Subscribe via RSS Feed

I Accept Your Terms, Sir!

[ 253 ] November 7, 2012 |

I can strongly endorse this position:

However, for me, I’m choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings. I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them. They are in short, the enemies of liberty. They deserve nothing less than hatred and utter contempt

I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted ‘O’. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste. Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.

Lotta great stuff out there for those who enjoy despair-of-the-broken-and-defeated posts. Assrocket and RS McCain are the best I’ve seen; feel free to link to others in comments. With regards to the LGM Electoral Challenge, Florida remains outstanding (“What are you doing Florida? You got the rest of the union to help you along. What’s going wrong?”), and the cut off point for vote counts doesn’t happen until Friday in any case.

And a victory without Drama isn’t really a victory at all:

Comments (253)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. DrDick says:

    That brought a smile to my lips. I heartily encourage everyone I know who feels that way to unfriend me so that I am no longer subjected to their right wing delusional rants.

    • arguingwithsignposts says:

      I wish I could friend this guy on Facebook just to experience the unfriendining first hand.

      • SatanicPanic says:

        He actually links to his FB page. I wonder if he’s getting a lot of requests.

      • Halloween Jack says:

        The first (and only) FB unfriending I’ve done is with a shirt-tail relative who sent friend requests to just about everyone in the extended family tree, and seemed at first to be a friendly guy, but as the campaign season wore on kept amping up the hate, most of which seemed derived from Limbaugh and some of the more militantly reactionary Catholic bishops. I think that the precipitating post was something incredibly derogatory about Sandra Fluke. I almost wished that I’d kept him just long enough to witness something similar to Dondero’s meltdown, just so that I could have the pleasure of commenting, “Let me save you the effort. Hasta la vista, baby!”

    • J. Otto Pohl says:

      I never let politics stand in the way of friendship. I find it disturbing that people define their personal relationships on this basis. Especially since the spectrum of mainstream American politics is quite narrow.

      • Bijan Parsia says:

        “Never” seems too strong. I’d have trouble remaining friends with someone who was unequivocally pro-torture or genocide, for example.

        I also have trouble with people who are racist or sexist or homophobic. At the very least, they pretty much need to let me not see that bit. If you’re shoving crap I abhor into my face, we’re not going to get along.

        I’ve some family who’s inertially republican. I try to avoid political discussion with them.

        • Cody says:

          I guess it really depends on definition of “friend” right?

          Obviously all of my close friends agree with me politically, else we wouldn’t be so close. I would find it tough to be friends with someone who is anti-welfare because I doubt someone like that would be nice enough to hang out with all the time.

          • Bijan Parsia says:

            Yeah.

            I mean, I could see having friends that you happened not to get in much with politics (because you became friends with them under circumstances that didn’t reveal their politics) and then there’s a serious question if the politics come to the fore what to do.

            But, I would think that had to do with how they were acting more than the loss of an election itself.

  2. Erik Loomis says:

    McCain’s comparison of Obama winning to the Union Army in 1862 is particularly special.

  3. Ken Houghton says:

    RSM: “[I]t’s been a long time since any intelligent person believed anything a Democrat said.”

    Good to know. Not since the NRO endorsement of Obama have we seen such earnest masturbation with such small equipment.

  4. Clark says:

    And then there is Dave Carter at Ricochet:

    On the night of the election, a young man wearing a mask walked into a convenience store in Warren, Ohio, pointed a gun at a customer and robbed him before pointing the gun at the clerk and admonishing him to,”Vote for Obama.” These are the people who carried the election.

  5. Matt says:

    Dear libertarian idiots like the guy cited above: promise? Because if that’s how it works, I’ll work DOUBLE HARD in 2016 to make sure that you spend the rest of the decade sobbing into your copy of Atlas Shrugged. :)

    • Matt says:

      Add: got off the boat. OMG what a butthurt little whiner.

      BTW, extra lulz to be had pointing out that every country his buddies are contemplating moving to has UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE…

      • When people pull that, I always like to ask them: What makes you think that country would accept you as an immigrant?

      • J. Otto Pohl says:

        I notice they did not list Ghana even though under Nkrumah it took in a number of notable American refugees. Among those that found asylum here were W.E.B. Dubois, James Baldwin, and Richard Wright. It also has state provided health care. So I am wondering why Ghana was left off the list? ;-)

  6. Andrew says:

    Guess who?

    One other thing, and I’m serious about this: consider some sort of identification, a kind of marker, that lets others of your kind know who you are and where you stand implicitly. Get over your aversion to tattoos; a small “live free or die” or “don’t tread on me” somewhere on your person might just one day save your from the zombie hordes. Hell. Use henna if you have to. If you’re into irony, maybe a yellow Star of David sewn to your suit jacket.

    Because make no mistake. They’ll be coming. They have to. It’s just a matter of how long it takes before the revolution starts and the country divides into factions. The takers have now voted themselves your labor and liberty. But I suspect when it comes time to forcibly take it, that’s when the seriousness sets in.

    • Craigo says:

      Someone whose idea of labor is scrawling paranoid testaments to the Dunning-Kruger effect and ruminatuons on the comedic value of murdered Jews?

      • herr doktor bimler says:

        Someone who is conflating the Blutgruppentätowierung of Waffen-SS membership with the yellow stars of the 1941/42 decrees, as if the two groups blur together in his mind.

    • Clark says:

      I plan to get a tattoo of Victoria Jackson hula dancing the 10th amendment.

    • Tnap01 says:

      SEKbait

    • Icarus Wright says:

      I ran into that gem earlier today. Jeff Goldstein in top form.

    • I would suggest a discreet set of SS lightning bolts.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      One other thing, and I’m serious about this: consider some sort of identification, a kind of marker, that lets others of your kind know who you are and where you stand implicitly.

      Tattooing yourself with a permanent, conspicuous marker of your membership of the reviled persecuted minority will save you from the zombie hordes by stopping them from recognising your enemy status.
      What?

      Perhaps someone could explain this to me, slowly and carefully.

      • guthrie says:

        He probably means that when the hodes rise you’ll be able to find a local libertarian hideout where the only way to get in and not get machine gunned is by showing your tattoo. “See I’m one of you” “Pass friend”.

      • Joshua Buhs says:

        As I read him, he’s saying that eventually the macho, libertarian producers will violently rise against us effete, liberal takers–and in that conflagration, having a mark showing your commitment to the producers will cause them to recognize you as one of their own, and spare your life.

        I feel creepy just writing a summary of the idea.

        Blech.

      • Halloween Jack says:

        The Mark of the Beast is OK as long as it’s our Beast.

    • mark f says:

      Wait, what? A zombie horde of takers will be coming to murder the true friends of liberty, so might as well mark yourself in advance?

  7. jayackroyd says:

    Think of it as evolution in action.

  8. Clark says:

    Small world: I have one mutual FB friend with this Dondero guy.

  9. Charles says:

    Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like “Democrats are Communist Pigs,” or “Welfare moochers steal from hard-working Americans,” “Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws” or “No Smoking Ban: Nanny-Staters go Fuck Yourselves.”

    Oh no, not the buttons! Is it too late to take back my vote and save us all from the buttons!!?

    • Wrapping up the puppet market was a wise idea.

    • Sargon says:

      Wait, he’s against seat belt laws? Damn.

      • Snarki, child of Loki says:

        Hadn’t you heard? Seat belt laws are the beginning of the slippery slope toward Free Silver.

        Or maybe away from Free Silver. It’s confusing.

        Anyway, the founders didn’t have seatbelts, so SHUT UP SHUT UP

        • Xof says:

          Nate Silver is definitely involved, either way.

        • Steven desJardins says:

          I support the Free Silver movement. Down with the NYT paywall!

        • Njorl says:

          Yeah, but they had mandatory powdered wig laws. Those are what got Aaron Burr so upset.

        • mark f says:

          Scott Johnson, Powerline:

          I’m not a libertarian, but I have the traditional cussedness that is provoked by being told what to do by others when the behavior only concerns me.

          Johnson is a vociferous opponent of legalized marijuana and gay marriage, by the way, and even allowing gay people to be active Republicans (“I doubt that the big tent can be quite this big” so as to accomodate GOProud; “this is a subject with respect to which we have mostly forgotten the arguments, which inevitably lead back to nature and nature’s God.”).

          While driving to lunch on a city street in the suburb where I work, I was pulled over. I couldn’t figure out why. What had I been doing wrong? When the state trooper came up to my car, he asked: “Do you usually wear a seat belt?” I’d been busted under the new law.
          When the trooper came back to my car after running my driver’s license through his computer, the officer explained: “We’ve got a major enforcement campaign going this summer. You’ve probably seen it on the local news.” [. . .] I don’t have the option of not driving to protest the new law, but I’ve got a few other ideas in mind in connection with the ticket that was issued to me.

          In other words, I have purchased powerful “friendships” through membership in conservative organizations and will get the trooper yelled at.

      • Murc says:

        Well, I’m also against seat-belt laws. For that matter, I’m against mandatory helmet laws, and against the ridiculous soda-size law in NYC.

        However, I don’t think being in favor of them makes you, you know, a Nazi. That’s just crazy.

        • arguingwithsignposts says:

          Is there an actual argument to be made against seatbelt laws?

          • Murc says:

            Basically? Not wearing a seatbelt only impacts me, not anyone else. It’s not like, say, smoking bans, where the justification is that people shouldn’t have to inhale carcinogens when at work or in public places. I expect the government to keep other people from hurting me, and to ensure that I can buy products that don’t hurt me by mandating a legal safety floor that companies can’t drop below in order to obtain a competitive advantage.

            The argument for seatbelt laws, of course, is that if I go through the windshield the general public is on the hook for my medical care, so there’s a real public interest in forcing me to see to my safety. That’s a legitimate point, I suppose, but I will note that that justification isn’t too terribly far from the conservative fantasy of a government that mandates we all eat healthy under penalty of law.

            • arguingwithsignposts says:

              what about your children (if you have them)?

              (and not trying to be snotty, thanks for answering the question)

              • Murc says:

                That’s different. Children are children and can’t legitimately make that sort of decision. It’s the reason we have a driving age to begin with. You SHOULD be obligated by law to protect your children better than you (might) choose to protect yourself.

                • Bill Murray says:

                  I think he might have been asking about the effect of your seat belt-less car accident more seriously messing you up on your children and other family members.

                  Also, too many people doing this increases insurance rates, I think

                • Murc says:

                  Hold on; when we say “seat belt laws” do we mean “laws that say all cars must have seat belts” (which I support strongly, along with laws mandating airbags, safety glass, and other such things) or laws saying “you have to wear those seatbelts or we’ll fine your ass” which I… well, don’t.

            • joel hanes says:

              In 1963, when I was eleven, I carried an evening newspaper route. One fall evening, out collecting, I heard an automobile accident, a big one, and pedalled hard and succeeded in being the first on the scene.

              A young woman in her 20s had been driving her Mustang eastbound on the highway at the edge of town, probably too fast in a 35 mph zone, when an absolutely sozzled drunk in a huge old Dodge pulled out from a stop-signed cross street, directly in front of her.
              She never braked; her car hit his left front quarter-panel, and the engine behind it. She was not wearing a seatbelt: she went face-first into the windshield, smashing the wheel and steering colum with her chest. Amazingly, she was still conscious, and I sat with her while she screamed in agony,trying to reassure her until the ambulance came.

              I will not describe the damage to her face and torso, except to say that it was terrible and extensive.

              Murc, if I could free myself of having seen that, and give the nightmares to you, I would.

              • joel hanes says:

                I find that it could not have been a Mustang; they were introduced in 1964.
                Maybe a Falcon, then; it was something that passed for a compact car in those days.

              • Murc says:

                Murc, if I could free myself of having seen that, and give the nightmares to you, I would.

                That’s an awful thing to say, dude. It implies that I’m affirmatively in favor of shit like that happening.

                Was that lady in a car that didn’t have safety belts? I’m unsure if they were mandated by law by the 1960s or not. If she was, and chose not to wear them… well, few people really deserve to have that happen to them, and of course the blame for the whole affair goes to the drunk guy, but I’m not sure how this is a public policy argument.

                (Also, you don’t know me. You don’t know what shit I might or might not have already seen in my life.)

                • Full Metal Wingnut says:

                  If we ever move to a Canadian-style health care system, there’s a very strong public policy argument.

                  Hell, there’s a strong public policy argument now-if you’re sent to the emergency room like the woman in joel hanes’ story, and you didn’t have health insurance, who’d be footing the bill? The public policy rationale for mandating people take an effort-free preventive measure like buckling a fucking seatbelt become pretty strong.

                • Chet Murthy says:

                  That’s an awful thing to say, dude. It implies that I’m affirmatively in favor of shit like that happening.

                  It is a well-defined and easily-defensible (also easily-attackable) moral position that an act of omission is morally equivalent to the opposite act of commission.

                  But I find your response weak. You -could- have asked him why he eats well enough to be a normal American, when there are starving children in Ethiopia.

                  OK. That was flippant.

                  In what sense are you -not- in favor of that sort of stuff happening, though? I mean, do you pray every night, that stuff like that doesn’t happen? B/c there’s a widely-understood and effective way of preventing bad shit from happening: effective governments that outlaw that bad shit. So, uh, when you say that you don’t want the government to outlaw that bad shit, in what sense are you -actively- encouraging that such bad shit happens (which, let’s be clear, it -will-)?

                  I’m not trying to argue that you’re an evil person. Just trying to understand your moral reasoning.

                  I’m also pretty troubled by your equating “wear seat belts” with “ëat
                  your broccoli”. Let’s see …. I’d guess you’re OK with slavery,
                  right? As long as the slave signed him/herself away, and was an adult
                  when s/he did it? Let’s see …. what else? You’re good with organ
                  donations for $$, including hearts, yes?

                  I’m not saying you’re an evil person. I can see that you just want to
                  ride your bike without a helmet. But there’s a difference between
                  wanting that, and deciding that the govt can’t get in the way of
                  people doing awful things to themselves because …. .

                • Murc says:

                  The public policy rationale for mandating people take an effort-free preventive measure like buckling a fucking seatbelt become pretty strong.

                  By this rationale, it should also be illegal to drink, smoke, or do other drugs. Those actions can lead to incredibly adverse health outcomes that the general public is on the hook for, and NOT doing them is basically as effort-free as buckling a safety belt.

                  In what sense are you -not- in favor of that sort of stuff happening, though?

                  In the same way that I’m not in favor of people drinking themselves to death, but also don’t want the government to mandate I can’t drink at all, or to monitor people and decide who is, and is not, allowed to drink.

                  To be clear; such laws would not be illegitimate exercises of power. I just disagree with them.

                  I’m also pretty troubled by your equating “wear seat belts” with “ëat your broccoli”.

                  How so? “We will fine you for not wearing a seatbelt because you’re increasing the probability the public purse will be on the hook if you go through the windshield” isn’t functionally different from “you’re not allowed to eat at McDonalds every day because you’re increasing the probability the public purse will be on the hook for your heart disease.”

                  I’m not saying you’re an evil person. I can see that you just want to ride your bike without a helmet. But there’s a difference between
                  wanting that, and deciding that the govt can’t get in the way of people doing awful things to themselves

                  Whoa whoa whoa.

                  I never said the government CAN’T get in the way of people doing awful things to themselves. Clearly, this power exists and is entirely legitimate.

                  Only that there are times when it SHOULDN’T.

                  As you say, I just want to ride my bike without a helmet on. Maybe that makes me a giant idiot, I don’t know.

                • GeoX says:

                  People LIKE to smoke/drink/do drugs. No one “likes” not wearing a seatbelt unless they’re making some idiotic point about how the gubmint isn’t the boss of me, maaaan.

                • NickT says:

                  Look, when you decline to be as safe as possible on your bike or in a car, you are risking injury to yourself – for which the other person involved is going to feel responsible. Do you really want to put that burden on them in the name of foolish irresponsibility? Will you feel good about yourself knowing that you’ve risked not only yourself but someone else’s happiness or peace of mind?

                • joel hanes says:

                  > that’s an awful thing to say

                  It is, I freely admit.

                  However, in my moral universe, it’s a lot less awful than saying

                  “I oppose laws that mandate wearing seatbelts”

                  because those laws you oppose, today effectively prevent almost all of the horrible manglings that were common before seatbelts were mandatory.

                  I remember how it was before those laws, and tried to communicate an emotional truth about that memory.

                  For me, the public cost argument is secondary. I guess I just hate to see thoughtless or reckless or unlucky people get chewed up by heavy machinery, even if they somehow brought it on themselves, even if using the safety equipment needed to prevent mangling is something of a pain (which, IMHO, seatbelts are not).

                • Sgaile-beairt says:

                  You said it wld only affedt YOU if you got in an acdident. Which is a shitty stupid thing to say & he just pointed out explicitly how you were wrong. So what if youve seen accidents too? it would affect EVERY first responder plus all your relatives, thats where the children come in.

                • rea says:

                  Let me suggest in all seriousness to you that you ought to wear seatbelts if for no other reason than avoiding traumatizing 11-year olds who chance to see your accidents.

              • nixnutz says:

                Is the moral of your story that you’ve spent the rest of your life campaigning to ban alcohol? Because focusing on the victim’s culpability seems monstrous. Drunks have killed hundreds of thousands of people on America’s roads since that incident and your reaction is to shame people who think the limits of regulation should be open to debate?

                That’s some bottom-percentile-of human-decency bullshit.

                • joel hanes says:

                  I was not responding to someone who opposes drunk-driving laws, so I did not address drunk-driving laws in my response.

                  For the record, I’m strongly in favor.

            • Bijan Parsia says:

              Basically? Not wearing a seatbelt only impacts me, not anyone else.

              I was about to respond with the beginning of your second paragraph, then I saw your second paragraph :)

              The argument for seatbelt laws, of course, is that if I go through the windshield the general public is on the hook for my medical care, so there’s a real public interest in forcing me to see to my safety. That’s a legitimate point, I suppose, but I will note that that justification isn’t too terribly far from the conservative fantasy of a government that mandates we all eat healthy under penalty of law.

              Eh. It seems pretty far to me. It’s pretty non-onerous a primary activity, the penalties (afaict) are similarly lightweight, the benefits are large, and it’s in an activity which is generally recognized as a privilege. The cost of care isn’t the only problem of course…more severe injuries cause issues for first responders.

              Personal note: I flipped a car going around 50mph and ended up hanging from my seat belt. They’re good things :)

              • witless chum says:

                This is an important point. The penalty for not wearing a seat belt is a traffic ticket and a fine. It’s not some huge, onerous penalty. It’s treated like speeding.

                Also, more public resources are needed tend to your accident if you aren’t wearing a seat belt than if you are, all things being equal.

                • John says:

                  It’s even less onerous than speeding, in that you’re much less likely to get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt.

            • rea says:

              Like with other forms of suicide, you ought to take some care not to leave a nasty mess for others to clean up.

            • Gepap says:

              You suppose that saving the public from having thousands of dollars worth of limited labor and resources used to try to save your life might be a worthy enough reason for it to pass that law? You don’t HAVE to wear a seatbelt anyways – its a ticketable offense. Just think of the tickets as your downpayment to society.

            • Not wearing a seatbelt only impacts me, not anyone else.

              False. In an emergency, a seatbelt keeps the driver in front of the steering wheel and in control of his car, instead of sliding around the front seat unable to reach the wheel and brakes, thus reducing the danger to others around him.

            • Malaclypse says:

              Not wearing a seatbelt only impacts me, not anyone else.

              Except, to play devil’s advocate, your medical bills will raise my auto insurance premiums.

          • J.W. Hamner says:

            Freedom to engage in self destructive behavior is very important to some people.

            • Manta says:

              Some people:

              “Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes”.

              Mahatma Gandhi

              • Gepap says:

                People are free to make the mistake of having to pay tickets for not wearing their seatbelts.

                Any lawbreaking can be seen as a “mistake” – that does not invalidate the law.

          • Lurker says:

            In fact, not wearing seatbelt not only endangers you but also everyone else in the vehicle and nearby. In an accident, an unbelted passanger or driver becomes a massive object hurling at a random direction at great velocity.

        • GeoX says:

          I’m in favor of laws preventing people from dying gruesomely for no goddamn reason, and if that makes me an enemy of FREEDUMB, so be it.

          • Sgaile-beairt says:

            plus it raises everyone else’s insurance bills!! and costs the county in taxpayer money to pay for scraping them & hteir car off the pavement/trees/etc….

      • DrDick says:

        I strongly recommend that he refuse to wear one, especially when driving at high speeds in heavy traffic. I also recommend he ride motorcycles in heavy traffic under adverse weather conditions without a helmet.

        • Sgaile-beairt says:

          that might just make him a long term hospital case at public expense (i know of a couple like that) Only the good die young as they say..

    • Major Kong says:

      I strongly support Libertarians refusing to wear seat belts and smoking heavily.

  10. Uncle Ebeneezer says:

    Wow, these mangoes really ARE delicious!

    And who knew that RS McCain would admit that “legitimate rape” was ill-advised??

  11. RepubAnon says:

    So we’re free to believe only what the Libertarian Republican believes, or we’re not “free”? Sure is a funny kind of freedom.

  12. ploeg says:

    Yeah, thing is, it doesn’t work so well when the ranks of these losers include people in high elected office.

    It wouldn’t help for me to note that the electorate does not vote for higher tax rates per se, but if you want bigger government (as they most obviously do), you must raise revenue for it or any claims that you want to reduce the deficit are rendered nonsense? No, I guess it wouldn’t help.

    • Observer says:

      It’s really good to know that we elected someone who can really unite the people of the United States.

      It’s the respect he commands from all parts that truly amazes…

  13. Dr. Omed says:

    I am in awe of the epic butthurt expressed on that site. Another martini, anyone? The tears are flash frozen as they arrive.

  14. JoyfulA says:

    I have never heard of this Dondero person before, and I regret that you introduced me. What a nasty, self-centered, bigoted, rude person. A typical libertarian, I suppose.

    At least if we ever meet in person, he’ll run off screaming.

    • -Mona- says:

      Nah. Cool dude and libertarian Julian Sanchez just retweeted:

      “Note to self. Tell Dondero you voted for Obama.” – libertarians everywhere

    • witless chum says:

      I remember him fighting a one-man war against Ron Paul in the Hit and Run comment sections a few years ago. Before you say, we’ll he can’t be such a bad guy, note he was attacking Paul from the right.

      • bradP says:

        Before you say, we’ll he can’t be such a bad guy, note he was attacking Paul from the right.

        Most of the time he opens his mouth about Ron Paul, he makes Paul sound better.

    • Nope, he is not a typical Libertarian. I am a libertarian, and I know of several libertarians. Anecdotally, they are not the ones fulminating about stupid moochers voting for Obummer and threatening to excommunicate everybody who is not in their echo chamber. That sort of juvenile behavior is the mark of thwarted authoritarian dipshits.

  15. BobS says:

    That Libertarian Republican is one tough dude. I’m assuming from the contact number on his website he lives in or around the Austin area, but I’d bet that when he wants to post his signs, spit on Democrats, or call food stamp users “communists” he jumps in the car and heads straight to inner-city Dallas. Because he’s obviously one tough dude.

    • Jon says:

      What kind of man badgers the Wal-Mart cashier with loud snotty comments about EBT cards? Not a thin and effeminate man with a soft-sounding voice, that’s for sure.

    • Leeds man says:

      spit on Democrats

      No no, he doesn’t want to spit on them, just near them, cuz he don’t want no hassles. Back in the day, he would have totally flipped off Nazis when they weren’t watching. A modern day Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

  16. Is this everyone’s first exposure to DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

    Here’s his review of the Atlas Shrugged movie.

    It’s perhaps the greatest movie ever made…I put it right up there with Saving Private Ryan, The Killing Fields, and Schindler’s List.

    • parrot says:

      what … no the fountainhead? … useless lists … lists are for putting commies on …

    • Tnap01 says:

      Dude’s flabby, where’s Red Dawn?

      Wolverines!

    • The Killing Fields? That’s a pretty lefty movie.

      • Keaaukane says:

        How so? I recall it as being about Commies killing off capitalists, and the passport to freedom being American currency. I admit I think I saw it 25 years ago, and may have lost a few synapses in the meantime.

      • It would probably make his head explode to find out that it was the Communist Vietnamese who finally had had enough and threw the Khmer Rouge out of Cambodia.

        • J. Otto Pohl says:

          Why? The conflict between Soviet orientated communists like Le Duan became by 1978 and Maoists had been around at least since the early 1960s. The fact that the more extreme Maoists like Pol Pot were in conflict with the more moderate Soviet line Vietnamese in the late 1970s does not make the Khmer Rouge less communist. The Killing Fields was one of the few serious movies dealing with communist atrocities produced in Hollywood. There have been a few others. But, far, far fewer than those produced regarding the evils of Naziism.

    • Colin Day says:

      No. the book was better than the movie. Even We the Living was better. No, the Atlas Shrugged movie sucked. The second one wasn’t as bad, but still wasn’t that good.

    • -Mona- says:

      Hi Joe. Yeah, we who know Eric for years now are not that surprised. But in all seriousness, I hope a friend or family member gets him some medical attention. That much uncontrolled anger and hatred is dangerous.

    • bradP says:

      Is this everyone’s first exposure to DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

      I am somewhat surprised this is the first time I’ve seen him mentioned on this blog.

      He is easily as entertaining a target as teh Donalde. I’m not sure he has a “Sasquatch Isreal” level triumph, but he certainly has the pedigree.

    • Uncle Kvetch says:

      Is this everyone’s first exposure to DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

      I’d seen references to him at Unqualified Offerings for years, without ever actually encountering The Man Himself. He’s everything I hoped he would be, and more!

  17. parrot says:

    good gawd, i’ve seen some implosion in my time, but this pure peach-pit pant shitting implosion … so, this must mean their strategy of keep your friends close and your enemies closer … fail … boon to the libertarian diy divorce sector … can imagine the scrappy affair that’ll be … worth the price of admission … strictly state-free diy in some cave involving blood oath breakage and feats of jousting … LOFL

  18. Linnaeus says:

    Break up with them without haste.

    Hm. Sorta undermines his argument.

  19. Rarely Posts says:

    As a gay man, I risked losing my connections to my family when I came out, and we had a rough, shaky 5-10 years before they completely accepted me.

    I still have a lot of relatives and some friends who vote for a party that openly reviles me and tries to deny my rights and self-respect. And, yes, it was hard to look at them in 2004, when all the hate-amendments passed and the hate-President won. But, as someone who almost got cut-off from his family, I realize it’s actually a big deal, and it’s not something one does over politics unless it’s for really, truly important issues (probably slavery, genocide, etc.).

    And this guy loses an election and is allegedly willing to throw all his relationships away over it. What a pathetic, man-child whiner. He has absolutely no perspective on how rough real-life can actually be.

    Classic Libertarian.

  20. From McCain:

    The list of fools who have brought this disaster upon us certainly also will include New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, the gelatinous clown who (a) hogged up a prime time spot at the Republican convention to sing his own praises; (b) embraced Obama as the hero of Hurricane Sandy; and (c) then refused to appear at campaign events in support of Romney’s presidential campaign. Good luck with the remainder of your political future, governor. It is unlikely Republicans shall soon forget your perfidious betrayal.

    Tough words, Mr. Republican, but didn’t you phonies just nominate Mitt freaking Romney?

    Who is this guy kidding? In 2016, if Christie gives the Republicans even the slightest shred of hope for winning the White House, they’ll be throwing their panties at him.

    • Murc says:

      I think Christie doesn’t plan on running.

      Christie likes attention, sure, but he also strikes me as a guy who likes having a life and living high on the hog, and you can’t really do that as President, or even a presumptive President. Plus, he’d have to pander to tons of people who hate him in order to even get the nomination.

      So I see him as going ‘thanks, but no thanks.’ Frankly, after Romney’s implosion… there’s no earthly way the Republicans don’t nominate a firebreather.

      • Western Dave says:

        By all accounts, he is an Ed Rendell type with no real interest in the Presidency b/c it would cut into his eating time. Plus, he thinks he’s already got the best job in the world.

      • Frankly, after Romney’s implosion… there’s no earthly way the Republicans don’t nominate a firebreather.

        Oh, c’mon, that’s what they said about McCain.

    • Jesse Levine says:

      GOP will never get past the first two stages of grief, denial and anger.

  21. Decrease Mather says:

    I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It’s only the fucked up brother in Delaware, piece of shit, scumbag mother fucker who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won’t tell me, but I’m almost certain voted for Obama.

    They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.

    Harsh, but a reality.

    Dondero is quite angry.

    • I imagine the pallbearers at Dondero’s funeral will drop the casket in a fight over who’s lifting more.

      • Jay in Oregon says:

        It sounds like he’s ditching everyone in his life who might be inclined to be at his funeral, honestly.

        • STH says:

          This guy is a good piece of evidence for the “being Republican means just being an asshole” theory.

          I kind of feel for the sister who won’t tell him how she voted. Dude, your sister is trying to keep you from doing something stupid (or more stupid than your usual) and alienating the people who love you. Maybe you might consider not being a dick to her?

          • Aaron B. says:

            I know many Republicans, none are as emotionally unstable as this guy. They do seem to have an awfully disproportionate share of complete dickasses, though.

    • Bijan Parsia says:

      If I were a friend or relative this would be an added benefit of the election.

      That being said, I don’t believe he’ll carry it out in the full way he describes.

  22. Gus says:

    I’m bookmarking that post and reading it whenever I feel low. That is the funniest thing I’ve ever read. It’s got to make the Guinness book for butthurt. And he’s not calming down. His comments in the comment thread are even better. Apparently he speaks something like a dozen languages, so he plans to move to some libertarian European paradise in Lichtenstein or something.

  23. LosGatosCA says:

    I don’t believe in mandatory seat belt laws or mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists either. And I balance that freedom against mandatory public bailout of severely injured motorists and bikers by allowing first responders to carry guns that can be used – in that event – to keep the parasites-in-progress from becoming a burden to the producer tax
    payers by exercising 2nd Amendment remedies by terminating the injured with extreme fiscal prejudice. That way every libertarian gets the freedoms they deserve in a timely manner.

  24. synykyl says:

    I bet that is going to make a lot of his “friends” very, very, happy.

  25. Njorl says:

    It’s eerily reminiscent of the YouTube videos of kids being told by their parents that they had eaten all of the kid’s Halloween candy.

  26. Big Bad Bald Bastard says:

    Wingnut tears taste like butterscotch schnapps… perhaps the best GOPer rant out there.

  27. BobS says:

    Is there any chance of adding Eric Dondero to the front page here? Maybe he could be persuaded if you told him you wanted him to write about guns and money.

  28. Gary K says:

    I wish someone had warned me not to have a mouthful of liquid when I got to “You could take a crap on their lawn.” Seriously, are we being Poed?

  29. Jonas says:

    I guess unfriending people on facebook is sort of like Going Galt, for those who are too lazy to get up off the couch.

  30. Stacy says:

    I can guarantee that this loser’s “friends” (if he truly has any real ones – not talking “virtuaL ones) and family are sighing with relief that they have been unfriended on Facebook. Now they can actually open their Facebook page in peace and not be subjected to his drooling idiocy.

    I would tell him what I tell every libertarian: Move to Somalia. No pesky rules, regulations, etc. Come on now, get moving – I’ll even buy your ticket.

  31. KWillow says:

    I remember how shocked and depressed I was after BushII was “re-elected” in ’04. But it can’t compare with the anguish and terror these guys are experiencing. I guess they really thought RMoney would win and the whole World’s economy would turn into one gigantic Black Market.

    • NonyNony says:

      When Bush the Lesser was re-elected, I was expecting it. I held out hope that Kerry would take it, but I knew by election day it was a long shot (Bush led in the polls, his job approval was above 50%, the economy was decent if not great, there was a war on, etc.). I’d steeled myself to the idea that he was going to win it, and had prepared myself for the loss.

      These guys weren’t allowed to do that. They were so sure that the polls were skewed and that “everyone” secretly thinks like they do, they just don’t want to say it out loud. So they’re reeling in shock over the fact that Obama – a man they think is uniquely unqualified to be President and who is “obviously” the worst President in American History – won re-election. They can’t understand that a majority of the country thinks he’s doing okay with the shit sandwich he was elected to deal with, even if they aren’t 100% happy that he hasn’t yet turned that shit sandwich into a seven course steak dinner with an open bar.

  32. Rick Santorum's Leaky Faucet says:

    Fine by me. I posted a series of Obama memes just to bait my republican friends.

  33. herr doktor bimler says:

    Call me a stickler for the canon, but shirley this post is supposed to be titled “Your proposal is acceptable”.

  34. Fighting Words says:

    Wait, is this the same “Atlas Shrugged” guy who has been e-mailing James Fallows?

    • Craigo says:

      I will bet anything that his small business with many high-paying positions that the country simply can’t do without it is a truck, some lawnmowers, and a few undocumented immigrants.

  35. McAllen says:

    I love how his idea of open revolt is acting sort of obnoxious. Even in their most frothy rages, conservatives are still cowards.

  36. NickT says:

    The Boston Herald has some lovely examples of wingnut derangement on its front page. Holly Robichaud is frenziedly denouncing the Bay State for having “disgraced” itself. Howie Carr is foaming at the mouth with the rage of a petulant child denied its share of high fructose corn syrup by strict parents. “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive…”

    • Malaclypse says:

      Howie Carr is foaming at the mouth with the rage of a petulant child denied its share of high fructose corn syrup by strict parents.

      So, it is a day that ends in y?

  37. herr doktor bimler says:

    I’m choosing another rather unique path; a personal boycott, if you will.

    Evidently the lad is convinced that “severing friendships” is a TOTALLY NEW CONCEPT that has never occurred to anyone ever before.

  38. Ken says:

    I’m reminded of a routine by comedian Alan King on arguing with your wife. (Or maybe it was what not to do when arguing with your wife.) When she says “I’m never speaking to you again,” look her right in the eye and say, “Promises, promises.”

  39. Steve says:

    Dear Republicans,
    As a matter of principle, I would expect all of your Real Americans who believe this “makers and takers” meme not to accept government money from “takers”. Please post this in your place of business so that takers will not bother you as you do your “making”. I will be happy to support business owners who know some economics and realize that their businesses are being kept alive through indirect government aid.

  40. owlbear1 says:

    Six weeks from now a poll will discover that Gary Johnson apparently got more votes than Romney.

  41. Bob Loblaw says:

    Hilarious. Why is it that whenever I read these glibertarians, especially now, the voice I hear in my mind is Stewie from Family Guy?

    • Mark Dobrowolski says:

      Are you refering to the early episode when someone asked Stewie what he wanted for his birthday? The next scene was Stewie (in place of Adolf) at Nuremberg.

  42. Kristin_d_l says:

    Everyone should read the comments. They’re even better than the original post. The guy literally knows nothing about what libertarians actually believe. (He seems to be really concerned with topless beaches, though.) The whole thing is COMEDY GOLD.

  43. jenn says:

    Murc, re seatbelt laws, another thing in their favor besides those factors already mentioned, is that if you’re in a vehicle with someone else, and you’re not belted in, the force of the crash can make you into a projectile, injuring or even killing others in the vehicle. If they’re belted in, that prevents them from being ejected from the car, it doesn’t protect them from items in the car flying into them. Just another thing to think about. It’s not just an ‘only hurts me if I refuse’ scenario.

    • ajay says:

      if you’re in a vehicle with someone else, and you’re not belted in, the force of the crash can make you into a projectile, injuring or even killing others in the vehicle.

      This is very true. That’s why you never carry anything heavier than a coat on the rear package shelf: when you stop, it keeps going forward. And an unbelted rear-seat passenger is a lot heavier than that.

    • Lyanna says:

      Libertarian response: the car is private property and the driver/owner is in charge of it. Therefore, if you’re on his property, he has the right to subject you to a projectile if he wants. He has the right to go sans seatbelt and allow his passengers to do the same. If you don’t like it, get off his property. By sitting in his car you’re agreeing to it.

      This is why libertarians are more properly called propertarians.

    • Murc says:

      another thing in their favor besides those factors already mentioned, is that if you’re in a vehicle with someone else, and you’re not belted in, the force of the crash can make you into a projectile, injuring or even killing others in the vehicle.

      This, in fact, is an argument against banning motorcycles, which you can’t be strapped into safely, completely, is it not?

  44. Jeremy says:

    Did anyone else notice the Hindrocket post’s photo? Maybe SEK can tell us how the weeping angels will devour us all now that Obama’s won.

  45. Emma in Sydney says:

    Quote from my 22-yr-old son’s Facebook page (an Australian, living in London):
    just saw a pro-Romney status on my timeline, along the lines of “America you now deserve everything you get” Never deleted anyone so quickly in all my life…
    The quicker we get this sort over, the better.

  46. [...] are certainly libertarian-rooted cases to be made against Obama, though mostly if you’re a libertarian who cares about the national [...]

  47. [...] a thought that was less than third-hand. But the epical, category-defining Squid-Cloud of Butthurt frontpaged by LGM’s Robert Farley is one very special snowflake [...]

  48. AB says:

    UGH, DAD, YOU RUINED MY LIFE *slams door*

  49. JMH23 says:

    Eric Dondero is like so many other right-wingers. Honestly, do they really think everyone using food stamps right now actually want to? I’d love to have full time work myself and not need them, thank you very much. Supporting myself over gov’t assistance but I’m open to ask for help when I obviously need it.

    • JKTHs says:

      Moreover, they act as if the entire welfare state was created by executive order on January 21, 2009 and if we only changed presidents then everything would go back to the way it was

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site