-whipping paddles so they could chooose their flavor. Since “Bare-it” called us fags, I should retort with something at his age level: “Twinkle, twinkle little star. What you say is what you are.” Fourteen years old. About Right.

    Dude! You are, like, so constipated.

  59. Liberatrians for Obama is like Fucking for Virginity.

  60. wow Libertarians, I mean.

  61. Librarians?

  62. Oh, that’s probably it: BB just misspelled librarians. I will not contest the claim that he has a library card.

    The other one I don’t give much credit to. I can paste any old label I please on myself, but that doesn’t make it so. And you can believe me, because I’m a Nobel Laureate.

  63. Maybe he’s Liberian

  64. “Just the tip” for abstinence.

  65. “Is it just me, or do folks like Barrett resemble nothing quite so much as a neo-Gnostic Tom Cruise berating our collective Matt Lauer?”

    No. I point out actual facts about your girlfriend Palin; you ignore them. Cruise is a member of a criminal organization which recently had its ass handed to it by a decentralized, internet-based secret society. When he talks about what he knows about psychologists, he is rambling about nonsense of the sort that even he is embarrassed to say in public and does not cite any demonstrable facts. I cite demonstrable facts. That makes me different from Tom Cruise. Do you see how that works?

    “I am sure it is very libertarian to type things like this “this little Pentacostal nut”. I mean being very pro-freedom and all that you are, it also comes with the awesome responsibility of ridiculing any thoughts that you disagree with.

    You may have been too busy crying tears of joy over Dame Palin to notice, but you fellows ridicule people with whom you disagree quite a bit. “Those Shelbyville kids are always eating candy; they love the sweet taste!”

    “Tell me something Barrett, and Nishi too if she is lurking, what mental processes leads one to unblinkingly accept that the entire universe spontaneously exploded out of an absolute void, but finds the notion that universe may contain an intelligence more God-like than themselves absurd?”

    You don’t know what I think about the nature of the universe.

    “Let’s assume for the moment that Palin was indeed for the bridge before being against it. Let’s assume that she got pork for her town as mayor.

    Now, tell me what Obama has ever done in his life to demonstrate that he is a (a) a reformer; (b) willing to take on his own party; (c) able to accomplish anything to create change; (d) or any actual accomplishment (aside from simply being elected)?”

    First off, you need not assume anything about Palin; what she wrote and said during her advocacy of the bridge is public record. As for Obama, I trust his judgment more than I do that of McCain partly because of what I have seen of his work at the University of Chicago, where he edited papers for conservative professors and, by all accounts, did a damned good job of it. Note that I said “partly,” as in, I have other reasons.

    As for being willing to take on his own party, his record is mixed at best. He appears to understand the virtue of vouchers, for instance, but has held his fire lest the teacher unions blow him out of the water.

  66. I cite demonstrable facts.

    And you ignore them! It’s like having two Barretts in one.

    Oh, and you also read minds and just make shit up. So maybe that’s three Barretts.

  67. “Comment by Barrett Brown on 9/10 @ 12:18 am #

    Hey, that’s great. She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser. Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut had done, you guys would be all over it.”

    Oh, a sexist fascist.

    Nice combo you got going there, bb.

  68. “So why aren’t you touting Bob Barr instead of that statist weasel Obama? Some fucking credentials.”

    When you make a dishonest attack on Bob Barr, as you fellows are in the habit of doing with regards to Obama (Dan Collins and whats-her-name collectively hold the record for the grand Posting Nonsense That You Found in Some Internet Forum competition, so don’t even try; they’ve earned it). I’m amazed at this sort of question, though. “Why are you defending Obama?” Who the fuck else would I be defending on a blog that concerns itself with attacking Obama and almost never mentioning McCain? If I was a Republican sympathizer, I wouldn’t mention McCain either. I would be crying.

  69. No. I point out actual facts about your girlfriend Palin; you ignore them.

    it’s not ignoring as much as it’s putting them in context and coming to a different conclusion.

  70. “Oh, and you also read minds and just make shit up. So maybe that’s three Barretts.”

    Citation needed. When I make fun of you guys for lying, I point out what you lied about. You don’t do the same thing because you have no lies to cite, as I don’t lie to anyone other than girls I meet at bars.

    Speaking of which, I saw the little review of my Palin article that you wrote. It was quite dishonest. You make fun of me for making the argument that Palin brought home pork as a mayor; conveniently, you don’t note that the point was actually that your latest Pentacostal overlord brought home a ridiculously large amount of pork. Presumably, you don’t know the difference between a rich man and a poor man, either; both have some money. You should give me all of yours since you do not recognize the concept of “degree.” I will put it to good use. At any rate, I shall spend it.

  71. it’s kinda like those doofuses that try to say that everyone agrees with Obama about Iraq now. uh, yeah. he’s been a real leader there.

  72. “it’s not ignoring as much as it’s putting them in context and coming to a different conclusion.”

    Oh, okay. I guess I didn’t realize that. Thanks!

    By the way, where was this put into context? I love to learn!

  73. in the post.

  74. you know, where it explains how she at first supported the project, but then killed it.

  75. “Note that I said “partly,” as in, I have other reasons.”

    Yep. Bongs and abortions!

  76. #47 Great Bananna:

    Oh, i understand all of that, it’s just the phrase about ‘libertarian credentials’ has such an authoratative air about it. It’s foreign to American politics, which exists on a sliding scale where each participant takes a more liberal or more conservative stance on issues, depending on the issue and the person. There is hardly any formal lockstep-ideology in American politics; that is left for things like Marxism and its various iterations, where there is a leader and tightly knit party, and by golly you better toe the party line perfectly or you are in sooooo much trouble.

    Totally foreign to the American concept of political liberty.

  77. Pingback: discarded lies - hyperlinkopotamus

  78. “you know, where it explains how she at first supported the project, but then killed it.”

    Oh, right. Sorry. I’m a drinking man.

    So, it was fine when it was $113 million for a bridge to a sparsely-inhabited island in a sparsely-inhabited state, but then, when the price doubled for a bridge to a sparsely-inhabited island in a sparsely-inhabited state – and right around the time people started to notice what was going on, coincidentally enough – she decided that $200 million was just too much money to spend on a bridge to a sparsely-inhabited island!

  79. “IAC, I don’t remember the part of the libertarianism that is anti-Christian bigotry.”

    Hey, guess what? I also play basketball, walk my dog, and drink coffee. Those aren’t segments of libertarianism either. But, you know what? If you actually go read Reason or some such, you’ll notice that lots of libertarians are atheists or agnostics or simply secular Americans who, like many of the Founding Fathers, despised religious zealots.

  80. “You don’t know what I think about the nature of the universe.”

    We do, however, know that you think that you’re better than it, bb.

  81. cause nobody never changes their mind about doing something when the price goes up. that would be crazy!

  82. “We do, however, know that you think that you’re better than it, bb.”

    Dude, burn! Whoa! Look out! Zounds!

  83. “like many of the Founding Fathers, despised religious zealots.”

    Speaking of lies…..

  84. Lileks Alert! WHOOP! WHOOP! Prepare for Angst Storm, Force Five!

    “Consider the joy that would reign if someone wrote that “Democrats, racial guilt-mongers that they are, really believe that African-Americans will vote for an African-American just because he’s an African-American.” Of course Republican men don’t believe that women will vote for her just because she’s a woman. It’s surely a factor, but there’s the possibility that they will vote for her because she is not a woman like Heather Mallick.”

  85. Citation needed.

    Here.

  86. “a neo-Gnostic Tom Cruise berating our collective Matt Lauer?”

    heh.

  87. “cause nobody never changes their mind about doing something when the price goes up. that would be crazy!”

    I know! But that’s not what I asserted! Crazy! I actually pointed out that $100 million in federal pork for a bridge to some little island with a population less than that of most buildings in Brooklyn is too much, and that one who agitates for such things can’t be trusted to act in a fiscally responsible manner! Crazy!

  88. well, okay, but Obama voted for it even after it went up. soooo, um…

  89. He appears to understand the virtue of vouchers, for instance, but has held his fire lest the teacher unions blow him out of the water.

    How brave! How utterly change-y!

    “Don’t let those big, bad teachers get me.”

  90. - I see Mr Twit is back at it again this morning.

    – Apparently he still hasn’t found a job.

    – Do not feed the trolls.

  91. “Here.”

    I’m having trouble finding any lies there. Either your link is wrong or you are or both.

    “Speaking of lies…..”

    Wow. Tell me, Citizen Brain, Nazi Hunter, who was the most wonderfully religious of our Founding Fathers?

  92. you’re also ignoring that she didn’t originate the project.

  93. “well, okay, but Obama voted for it even after it went up. soooo, um…”

    Hmmm…can “maggie” cock slap someone? Because that was kind of like a cock slap.

  94. “well, okay, but Obama voted for it even after it went up. soooo, um…”

    So, vote for a Libertarian instead of agitating for one of the two statist parties. Or don’t. I’m not your boss.

    ” Apparently he still hasn’t found a job.”

    Have fun at yours. I’m a writer. For all you know, I’m sitting around naked with a bottle of whiskey in my hand. Or maybe not!

    “Do not feed the trolls.”

    You mean, that thing you do all the time when you argue with me?

  95. “…who was the most wonderfully religious of our Founding Fathers?”

    Thomas Jefferson.

  96. and please, pay no attention to the reduction in earmarks she’s made overall.

  97. “you’re also ignoring that she didn’t originate the project.”

    What? I never said that she did. Maybe *you* are ignoring that Mercury is the planet closest to the sun, as you haven’t brought it up! I HEREBY ACCUSE YOU OF IGNORING THINGS ZOMG!

  98. context

  99. “can maggie cock slap”

    she used the slapee’s own pud, looks like to me.

  100. I actually pointed out that $100 million in federal pork for a bridge to some little island with a population less than that of most buildings in Brooklyn is too much, and that one who agitates for such things can’t be trusted to act in a fiscally responsible manner!

    perhaps we have slightly different ideas about “agitates” would mean. It was a project already on the books. The price went up… she killed it. but that’s not enough for some, whatevs.

  101. I thought I would respond to a few of the comments on my article, which had focused narrowly on the question of whether or not Palin was “lying”. As for accusations of “flip-flopping”, I believe that the critics again misunderstand the budgetary process, broadly speaking. As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin undoubtedly viewed Federal earmarks as a sensible source of funding for her ambitious infrastructure agenda, together with other revenue sources such as sales taxes. Hiring a lobbyist strikes me as sensible city management. There is no reason to think that she encountered significant corruption or waste in these efforts.

    As governor, however, she inherited a capital budget larded with corruption and waste, notably the “Bridge to Nowhere” project. Her opposition to this project represented opposition to wasteful spending, rather than to earmarks per se. Critics miss this point completely in accusing her of inconsistency on earmarks.

    While she did support the bridge during her gubernatorial campaign, her statements strike me as non-ideological and lukewarm. Moreover, she has never taken a position against building a bridge, rather she opposed one particularly expensive version. I do not believe there is any real flip-flop here.

    In comment 32, ajacksonian contributes some very interesting additional insights concerning the budgetary process.

  102. More federal funding for Wasilla than Boise.

    By all accounts Obama did a damned good job of editing papers for conservative professors.

    wow.

  103. “Thomas Jefferson.”

    Thomas Jefferson is sitting in hell right now, trying to sue you for libel. Plenty of lawyers down there; be careful.

    Jefferson rewrote the fucking Bible. He took out all of Christ’s miracles. Plus he wrote a bunch of stuff you’ve never read, being happily ignorant of all things American.

    “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.”

    “I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.”

    “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.”

    “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

    You should stop getting all of your information from other theocrats and start reading actual, you know, history books.

  104. she used the slapee’s own pud, looks like to me

    and this doesn’t bring up any memories of your past, um, career?

  105. one who agitates for such things can’t be trusted to act in a fiscally responsible manner!

    And by comparison, O! can be trusted to act in a fiscally responsible manner? I would suspect you’ve finished the bottle of whiskey if you actually believe that.

  106. I’m having trouble finding any lies there. Either your link is wrong or you are or both.

    Or, Mr. Precision Writer Dude, you’re having trouble understanding what I said to begin with, which is not “Barrett” lied!” but rather “Oh, and you also read minds and just make shit up.” If you don’t see that in my citation, you need to get your eyes/brain checked.

  107. “and this doesn’t bring up any memories of your past, um, career?

    not until you brought it up again maggie. 8 weeks of therapy down the drain.

  108. Let me see if I have this straight: Palin once advocated for the Wrong Thing, but then when she came to power she actually did the Right Thing. And this is supposed to be a Bad Thing?

    Furthermore, we’re supposed to get bent out of shape because when she was Mayor of Wasilla, she took advantage of programs that benefited Wasilla. Because the proper role of a mayor is to refuse federal and state money that would benefit his consituents because the money is insufficiently philosophically pure. Gotcha.

    What bothers me the most about the new guy is that he honestly believes that he’s running circles around us. Sad, really.

  109. 8 weeks of therapy down the drain.

    oops.

  110. “Let me see if I have this straight: Palin once advocated for the Wrong Thing, but then when she came to power she actually did the Right Thing. And this is supposed to be a Bad Thing?”

    You don’t have it straight. Try again.

    “Sad, really.”

    I appreciate your empathy.

    “And by comparison, O! can be trusted to act in a fiscally responsible manner? I would suspect you’ve finished the bottle of whiskey if you actually believe that.”

    Maybe, maybe not. The two largest fiscal dislocations in U.S. history occurred under Nixon and the current Bush. So… yeah, I don’t quite trust the guy who runs around voting with Bush, praising Bush, talking up the inherent fiscal virtue of the GOP. Perhaps I am not as trusting as you.

  111. “Or, Mr. Precision Writer Dude, you’re having trouble understanding what I said to begin with, which is not “Barrett” lied!” but rather “Oh, and you also read minds and just make shit up.” If you don’t see that in my citation, you need to get your eyes/brain checked.”

    What did I make up? Please advise, my anonymous fellow citizen.

  112. Let me see if I have this straight: Palin once advocated for the Wrong Thing, but then when she came to power she actually did the Right Thing. And this is supposed to be a Bad Thing?

    Exactly squid. She’s got teh process upside-down. She’s supposed to advocate the “right thing” while running, but then actually do the “wrong thing” once in office.

    Like Baracky.

  113. Jefferson rewrote the fucking Bible. He took out all of Christ’s miracles. Plus he wrote a bunch of stuff you’ve never read, being happily ignorant of all things American.

    Consider that a man uninterested in religion would likely have either just ignored the book altogether, or perhaps burned it. Much of that “stuff he wrote” needs to be taken in the context of the time in which it was written. Organized religion had power then that it does not today. Like being able to burn witches or imprison people for heretical thought.

    So why does Obama best represent libertarian principles, in your opinion?

  114. To be fair, the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ is getting a slightly bad rap. On the island of Gravina, across from the city of Ketchikan, is the Ketchikan International Airport–not big, but has scheduled commercial flights in and out. The only way to get to the airport is by ferry. The only effective way in/out of Ketchican is boat or airplane, so the airport is a critical transportation node. Nobody seems to ever make that case–they only discuss the 50+ folks who reside on the island.

    I agree that federal funds shouldn’t support the building of the bridge, but let’s be fair. Ketchikan needs a better vehicle to access the airport than a ferry. So supporting it is not necessarily bad, regardless of what BB thinks.

  115. Nothing hope and changy about voting “present.”

  116. What did I make up? Please advise, my anonymous fellow citizen.

    Good Lord, half of what you attribute to the others here is made up.

    Listen, we got it. You don’t like Republicans, religious people, or people who don’t buy into the Utopian fantasy you call “libertarian” — you’ve made your point, so now declare victory and go away.

  117. That bridge helps New Yorkers NOT AT ALL. Thus, regardless of the reasons, it is waste.

  118. BB seems to have conflated “religious” with “Christian”.

    Maybe he’s been reading the label on his Dr. Bronner’s Soap.

  119. Jefferson rewrote the fucking Bible. He took out all of Christ’s miracles. Plus he wrote a bunch of stuff you’ve never read, being happily ignorant of all things American.

    He also wrote The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom. So he was protecting to very people you claim he despised? And, yes, that is an act consistent with libertarianism, but you’re the fellow who apparently believes that Palin is unsuited for office because she holds certain beliefs, despite her never trying to turn those beliefs into policy.

    So, hey, try to be a bit more like Jefferson.

  120. Do you have any idea of the history of the placement of the airport, Pete? Why in heck build such the thing in an out of the way place?

  121. …maybe it’d be cheaper to just move the airport across to Ketchikan.

  122. Hmmm… Jefferson wrote the following:

    Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men…

    He was so proud of this work he had the fact that he wrote it inscribed on his tombstone. Weird.

    Maybe Barrett’s image of Jefferson is as incomplete as the strawman one he built for us?

  123. What did I make up?

    “Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut had done, you guys would be all over it.”

    “they will give you what you guys really want, which is a nationalist populist who will totally take on those effete, pinky-dependent arugula eaters, kill other religious zealots…”

    “I’m totally, like, hip to your misguided nationalism and absolute disregard for actual principles!

    “Of course, you yourself have outed yourself as a creationist, which is to say that you are a prime mark for other sorts of silliness.” (He says to a guy with Big Bang Hunter as his handle…)

    “As for being willing to take on his own party, his record is mixed at best.”

    “It was quite dishonest. You make fun of me for making the argument that Palin brought home pork as a mayor; conveniently, you don’t note that the point was actually that your latest Pentacostal overlord brought home a ridiculously large amount of pork. Presumably, you don’t know the difference between a rich man and a poor man, either; both have some money.”

    All bullshit, written in your hand, Barrett.

  124. “As for being willing to take on his own party, his record is mixed at best.”

    hey, Pablo, 96% is less than 100.

  125. Is it really a libertarian principle to call someone a liar because she changed her mind?

    As a semi-former self-identified small-l libertarian, I can see that I was wrong about ever considering the caps key. Barret Brown’s Credentials — not unlike thor’s madness — are perhaps the finest argument against the host’s point of view one could ever hope to find.

    Yeah, the Republicans suck. But some presentations to the contrary are so blindingly fallacious and wrong-headed that the only recourse is to laugh and walk away. And of all people, surely BB must know of the inherent asymmetry of L vs R.

    The stacks of bleached bones on the pw shoals number three in the last month. And each carcass was loudest just before the end.

  126. she did, ummm, turn the oil windfall tax into policy and, after consulting with the Ghost of Jefferson, I found he would be reluctant to support that.

    We had a good laugh over Sarah Palin “the libertarian” who taxes corporations for making too much money and then we had a laugh over the belief of some people that she matters in the first place. Jefferson discussed his power as VP to stop President Adams from signing the Alien and Sedition Acts and noted, errr, he didn’t have any more power than Sarah Palin will to stop John McCain from keep my borders open, passing carbon emissions taxes, or stifling my political free speech.

    As John Nance Garner noted, being VP isn’t worth much. It’s sad to see my conservatives champion a science-denying, tax and spender as a “libertarian.” Make this ghost want to vote for Bob Barr or Howard Phillips.

  127. “Consider that a man uninterested in religion would likely have either just ignored the book altogether, or perhaps burned it.”

    I never said or implied that he was uninterested in religion. He was very interested in it. So am I. I also despise it. So did he, and so did Paine. Mr. Brain will no doubt now try to assert that Paine was a staunch Catholic.

    “Organized religion had power then that it does not today. Like being able to burn witches or imprison people for heretical thought.”

    Or imprison people for heretical yet consensual sex acts, as they did in recent memory, and still do today in Texas and elsewhere? Or force purveyors of demon rum to close on Sundays, as they still do in many places? Or fine people for heretical words, as they do with obscenity laws? Or imprison any woman who steps out line, as the Muslims still do in those places where their degenerate beliefs are not countered by secularists? Or arrest women for even talking about birth control, as was the case for much of my grandmother’s life? Or advocate for the execution of those who sell marijuana, as a certain portly and very religious drug czar once did?

    “So why does Obama best represent libertarian principles, in your opinion?”

    Bob Barr best represents libertarian principles, but I’m assuming you’re asking why I prefer Obama to McCain. McCain, despite his self-proclaimed independence, has been very much complicit in the great damage that the GOP has done to our nation’s fiscal future insomuch as that, despite occasionally speaking up about how his fellow party members have been blowing money in a manner not seen in this nation’s history, he still supports them. He votes for bread and circuses just like the rest of him. To his credit, he argued against the tax cut before later changing his mind (whoops), explaining that the nation was at war and that wars cost money, which is to say that a war or any other such expensive little projects entail an eventual tax increase insomuch as that WHEN YOU BORROW FUCKING MONEY FROM THE CHICOMS, THEY CHARGE YOU INTEREST AND INSIST ON BEING PAID BACK. Oops, must have slipped and hit the caps lock button there! Whoa!

    So, yeah. McCain knows better. He knew better in 2003 or whenever he had that public spat with Hastert, who, incidentally, had the balls to actually say that McCain needs to go visit a VA hospital to learn about sacrifice.

    McCain saw what Rove did to him. Now he’s friends with Rove. McCain attacked Falwell; now he’s friends with Falwell, who no doubt comes to him in dreams and gives him advice on how to lie to people. He compared Falwell to Farrakhan, quite famously, but hung with one of them. Guess which one? It was the one he needed to pull in the Christfags. McCain had no use for Farrakhan, and thus McCain felt no need to mollify him as he did Falwell, who, of course, thought that a dangerous Jew stalks the earth, waiting for his chance to take over the UN and stamp the Mark of the Beast on the foreheads of all.

    You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t much care for McCain and his little party.

  128. Bush is more or less indistinguishable from Clinton on domestic policy. I’m judging by actions, not words, here.

    McCain sucks as a candidate, but he’s marginally better than the alternative. Bonus: he’s strongly in favor of killing lots of actual aspiring theocrats.

    Honestly, I’d vote a straight libertarian ticket as I’ve nearly always done in the past if they’d pull their heads out of their asses on national defense.

  129. “All bullshit, written in your hand, Barrett.”

    Oh, okay. I thought you might actually have something.

  130. McCain attacked Falwell; now he’s friends with Falwell

    um…

  131. Sdferr

    No idea why they built it there–but I think it’s the only available flat terrain in the area. I’ve only been to Ketchikan once. My buddy’s daughter is getting stationed there in the Coast Guard, so we looked up info on it. Suggest you go to Google maps, and zoom in on Ketchikan–and see the relationship of the surrounding area to the city and airport, and the geographical challenges it offers.

  132. “He was so proud of this work he had the fact that he wrote it inscribed on his tombstone. Weird.”

    I know, right? The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom is totally something that a very religious person would write! Remember when the Puritans got here and they were all like, “Now, let’s make sure that everyone can worship freely and let’s totally not go around setting fire to women!” Neither do I!

    You’ve got a couple utterances about Nature’s God; I’ve got dozens about religious freaks. Choose your poison.

  133. You forgot the execrable McCain-Feingold hamstringing of the 1st Amendment, Brown.

  134. …of course, it’s not that simple: Ketchikan is basically built on steep ground, while the facing part of Gravina Island is relatively flat. I think the problem, though, is that Ketchikan Airport only serves about 200k people per year, or about 550 a day. That’s awfully sparse traffic.

    The Wikipedia page for the bridge to nowhere says it would be “nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge”, which would make it over a mile and a half. I make the narrows out as being a quarter-mile wide, so I think someone’s on drugs. They probably decided that if they could get the fed to finance a bridge setup where they didn’t have to move anything, they’d be just fine, and so they moved the whole shebang from the narrowest place to a much wider place, where there weren’t quite as many oxes to be gored.

  135. “um…”

    Finish reading the sentence, ma’am. Or don’t, and pretend that I didn’t myself note that Falwell is dead. No one will call you on it here, just like no one called Brain out on his nonsensical assertion that Jefferson was the most religious of the Founders. All the vitriol and fact-checking is reserved for me; you, though, are among friends! Hooray!

  136. BB,

    First off, you need not assume anything about Palin; what she wrote and said during her advocacy of the bridge is public record. As for Obama, I trust his judgment more than I do that of McCain partly because of what I have seen of his work at the University of Chicago, where he edited papers for conservative professors and, by all accounts, did a damned good job of it. Note that I said “partly,” as in, I have other reasons.

    As for being willing to take on his own party, his record is mixed at best. He appears to understand the virtue of vouchers, for instance, but has held his fire lest the teacher unions blow him out of the water.

    Yes, I see where Palin said she would not stop the Bridge to Nowhere when she was running for Governor, but that she later changed her mind and did, in fact, stop the bridge. Not sure what your big point is there.

    As to Obama “editing” conservative authors articles/papers as a sign of “judgment” – that seriously has to be about the stupidist thing I have ever read. You honestly believe that someone correcting grammer, typos and citations of someone else’s work shows that such person has the appropriate judgment to be president? I have both edited and authored law review articles (authoring an article is something the “brilliant” Obama never managed to do) – doing neither of those activities requires any “judgment” of the type an executive needs and to claim otherwise is laughable. Is that really the only thing you could think of to point to do demonstrate why you support Obama? You actually wrote it and posted it, so you must actually believe it is some great “experience”. that is too asinine to even be believed.

    As to your claim that O! supports vouchers – what, you read minds now? “He appears to understand the virtue of vouchers” except you admit he does not have the courage to stand up to his base. Please. That proves my point. He has no courage and no ability to reform or change anything. Indeed, he has come out against vouchers – so that is his position despite your lie to the contrary. He is owned by the teachers’ union like every dem, and like all things, O! does not fight his party on this or any other issue. Thus, he cannot be for “change” or “reform” as he is someone with no demonstrated courage or ability to challenge the status quo of his own side.

    As to your assertion that you deal in facts. That too, is false. You deal in assertions. Assertions you claim are facts, without any citations to any evidence. And, for the most part, your assertions are opinions, not facts. It is pretty clear you do not know the difference between (1) a demonstrable fact backed by evidence; (2) an assertion claiming to be a fact; and (3) an opinion. You seem to believe numbers 2 and 3 are the same thing as number 1. They are not.

    It is your opinion that Palin saying she did not oppose the bridge project in the form it was in when she was running for governor and then cancelling the project after she became governor is a major flip/flop. that is not a fact, it is your opinion. You can argue the facts in such a way to make a case for your opinion, but it is not a “demonstrable fact”.

    In contrast, as demonstrated by others here in comments and in the original post, the actual facts can be used to argue that that this change was not a major flip flop. Instead, the facts pretty clearly demonstrate that the project itself changed significantly in the meantime and Palin did not agree with the project as it was when she became Gov. Thus, the only “facts” are – she expressed lukewarm support for the project in the form it was in when she ran; the project changed; Palin cancelled the project. Your and my interpretations of these facts are opinions, not facts.

    Regardless, I would rather support someone who came to the right decision eventually, than someone like O! and/or Biden who starts from the wrong decision and sticks with that wrong decision.

    I have no problem that people like you support O!. I just can’t understand your need to lie about your reasons for supporting O! Claiming to be a libertarian?? Claiming that somehow O! is closer to the liberterian principles than McCain??

  137. Curious how Barrett is not addressing Dr Ramey.

    I checked his CV, by the way, Barrett. He attended universities you might actually recognize and is now a full professor of economics at one of the UC schools.

    If you really wish to argue your points, I’d suggest you direct them to Dr Ramey, or ajacksonian — not that others here have not defended the piece (which you do realize was not written by me, yes?) quite well — given that they have some expertise in this area.

    And as you claim to be after the truth, howsabout dropping the bigotry and going after it? Hard. Like a VIKING!

  138. “You forgot the execrable McCain-Feingold hamstringing of the 1st Amendment, Brown.”

    I didn’t mention it because I’m trying to make the case for Obama over McCain, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Obama give lip service to that particular piece of unconstitutional garbage – the one that Bush signed into law after saying he thought it was unconstitutional. Speaking of Jefferson… lol, “metaphysical” considerations. The Constitution be damned! Let us buy up the continent!

  139. who no doubt comes to him in dreams and gives him advice on how to lie to people.

    that means he’s dead? cause I sometimes, you know, dream about people that are alive. it’s just you’re so precise with your words.

    *snort*

  140. “Jefferson rewrote the fucking Bible. He took out all of Christ’s miracles. Plus he wrote a bunch of stuff you’ve never read, being happily ignorant of all things American”

    Sigh.

  141. - Jefferson was embroiled for over a decade in a legal battle with “The Church of Virginia”, a breakaway, then powerful, politically based faux church. They had kept up a running slur campaign against him for years, because he was exposing their underhanded operations, while they hid behind the church facade. He sued their asses and won.

    – It wasn’t a legitimate religion he was battling, it was a state sponsored corrupt political machine, not as localized, but similar to another “machine you’re all familiar with located in Chicago, and the spawning place of Obama’s career. Trinity anyone. Thus his writings reflect that contest, and have nothing to do with religion, and in fact, have everything to do with separation of church and state, the exact opposite of what Me babbleface is shilling.

    – Mr. Twit, as usual, babbles on, hoping no one has any education in the matter.

    – Waste you time with him if you so desire. But be aware hes a dissembling twit.

  142. Barrett Brown hijacks comment threads. That is what he does and he does it well with the collusion of all. The thread becomes about BB and no one is then discussing what was posted. Bravo BB, mission accomplished.

    After reading through a number of threads like that, I apply the rule from the story I mentioned back in comment #4, “The boy who cried wolf”. Once someone has been shown to be mendacious the information content of anything they say drops to zero.

    Thor and Nishi are the same but can, at times, come up with a unique turn of phrase and so have not zeroed out their information content.

    In this comment I’m breaking my own rule. It’s a human thing.

  143. “As to Obama “editing” conservative authors articles/papers as a sign of “judgment” – that seriously has to be about the stupidist thing I have ever read. You honestly believe that someone correcting grammer, typos and citations of someone else’s work shows that such person has the appropriate judgment to be president?”

    Wow. I actually wrote this:

    “As for Obama, I trust his judgment more than I do that of McCain partly because of what I have seen of his work at the University of Chicago, where he edited papers for conservative professors and, by all accounts, did a damned good job of it. Note that I said “partly,” as in, I have other reasons.”

    I told you to note that I said partly. It’s right there. The reason I wrote that is because I knew that if I mentioned one thing in particular that I like about Obama, someone would be all like, “OH MY GOD YOU THINK THAT THIS ONE REASON SUFFICES TO SUPPORT A CANDIDATE?!?!” Next time I explain that one reason is not all reasons, I will do in big, bold letters. It still won’t work, because, again, here I am trying to argue at fucking BAAAWWWWWville, USA, where no misrepresentation of my words is too blatant and silly to go unmade.

  144. “She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser”

    Another reason to vote for Palin: she has ESP. She knew that the bridge would be a political loser when McCain picked her to be his running mate. Other than that please explain how going ahead with the bridge would have hurt her polically with her fellow Alaskans.

  145. McCain attacked Falwell; now he’s friends with Falwell.

    You can say the same about Larry Flynt, but you’d still be missing the fact that Falwell is pushing up daisies.

    Curious how Barrett is not addressing Dr Ramey.

    Not to me, it isn’t.

  146. I told you to note that I said partly.

    The fact that you might have other reasons doesn’t temper the ridiculousness of that one, particularly as you strive to ignore actual professors doing actual writing making actual arguments rebutting your actual assertions.

    But whatever floats your boat, eh?

  147. The Constitution be damned! Let us buy up the continent!

    Yeah, we should have taken it the old-fashioned way, by kicking somebody’s ass.

  148. Apply the Nishi rule to BB. It saves so much time and reduces waeriness.

  149. “Curious how Barrett is not addressing Dr Ramey.”

    Jeff, try to argue with ten people at once, half of whom are calling you a liar or fascist or Democratic spy in a fucking public forum. Try it. You tend not to see all of the posts. If the good doctor would like to debate me, he can do so. I am busy.

    “Barrett Brown hijacks comment threads.”

    This isn’t your blog, Random Anonymous Internet Person. This is Jeff’s blog. Jeff and I are cool with each other, and occasionally he even has to show up here and tell everyone to stop their bitching. Also, stop your bitching.

    “- It wasn’t a legitimate religion he was battling, it was a state sponsored corrupt political machine, not as localized, but similar to another “machine you’re all familiar with located in Chicago, and the spawning place of Obama’s career. Trinity anyone. Thus his writings reflect that contest, and have nothing to do with religion, and in fact, have everything to do with separation of church and state, the exact opposite of what Me babbleface is shilling.”

    If I thought that Obama believed any of the nonsense that his portly pastor preached, I would not be defending him at all.

    “- Mr. Twit, as usual, babbles on, hoping no one has any education in the matter.”

    Calling someone a twit on the internet under a made-up name makes you a hero. Congrats, hero!

  150. Libel!

  151. “The fact that you might have other reasons doesn’t temper the ridiculousness of that one, particularly as you strive to ignore actual professors doing actual writing making actual arguments rebutting your actual assertions.”

    Hey, guess what? Lots of U of C professors whom you would otherwise be hailing as wonderful fellow traveler statist GOP shills say that same thing I’m saying. You should e-mail them and tell them how wrong they are.

  152. And unholy randonimity!

  153. Jeff, try to argue with ten people at once, half of whom are calling you a liar or fascist or Democratic spy in a fucking public forum.

    Is that you I see up there at comment #2? And is there a reference to the post you posted comment #2 to other than “Hey, that’s great. She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser.” within said comment #2?

    Someone’s been hanging out with Semanticleo and caught a case of Pre-traumatic Stress Disorder, it seems.

  154. - Barracky the CandyMan was on the tube again this morning doing his whiny metro-sexual elitist, “the good rev” act.

    – “I don’t care what they say about me, its you I want to talk about…”,Waaaaahhhhhhhh

    – Hes such a martyr for “teh cause”. What a fucking clown.

  155. #149:

    I started doing that recently, and I agree that I feel better for it.

  156. The really cool thing about not using your name, BB, is that you get to make no sense whatsoever and actually get away with it!

    So, unholy advantagingness!

  157. Hey, guess what? Lots of U of C professors whom you would otherwise be hailing as wonderful fellow traveler statist GOP shills say that same thing I’m saying.

    I would love to talk to a GOP statist shill UofC professor who says that they trust Obama’s judgment more than McCain’s because he did a damned good job of editing papers. Please provide names for these shilling professors and I’ll find the contact info for them. Thanks in advance.

  158. I don’t know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.*

    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.

  159. “Not to me, it isn’t.”

    No shit. You’ve never sat around trying to get work done while also arguing with a dozen random and mediocre nationalist weirdos and answering e-mails from wacky editors and making coffee, so, no, you probably wouldn’t be surprised to learn that I didn’t see the good doctor’s comment until a few minutes ago and feel disinclined to respond to someone who probably isn’t even here anymore. Well done, detective.

  160. So, this Barrett Brown cartoon believes that O! is allegedly a good editor of…college papers. And this “skill” makes him more qualified to be president than a commissioned naval officer, who has held command positions. That fact alone tells me that BB is a decidedly unserious individual (he doesn’t meet the qualifications to be called a “man”), incapable of rational thought or argument. In other words, a pantload.

  161. BB,

    I asked your to demonstrate some reasons as to why you supported O!

    The only reason you gave me was the laugable reason I pointed to. Don’t then pretend to be all superior b/c I can’t read your mind as to what other reasons you have. You gave me an example. That was obviously the best one you could come up with or you wouldn’t have bothered to write it. It was laughable.

    Answer my question – do you honestly believe that editing someone else’s written work actually demonstrates “judgment”? That is what you wrote. You wrote “As for Obama, I trust his judgment more than I do that of McCain partly because of what I have seen of his work at the University of Chicago, where he edited papers for conservative professors and, by all accounts, did a damned good job of it

    I’m laughing at what a stupid comment that is. Do you honestly believe that doing a fine job of editing someone else’s paper demonstrates executive judgment? Is that really what you think? That is what you wrote.

    I understand you have other reasons. I, of course, can only comment on the ones you explicitly state. That was the reason you stated. You obviously feel it is a good enough reason to include it as the one explicit reason you will share with us. So, you do the math.

    Or, you can keep playing the game of “I’m not going to tell you why I think O! is a good candidate, but trust me, it is for real good liberterian reasons, I really am a liberterian”.

    It is pretty obvious that you don’t have any good reasons to cite to at this point, so I guess the argument is over and you have lost.

  162. Hey, guess what? Lots of U of C professors whom you would otherwise be hailing as wonderful fellow traveler statist GOP shills say that same thing I’m saying. You should e-mail them and tell them how wrong they are.

    Really, cite them. Cite to their names and statements they have made stating they support O! for president. Please. Not statements that O! did some good work editing their papers, or was a decent fellow, but that they think he should be president. We’ll wait for these “facts”.

  163. No shit. You’ve never sat around trying to get work done while also arguing with a dozen random and mediocre nationalist weirdos and answering e-mails from wacky editors and making coffee, so, no, you probably wouldn’t be surprised to learn that I didn’t see the good doctor’s comment until a few minutes ago and feel disinclined to respond to someone who probably isn’t even here anymore.

    It IS the post you’re commenting on and yet have studiously ignored the content of, you silly hack. Were you doing all of that terribly distracting stuff at 12:18 AM Mountain Time this morning?

  164. “I would love to talk to a GOP statist shill UofC professor who says that they trust Obama’s judgment more than McCain’s because he did a damned good job of editing papers. Please provide names for these shilling professors and I’ll find the contact info for them. Thanks in advance.”

    Start with this NYT article, unless you don’t trust the NYT because it tried to kill Rumsfeld according to Michelle Malkin. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, I suppose.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/us/politics/30law.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    Then, go read the TNR article on the same subject. Not sure if it’s available to non-subscribers.

  165. You’ve never sat around trying to get work done while also arguing with a dozen random and mediocre nationalist weirdos

    None have, BB. And surely none ever shall.

    But a mediocre weirdo? Sir!

  166. I am busy.

    Not too busy to substitute snark for argument, though.

    I know: priorities. Yours evidently don’t include making your point efficiently.

  167. “It IS the post you’re commenting on and yet have studiously ignored the content of, you silly hack. Were you doing all of that terribly distracting stuff at 12:18 AM Mountain Time this morning?”

    Oh, yeah. Let’s see my first comment. Number two. Let’s see… HOLY SHIT! IT’S ABOUT PALIN AND THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE, WHICH IS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF THE POST IN QUESTION! OH MY GOD! LOOK AT THAT! SOMEONE SAVE THE FUCKING CHILDREN FROM THIS TERRIBLE TROLL WHO SHOWS UP ON COMMENT PAGES AND COMMENTS ON SUBJECTS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED!

    Pablo! Only you can stop me! IF YOU DO NOT KILL ME BEFORE MIDNIGHT I WILL TURN INTO A TROLL AND STRIKE AGAIN! I CANNOT HELP MYSELF! SAVE ME FROM MY DARK CURSE!

    Christ, you suck.

  168. “But a mediocre weirdo? Sir!”

    Not *you*, silly. You are a fine fellow of excellent breeding. Perhaps I shall invite you to my next wine and cheese and arugula party.

  169. Lots of U of C professors whom you would otherwise be hailing as wonderful fellow traveler statist GOP shills say that same thing I’m saying.

    Ever heard John Lott’s opinion of Barack?

    Anyway, it is rather curious that you’re not actually addressing the argument presented in the original post, or the continuation in the comment by Ramey. No doubt you’re too busy with all the flak to actually address a substantive point?

    And, BTW, clever use of the “No True Scotsmen” fallacy in 133. Jefferson didn’t qualify his reference to God with “Nature’s God”; he was clearly referring the Christian God. The use of “Lord” is a give-away. Again, you have a rather limited view of Jefferson.

    And, yes the Statute for Religious Freedom is something a very religious person would write. Perhaps if you tried to get to know some of them instead of being a bigot, you’d learn that?

    (Oh, BTW, your comment in #130 makes it clear you’re a classless hack, incapable of seeing any fault to yourself.)

  170. Not statements that O! did some good work editing their papers, or was a decent fellow, but that they think he should be president.

    Actually GB, Barrett said that he trusts Obama’s judgment more than McCain’s partly because he did a bitchin’ job editing papers. Then he said that lots of GOP shill statist professors are saying the same thing. In due deference to Mr. Precision Writing Dude, we ought not be asking for things outside the bounds of exactly what he’s told us he could provide. You see, it could be that they trust Obama’s judgement more, but they wants McCain elected anyway because they’re stupid Rethuglicans. Let’s keep a tight focus here. :)

  171. “So, this Barrett Brown cartoon believes that O! is allegedly a good editor of…college papers. And this “skill” makes him more qualified to be president than a commissioned naval officer, who has held command positions”

    Yeah, like I said, twice, that is

    ONE

    OF

    MANY

    FUCKING

    REASONS

    THAT

    I

    PREFER

    THAT

    PARTICULAR

    STATIST

    TO

    YOUR

    PREFERRED

    STATIST

    YOU

    SILLY

    SILLY

    PERSON

    YOU

    If anyone needs me, I’ll be slitting my wrists in the bathtub!

  172. The wheels on the BBus, they may come off and off.

  173. BB,

    I just read the article you cited re: UofC professors. I see where they state O! was a good guy and a good teacher. Don’t see where they say that any conservative and/or liberterian believes he should be president or has great presidential judgment.

    Please quote me where it says that.

  174. @160–Dude, waah. I’m fending off hackers with one hand while eating donut sticks with the other. Cry me a river.

    I don’t see why anyone gives a shit about a drop in the bucket like 300 mil for a bridge in Alaska, anyway. And discussing the government budgeting process is as boring as watching ice melt (unless it’s dry ice and it’s doing something cool like sublimating).

  175. Barrett believes he is dealing with cartoon Christianists here. Which is sad and wrongheaded, frankly. I happen to know that many of the commenters here are not at all religious (myself include: I’m agnostic); but these commenters just don’t despise those who are religious, provided those people refrain from foisting certain dubious aspects of their morality on us by way of law — an M.O. that, curiously enough, one finds happening far more often when it is secular progressives driving the “ethics” train, using liberal justices to finesse and massage the spaces between legislated words, whereupon that manipulation yields a nice new tract of space for creative expansion.

    I have a search function here on this site. Were one disposed to use it, one would find that Bush’s signing of McCain Feingold (I believe that he, as many of us did, believed the thing was unconstitutional on its face, and that by signing it, he was acting conciliatory — a wrong move, but one I understand) is remarked as a failure on Bush’s part. Were one to go further, one would find me writing about my distrust of McCain — not because I doubt his sincerity, but rather because I question his ideology.

    Were Hillary running against McCain, I’m not sure I would have voted at all. But Obama is Jimmy Carter redux. And having lived through Carter, I have no desire to do so again by way of a cheap knockoff.

    The kinds of nannystatism Obama champions should make any libertarian vomit; McCain, too, is a nannystatist in certain respects, but he is one that would be under obligation to his party’s principles, and checked by Palin’s conservative worldview and libertarian governing style.

    Lesser of two evils, in other words. And with the courts so important, I’m more comfortable with a conservative making nominations than I am with a guy who is on record as saying “social justice” is the proper bailiwick of the courts — and whose followers, by an almost 8-to-2 split, believe that the Constitution is standing in the way of proper use of the judiciary.

    On the other hand, though — YIKES! JEEEEEESUUUS!

    Of course, Obama’s 20-year relationship with his church doesn’t mark him as religious at all. The unspoken truism being that politicians on the left attend church just so they have that base covered with the electorate.

    Principles. Nuance.

  176. a dozen random and mediocre nationalist weirdos

    “Nationalist”?

    WTF? Is that an insult where you come from, Barrette?

  177. “Let’s keep a tight focus here. :)”

    Thank you!

    ;)

  178. If anyone needs me, I’ll be slitting my wrists in the bathtub!

    Be honest now.

  179. You wouldn’t be arguing with ten people at once if you didn’t run around throwing your bigotry and sneers in their faces. You picked the fights, you didn’t address the topic of the post. And then when others give you what you dish out, you claim all sorts of victim status.

    I don’t give that much value – self-inflicted injuries and all that – and I don’t give much value to your narrow, rigid libertarianism. There isn’t any room in that for anyone but lock-step party-men and petty denouncers of the slightest infraction.

    Why don’t you grow up a little bit first, hmm?

  180. Oh, yeah. Let’s see my first comment. Number two. Let’s see… HOLY SHIT! IT’S ABOUT PALIN AND THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE, WHICH IS ALSO THE SUBJECT OF THE POST IN QUESTION!

    There is one line in that comment about Palin and the bridge. “She still advocated for it until such time as it became a political loser.” That’s it. Nowhere in the comment do you address Dr. Ramey’s argument. But the caps lock is a nice, unhinged touch.

  181. Most libertarians I’ve run into aren’t quite this crazy. Maybe BB is more of a Larouche libertarian.

  182. BB,

    No need to get upset. Your raised the point that you believe O! has “judgment” because he edited papers. I ask again, do you honestly believe that editing papers is a real test of “judgment”?

    I realize you have other reasons that you are unwilling to share with us as to your support for O! As I have pointed out, my guess is taht such reasons can’t be argued to be liberterian, which is what you are pretending to be, so you can’t explicitly state those other reasons.

    However, you did explicitly state one reason for your support for O!, which is that he edited some papers. We continue to ask, are you serious?

    Obviously

    WE

    CAN

    ONLY

    COMMENT

    ON

    THE

    REASONS

    YOU

    ACTUALLY

    SHARE

    now I will be slitting my wrists in the bathtub until you actually ever respond to what people ask you.

  183. Barrett believes he is dealing with cartoon Christianists here. Which is sad and wrongheaded, frankly.

    Well, he’s a bigot; it’s what bigots do. He can’t actually be bothered to think about what we say, or what our actual beliefs might be, because he already knows we’re wrong and he’s right.

    And I’m still trying to figure out why he used “nationalist” in a manner that sounds like he intended it as an insult. The definition:

    1. a person who advocates political independence for a country : a Scottish nationalist.
    2. a person with strong patriotic feelings, esp. one who believes in the superiority of their country over others.

    What’s wrong with being a nationalist?

  184. And, yes the Statute for Religious Freedom is something a very religious person would write.

    Exactly right, Rob, especially one who was intellectually honest enough to discern that the freedom thing works in both directions. Helps keep the state out of religions, as well as vice-versa. Jefferson was a thinker, in other words, not someone who just wrote random shit.

  185. McCain, too, is a nannystatist in certain respects, but he is one that would be under obligation to his party’s principles, and checked by Palin’s conservative worldview and libertarian governing style.

    I’d be hard pressed to argue that, as Veep, Palin could do much to stop McCain’s dubious instincts on certain issues. but I also recognize that politics is a succesional game and this is why the Palin choice has me willing to vote in this election. And I don’t think I’m alone in this view, i think alot of Palin’s opponents share this same vision.

  186. “Barrett believes he is dealing with cartoon Christianists here.”

    No I don’t. Please don’t put words in my mouth; the position has already been filled by twenty other people.

    “The kinds of nannystatism Obama champions should make any libertarian vomit; McCain, too, is a nannystatist in certain respects, but he is one that would be under obligation to his party’s principles…”

    Such as… what? Blowing trillions and not paying for it until such time as the various totalitarian-run sovereign wealth funds have made a nice chunk of change? Staffing the Iraqi reconstruction effort with Liberty University grads? Holding hands with fucking Saudi murderers? Claiming that the budget is totally tight and wonderful, like DeLay did? Everything else DeLay did?

    “Of course, Obama’s 20-year relationship with his church doesn’t mark him as religious at all. The unspoken truism being that politicians attend church just so they have that base covered with the electorate.”

    Are you saying that he really is religious? If so, we are in the odd position of me claiming that Obama is lying and you claiming that he is telling the truth.

    Gentlemen – I have reason to believe that Jeff Goldstein is none other than a DNC operative who lures in conservatives to his blog in order to distract them with high-concept stream-of-consciousness political satire.

  187. Most libertarians I’ve run into aren’t quite this crazy. Maybe BB is more of a Larouche libertarian.

    He’s a “libertarian” because it lets him wrap himself in smug.

  188. What’s wrong with being a nationalist?

    Well, Nazis were nationalist, and all. National was even in their party name!

  189. “What’s wrong with being a nationalist?”

    It is unbecoming of an American, and typical of a Russian. This country was founded on principles, not a language or skin tone or some such. I’m not opposed to loving one’s country. Nationalism is a different animal, though.

  190. Barrette, if you don’t believe you’re arguing against cartoon Christians, then stop acting like you do.

  191. “You picked the fights, you didn’t address the topic of the post.”

    Read comment number two. Or don’t. It’s your life, friend. You’re free to write whatever you want about whomever you’d like, and to pretend that I didn’t do something that I obviously did.

  192. Christ, you suck.

    Oh, you’re so going to hell.

    Start with this NYT article, unless you don’t trust the NYT because it tried to kill Rumsfeld according to Michelle Malkin.

    Let’s see:

    “I don’t think anything that went on in these chambers affected him,” said Richard Epstein, a libertarian colleague who says he longed for Mr. Obama to venture beyond his ideological and topical comfort zones. “His entire life, as best I can tell, is one in which he’s always been a thoughtful listener and questioner, but he’s never stepped up to the plate and taken full swings.”

    Nor could his views be gleaned from scholarship; Mr. Obama has never published any. He was too busy, but also, Mr. Epstein believes, he was unwilling to put his name to anything that could haunt him politically, as Ms. Guinier’s writings had hurt her. “He figured out, you lay low,” Mr. Epstein said.

    Several colleagues say Mr. Obama was surely influenced by the ideas swirling around the law school campus: the prevailing market-friendliness, or economic analysis of the impact of laws. But none could say how. “I’m not sure we changed him,” Mr. Baird said.

    Because he never fully engaged, Mr. Obama “doesn’t have the slightest sense of where folks like me are coming from,” Mr. Epstein said. “He was a successful teacher and an absentee tenant on the other issues.”

    Sorry, Barrett. I’m not finding these glowing reviews from, or any specific connections to conservative professors. Unless you’re going to try for Cass Sunstein, in which case, I’m going to laugh at you. Again.

  193. My guess is that his definition of “liberterianism” is basically the same as most people’s definition of “liberalism”.

    Based on his hatred for all things religion, I would guess he is a libertarian to the extent that he wants free love and free drugs.

    But, I would also guess that he is perfectly okay with higher taxes, more environmental regulation, hate speech laws, more anti-discrimination laws, etc.

    In other words, your typical adolescent view of “liberterian”.

    I have never seen a comment of BB’s that seemed to support any kind of classical liberterianism – i.e., less gov’t.

  194. It is unbecoming of an American, and typical of a Russian. This country was founded on principles, not a language or skin tone or some such. I’m not opposed to loving one’s country. Nationalism is a different animal, though.

    Huh?

    Again, what part of the definition of nationalism is “unbecoming of an American”?

    1. a person who advocates political independence for a country : a Scottish nationalist.
    2. a person with strong patriotic feelings, esp. one who believes in the superiority of their country over others.

    Believing the US is the best around doesn’t mean believing it’s perfect.

  195. Read comment number two. Or don’t.

    I did. You tossed off a soundbite and then veered off into ad hom attacks on the commentariat. Now you’re calling that addressing the topic. And you wonder why you’re getting piled in.

  196. “Barrette, if you don’t believe you’re arguing against cartoon Christians, then stop acting like you do.”

    I don’t. I act like I’m arguing against people who routinely assume bad faith and resort to invective and bizarre accusations simply because I disagree with them about politics.

  197. But, I would also guess that he is perfectly okay with higher taxes, more environmental regulation, hate speech laws, more anti-discrimination laws, etc.

    No, I think he’s a Utopian libertarian, of the ilk that lean more towards anarchism. He’s a fantasist, in other words, and is pissed at us for not buying into his dreams.

  198. - You’re not any sort of an “American” Barrett. You’re an embittered, hermetic little man.

    – What was it, a grant you worked hard for, and they passed you over for some other ideologically indoctrinated poser, who didn’t do half as much as you did, carrying the water for “teh cause”.

    – Get over yourself bunky. There will be other opportunities for you to serve your Marxocratic masters.

  199. Trust me, Pablo, Mr. brown’s right. Between your ridiculous parsing, partisan hackery and general dickishness, you do suck.

    Barrett, just say Obama a scary Black Muslim marxist terrorist and let Pablo get back to watching Judge Judy and yelling at her for being an “activist judge”.

  200. No I don’t. Please don’t put words in my mouth

    I never claimed you admitted to such. Just that your comments, and the way you talk about religious folk, show a strong inclination on your part to turn them into caricatures.

    Such as… what? Blowing trillions and not paying for it until such time as the various totalitarian-run sovereign wealth funds have made a nice chunk of change? Staffing the Iraqi reconstruction effort with Liberty University grads? Holding hands with fucking Saudi murderers? Claiming that the budget is totally tight and wonderful, like DeLay did? Everything else DeLay did?

    If those were actually the principles of conservatism, you wouldn’t have so many disaffected conservatives angry at the GOP.

    But “blowing trillions” on a strategy of defense is perfectly in keeping with what government can do. Blowing trillions on social engineering projects? Not so much.

    Are you saying that he really is religious? If so, we are in the odd position of me claiming that Obama is lying and you claiming that he is telling the truth.

    No, I don’t think he’s particularly religious. I think he’s a construct, a cutout, and that nearly everything he does is calculated to make him palatable as a candidate.

    In short, I question if he has any real principles at all — besides the ones he tries to hide. Alinsky’s Chapstick.

    Gentlemen – I have reason to believe that Jeff Goldstein is none other than a DNC operative who lures in conservatives to his blog in order to distract them with high-concept stream-of-consciousness political satire.

    And I have reason to believe Barack Obama is one of the Wayans brothers playing a black guy playing a white guy pretending to be a black guy.

    But in my defense, I ate old sushi.

  201. I have never seen a comment of BB’s that seemed to support any kind of classical liberterianism – i.e., less gov’t.

    Well, sort of, if you count something along the lines of “I like my chosen statist more than the opposing statist.” A stretch, I know, but it’s couched in libertarian lingo, anyway.

  202. I don’t. I act like I’m arguing against people who routinely assume bad faith and resort to invective and bizarre accusations simply because I disagree with them about politics.

    Actually, you do act like that. As for the rest of your comment, go read this list again.

    The biggest problem you have is your elliptical statements that are (apparently) intended to be more combative than expressive. Now you’re going straight for combative — go look at the comment you claim addressed the original post, #2. There’s one sentence of response and a dozen or two of pure abuse. You post that crap and expect people to respond like it’s a debating society?

  203. “You tossed off a soundbite and then veered off into ad hom attacks on the commentariat.”

    Sorry about the soundbite. I could have sworn that was factual information of the sort that is relevant to the discussion insomuch as that is actually what it was whether or not you care to admit it. It is easier for you fellows to write lots and lots of comments about how I’m “hijacking” the thread even as others are talking nonsense and spouting what you would rightfully refer to as soundbites had they come from me or some other terrible, terrible person similar to me.

    Let’s see… what was the first response to me on this thread?

    “Hater, liar, baby lover… Unlike my candidates who voted for it over Katrina human cannibalization and all.”

    Wow. Substantive! Good stuff! Hooray for everyone except for me! How about the second response, though?

    “- Barrett, so good to see you running around carrying your parties water bucket as usual, and no I do not believe your claims of little “l” anymore.

    – The project was already in place wheb she assumed office, ar which rime she evaluated the entire package and based on that evaluation, she killed it.

    – When exactly was this period when she was “for” it?

    – Apparently you’re living proof of a serious short coming of people in general to understand the budgeting process.

    – Either that, or you’re just parroting your fellow travelers.

    – By zealot, I assume, combined with fine examples of your other polemic rantings, your definition would include anyone with the temerity to attend a church.

    – What a twit.”

    Oh, yeah, that’s good stuff. Now THAT’S how one ought to debate! I apologize for lowering the property values over here!

  204. Trust me, Pablo,

    BWAH HA HA Ha haaaaa

  205. BB

    I never said or implied that he was uninterested in religion. He was very interested in it. So am I. I also despise it. So did he, and so did Paine. Mr. Brain will no doubt now try to assert that Paine was a staunch Catholic.

    I believe we will have to agree to disagree, because I don’t see Jefferson as despising religion so much as wishing to put it back into the hands of those it is supposed to serve. It is difficult for us to imagine today how deeply intertwined religion was for many of our founders because we have managed to separate religion from every other aspect of our lives. Not so 200+ years ago.

    The works that these men read, that influenced them to create the systems that we have today were very much infused with religious argumentation.

  206. It is unbecoming of an American, and typical of a Russian. This country was founded on principles, not a language or skin tone or some such. I’m not opposed to loving one’s country. Nationalism is a different animal, though.

    Sure you aren’t confusing nationalism for nativism?

  207. “If those were actually the principles of conservatism…”

    You didn’t say “principles of conservatism,” Jeff. You said “his party’s principles.” You might want to start using that search function of yours for good and not evil. THE WAY IS THE LIGHT AND THE LIGHT IS THE TRUTH!

    “Blowing trillions on social engineering projects?”

    Yeah. The drug war, Medicaid, the lobbyist-written pharmaceutical bread-and-circus sellout a few years back… welcome to the future!

  208. “I believe we will have to agree to disagree”

    Never! I mean, okay. Again, it’s a difficult subject with lots of raw material, Jefferson having been the prolific sort, and, like many people, contradictory. Good to talk to you.

  209. “I apologize for lowering the property values over here!”

    – No need. You’re not that important.

  210. Learnedhand, Judge Judy rocks. You, however, are a nitwit what has never offered anything but poo to a discussion. Feel free to STFU. Your opinion is irrelevant.

  211. I seem to recall learning that patriotism was good (a love of country) and nationalism was bad (superiority at the expense of other countries), but it seems these days as if the terms are used interchangeably.

  212. “Sure you aren’t confusing nationalism for nativism?”

    Yes, I know the difference. I am opposed to both, but, as you might have gathered from our chats, I am quite a bit more opposed to nativism.

    Nationalist doesn’t have to be dangerous and incompatible with love for one’s fellow man, but it often is. Driving while drunk doesn’t have to lead to the death of a pedestrian or a driver or both, but it sometimes does. Best to stay on the safe side.

  213. Gov. Palin has requested $750 million in her two years as governor — which the AP says is the largest per-capita request in the nation.

    The Wall Street Journal – not exactly what you’d call “liberal press” – reports that Palin supported the bridge Aug 2006, defending it from the “spinmeisters” when the project started to create controversy:

    “We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge.”

    -Sara Palin, 8/06

    Sarah sounded disappointed in her statement – less than a year ago when she reversed cource on the bridge – not by her own choice_

    “Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.” — Sarah Palin, 9/21/07

    Source:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Cut the BS – She was for it before she was against it.

  214. “No need. You’re not that important.”

    Clearly. Everyone ignores me.

  215. Yeah. The drug war, Medicaid, the lobbyist-written pharmaceutical bread-and-circus sellout a few years back… welcome to the future!

    The thing is, if you are against those things, we probably actually agree. What I don’t understand is how you believe that O! will be any better for gov’t spending. I’m not sure a nationalized health care system is better than the Medicare Part B plan in terms of spending, for instance.

  216. Add me to the growing numbers of people who wasted precious minutes of her life reading that NYT article.

    I got a hoot out of this:
    or all the weighty material, Mr. Obama had a disarming touch. He did not belittle students; instead he drew them out, restating and polishing halting answers, students recall. In one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. “Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?” he asked in a mock-innocent voice.

    He didn’t belittle students. Just those clueless white people.

  217. Cut the BS – She was for it before she was against it.

    so? has anyone argued otherwise?

  218. “Best to stay on the safe side.”

    – If that means you won’t be driving anywhere inebriated, your nation thanks you. At least you’re one bare notch better than Kennedrunk.

    – Its a start.

  219. “The thing is, if you are against those things, we probably actually agree.”

    We probably do. In fact, I have just changed my name in order to fix this very common problem of fiscal conservative infighting.

    “What I don’t understand is how you believe that O! will be any better for gov’t spending.”

    By default, mostly. Remember Clinton? Who’d a thunk some Arkansas Democrat would balance the budget? But he did. Raised taxes to do so, but, again, I’m more opposed to spending money that we don’t have than I am to paying for things we don’t need. This once was a very common sentiment. In fact, most people – even Dennis Hastert, I’d imagine – understand this principle and apply it to their own lives.

  220. Add me to the growing numbers of people who wasted precious minutes of her life reading that NYT article.

    I got a hoot out of this:
    or all the weighty material, Mr. Obama had a disarming touch. He did not belittle students; instead he drew them out, restating and polishing halting answers, students recall. In one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. “Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?” he asked in a mock-innocent voice.

    He didn’t belittle students. Just those clueless white people.

    Liberals flocked to his classes, seeking refuge. After all, the professor was a progressive politician who backed child care subsidies and laws against racial profiling, and in a 1996 interview with the school newspaper sounded skeptical of President Bill Clinton’s efforts to reach across the aisle.

    Who said he wasn’t progressive just the other day?

  221. Let’s see… what was the first response to me on this thread?

    You post a long screed of abuse and are surprised you get abuse back?

    Grow up.

  222. Anyway, imma go play Spore now. Laterz.

  223. Sorry about the soundbite. I could have sworn that was factual information of the sort that is relevant to the discussion insomuch as that is actually what it was whether or not you care to admit it.

    Yeah. She was for it before she was against it. Of course, Dr. Ramey’s post adresses that notion and instead of arguing with his argument, you simply repeated the assertion. In comment #2.

    It is easier for you fellows to write lots and lots of comments about how I’m “hijacking” the thread even as others are talking nonsense and spouting what you would rightfully refer to as soundbites had they come from me or some other terrible, terrible person similar to me.

    Let’s see… what was the first response to me on this thread?

    Before we look at that, let’s look at the rest of your comment, once we get past the 14 on topic words you expended asserting.

    Also, something tells me that if Obama had done what this little Pentacostal nut had done, you guys would be all over it. The GOP has fooled you before and they will fool you again. Or, more accurately, they will give you what you guys really want, which is a nationalist populist who will totally take on those effete, pinky-dependent arugula eaters, kill other religious zealots (which I’m totally for and which makes me question my libertarian credentials insomuch as that I really do want these expense missiles to be used to kill other religious zealots, regardless of efficiency or even common sense). So, yeah, go Palin, the chick who brought in ten times the pork for her little town as Boise got per capita but whom you guys nonetheless hail as some sort of Heinlienian reformer even though she’s clearly not. Also, again, I don’t mean to, like, come down on you guys! I’m totally, like, hip to your misguided nationalism and absolute disregard for actual principles! Let’s rap about it! But in all seriousness, Spore rules. You guys should all buy it and play it. I know you’re all too old and mature for video games and whatnot, but, seriously, check it out. It’s good stuff, fags. Peace out! Nightwish!

    Have you noticed that you still haven’t addressed Ramey’s argument, Barrett? Why is that?

    And who are these U of C professors you mentioned?

  224. I had absolutely no idea that a state governor could put in earmarks on a federal budget. Knock me over with a feather.

  225. Sorry, disregard the first part of last comment. I thought my ‘puter dropped connection.

  226. Remember Clinton? Who’d a thunk some Arkansas Democrat would balance the budget? But he did.

    Republican Congress.

    And you expect us to think you’re really a “pox on both your houses” type?

  227. Palin-schmalin:

    She can’t save McCain from his evil, filthy self. I didn’t know there was a bottom of the barrel in politics but apparently McCain found it and scraped it clean. Were I the Governor, I would pack up and get the hell away from that motherfucker as fast as I could before he sinks the knife between her ribs. He is vile (and to think, just a few months ago I still harbored some fondness for this monsterous, bottom-dwelling rat). I suppose since Team McCain can’t start rumors of affairs (since he is the champion on that front) they will make sleazy ads damn near accusing their opponent of pedophelia.

    Totally disgusting, but expected.

  228. And who are these U of C professors you mentioned?

    Not John Lott. Or wasn’t he at U of C when the two of them met?

  229. I used to kind of like McCain too…blech.

  230. Um, gotta run! Video games call!

    Heh.

  231. - Its rediculous on the face of it. The NY Trash writes a long pandering article trying to actually inflate the “excellent grading of papers” as representing “Presidential” experience and statesmanship, while at the same time the CandyMan is out on the campaign trail claiming that his almost two year stunt running for the office is what gives him the experience for the office.

    – If grading papers is the benchmark, I should be fucking king of the Planet.

    – Feckless dunderheads, cheerleading for an empty suit.

    – Its why the Left, and their yammering gaggle, cannot win elections.

  232. I suppose since Team McCain can’t start rumors of affairs (since he is the champion on that front) they will make sleazy ads damn near accusing their opponent of pedophelia.

    Lisa, while I think that particular ad was poorly done, the intent wasn’t to accuse anyone of pedophilia.

    Oh, I see “damn near accuse”. Get a grip.

  233. Republican Congress.

    So what happened from 2001 to 2006? They started smoking crack or something? They had a Republican prez and a Republican congress and spent themselves into oblivion.

    So much for that, eh? I think you have proven that y’all are full of shit on the fiscal restraint thing.

    Next.

  234. Seriously, Lisa, get a grip. The ad may have been stupid, but it wasn’t that stupid.

  235. BB,

    Yes, well – Clinton only did those things once the GOP controlled congress and forced it on him. There is absolutely nothing in his record or his positions or statements to suggest that O! will do the same, particularly not with a Dem congress.

    Which again, makes me question why you would support O! At the very least, if you are for smaller/less gov’t, I would think you would support splitting the branches leading to less big, expensive entitlement programs being enacted (a la socialized health care). the dems are more than likely going to keep congress, thus it would make much more rational sense for a liberterian to support McCain (who, by the way has an actual record and history of being for fiscal responsibility) over O! – who proposes the biggest spending increase in the history of America.

    Not sure how you can claim that supporting O! fits w/ libertarianism. It just makes no logical sense.

  236. Hi Lisa! Have a link to the ad in question. I get tired of these second hand sources (McClatchy) who don’t include links to the original.

  237. When you make a dishonest attack on Bob Barr, as you fellows are in the habit of doing with regards to Obama (Dan Collins and whats-her-name collectively hold the record for the grand Posting Nonsense That You Found in Some Internet Forum competition, so don’t even try; they’ve earned it). I’m amazed at this sort of question, though. “Why are you defending Obama?” Who the fuck else would I be defending on a blog that concerns itself with attacking Obama and almost never mentioning McCain? If I was a Republican sympathizer, I wouldn’t mention McCain either. I would be crying.

    That’s no answer, it’s an evasion. Obama does not appear to have a libertarian bone in his body, yet you defend him. Frankly, that is the act of a partisan liberal, not a libertarian. I think you’re a phony, Barrett.

  238. Since everyone who watches that ad seems to feel the distinct need to take a shower afterward, I am pretty sure they knew what they were doing, the ratfucking scumbags.

    Gotta love them family friendly morals and values. (I guess they don’t waste their integrity and godliness on mere liberals).

  239. So what happened from 2001 to 2006? They started smoking crack or something?

    Pretty much. Divided control (Republican Congress, Democrat Executive in the Clinton term) is a good recipe for restraint. Unified control is a good recipe for goin’ crazy with the spending.

    And, seriously, you aren’t arguing that the Democrats — who routinely argue that a reduction in the rate of spending growth is a “cut” — show more fiscal restraint, are you?

    Because I’m perfectly capable of realizing that “flawed” and “seriously flawed” are different things.

  240. ‘Poorly done’ my ass.

  241. As for Obama, I trust his judgment more than I do that of McCain partly because of what I have seen of his work at the University of Chicago, where he edited papers for conservative professors and, by all accounts, did a damned good job of it.

    Comedy gold. A proofreader Prexy.

  242. So what happened from 2001 to 2006? They started smoking crack or something? They had a Republican prez and a Republican congress and spent themselves into oblivion.

    So much for that, eh? I think you have proven that y’all are full of shit on the fiscal restraint thing.

    I think all republicans agree that during that time frame the GOP failed miserably. However, at least from 1994 until 2000, the GOP did force Clinton to balance the budget and forced Clinton to sign Welfare Reform.

    While the GOP did recently fail at fiscal responsibility, the DNC has never even tried or thought about fiscal responsibility. So, while it is fair to point out the GOP’s failure from 2001-2006 in regards to fiscal responsibility, it is difficult to take seriously anyone who argues fiscal responsibility is what O! will engage in. After all, he is talking about spending billions upon billions of new $$ on new projects and entitlements.

  243. Education Guy — I believe there’s a link to it over on HotAir.

    Lisa, seriously, chill. That ad is no where near the worst that’s ever been created, and even taking your over-reaction as valid, it’s nothing like what’s dished out against Republicans all the time. So, chill.

  244. Peace dividend, anyone? What was it, going from a 25 div service to a 10 div service?

  245. ‘Poorly done’ my ass.

    I have no opinion on your ass, but you’re over-reacting to the ad.

  246. Rob, it is never the Republicans fault is it. “Divided Control” LMAO!!! That is a hoot. The congress and the whitehouse were controlled by THE REPUBLICANS and they didn’t do SHIT but grow the government and the budget.

    No I am not arguing that Democrats spend less. But then they never claim to. Your party does. But, no one believes your lying asses anymore.

  247. “And you expect us to think you’re really a “pox on both your houses” type?”

    Okay, I’m back.

    Republican Congress? The one that opposed his tax increase and said it would ruin the economy?

    This is why people such are yourselves are losing influence – you are either ignorant or dishonest or both, and it shows.

    “Um, gotta run! Video games call!”

    God forbid I don’t spend every waking hour discussing politics with people who hate me, Pablo. Clearly, it means I am frightened by the inherent virtue of your insights and must retreat back to DNC headquarters for further instructions on my black ops disinformation campaign. “Brown, get in here! There’s this blog called Protein Wisdom and all of the commenters are fucking geniuses and we have to stop them! Go over there and have them call you names for an hour!”

    “Heh”

    You owe Glenn Reynolds five bucks. If you’d added “indeed,” it’d be twenty. Don’t worry, I won’t narc you out to him.

    “you simply repeated the assertion”

    I did repeat the assertion and pointed out that her other actions with regards to pork do not lend much weight to his assessment of whether or not Palin is actually a very wonderful fiscal hawk who will save our fair republic from, uh, the expenses racked up over the era of Nearly Total Republican Control Over Two Branches of the Federal Government. You know, that thing you don’t like to talk about lest the GOP be exposed for what many Americans now see it.

    Okay, this time I’m really off to go do some stuff. Commence claiming e-victory over me in three, two, one…

  248. Please, I am not overreacting at all. It is pure filth.

  249. Thanks Rob, I found one too. Next step is looking at the legislation in question.

  250. - So Lisa. How did it feel, watching your Lightbringer, the guy who was going to “discard the politics of old”, “refuse to get down in the muck of the divisive politics of old”, “was going to bring a new approach to the face of the political arena”, stand there and call Palin “a pig in lipstick”, just some more of the same “old fish wrapped in paper”.

    – Did that make your heart swell with pride?

  251. Rob, it is never the Republicans fault is it. “Divided Control” LMAO!!! That is a hoot. The congress and the whitehouse were controlled by THE REPUBLICANS and they didn’t do SHIT but grow the government and the budget.

    No I am not arguing that Democrats spend less. But then they never claim to. Your party does. But, no one believes your lying asses anymore.

    There’s absolutely no argument that the Republicans spent money like drunken sailors. They did. It doesn’t follow, therefore, that one should then opt for those who promise to spend money like drunken sailors (unless they are lying and actually plan to cut budgets.)

  252. Jim DeMint in the WSJ.

    My Senate colleague Barack Obama is now attacking Gov. Sarah Palin over earmarks. Having worked with both John McCain and Mr. Obama on earmarks, and as a recovering earmarker myself, I can tell you that Mrs. Palin’s leadership and record of reform stands well above that of Mr. Obama.

    Let’s compare.

    Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state’s history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska’s budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were “not a state responsibility.”

    Meanwhile in Washington, Mr. Obama voted for numerous wasteful earmarks last year, including: $12 million for bicycle paths, $450,000 for the International Peace Museum, $500,000 for a baseball stadium and $392,000 for a visitor’s center in Louisiana.

    Mrs. Palin cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska’s decades-long earmark addiction.

    Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005. His running mate, Joe Biden, is still indulging in earmarks, securing over $90 million worth this year.

    Mrs. Palin also killed the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in her own state. Yes, she once supported the project: But after witnessing the problems created by earmarks for her state and for the nation’s budget, she did what others like me have done: She changed her position and saved taxpayers millions. Even the Alaska Democratic Party credits her with killing the bridge.

    When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys’ club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark.

    Mrs. Palin has proven courageous by taking on big spenders in her own party. In March of this year, the Anchorage Daily News reported that, “Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens is aggravated about what he sees as Gov. Sarah Palin’s antagonism toward the earmarks he uses to steer federal money to the state.”

    Mr. Obama had a chance to take on his party when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a sham ethics bill, which was widely criticized by watchdog groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste for shielding earmarks from public scrutiny. But instead of standing with taxpayers, Mr. Obama voted for the bill. Today, he claims he helped write the bill that failed to clean up Washington.

    Mr. Obama has shown little restraint on earmarks until this year, when he decided to co-sponsor an earmark moratorium authored by Mr. McCain and myself. Mr. Obama is vulnerable on this issue, and he knows it. That is why he is lashing out at Mrs. Palin and trying to hide his own record.

    Thank God we had Barrett to point that bolded bit out to us. Otherwise, we might never have known about it.

    Hey, did you guys know that Palin is running with John McCain, and that John McCain has never requested an earmark and that he’s promised to veto them all? Yup, earmarks are a winning topic for the Obama campaign.

  253. After reading Barrett’s #2 comment again and then the #160 comment, I say:
    Cry me a river, Francine.
    You came in here swaggering and insulting, and then you turn around and cry that everyone is piling on you.

    I know why you support Sen. Obama – you’re a whiny little pussy just like he is. Like calling to like, and all that.

  254. OK, I agree that “sex ed” ad is a cheap shot. A lie. Shame on McCain.

  255. Lisa is correct on that one. It’s crap.

  256. God forbid I don’t spend every waking hour discussing politics with people who hate me, Pablo.

    You’re taking this a tad personally, aren’t you BB?

    When you say that, you sound kinda like a liberal.

  257. Please, I am not overreacting at all. It is pure filth.

    It appears to be true, however.

  258. Please let us keep the discussion on track. Barrett Brown is entitled to his opinions, but the off-topic comments belong in another thread. This particular back-and-forth should cease.

    William in comment 214 raises substantial points. He is wrong, however, in asserting that her decision to terminate the bridge project was “not by her own choice”. As my original post makes clear, she had the option of applying up to $233 million in Federal funds to the project, in addition to available state moneys. She also had the option to defer the project. Obviously, she was not forced to terminate the bridge. The quoted 9/21/07 statement simply indicates that no further bridge earmarks would be forthcoming from Congress.

    Her evident disappointment stems from plainly-expressed concerns about Ketchikan-Gravina Island transportation problems. Her allusion to “inaccurate portrayals” is most likely a response to the notion that the bridge goes to “nowhere”, i.e., that there is no legitimate transportation issue involved. Her statement that “we need to focus on what we can do” expresses her interest in searching for more cost-effective alternatives.

  259. “you’re a whiny little pussy just like he is”

    Thanks for the tip, guy who’s afraid to use his real name and who clearly doesn’t notice that I have been called a pussy, a Marxist, a liar, and other such stuff from the first time I started posting here!

    Speaking of whiny little pussies, I hear the media has been ignoring McCain! And I heard it from McCain! So… are you familiar with the transitive policy?

    I need to play Spore, guys. I’ve earned this. Lay off me for a bit so I can stop responding to your nonsense long enough to skip out of this here lemonade stand, s’alright?

  260. Republican Congress? The one that opposed his tax increase and said it would ruin the economy?

    Umm, the one that made him balance the budget and sign welfare reform. We were talking about fiscal responsibility. As a liberterian, you are for LESS taxes and LESS spending. Not more taxes and more spending, right?

    Based on a number of different comments you have made, it appears that you are more interested in a tax increase than you are cutting spending, which is not even remotely liberterian.

    Do you honestly believe that a dem congress plus dem white house will result in less taxes and less spending? Or even the same amount of taxes and less spending?

    It is not like the dem congresses prior to 1994 were any good or the dem congress since 2006 has been any good as far as fiscal restraint, so that is a pretty poor argument.

    If you want now to change the argument to tax policy, I’d be happy to have that argument. But, I will note that you keep chaning the argument rather than directly respond to points I have made. I’ve given up on getting an answer as to what specific conservatives at the UofC support O! for president, since the article you linked to did not in any way back up your assertion. I’ve also given up getting a response to the question of whether you actually believe that editing someone else’s paper actually equates with “judgment”.

    So, now the goal-posts have been moved once again and we are on to tax policy questions, is that accurate?

  261. It is bullshit Jeffersonian and you know it.

    Fucking filth. But so typical.

  262. Rob, it is never the Republicans fault is it. “Divided Control” LMAO!!! That is a hoot. The congress and the whitehouse were controlled by THE REPUBLICANS and they didn’t do SHIT but grow the government and the budget.

    Lisa, I know you’re smarter than this, so let me repeat what I said before:

    Pretty much. Divided control (Republican Congress, Democrat Executive in the Clinton term) is a good recipe for restraint. Unified control is a good recipe for goin’ crazy with the spending.

    The “pretty much” referred to them being on crack. The rest is a clear statement that yes, the Republicans fucked up and spent like retarded sailors on shore leave.

    You need to chill, get over your reaction to that ad, and re-engage your mind.

  263. Great Banana the Republican congress didnt make him do anything. That is pure delusion. Jesus do you motherfuckers ever stop lying?

  264. Lisa,

    He vetoed the Welfare Reform bill before polls showed it was popular. So, the GOP congress didn’t “make him” do it in the sense of actually physically forcing him to do it, but in the sense of politically forcing him to do it.

    Same with the balanced budget.

    But, you motherfucker keep on lying, both to yourself and us in just about every post you write.

  265. ….and pointed out that her other actions with regards to pork do not lend much weight to his assessment of whether or not Palin is actually a very wonderful fiscal hawk who will save our fair republic from, uh, the expenses racked up over the era of Nearly Total Republican Control Over Two Branches of the Federal Government.

    Did you? Where was that? Please point it out. If you did so, then I am mistaken in noting that you still haven’t addressed Ramey’s argument. Yes, you can get me to admit that I’m wrong by simply pointing to the argument you made here detailing the failings in Palin’s fiscal record. Doesn’t that sound like fun? One little thing, though. This:

    So, yeah, go Palin, the chick who brought in ten times the pork for her little town as Boise got per capita but whom you guys nonetheless hail as some sort of Heinlienian reformer even though she’s clearly not.

    ..assumes that mayors earmark, which they don’t. Also, it’s just more assertion without much foundation, especially when you present Alaskan funds for town infrastructure projects as pork. So that isn’t it. But I’m sure I missed it up there somewhere, and I will eat me some crow when you point it out.

  266. Oh, darn, here comes Dr. Ramey himself. I will never play Spore.

    Dr. Ramey – do you agree with my assessment that Palin’s track record with regards to the 26 million or so in state monies that she successfully lobbied to obtain for a town of less than 10,000 people is something that ought to be of concern to those who are worried about the fiscal policies under which this nation has been operating as of late?

    To everyone else – any of you who would like to carry on a friendly debate or discussion or even just call me a pussy are free to e-mail me at barriticus@gmail.com, or call me at five one two, five six zero, two three zero two (not being effete by writing numbers with letters; would simply prefer that my number not appear to search engines). I am particularly anxious to speak with the more angry and strange members of your little conservative collective, as it would be very novel.

  267. - I also agree with Lisa that the ad leaves to much room for misinterpretation and inuendo.

    – McCains camp has been on the mark, holding their ammunition and allowing the Obama people to play the screeching self-destruction of defensive politics.

    – Well up til now. No need to interupt your opponenet when hes busy eating his own feet.

    – If they start to overplay their advantage they could begin swimming backwards. They should listen to Rove.

  268. I’m not sure if Lisa actually does not know anything, and that is why she writes what she does, or if she is always lying. Either way, same result.

  269. It is bullshit Jeffersonian and you know it.

    Fucking filth. But so typical.

    I’ll look into it, but I just heard a citation from an Illinois bill – one of the few that Obama didn’t vote “present,” but “aye” on – that mandates exactly what the ad claims…comprehensive sex ed for kids as young as kindergarten. Also heard an Obama audio clip that said “it’s the right thing to do.”

  270. To everyone else – any of you who would like to carry on a friendly debate or discussion or even just call me a pussy are free to e-mail me at barriticus@gmail.com, or call me at five one two, five six zero, two three zero two (not being effete by writing numbers with letters; would simply prefer that my number not appear to search engines). I am particularly anxious to speak with the more angry and strange members of your little conservative collective, as it would be very novel.

    Or, you could just honestly answer legitimate questions asked of you on this site. Questions based on assertions you have made that have since been refuted. Or questions going to arguments you have made that show how stupid those arguments are (I.e., editing = presidential judgment).

    but, keep telling yourself that you are clever and smart and we are just hillbillies.

  271. - Whoa guys, no mofoing our Lisa. Shes good people. Disagree fine, but thats out of line.

  272. Okay I didn’t comprehend the rest of what you said Rob. I saw something else. Heh. Sorry.

    But the ad is still horrible – vile. And it portends evil horrors to come in the next 6 weeks.

  273. OK here’s the bill in question. Perhaps outright lie is a bit strong, but only because I’m not sure how “age and developmentally appropriate” is defined, since it isn’t in this document.

  274. It is bullshit Jeffersonian and you know it.

    Fucking filth. But so typical.

    Oh, please, Lisa, get over it. I’m sorry, but after decades of hearing how Republicans are going to bring back slavery, end life on earth, start etc. etc., ad nauseam, I think you’re massively over-reacting to that ad.

  275. OK here’s the bill in question. Perhaps outright lie is a bit strong, but only because I’m not sure how “age and developmentally appropriate” is defined, since it isn’t in this document.

    Don’t lines 13-18 pretty much support the ad’s contention?

  276. When you go into the territory of creepy child pervy innuendo, you have gone past “4 More Wars” and “Yer a bunch of racists” and all that. You have gone into some other realm entirely. I can’t imagine the vapors that would be had on this site if Obama had released such filth.

  277. Dr. Ramey – do you agree with my assessment that Palin’s track record with regards to the 26 million or so in state monies…

    State money, and all of it for infrastructure projects. That’s what states are supposed to spend their money on. I don’t think Alaska should determine it’s appropriations based on the amounts that Boise gets from the State of Idaho. Do you?

  278. I can’t imagine the vapors that would be had on this site if Obama had released such filth.

    EdGuy posted the test of the bill, Lisa. It’s exactly as the ad claims. If it’s vile, shouldn’t the blame be placed on those who voted for it instead of those who point out the fact?

  279. - FOX seems to still be unaware that the “pig” comment came directly from DKos, after three days of working on it.

    – Maybe they’ll get up to speed sometime in the coming month, when everyone else on the planet already knows about it.

  280. I promise to screech loudly if Obama ever implies that McCain is a child molester who likes talking Teh Sexy Talk to kindegartners.

  281. Yeah, Lisa. Obama is totally above things like calling his opponents nasty racists and stuff. Which is damned near saying that they’re all for lynching black folks. No filth there. Clean hands on that one.

  282. No problem, Lisa. We all mis-read.

    But the ad is still horrible – vile. And it portends evil horrors to come in the next 6 weeks.

    Ugliness, but not “evil horrors”. But, like I said before, on this side of the aisle we’ve been called much, much worse. It may piss us off, but we get on with our lives.

  283. I meant “text” of course.

  284. Jefferson

    Yes, but the real dodge comes in on page 2 – lines 7 – 13

    Quote:

    All sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or
    8 behavior intercourse shall satisfy the following criteria:
    9 (1) Factual information presented in course
    10 material and instruction shall be medically accurate and
    11 objective.
    12 (2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
    13 be age and developmentally appropriate.

    The real bitch of this is that the bill never defines just what age and developmentally appropriate means. I have been unable to discover it on the Ill. education site either.

  285. The bill makes VERY clear that age appropriate education for 5 year olds is educating kids about “good touch/bad touch” and other measures to help kids to identify pervs and turn them in.

    The ad makes some other creepy implication entirely, Jeffersonian. You know that.

    And just a token comment on the actual topic: Governor Palin is stretching the truth to the frigging breaking point about her support of the Bridge to Nowhere.

  286. If you say so Pablo.

    ;-)

  287. Bah.

    NUMBER ONE: the virtues or lack thereof of the Ketchikan Bridge are irrelevant to the discussion. A, it would be neither the first nor the last time enormous amounts of Federal funds have been spent on a project of strictly local utility — consider that Hawai’i gets substantial amounts of money to construct Interstate highways. B, from a strictly local point of view the bridge is somewhere between “useful” and “badly needed” — the geography of the area is against anything us flatlander 48ers would consider sensible.

    If the bridge had been financed in what might laughingly be called the “normal fashion”, as a line item in the Transportation budged voted on by the entire Congress, nobody outside of Alaska would have ever heard about it, and bulldozers would probably already be at work. The whole point of this tempest in a teapot was the attempt to finance it via the “earmark” system — and the whole thing behind that is Stevens.

    Palin, like the remaining few honest Republicans, wanted Stevens out of there, and used what came to hand in an attempt to accomplish that. In this case it was the earmark request, which had already come to national attention as an example of bad governance and thus served as a handy club to bash Stevens & associates.

    NUMBER TWO: Earmarks are a fact of life. They exist. Substantial amounts of money are disbursed that way. Any local politician who doesn’t angle for them, and use them if awarded, is defrauding his or her constituents in favor of enriching John Murtha. This does not in any way contradict or discredit efforts on the part of the selfsame politician(s) to reform the system, out of distaste at having to kowtow to Senators if nothing else, and any attempt to claim otherwise is as dishonest as the system itself.

    Oh, and:

    If I thought that Obama believed any of the nonsense that his portly pastor preached, I would not be defending him at all.

    So what we have here is (x) Derangement Syndrome, projective version. Obama hates George Bush and (at minimum) opposes John McCain; it therefore follows that he must, of necessity, be entirely Pure and Good, and that any ally of McCain & Co. must (equally of necessity) be thoroughgoingly Evil; and from there it is an easy step to project one’s own predilections upon the blank screen that is Barack Obama.

    Regards,
    Ric

  288. This is the part of the election where everyone just starts freaking out right? How bad is it to stay drunk for like, 60 days or so?

  289. Ferdinand “the Smasher” was a Parisian sophisticate made strong by a medical education, two world wars and, most notably, unrepentant hate from academies and academics to this day. “It all begins and ends in the streets!” was his anti-hero’s motto. Playing patty-cake in a circle of children, showing off a cripple as a trophy of humility, smugly holding forth provincial values? Not permitted in Celine’s insurrection, bitches. Celine’s mother was a cripple, and he trotted her out alright, as well as sharing family tales of his ball-kicking fistfights with his father. He took your nose straight to the asshole! Ham-fisted pimps, heartless hookers, pawnbrokers, cadavers, undertakers, political monkey-wrenchers, godfathers, jilted queers, arsonists, they found their rightful places on stage in his avante-garde circus performed in the street muck. Scatology for the sake of art!

    Had Celine just one Sarah Palin-sized teat laden with the milk of swine he’d have been loved, like she here. With such a gift he could’a drenched throngs with sweet oinker milk instead of being refused his entry and validation. As if Ferdinand de Celine was a worthless bag of shit clods! That’s how he got tossed! In short, if born swollen teated all the Prix Goncourts would have been Celine’s, as they should have been. Instead his treatment at the hands of the world of modern letters was/is as lecherous and scandalous as the last Palin virgin getting butt-fucked standing up.

    One vignette down.

  290. When you go into the territory of creepy child pervy innuendo, you have gone past “4 More Wars” and “Yer a bunch of racists” and all that.

    Sorry, but you’re speaking to someone who has heard the following accusations against Republicans:

    o We wanted to start a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

    o We want to destroy the environment and end all life on earth.

    o We only support Israel in order to bring about the Apocalypse because we’re all either religious nuts or slaves to religious nuts.

    o We want to remove the vote from blacks and/or re-institute slavery.

    o We want to turn the US into a theocracy, force women out of the work place and back into the home “barefoot and pregnant”.

    I’m not going to get worked up over an ad that says Democrats advanced a bill that may have included Too Much Information About Sex for kindergartners, and that Obama voted in favor of it, regardless of the “vibe” you get from it.

  291. “And just a token comment on the actual topic: Governor Palin is stretching the truth to the frigging breaking point about her support of the Bridge to Nowhere.”

    – Whereas the Left isn’t stretching thier rhetoric into pretzles, trying desperately to paint her as a “big spender”, even when she kills pork barrel graft.

    – Is that your argumant Lisa?

    – Good luck.

  292. The bill makes VERY clear that age appropriate education for 5 year olds is educating kids about “good touch/bad touch” and other measures to help kids to identify pervs and turn them in.

    I posted the bill Lisa, show me where it very clear does what you claim it does.

  293. Lisa, the bill makes THIS clear:

    “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”

    EACH CLASS. K included.

    That’s the strict language of the statute. So I am unpersuaded that McCain’s ad is outrageous. I myself would spare mmall children instruction on HIV, or genital warts, the means of contracting them, or ways to prevent or treat these STD’s. YMMV. But it puts a different light on your objections to McCains ad or your assertions about the strict language of the statute.

  294. Yeah Rob that is true. I usually don’t get outraged at the back and forth. I am ready for the “you liar/you cheater/you racist/you misogynist/you wimp/you elitist/you crazy old fucker” stuff. It comes with the territory. But “you child molester”? Whoa!!! WTF?!?! That is a whole new level of crazy. And it makes me mad.

    But I am already kind of over it. Sighs and takes Rob’s advice and gets on with it. Being really mad is boring after a few minutes.

  295. Lisa seems to get grumpier and grumpier the worse O!’s poll numbers look.

    Think there’s a connection?

    And, FTR, I think the add is suggestive and misleading at worse, but Lisa’s assessment a bit over the top.

  296. The bill makes VERY clear that age appropriate education for 5 year olds is educating kids about “good touch/bad touch” and other measures to help kids to identify pervs and turn them in.

    The ad makes some other creepy implication entirely, Jeffersonian. You know that.

    I’ve read about 2/3 of the text and my eyes glazed over. Where does it say that, exactly?

  297. I must be dense, but can someone explain how the ad suggests he’s a child molester?

  298. And, given the number of child molesters that have worked in public schools … I don’t think I’d leave them to teach my 6 y/o about stranger danger.

  299. 2) All (1) course material and instruction shall
    13 be age and developmentally appropriate.

  300. Barrett, while it would be a kick to call you up, my husband gets paranoid about my trips to the gym. I don’t think he’d understand phone calls to some twenty-something I “met” on the internet.

    heh. $5 to puppyblender on the way.

  301. - I watched a Left talking head going on and on about the “desperation coming from the McCain camp”, even as the banner across the bottom of the screen was posting the McCain 49, Obama 44 daily tracking polls average, and I kept waiting for the Sherman tanks to roll by in the studio window behind her.

  302. Paranoid sex freaks speak out!

    Just another day hangin’ out with the Free Masons on PW.

  303. #300 – “age appropriate” isn’t very specific.

  304. I must be dense, but can someone explain how the ad suggests he’s a child molester?

    It doesn’t. But it does say he’s black and doesn’t look like the presidents on the dollar bills, so there’s that.

    Oh, wait. It doesn’t say that either. My bad.

  305. And, FTR, I think the add is suggestive and misleading at worse, but Lisa’s assessment a bit over the top.

    I wish I could, but the ad simply quotes the wording of the bill. Sure, there’s an “age- and developmentally-appropriate” hedge in there, but it’s empty as far as actual content restrictions go. It’s a legislative cop-out, like so many things we’ve seen over the decades, a punt to the judiciary for when parents are outraged over a school showing “Anal Bitches #17″ under the aegis of this law.

  306. Comment by Carin on 9/10 @ 11:45 am #

    Lisa seems to get grumpier and grumpier the worse O!’s poll numbers look.

    Think there’s a connection?

    The fuck are you going to do when Obama wins? Openly weep? Move a block north to Canada? Wail songs from the heartland now humiliated?

  307. #300 – “age appropriate” isn’t very specific.

    Agreed, and I sure didn’t get “Obama’s a child molester!!” out of the ad. My interpretation was that Obama’s priorities on education are fucked up.

  308. - Yes, well you know. So far very few judges have been snuffed, whereas the same cannot be said of legislators.

    – So there is that as a reason to kick the can down the road.

  309. To hell with Spore, I miss you guys.

    “State money, and all of it for infrastructure projects. That’s what states are supposed to spend their money on. I don’t think Alaska should determine it’s appropriations based on the amounts that Boise gets from the State of Idaho. Do you?”

    No. I think that towns ought not to clamor for a great deal more than their fair share of state monies. It is a disgusting spiral that robs Peter to pay Palin, and is the exact sort of dynamic that leads to national senators fighting over similarly unfair shares of money that will come from the rest of us – later, of course, after the next president raises taxes to pay for the last president’s failure to find his veto pen until, what? 2005? 2006? Ah, the snowflake babies.

    “So what we have here is (x) Derangement Syndrome, projective version. Obama hates George Bush and (at minimum) opposes John McCain; it therefore follows that he must, of necessity, be entirely Pure and Good, and that any ally of McCain & Co. must (equally of necessity) be thoroughgoingly Evil; and from there it is an easy step to project one’s own predilections upon the blank screen that is Barack Obama.”

    I have called Obama a liar and noted that he has engaged in otherwise dishonest and silly talk about education so that he doesn’t upset the teachers unions. I have done this in the very thread you are reading right now. I think that contradicts your cute assessment of what makes me tick.

    “Based on a number of different comments you have made, it appears that you are more interested in a tax increase than you are cutting spending, which is not even remotely liberterian.”

    I have spent the morning criticizing the massive spending that’s been undertaken by Congress lately. You are simply the latest in a long line of people who have failed to notice this. I will assume good faith on your part and will pretend that you simply didn’t see these comments.

  310. “…Obama’s priorities on education…”

    About which, see Steve Diamond’s heroic efforts to bring to light Obama and Ayers’ pissing away $160M through the CAC, judged by its own parent org. to be a failure.

  311. We have the opportunity here to discuss the actual budgeting process with an economics prof who has studied that process. I suggest we take advantage of that.

    To Lisa —

    I thought the McCain ad was over the top, but per SarahW’s catch, it appears to be suggestive based on the wording of the bill itself. So hardly something I would call anything more than rhetorically opportunistic.

    Off to take the kid to school. Back in a bit.

  312. “The fuck are you going to do when Obama wins?”

    – No-brainer thor-boi. You immediately buy some lottery tickets and make a casino run, because obviously Mars is in the seventh house, and the cosmic odds have all gone “extreme longshot”.

  313. About which, see Steve Diamond’s heroic efforts to bring to light Obama and Ayers’ pissing away $160M through the CAC, judged by its own parent org. to be a failure.

    I’ve been reading that. At least it was private money Ayers and Obama were pissing away on their Maoist pals.

  314. “So much anger.”

    I agree; the conservative fellow who decided to call Lisa a “motherfucker” or some such probably needs to get a little fresh air and think about why it is that he feels the need to act like that. Same with the fellow who called me a “pussy.” I am glad to see that you are not one of those types who only points out flaws in their opponents while ignoring it from their allies. Cheers!

  315. Carin my moods are not tied to the polls. If Obama/Biden wins then good. But if Obama/Biden wins then good – because part of me really WANTS to watch the idiots McCain and Palin try to drill us into energy independence and defeat Al Qaeda by bomb, bomb, bombing Iran (I know, I know – but McCain thinks it will work).

  316. I’m sort of consistently OT, on this so apologies.

    Here is some of what SEICUS lists as age appropriate comprehensive sex education for Level 1 (ages 5-8): (Note: I have no idea of Ill. follows these guidelines.)

    Reproductive and Sexual Anatomy and Physiology:
    • Each body part has a correct name and a specific function.
    • A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female.
    • A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.
    • A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries.
    • Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of
    the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body.
    • Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched.

    Puberty
    • Bodies change as children grow older.
    • Puberty is a time of physical and emotional change that happens as children become teenagers.
    • People are able to have children only after they have reached puberty.

    Reproduction
    • Men and women have reproductive organs that enable them to have a child.
    • Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce.
    • Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join.
    • Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join

    Sexual Orientation
    • Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender.
    • Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender.
    • Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender.
    • Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians.
    • People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.
    • Making fun of people by calling them gay (e.g. “homo,” “fag,” “queer”) is disrespectful and hurtful.

    Sexuality Throughout Life
    • Most children are curious about their bodies.
    • Bodies can feel good when touched.

    Masturbation
    • Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation.
    • Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not.
    • Masturbation should be done in a private place.

    Shared Sexual Behavior
    • People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring
    and to feel good.

  317. Sorry I mean “but if McCain Palin wins then good”

  318. Prof Ramey’s efforts are wasted – he won’t be able to break through the propaganda coming from the left. See Huffpo.

  319. Not reassuring, EdGuy, not reassuring at all.

  320. But “you child molester”? Whoa!!! WTF?!?! That is a whole new level of crazy. And it makes me mad.

    No, it’s not a whole new level. Accusations of wanting to destroy the planet and/or re-enslave people pretty much dug down to that level already.

  321. - Ok “Libertarian; not a Marxist; that dog won’t hunt (because everyone knows Marxist dogs are afraid to open their mouths , even pick up the bird).

    – Maybe we possibly agree on uncalled for personal attacks. Little else however.

    – But in your case you’re still a twit.

  322. #

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 9/10 @ 12:03 pm #

    “The fuck are you going to do when Obama wins?”

    – No-brainer thor-boi. You immediately buy some lottery tickets and make a casino run, because obviously Mars is in the seventh house, and the cosmic odds have all gone “extreme longshot”.

    Oh really. Your so good with numbers.

    I suggest you douse your clothes in moose piss and become a performance art version of the Piss Christ.

  323. Damn. I’m behind on my 6 y/o’s sex ed. I need to go explain to him the whole masturbation thing.

    Of course, I could let my 14 y/o handle it. Based on the length of his showers, I believe he’s figured it out for himself.

  324. Barret Brown still running rough shod over the majority of fools?

    Go BB!

  325. “Not reassuring, EdGuy, not reassuring at all.”

    Planning on writing in Jonathan Edwards, I imagine?

  326. Joycelyn Elders, call your office! (When you’re done in there, that is)

  327. “Maybe we possibly agree on uncalled for personal attacks.”

    Sounds good!

    “Little else however.”

    Sure, no problem!

    “But in your case you’re still a twit.”

    Thanks for the tip!

  328. Funny to hear someone deny a lack of citations who has never offered one himself.

    But then he values editors more highly than authors. Which seems inconsistent, though it IS consistent with his preference for legislators over executives. Go figure.

  329. • A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles.

    – Except the sub-species thor-ignoramus-nonsapianus-stupidus

  330. BB, I think the only people I’ve used R-rated words against are thor and nishi. Both of whom, believe me, deserved it.

  331. Allow me to declaim: deny should be decry

  332. R-rated? Beg your pardon.

    Your words belong in a blender with moose weenies, pig tits and lip gloss.

  333. Planning on writing in Jonathan Edwards, I imagine?

    No, I’ve voted LP since the days of Andre’ Marrou, even have my copy of “Why Government Doesn’t Work” signed in person by Harry Browne. Ran for Congress on the LP ticket once, too (got just under 3%, not bad). I’m going to vote for McCain this year, however.

  334. “I suggest you douse your clothes in moose piss”

    – And I suggest you stick one finger up you ass, and the other in your mouth, and wait for someone to yell “SWITCH”.

  335. I don’t even know what that means.

  336. You are simply the latest in a long line of people who have failed to notice this.

    If it’s a long line, maybe you’re doing it wrong. Common denominator, and all that.

  337. No, it’s not a whole new level. Accusations of wanting to destroy the planet and/or re-enslave people pretty much dug down to that level already.

    I’m still pissed off that we don’t have any reeducation camps like I was promised we would. Where are my gulags? Also, I haven’t gotten the memo that says I can rape Cameron Diaz yet.

  338. Also, I haven’t gotten the memo that says I can rape Cameron Diaz yet.

    That girl needs a sammich.

  339. #

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter (pumping you up) on 9/10 @ 12:22 pm #

    “I suggest you douse your clothes in moose piss”

    – And I suggest you stick one finger up you ass, and the other in your mouth, and wait for someone to yell “SWITCH”.

    You’re delirious from doting on her. Remove the Moosey Queen’s vagina gag from your face!

  340. - Yeh, and whats all this 4 dollars a gallon shit. Wheres all that fucking oil we were going to steal from Iraq?

    – Fucking Rethugs can’t even Imperialist their way out of a paper bag any more.

  341. Plus, wasn’t Bush going to sic dogs on blacks if they tried to vote?

  342. “Funny to hear someone deny a lack of citations who has never offered one himself.”

    Let’s play a game – pretend that you had decent parents who raised you properly instead of typing nonsense into your little computer. I have provided links and citations in this very thread.

    “But then he values editors more highly than authors.”

    I can assure you that I hate all editors except for my mom. As an author, I prefer authors, being, as many have pointed out, very self-satisfied. Speakers of editors, you need one.

    “Which seems inconsistent, though it IS consistent with his preference for legislators over executives. Go figure.”

    Legislators like McCain?

    “No, I’ve voted LP since the days of Andre’ Marrou, even have my copy of “Why Government Doesn’t Work” signed in person by Harry Browne. Ran for Congress on the LP ticket once, too (got just under 3%, not bad). I’m going to vote for McCain this year, however.”

    Well, that’s pretty sweet, particularly the congressional run. I’m sort of in politics now myself, but as the communications director of a PAC, which is one reason I prefer not to formally join the party since we help candidates of parties as long as they’re down with our crazy secular agenda. Not a libertarian PAC per se, but it does advocate for an arguably libertarian approach to the Establishment Clause, so I’m happy. Anyway, cheers.

  343. “You’re delirious from doting on her. Remove the Moosey Queen’s vagina gag from your face!

    – Now don’t go all jealousy over good Northern pooty thor-boi. Maybe you keep being a good boi you’ll get some of that when you grow up.

  344. To be fair I called Great Banana a motherfucker first. But only because he really is one. I said it with the greatest sobriety and seriousness.

    I am not wild about Libertarianism, but I like this Barrett Brown gent though.

    R-rated? Beg your pardon.

    Your words belong in a blender with moose weenies, pig tits and lip gloss.

    If had to choose someone to insult and heckle me, it would be Thor. I am fascinated (and deeply amused) by his outbursts.

  345. “I am fascinated (and deeply amused) by his outbursts.”

    They do tend to be very surreal.

  346. I think that towns ought not to clamor for a great deal more than their fair share of state monies.

    And who determines what is fair? These days, in Alaska, that’s Sarah Palin.

    Mrs. Palin used her veto pen to slash more local projects than any other governor in the state’s history. She cut nearly 10% of Alaska’s budget this year, saving state residents $268 million. This included vetoing a $30,000 van for Campfire USA and $200,000 for a tennis court irrigation system. She succinctly justified these cuts by saying they were “not a state responsibility.”

    Mrs. Palin cut Alaska’s federal earmark requests in half last year, one of the strongest moves against earmarks by any governor. It took real leadership to buck Alaska’s decades-long earmark addiction.

    Etc. That would be the governor with the 80% approval rating. She did what people wanted her to do as Mayor and she’s doing what people want her to do as Governor, and that includes instilling fiscal responsibility and rooting out corruption. Now, you can spin that any way you like, but those are the facts and they seriously outweigh your opinions.

  347. - There you go thor-boi. You’ve got SugarTits on your case. You’re toast.

  348. Carin a dog totally bit me on my ass in 2004 on the way to the polls. I think it wanted that free chicken box (with a free crackpipe inside!)that Kerry paid me to vote.

  349. “I am fascinated (and deeply amused) by his outbursts.”

    They do tend to be very surreal.

    After a few months, the glow wears off.

  350. Lisa, didn’t that church bus that drove you to the polls know enough to drop you close enough to the entrance that you could outrun the dogs?

    For shame.

  351. Barrett, that was in response to yours I quoted:

    If I thought that Obama believed any of the nonsense that his portly pastor preached, I would not be defending him at all.

    Twenty years? Tens of thousands of dollars? Not one but two autobiographies quoting the philosophy approvingly, including taking the title of at least one from a sermon? Appointment of the guy as a political advisor with fulsome praise? A reasonable person might conclude from the preponderance of evidence that Obama either subscribes to the philosophy OR is the most thoroughgoing cynic ever hatched.

    You would appear to have taken the latter option, assuming that since he opposes some of the people you dislike he must of necessity subscribe to your philosophy, or to something which isn’t antithetical to it. I would remind you that traitors sometimes get paid, but anybody who trusts one is a fool.

    Regards,
    Ric

  352. Hey, does anyone know where that backwoods rube Harry Truman got his degree?

  353. “And who determines what is fair?”

    That’s a tough one, but I would say that $26 million in state money going to a town of less than 10,000 people simply because Palin got some sweet lobbyist to agitate for it is not fair. We must ask Socrates to define fairness for us.

    These days, in Alaska, that’s Sarah Palin.”

    Everything DeMint describes is to Palin’s credit. But I’m going to go ahead and assume that a WSJ op-ed by Jim DeMint might very well leave out a few things about Palin’s record. Like, stuff that DeMint would prefer not to talk about.

  354. I enjoy driving the wingered manics into the pit. Just look at the orgy down there. Pablo’s, Mikey’s, BBH’s and Spies’s tonges are in a frenzy. Slobberwaller!

  355. LOL Carin. They dropped me off at the nearby crackhouse with a $10 voucher.

  356. BB, you forgot to bring up Boise again. I think it’s a rule that you must bring up that OH SO RELEVANT comparison when smearing Palin.

  357. That’s a tough one, but I would say that $26 million in state money going to a town of less than 10,000 people simply because Palin got some sweet lobbyist to agitate for it is not fair. We must ask Socrates to define fairness for us.

    She did? Cite please. Methinks you’re getting your facts confused. Again.

  358. - Heh. He was from Missouri, and we all know how stubborn they can be.

  359. “Jeff, try to argue with ten people at once, half of whom are calling you a liar or fascist or Democratic spy in a fucking public forum. Try it. You tend not to see all of the posts. If the good doctor would like to debate me, he can do so. I am busy.

    “Barrett Brown hijacks comment threads.”

    This isn’t your blog, Random Anonymous Internet Person. This is Jeff’s blog. Jeff and I are cool with each other, and occasionally he even has to show up here and tell everyone to stop their bitching. Also, stop your bitching.

    Rolling on the fucking floor laughing.

    I couldn’t get any farther than this, was the rest of the thread just more

    am not
    are too
    am not
    are too

    gussied up with bullshit to try to pass for actual debate?
    I am starting to think Barret is a shill hired by thor to try to make him look better.

  360. “Twenty years? Tens of thousands of dollars? Not one but two autobiographies quoting the philosophy approvingly, including taking the title of at least one from a sermon? Appointment of the guy as a political advisor with fulsome praise? A reasonable person might conclude from the preponderance of evidence that Obama either subscribes to the philosophy OR is the most thoroughgoing cynic ever hatched.”

    The latter. On a totally unrelated subject, remember all of those Christ enthusiasts to whom was promised so much by the GOP? Their problem was that, rather than meek, they were mean, and thus inherited nothing. Or whatever. I’m no theologian.

    “You would appear to have taken the latter option, assuming that since he opposes some of the people you dislike he must of necessity subscribe to your philosophy, or to something which isn’t antithetical to it.”

    No. He is of the same general cut as most of the nation’s “leaders” insomuch as that he will simply reform a thing or two but leave the big questions unaddressed. The drug war and America’s expensive and ill-conceived international stance will go on forever, and Obama does not care, or, if he does, knows that he can do absolutely nothing about any of this.

    “I would remind you that traitors sometimes get paid, but anybody who trusts one is a fool.”

    Oh, I’m aware.

  361. #

    Comment by Pablo on 9/10 @ 12:43 pm #

    That’s a tough one, but I would say that $26 million in state money going to a town of less than 10,000 people simply because Palin got some sweet lobbyist to agitate for it is not fair. We must ask Socrates to define fairness for us.

    She did? Cite please. Methinks you’re getting your facts confused. Again.

    How about you cite it, you big bad word-Snoopy!

    Google-click your dumbassedness away.

  362. WHARRGARBL

    thor brings it.

  363. “Like, stuff that DeMint would prefer not to talk about.

    – Because I KNOW its just got to be there…..because…..because….. well it just fucking does…..

  364. Lisa – we once had a homelessman/crack addict who would come about EVERY day to my HOUSE and ask for “bus money.” We tried everything to get him to go away nicely. Didn’t work. Once my husband offered to drive him himeself … and guess where he wanted to go? Yes. A crack house.

    Eventually we learned the only way to make him never come back was to threaten, very seriously, bodily harm.

    That sank-in to his crack addled brain.

    But, in interest of full disclosure, I have no idea if he voted for Kerry. I just suspect it.

  365. #

    Comment by B Moe on 9/10 @ 12:45 pm #

    I am starting to think Barret is a shill hired by thor to try to make him look better.

    It’s as if I’m the McCain and he’s my Palin.

    Dope.Egghead.Moosebutt.Sniffer.

  366. Way to take advantage of prof Ramey’s expertise.

    Thor —

    If you can’t control the overt sexism, take it somewhere else. It’s wearing thin.

  367. - The best way to get rid of crackheads is to fill their bongs with a mixture of camphor oil and tidy bowl.

    – Works every time.

  368. From DeMint’s column:

    “Mr. Obama delivered over $100 million in earmarks to Illinois last year and has requested nearly a billion dollars in pet projects since 2005.”

    $100 million for a state with one of the nation’s biggest cities – which is to say, four times what Palin lobbied for and received for a small town in Alaska!

    “Because I KNOW its just got to be there…..because…..because….. well it just fucking does…..”

    Protip: See above. Or don’t.

  369. #

    Comment by Carin on 9/10 @ 12:48 pm #

    Lisa – we once had a homelessman/crack addict who would come about EVERY day to my HOUSE and ask for “bus money.” We tried everything to get him to go away nicely. Didn’t work. Once my husband offered to drive him himeself … and guess where he wanted to go? Yes. A crack house.

    Eventually we learned the only way to make him never come back was to threaten, very seriously, bodily harm.

    That sank-in to his crack addled brain.

    But, in interest of full disclosure, I have no idea if he voted for Kerry. I just suspect it.

    How’d you forget to mention that he was black, the same color as them other men your hubby tried to hire but they’z all just too lazy for honest work!

    We Crackers loves ‘em Cheeze Wiz stories. Thanks Carin.

  370. “The best way to get rid of crackheads is to fill their bongs with a mixture of camphor oil and tidy bowl.”

    Um, you need to, like, get on wikipedia right quick and learn about what a bong is. Or ask me. Hell, I’ll tell you. It’s a device for smoking marijuana. P.J. O’Rourke used to have a couple of them. Now he works for the Heritage Foundation. America is a fine place regardless of who wins the elections.

  371. Interesting. After checking all 53 of BB’s comments, I did actually find 1 citation. So while I can be criticized for my improper application of the word “never” It’s still pretty clear that the offering of supportng evidence for his own postions is not within BB’s MO.

  372. BTW, did you know that the population of Wasilla nearly doubled between 200 and 2007? So, those infrastructure funds went to a town of 5000 or so. Now it’s a town of 10,000. Perhaps Alaskans and Wasillans know something that you don’t, Barrett. Maybe, just maybe, there was a really good reason to spend money on storm water and waste water treatment, septic upgrades, road paving, pedestrian walkways and airport expansion. Maybe, just maybe, they figured out that had a boomlet on their hands and needed to do some infrastructure improvement to handle the population growth. You remember the document you linked to as proof of Palin having bragged about all the pork she managed to pick up for the town for which she served as mayor. So, we’re clear on what all this spending was for, right?

    Now, I know that no one is ever supposed to spend any tax money or ask for any tax money in the Libertarian utopia where pure ideals hold sway, but we’re talking about Alaska, a place that actually exists. Maybe, just maybe, they knew what they were doing. None of this appears to be wasteful.

  373. “Way to take advantage of prof Ramey’s expertise.”

    I tried. He didn’t respond. I imagine he’s not used to seeing such liberal use of the term “pussy” and “motherfucker.” Even I’m not and I live in Brooklyn.

  374. Well, Jeff, Ramey expertise is way out of my league, so I don’t necessarily deign to question.

    The one question I *do* have whether or not Palin’s earmarks were outrageous. I looked over the list earlier today and it appeared to be rather non-fluff expenditures. I mean, you can find 6 mill spend on grape studies for the wine industry out in California. Alaska’s fed money was going for mostly roads, trains, mental health facilities and a teen homeless shelter.

  375. LOL Carin. You and your husband were very kind offer to drive him away (to his er, house of crack). I think people like that get to a place where all they understand are two things “here are a couple of dollars” and “get the hell out of here before I beat your goddamned ass”. Everything inbetween that is just white noise (no pun intended).

  376. Thor that was uncalled for. Really.

  377. How’d you forget to mention that he was black, the same color as them other men your hubby tried to hire but they’z all just too lazy for honest work!

    We Crackers loves ‘em Cheeze Wiz stories. Thanks Carin.

    I don’t know why you are so offended by my story, Lisa. 85% of the city was black, so it doesn’t really mean anything that the guy was black. I don’t think I indicated it meant anything about the larger culture, but way to be sensitive. BTW, it was BLACK neighbor who helped me with getting ride of the jerk. Ex cop. Still packing. My hubby was out of town, and he got out of his bed at 12 midnight to help me.

    but, I suppose my real experience doesn’t fit in with your narrative that I’m nothing but a cracker.

    I’m gonna have to put you in the thor column for that comment.

  378. $100 million for a state with one of the nation’s biggest cities

    But he requested nearly a billion. And a few of those millions went to the hospital that employs his wife.

    - which is to say, four times what Palin lobbied for and received for a small town in Alaska!

    You know that mayors and governors don’t insert earmarks into federal legislation, right? Senators and Congresscritters do that. Also, you’re still conflating state and federal money. You should stop that because it makes you look silly.

  379. …I would say that $26 million in state money going to a town of less than 10,000 people…

    How many towns in Alaska do you suppose have a population over ten thousand people?

    Hell, I think I’ve been to clubs out in Riverside county that hold more people than the population of most Alaskan towns. So I could give a crap how they spend their money.

  380. That’s a tough one, but I would say that $26 million in state money going to a town of less than 10,000 people simply because Palin got some sweet lobbyist to agitate for it is not fair. We must ask Socrates to define fairness for us.

    Ah, yes. Fairness. True libertarians are very concerned about fairness. Has he used the greed word, yet? Because it looks to me like Palin was greedy, wanting more than her fair share like that.

  381. Of course, I left off the part where in the beginning, my cracker-ass BELIEVED his story. A black man at my door asking for bus money with a sob story, and I didn’t call the police. I BELIEVED him and gave him bus money.

    Guess I’m the fool, huh?

    The whole “oh, he’s another crack head” didn’t enter my head until the second, third, and tenth time he appeared at my door.

  382. “TW, did you know that the population of Wasilla nearly doubled between 200 and 2007? So, those infrastructure funds went to a town of 5000 or so. Now it’s a town of 10,000. Perhaps Alaskans and Wasillans know something that you don’t, Barrett.”

    That if you give 26 million dollars to a small town, it’ll grow? I know, thanks.

    “Maybe, just maybe, there was a really good reason to spend money on storm water and waste water treatment, septic upgrades, road paving, pedestrian walkways and airport expansion.”

    I’m sure that you were thinking the same thing when reading DeMint’s column about Obama’s earmarks for Illinois.

    “Now, I know that no one is ever supposed to spend any tax money or ask for any tax money in the Libertarian utopia where pure ideals hold sway, but we’re talking about Alaska, a place that actually exists. Maybe, just maybe, they knew what they were doing.”

    Yes. They were lobbying for lots of other people’s money, thus leaving other towns with less money that they could have used for their own infrastructure.

  383. ??? What comment are you referring to?

  384. Political donors benefit from Obama earmarks.

    His campaign’s list said the senator had secured $1.3 million of an $8 million request in 2006 for a high-explosive technology program for the Army’s Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The list said the program was overseen by General Dynamics.

    One of Mr. Obama’s top supporters, James S. Crown, serves on the board of General Dynamics, a military contractor. Mr. Crown is a member of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee.

    Hmm. Also sheds some light on his position on FCS–Which will replace the aging Bradley.

    Mr. Obama also secured $750,000 of a $3 million request for renovation of a space center named for Mr. Crown’s grandfather, Henry Crown, at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

    In addition to the University of Illinois, Mr. Obama secured several million dollars for a project at Chicago State University. Emil Jones Jr., the president of the Illinois State Senate and an early and powerful political benefactor of Mr. Obama’s, has been a dogged champion of Chicago State, and one of Senator Obama’s closest friends. A Chicago businessman, James Reynolds, sits on its board.

  385. Take what you will from Carin’s stories. I know what I concluded.

    #

    Comment by Jeff G. on 9/10 @ 12:54 pm #

    Way to take advantage of prof Ramey’s expertise.

    Thor –

    If you can’t control the overt sexism, take it somewhere else. It’s wearing thin.

    Are you asking that Celine be removed from the library shelves?

    Zola then!

  386. Now I am really confused.

  387. “Um, you need to, like, get on wikipedia right quick and learn about what a bong is. Or ask me.”

    – Mr. Twit, is there some downscale community school you attended to learn how to post “all illiterate all the time”?

    – Apparently your limited education stops at the waters edge of Wiki-Left-pedia.

    – Goggle “water bongs”. Then get back to us.

    – You continue to embarrass yourself.

    – Like any twit.

  388. Yes. They were lobbying for lots of other people’s money, thus leaving other towns with less money that they could have used for their own infrastructure.

    You misunderstand, again. I’m referring to those who decided to allocate the money. You know, those who are charged with spending the Alaskan people’s money, which they have lots and lots of BTW. It isn’t really other people’s money. It’s everyone’s money when it comes from oil taxes imposed at the wellhead. Royalties is what much of it is. Alaska has no sales tax and no property tax, but I’m sure a smart researching guy like you knew that. Which makes it kind of odd that you’d use the “other people’s money” frame.

    BTW, Barrett, did Palin lobby for those state funds or did she hire a lobbyist to do it? You’ve said it both ways now and I’m wondering which one you believe to be true.

  389. Hey Barrett, how about comparing Obama’s earmark record to the guy, he is like, you know, running against? (I am trying to use BBs smug, uptown style here so he might understand me better). You know, like John McCain? It’s called comparing apples to apples in high school debate class, in case you are confused by the concept.

  390. No, no, B Moe. Let him keep comparing the top of his ticket to the bottom of ours.

  391. - Yes. The Obama camp has pretty much ditched the “thou shlat nots” handbook on campaigning, if they ever had one.

    – Sort of the very definition of “We ain’t winning this on a basis of our candidates qualifications, and teleprompter reading ain’t cutting it” panic.

  392. How’d you forget to mention that he was black, the same color as them other men your hubby tried to hire but they’z all just too lazy for honest work!

    We Crackers loves ‘em Cheeze Wiz stories. Thanks Carin.

    I don’t know why you are so offended by my story, Lisa. 85% of the city was black, so it doesn’t really mean anything that the guy was black. I don’t think I indicated it meant anything about the larger culture, but way to be sensitive. BTW, it was BLACK neighbor who helped me with getting ride of the jerk. Ex cop. Still packing. My hubby was out of town, and he got out of his bed at 12 midnight to help me.

    but, I suppose my real experience doesn’t fit in with your narrative that I’m nothing but a cracker.

    I’m gonna have to put you in the thor column for that comment.

    Ummmmmm. But that wasn’t my comment. That was Thor’s comment. I am not sure whether I should take umbrage that you would think I am a hair-trigger tempered black woman who would be joking with you about crackheads one moment and excoriating you for being a racist for telling me an anecdote on the subject we were just joking around about. Hmmm. I have to ponder that.

    No biggie though because I misread (more accurately DIDNT READ) something Rob said earlier and cursed him roundly for it, so I am glad I am not the only one doing it. Heh.

  393. I’m a Marxist! Union-made tongue! Born this way! Admit all!

    There are times when I lie awake at night with my eyes open, inwardly howling at the thought that this… moose woman is roaming the earth unmolested.

    Outside interpreting God, Palin’s sole philosophy seems to be mine’s-bigger-than-yours. Doesn’t she know mine’s bigger than even Marx and Engle’s stacked end-to-end? That her menace still roams free is a cudlip I can’t let stand.

  394. - thor-boi, everyones is bigger than yours. You can’t go slitting your wrists every time you rediscover that boi. Pretty soon you’ll have no arms left.

  395. “Hey Barrett, how about comparing Obama’s earmark record to the guy, he is like, you know, running against?”

    Oh, I’m sorry. I thought we were comparing Obama to Palin, which is exactly what we were doing, having not consulted you first. Why not tell DeMint to do the same thing? He’s the one writing the op-ed comparing the potential VP to the potential P.

    “No, no, B Moe. Let him keep comparing the top of his ticket to the bottom of ours.”

    I would refer you to my previous remarks and also remind you that it is not my ticket. My ticket doesn’t tell lies, being unelectable and thus free to speak freely to that small portion of the American public that will listen.

  396. “BTW, Barrett, did Palin lobby for those state funds or did she hire a lobbyist to do it? You’ve said it both ways now and I’m wondering which one you believe to be true.”

    She hired a lobbying firm and seems to have taken a hands-on approach, to say the least, which is to say she did both. And then McCain criticized those earmarks, not realizing he was preemptively shooting himself in the foot, sort of like Biden did when he claimed that Obama wasn’t ready to lead.

  397. Why not tell DeMint to do the same thing?

    Well, he did. The thing is, you might have skipped right over it because McCain’s record on earmarking is that he doesn’t do it so it didn’t take a lot of time to notice that. So, McCain has never placed an earmark into an appropriations request, and neither has Palin. Baracky has about a billion dollars worth of such requests in his not quite 4 years in the Senate. Do you dispute these facts, Barrett? Does anyone know how much he asked for in the Illinois Senate?

  398. Oh, I’m sorry. I thought we were comparing Obama to Palin, which is exactly what we were doing, having not consulted you first. Why not tell DeMint to do the same thing? He’s the one writing the op-ed comparing the potential VP to the potential P.

    The apologies are all mine, you caught me completely off guard trying to stay on topic for a change. You should try doing that earlier in the thread sometime, like at the beginning, say.

  399. Oh, sorry, Lisa, that was thor’s comments. I have been regularly skipping his, so you see how I could have made that mistake. That, plus it’s the first week back to “home” school with my kids and they’ve made me tad loopy.

    I’ll take my lashes now please.

  400. Apologies all around. Merry are we.

    That’s my story and I stickin’ to it.

  401. Who is comparing themselves to Comrade Palin?

  402. Your ticket is Bob “Jackbooted Thugs” Barr? The hell he doesn’t lie. That samll portion of American’s that will listen to them is that small portion that hates law enforcement.

  403. She hired a lobbying firm and seems to have taken a hands-on approach, to say the least, which is to say she did both. And then McCain criticized those earmarks, not realizing he was preemptively shooting himself in the foot, sort of like Biden did when he claimed that Obama wasn’t ready to lead.

    I understand that she did that for DC, but not for Juneau. Do you have a source for that? Are you saying that McCain objected to the appropriations process in Juneau? We’re talking about state funds here. The legislative process in Juneau and the one in Washington are two different things conducted by two different entities. Do try to differentiate between the two. It will really help to move the discussion along.

    Now, is this the extent to which you intend to respond to the points raised in my #390? Or alternately, are you going to ignore the rest of what I brought up? I only ask because I’m still waiting for some names of the GOP shill U of C professors who are saying exactly what you’re saying, and I’d hate to see another point slide down the memory hole.

  404. Those sneaky firebugs! Mocking Goddess Sarah! Talking publicly of her majestic peaks and rich heather-covered valley!

    STOP IT! Not here, not now, nowhere should there be talk of her as welfare cow!

  405. LOL, like I said, I did the same thing earlier to someone else so I can’t exactly talk trash.

    I admire you homeschoolers. I would throw myself off of the Key Bridge after one day. But it is a good thing, after all. In spite of all of our dire predictions of unsocialized, undereducated freaks, the return to good old homeschooling has turned out to be quite a success.

  406. Hi Comrade Palin!

  407. Here is my last word on Palin: She will be vetted. That is not media bias, that is the media doing their job. She has superstar power and a slavishly devoted fan base that may or may not turn out to actually pull the lever for McCain/Palin. Her fans are way over-inflating her resume and hyping her like nobody’s business – much like Obama a few months ago. The luster will wear off – and all of her dirty laundry and underwhelming (perhaps even shocking) life choices, career choices, and screwups will be aired for all to see and be disappointed by. Maybe like Obama, she will prove (or not) that there is more to her than her detractors think. We’ll see. Hopefully we find out that she keeps her looks by bathing in virgin blood BEFORE the election. It would be hard to justify a regular supply of dead virgins to the Veep budget.

  408. Big Red Howdy back at’cha!

  409. Heh® Barrett, that’s about what I thought. For the record, I’m pretty much with you on the “War on (some) Drugs” thing, but very strongly opposed on foreign policy. I simply cannot see how that leads you to support somebody whose every known associate and association over his entire lifetime is directly opposed to everything else you espouse, or pretend to.

    Question for the commentariat, or such of it as are still following the thread: now that the Pub is up & running and gaining readership, should I re-compose and post my rant on imperialism?

    Regards,
    Ric

  410. Bob “Jackbooted Thugs” Barr

    Check me out, but I’m pretty sure it was John Dingell that coined that phrase.

    By all means, vet Palin’s pork

  411. Ok, I think we’ve had about enough of the fake handles. One “Barret Brown” at a time, please.

  412. …should I re-compose and post my rant on imperialism?

    The one you had on the Mesquite something or other blog awhile back? Absolutely! I wanted to discuss that further with you at the time but lost the damn link and couldn’t remember what it was called. That was a great piece that needs repeating about once a month, Ric.

  413. Yeah! What HE said!…

  414. She hired a lobbying firm and seems to have taken a hands-on approach, to say the least, which is to say she did both. And then McCain criticized those earmarks, not realizing he was preemptively shooting himself in the foot, sort of like Biden did when he claimed that Obama wasn’t ready to lead.

    If I were to have the time to spend, and I went back and searched your boy Bob Barr’s political past in Cobb County, as a local pol and prosecutor, or as a staunch Newt Gingrich foot soldier in the House, how many contradictory stands do you think I will find, Barrett?
    (hint: A debate in which Neal Boortz totally handed him his ass about drug legalization is semi-legendary down here)

    Grow up, son. Bob Barr did. Sarah Palin did. Other people do it all the time, it ain’t so bad.

  415. When is the media going to do its job and vet Obama?

  416. - If any of you haven’t yet heard about the latest Obama campaign gaffe, you should glance at the next post up the page.

    – I still think Mel Brooks has taken over the Obama campaign.

    – Ric I always enjoy your writing, but as far as “Imperialism”, its been a complete flop. We didn’t get one damn drop of oil fromm Iraq, so I’m not backing the NeoCon play anymore.

  417. I finally remembered where I know you from, Barrens chat!

    Rofflemao, as they say in the vernacular.

    Needs more Chuck Norris, however.

    (…oh yeah hi I’m back.)

  418. “That samll portion of American’s that will listen to them is that small portion that hates law enforcement.”

    Um, okay. Thanks for the demographic info. Do you think Bob Barr hates law enforcement?

    “I simply cannot see how that leads you to support somebody whose every known associate and association over his entire lifetime is directly opposed to everything else you espouse, or pretend to.”

    I can assure you that I am as confused about it as you are. More seriously, though, Barr has reversed his stances on several issues like the drug war. If this is actually the result of him having changed his mind after thinking it over, then I admire him more, just as Christ loves the greatest sinners most when they come to Him. If he is simply advocating libertarian policies so that he can make it big in the glamorous world of libertarian politics, then obviously I feel sorry for him, as he will find himself disappointed.

    “Your ticket is Bob “Jackbooted Thugs” Barr? The hell he doesn’t lie.”

    Well, again, I obviously had lots of problems with Barr in the ’90s, but I’m going to send him money and vote for him so long as he keeps his nose clean. I am not aware of any lies he has told, but I would not be surprised to learn that he told a few whoppers back in the days when he was hanging with a bad crowd. Perhaps you know of a couple. At any rate, most of those lies were probably in service to the cause of the War on Most Americans, so you should love him, being, I assume, some sort of angry nationalist.

    “When is the media going to do its job and vet Obama?”

    Earlier this year, when they went over Trinity with a fine-toothed crucifix.

    “Grow up, son.”

    No. I’m going to go drink beer and play video games with my little friends now, maybe eat some candy and scout the house for hidden porn magazines and then stay up all night watching R-rated movies. Keep it real, dawgs.

  419. 413 comments, and Barrett Brown has made no attempt whatever to explain what makes Obama/Biden preferable to McCain/Palin from a libertarian perspective. I’m beginning to think he’s a troll.

    In my experience, the key issues for libertarians are fiscal discipline & legalization of victimless crimes – mostly, but not entirely, drug crimes.

    Which ticket has a better record on fiscal discipline? I find it telling that literally no-one argues that Obama OR Biden have any credibility on this issue. McCain despises earmarks. Palin cut the Alaskan state budget. The Republican Congress spent like sailors on shore leave, and were rewarded accordingly in 2006. Nitpicking over a bridge is pointless: did overall spending in a Palin administration go up, or did it go down? Does Obama or Biden have a record of cutting spending anywhere, at any time?

    As for legalization, I don’t see anything in any of their records to distinguish them. The War on Drugs isn’t even on the radar in this election. Perhaps it should be, but it isn’t.

    That leaves the War on Terror. Libertarians are traditionally anti-war. Ron Paul has made himself the poster boy for the anti-war right. That was a smart thing to do, actually: note that he polled far better this time around than in pre-war 2000. He’s a flake, granted, but he has sense enough to spot an opportunity to snag votes. If ending the war is your #1 priority, Obama/Biden is the right call. Bob Barr has zero chance of winning the general election.

    What else could it be? Abortion? I doubt it: the Executive has very little influence on abortion policy. I suppose one could argue that McCain would nominate judges for SCOTUS who would gut Roe vs. Wade (not a problem for me, since I think Roe is bad law). Abortion is a divisive issue among libertarians, though. Ron Paul is pro-life.

    I take the Instapundit attitude. My initial reaction to Sarah Palin was extremely positive, but I’m trying hard not to drink the Kool-Aid. She’s a politician. I’m willing to listen to valid criticism, and I’m not ready to elevate her to Reagan/Goldwater status just yet; but the BB-type “Xtianist crypto-Nazi! EVIL FASCIST HYPOCRITE WARMONGER!!11!1!” stuff is so overwrought, it makes me want to vote for her just to piss off these people. If Berkeley hates her, she can’t be all bad…

    Mr. Brown, I ask that you drop the martyr act. Wading into the comments with a “You all suck, and you’re stupid” attitude is a losing tactic regardless of ideology. If you have valid reasons for choosing Obama, let’s hear them.

  420. She will be vetted.

    If you think she wasn’t “vetted” using a speculum while she was taking on the Murkowski-Stevens-Young axis, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about, Lisa.

  421. No. I know Bob Barr hates law enforcement.

  422. It would seem that some of that “pork” wasn’t requested by the city at all. Some of the requests for federal funds attributed to Palin came from the county and private entities.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5765926&page=1

  423. “[…] We reformed the abuses of earmarks in our state, and it was while our opponent was requesting a billion dollars in earmarks as a Senatorial privilege. What I was doing was vetoing half a billion dollars as an executive responsibility. […]”

    Gov. Sarah Palin, Sept 10, 2008

  424. Look, Barrett. You came in here at comment #2 and put down the challenge. You refused to restrict yourself to the topic of the post. You are the one that saw a post on the process of earmarks and how they are ended and went off on a rant. Then you later complain about the attacks on you.

    You picked the fight, and then you up and complain about the fight you picked. That makes you a pussy. Not that you use your real name rather than an internet handle (that I have used for years and explained how it came about).

    Young man, you walked into the kitchen, you turned up the stove, and then you complained about the heat. That makes you a pussy.

  425. “Mr. Brain will no doubt now try to assert that Paine was a staunch Catholic.”

    It must be nice to live in your own delusional universe, where you can pull shit from your ass and it’s true true true.

  426. “Comment by Barrett Brown (Libertarian; not a Marxist; that dog won’t hunt)”

    What’d I tell you?

  427. WLS at Patterico points out that a great many of the earmarks are for unfunded federal mandates.

    The Obamabots would have people ignore that over 90% of the state of Alaska is “federal land” and that the feds then try and make the state maintain that land without federal money.

    But it’s just a trailer trash, dirty eskimo kind of state, so why should DC care?

  428. Whoops…typo

    65% of AK is federally held, 24 is actual state run, the balance is Native American

  429. More seriously, though, Barr has reversed his stances on several issues like the drug war. If this is actually the result of him having changed his mind after thinking it over, then I admire him more…

    Just can’t have Palin changing her mind, though. Not very rational, Barrett.

  430. Moi at #406:

    Now, is this the extent to which you intend to respond to the points raised in my #390? Or alternately, are you going to ignore the rest of what I brought up? I only ask because I’m still waiting for some names of the GOP shill U of C professors who are saying exactly what you’re saying, and I’d hate to see another point slide down the memory hole.

    I guess that’s a yes, a no, and a “What points? I don’t see any points! And I didn’t say anything about professors!”

    You’re dishing out some thin gruel, Barrett. Do you actually eat that shit?

  431. 412 – Yes, Ric. Please do.

  432. “You’re dishing out some thin gruel, Barrett. Do you actually eat that shit?”

    I don’t sit around my computer all evening, sir. I have things to do. I did spend several hours engaging everyone this morning. But, in addition to fending off the dozen or so ill-conceived charges of dishonesty and wholesale communism that I inevitably get here, I am also in charge of communications for a PAC, write for several dying comedy institutions, write for television, serve as senior copywriter for a production firm, am in the midst of preparing for an extended trip to South Africa, and am additionally in the course of suing some douchebags who decided that they didn’t need to pay me for the work I did for them. So, you know, you’ll have to excuse me if responding to your debate points doesn’t make the top of the list. Apologies!

    Again, you are free to e-mail me if you’d like to discuss anything, and you are free to reprint any exchanges we have on any forum you’d like. Better yet, e-mail me anyway and we can set up an interesting little competition. Do it; Goldstein did, and he’s had fun thus far.

  433. “Young man, you walked into the kitchen, you turned up the stove, and then you complained about the heat. That makes you a pussy.”

    You’ve got my e-mail, e-warrior. You’ve got my number. If you’re as brave as you think you are, you will engage me.

  434. Again, you are free to e-mail me if you’d like to discuss anything…

    I tried that, my email got rejected. If you don’t have a public email that works, send one to me via JG, please.

  435. Hmmm. It should be barriticus@gmail.com. Someone else seems to have had problems with it, too. Works for Jeff. Feel free to call at five one two, five six zero, two three zero two if you’d like.

  436. I don’t sit around my computer all evening, sir. I have things to do.

    You’re terribly distracted again, is that what you’re telling me? If so, perhaps you shouldn’t be taking on silly arguments on the internet. Or is it that you haven’t been back by to respond? Because, you know, comment #421.

    Meanwhile, you’re still ignoring that facepalm you left upthread. As for the gruel, try a little garlic maybe.

  437. write for several dying comedy institutions

    Again, the common denominator point springs to mind. Maybe you’re not quite as funny as you’d hoped.

  438. Pingback: The Right To Bear Arms » Left Wing Hypocrisy On Display

  439. Pingback: Assessing Sarah Palin « Best Election Ever

  440. Is this a discrepancy in the original post?:

    While the U.S. Congress did reverse its 2005 decision that had earmarked $223 million for the bridge project. . . .

    The Federal contribution to the bridge budget actually amounted to only $36 million, or less than ten percent of the projected cost of the bridge.

    So did the feds earmark $223 million or $36 million?

Leave a Reply