Vanity Fair profiles The eXile: "Gutsy...visceral...serious journalism...abusive, defamatory...poignant...paranoid...and right!"
MSNBC: Mark Ames and Yasha Levine
Broke the Koch Brothers' Takeover of America
www.exiledonline.com
Fatwah / November 24, 2010

greenwald cato institute highlights

Note: This letter, printed in The Nation on November 24, 2010, is a response to Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute‘s attack on an article we published, titled “TSAstroturf: The Washington Lobbyists and Koch-Funded Libertarians Behind the TSA Scandal.”

***

Normally both of us, no strangers to controversy, view attacks on our articles like today’s by Glenn Greenwald’s as a badge of honor. But we’re frankly puzzled—and disappointed, if that’s the right word—that the source of this attack is Glenn Greenwald, whom we’ve followed fairly regularly over the past couple of years and whom we both respect.

Greenwald’s column raises one potentially valid criticism of our article—our treatment of John Tyner, the self-described libertarian and “don’t touch my junk” hero of the anti-TSA protests. Based on reporting from the San Diego Union-Tribune, we speculated that Tyner may have set up his taped encounter with TSA agents—a claim that we also quote Tyner denying. We did not, however, claim that Tyner was affiliated with the Astroturf and/or Koch-funded groups mentioned later in the piece, and indeed we noted directly that Tyner denied any such associations in an interview with The Nation. In retrospect, our article was less than clear about Tyner’s lack of Astroturf affiliations, and we regret in particular including extraneous details from the Union-Tribunearticle about Tyner’s past—that he went to a private Christian school and lived in a Republican community near a Marine base—because it distracted readers like Greenwald from the article’s main findings.

We believe that Tyner is in all likelihood innocent in his motives, but our larger point is that his discourse and the movement that has embraced it is far from innocent. In focusing entirely on our characterization of Tyner, Greenwald ignores the larger thrust of our argument and the vast majority of the evidence assembled in the piece, leaving a distorted impression of it.

Here is what the article really said: Like many Americans, we found the TSA’s intrusive procedures offensive and we are against the invasive pat-downs and attack on our civil liberties. This was a given in our article, and we stated as much. What our article did was look beyond the obvious surface, into possible reasons why this particular issue suddenly rose to forefront of the national debate, when dozens of other, more pressing issues are getting so little attention–people being kicked out of their homes and living on the street because of fraudulent foreclosures, a massive wealth transfer from struggling Americans to the financial sector, ongoing wars that are bankrupting the country and killing thousands, the attack on public education and so on.

Our investigation called into question the official version of events as a “spontaneous” grassroots anti-TSA outbreak. Instead, we discovered some very disturbing motives—business and political—pushing this issue forward. Our evidence, well-documented in our article, shows that the anti-TSA campaign was not a “spontaneous” “people’s uprising.” Instead, we documented numerous examples of anti-TSA campaigners with ties to the billionaire Koch brothers’ network, and we exposed the National Opt-Out Day campaign as being led by a Washington lobbyist who specializes in fake-grassroots campaigns.

We also documented the story of the first “victim” of the TSA—a libertarian named Meg McLain—who was found to have lied about being sexually molested by TSA agents. Before Tyner, McLain was being heralded by the same right-wing PR network, particularly Matt Drudge and Koch-funded libertarians, who later promoted Tyner to fame and who last year led the PR drive promoting the Tea Party movement. McLain’s ties to the Koch brothers are well-documented in our piece—and Greenwald, for reasons unclear, studiously avoids rebutting any of our evidence.

One disturbing part of Greenwald’s attack is when he accuses us of being some kind of Democratic Party centro-fascist goon duo patrolling the public, out to repress any citizen who doesn’t declare fealty to the two-party system:

the most odious premise in this smear piece: anyone who doesn’t quietly, meekly and immediately submit to Government orders and invasions–or anyone who stands up to government power and challenges it–is inherently suspect…That’s how you prove that you’re a normal, responsible, upstanding good citizen: by not making waves, doing what you’re told, declaring yourself a loyal Republican or Democrat and then cheering for your team, and–most of all–accepting in the name of Fear that you must suffer indignities, humiliations and always-increasing loss of liberties at the hands of unchallengeable functionaries of the state.

How did Greenwald get to this conclusion? We’re stumped—he never tried contacting either one of us before publishing his story. That’s one big reason why we’re both so disappointed—because that’s what journalists do: we call our subjects to confirm, or not confirm, evidence and suspicions that we have compiled. Even Democratic Party centro-fascists us were professional enough to call John Tyner—and we printed his denial of any involvement in a Koch-network-funded PR campaign.

If Greenwald had engaged the remainder of our article, he might have noted the swelling number of anti-TSA critics pushing to replace body scans and pat-downs with “Israeli-style” racial profiling. For example, here is a recent interview with the founder of Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips:

I am reasonably certain a 2 year old child is not a terrorist and a 90 year old grandmother in a wheel chair probably isn’t either. Yet they are treated the same in the eyes of the government as some 25 year old man who just arrived from Yemen.

Other powerful TSA critics have made similar statements, none of which were criticized in Greenwald’s piece, or in any of his pieces since Tyner’s “don’t touch my junk” episode. These include:

Rick Santorum who said:

There’s a profile of people who are conducting these activities… And it is not profiling to give them enhanced searching. It’s not. It’s reasonable. Because that’s where the threat is coming from. If the threat was coming from 92 year old women, I would expect my mother to go through enhanced search.

And Charles Krauthammer, whose only remedy is racial profiling:

The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling – when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.

And Robert Poole, founder of the Koch-funded Reason Foundation, who worked with the Bush Administration on transportation issues and has appeared in the media with Rep. John Mica, the author of the TSA bill and the focus of the last section of our article (which Greenwald fails to address):

The only feasible way to remove body-scanning (or the intrusive pat-down alternative) as standard procedure is to change TSA’s screening model to one that is risk-based. In practice, that would mean separating air travelers (other than those on the No-Fly list, who are automatically denied passage) into three basic groups:

1. Trusted Travelers, who have passed a background check and are issued a biometric ID card that proves (when they arrive at the security checkpoint) that they are the person who was cleared. This group would include cockpit crews, anyone holding a government security clearance, anyone already a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Global EntrySentri, and Nexus, and anyone who applied and was accepted into a new Trusted Traveler program. These people would get to bypass regular security lanes  upon having their biometric card checked at the airport, subject only to random screening of a small fraction.

2. High-risk travelers, either those about whom no information is known or who are flagged by the various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intelligence lists as warranting “Selectee” status. They would be the only ones facing body-scanners or pat-downs as mandatory, routine screening.

3. Ordinary travelers—basically everyone else, who would go through metal detector and put carry-ons through 2-D X-ray machines. They would not have to remove shoes or jackets, and could travel with liquids. A small fraction of this group would be subject to random “Selectee”-type screening. This type of risk-based screening would focus TSA resources on the travelers that should receive the most scrutiny by reducing the use of resources on low-risk travelers.

The list of high-profile charlatans pushing racial profiling as the alternative to TSA pat-downs and body scans is far too long to list here, but you get the point.

And we aren’t the only skeptical journalists. Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum published a piece this past Monday also expressing the similar doubts as we have about the timing and purpose of the anti-TSA campaign. Drum writes:

this is GOP catnip. For seven years, Republicans insisted that every security procedure ever conceived was absolutely essential to keeping the American public safe, and anyone who disagreed was practically rooting for an al-Qaeda victory. Now a Democrat is in office and suddenly they’re outraged over some new scanners. Helluva coincidence, no?

By Greenwald’s logic, this makes Kevin Drum and Mother Jones goonsquad enforcers of Democratic Party centro-fascism and the two-party system. Which is, of course, ridiculous.

One last thing, and this is from Mark Ames, one of the co-authors attacked by name in Greenwald’s piece: In my 15 years in journalism, I’ve been called all sorts of ugly names: both “communist” and “fascist” by Clinton’s neoliberal shills in Russia, where I was in a years-long public war of words with Michael McFaul, currently President Obama’s top man on Russia. As the founding editor of the Moscow-based newspaper The eXile, I was accused of being a “Putin apologist” by neocons and an “anti-Russian extremist” by Kremlin goons, who finally succeeded in shutting down our newspaper after subjecting it to an “unplanned urgent audit” of our editorial content. After a Duma parliamentarian and top leader in the Putin youth group Nashi accused me on radio of “extremism” for publishing articles by an opposition leader, I was advised to leave Russia in a hurry; my newspaper collapsed, and I lost everything I’d invested into it.

I’m not sure if Greenwald has ever been subjected to an “urgent unplanned audit” of his articles by a government notorious for overseeing the murder of several journalists and opposition figures (some of whom I’ve known personally), or been forced to flee a country because of his journalism, but he sure comes off as an expert on the subject, accusing me, incredibly enough, of somehow enforcing the very oppression that I have witnessed and been a victim of first-hand. My co-author, Yasha Levine—whose grandfather survived Stalin’s GULAGs– fled the Soviet Union to America to escape anti-Semitism. So we believe that even Greenwald can understand what a gigantic bummer, for lack of a better word, it’s been for us to come back to America, and to find ourselves attacked and frankly slandered for being alleged government oppressors.

We said above that we regret adding those extraneous Union-Tribune details into the article—and we hope that Greenwald takes another look at what we wrote, and what he wrote about us, and reconsiders.

–Mark Ames and Yasha Levine

Read more: , , , , , , , , Mark Ames and Yasha Levine, Fatwah

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

87 Comments

Add your own

  • 1. zot23  |  November 26th, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I think the original posters and Greenwald are in the classic liberal media trap; they agree on 90% of what is happening in the story, but that extra 10% just can’t be left alone.

    In fairness, when I read the original Ames piece I also very much received the impression that he was hinting that Tyner was a plant by these groups to stir up the controversy. Maybe it was a mistaken impression but it was certainly there. Once I had that in my melon, the piece shifts a bit into tinfoil hat territory (a massive conspiracy funded by billionaires to take over the world!) instead of the intended thrust of Koch and Fox News making hay from lovely strawmen of their creation.

    It seems this was what Greenwald was responding to as well, though then yes, he also then veers off into making some faulty connections of his own. But once two people (or groups of people) begin such an argument it becomes nit-picking and arguing for argument’s sake – which looks like where this issue is now. No one can let the other have the last word and the original issue gets buried in a pissing match.

    Just drop it and move on. You hate the TSA crap, Greenwald hates the TSA crap. You think it’s odd the right wingers are jumping on this bandwagon, so does he. I suggest focusing on that and slowing down the he said / she said express, it goes nowhere fast.

  • 2. Luther Blissette  |  November 26th, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Ames an Obama shill? Christ! Next you’ll be telling me that ‘War Nerd’ is a aging English prof….

    Watching Antiwar libertarians & Exiled leftists fight is like watching your parents fight: Mom! Dad! Don’t Fight!

    Someday Greenwald, Ames and Ron Paul will be holding hands and signing Kumbaya as Bush swings from a lamppost. Eyes on the prize.

  • 3. Bud  |  November 26th, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    Ames:
    Admit you are getting piled on by us libertard trolls because we fukked up and got busted by you and Levine. So we hired Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute, and boy oh boy man he called you on your bullshit. Calling out all the documented links between the Koch-funded libertarians and the anti-TSA movement “investigative journalism” is hilarious to corrupt trolls like myself, who get paid to write comments like this.

  • 4. John Drinkwater  |  November 26th, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    “Or as Justin Raimondo calls it Bizzaro World …”

    Probably not the best guy to cite in this case. Raimondo just wrote a piece attacking Ames, saying Ames doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to libertarianism and its various factions. As in, the ‘real’ libertarians vs. the fake ones (the Kochs):

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/11/25/libertarians-against-the-regime/

  • 5. gonzalo  |  November 26th, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    fuck glenn greenwald of the libertarian cato institute. why even respond? take it as a badge of honour as always. he used the article to pose as the nice, harmless journalist he isn’t–he worked as a corporate lawyer on wall street and then for the koch brothers at the cato institute, and didn’t disclose anything. Also, Tyner totally staged his ‘dont touch my junk’ antic to be famous in a pathetic way, something despicable (no civic heroism here like greenwald says). He’s a douche for anybody who can tell people’s real intentions. Some horse sperm would do him good. And greenwald too.

  • 6. MastroTurf.  |  November 26th, 2010 at 8:42 pm

    So is Exiled Online for or agaist 1)TSA, 2) back scatter X-ray machines, 3) extreme pat downs and why or why not? Because I’m too much of a fucking idiot to figure that out for myself, so I need to be told. God, it’s not easy being a corrupt libertarian fool sucking from the koch teat all my life.

  • 7. Lala  |  November 26th, 2010 at 8:43 pm

    “Watching Antiwar libertarians & Exiled leftists fight is like watching your parents fight: Mom! Dad! Don’t Fight!” – It really is.

  • 8. Adam  |  November 27th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    At least I had something to do while visiting my parents in Keene, New Ham…. OH SHIT!

  • 9. p44x  |  November 27th, 2010 at 2:33 pm

    I like Ames and Levine and I like Greenwald. You guys similar positions on most of the important matters, so less fratricide and more attacks on militarism and handouts for the rich please.

  • 10. zgooba  |  November 27th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    LOLOLOL the 2nd sentence of my retarded comment on theExiled read “from a distance, it looks like glenn greenwald of the koch-funded cato institute had his fellow libertarians send him all sorts of good reasons to call you out, but he then kinda took it over the top” except that mine was even dumber than that. I was hoping that the powers that be at theExiled did something with my retarded sentence, the sentence became “jmkochevar@earthlink.net is the most retarded sad piece of shit who ever lived.” now, why in the hell you would chose throw stuff into my original comment is beyond me. i guess we all have to make our own choices…and then we get to live with them. i have to live with myself, and i’m the only one who can. it hurts to be me

  • 11. Mike C.  |  November 27th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    I think I heard somewhere that Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute is from the libertarian Cato Institute.

  • 12. goat_farmers_of_the_CIA  |  November 27th, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    Glenn Greenwald writes for CATO? Damn! I hope Justin Raymondo is NOT also on their payroll…

  • 13. Dejo  |  November 27th, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    Oh no, the idiotic webmaster edited my comments! But yeah, I’m totally on Koch’s payroll, even though I’m not. And I’m totally a libertarian, even though I’m not. Do you guys really believe this? That Koch is a mastermind that controls an entire ideology which, by it’s definition, is incredibly diverse? I mean, I don’t want to believe that you believe this. Please just tell me that you’re trying to placate a fanatical benefactor. Otherwise you’re probably going to have to start buying tinfoil hats.

    Someday, I’ll think of something original to say. And I’ll figure out how to write in grammatical English. But you know how libertards are, all “tard” and no “liber.”

  • 14. Dejo  |  November 27th, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Also, if you guys buy a Star Trek phaser weapon the way we libertards buy, you’re going to get into a lot more fiascos like this one. Nanu=Nanu! I love Ayn Rand. I would eat Ayn Rand’s vagina when she’s aged 65 just like Nathan Branden did.

  • 15. Dejo  |  November 27th, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    I’m afraid of genuine criticism as opposed to what libertarians do: circle-jerking competitions. Usually, the libertard with the biggest Koch stipend wins.

  • 16. Dejo  |  November 27th, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    Waaaahhhhh! I’m a whiny libertard, listen to me whine: “I mean why do you even have a comment section if you’re not going to listen to alternative views?” WaaaahhhhH! I want my Koch-mommy! Waaahhhhaaahhhhh

  • 17. Dejo  |  November 27th, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    Damn, I should tell Koch to give me extra for putting up with stupid ideologists.

  • 18. Dejo  |  November 27th, 2010 at 10:52 pm

    These guys know the truth. Guis, this is srs bzns.

  • 19. Victorvalley Villain  |  November 28th, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    The eXileD comment section is almost as entertaining as the articles and the A-list.

    Thanks Team eXileD. I wish moar interwebz people understood how awesome all this is.

  • 20. Adam  |  November 28th, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    eXiled, your response to the article by Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute makes him look like a lying pansy instead of the hard-assed libertarian media critic I touch myself to.

    Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute reeks of the same tools he accuses you of using; factless character smears. You barely get around to mentioning the fact that Glenn Greenwald has been working for the Kochs for 3 years now: he, without warrant, attempts to discredit you and tie your agenda to a larger fictitious agenda. In the process of accusing you, he doesn’t disclose his conflict of interest.

    Regardless of how some fat internet nerd feels about your article, I wish you the best of luck. It seems like there’s a bit of a shitstorm kicking up because of this.

  • 21. Kat  |  November 29th, 2010 at 7:09 am

    I think Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute went off the deep end a bit. I think he wants to believe that these protests will lead to the questioning of all sorts of government policies enacted in the name of national security. I am not so hopeful. Count me as one who was highly suspicious of this “populist” uprising. My fears were confirmed when I heard Katie Couric on the evening news throw out “some are calling for privatization of the TSA”. Whaaa?
    Then, I read one of the hackier pundits syndicated in my paper calling for Israel style profiling
    Now, what I am going to say is probably not particularly popular. But– I just think this whole scanners issue is a distraction. Yes, pat downs/ scanners are invasive. But, it is not clear to me what the better alternatives are. I mean, you can’t just say “better intelligence”. We know that is a justification for far worse policies. Am I naive in believing that scanners are preferable because everyone must go through them?

  • 22. Mr Whipple  |  November 29th, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    I don’t understand why the Free Staters are such sad Koch-funded libertarian fags. We cultists from the libertarian movement have all been taught to memorize this mantra: “The Free State Project is based on Voluntaryism, which dates back to Lysander Spooner, and Agorism, “created” by Sam KonkinIII. Sam Konkin III coined the term “Kochtopus”.” Bla bla bla bla. You can say what you want about the tenets of Agorism, at least it’s an ethos dude. But Libertarianism? Fuck me. The Kochs’ made me simply wrong, factually about everything–. brain-dead too. I wish you would give me more criticisms.

  • 23. Mr Whipple  |  November 30th, 2010 at 3:39 am

    That’s funny the way you let dumbtard libertarians post comments. You guys have about as much journalistic integrity as Howard Stern, But at least you are still entertaining. You guys are gods. Hey, by the way, do dumbfucks still use the word “douchebag” to hurt someone? Because libertarians still think that word packs a punch. Oof!

  • 24. Mr Whipple  |  November 30th, 2010 at 3:50 am

    We didn’t even know Glenn Greenwald was associated with the libertarian Cato Institute until the Nation’s site posted my comment, did you? Me! I’m the genius! Me me me me!!! Waahahahahhhh!

    I’ll pretend that I’ll stick to the Weekly World News and the Onion for my entertainment though I’ll always read you because I worship you.

  • 25. Victorvalley Villain  |  November 30th, 2010 at 5:19 am

    Voluntaryist Manifesto: We are all free to choose to be wage slaves.

  • 26. maus  |  November 30th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

    “You can say what you want about the tenets of Agorism, at least it’s an ethos dude.”

    Is Agorism where fat polyamorous neckbeards play D&D BDSM?

    oh, those are Goreans.

    CARRY ON

  • 27. Mr Whipple  |  November 30th, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    OK, you got a chuckle out of me.

    Here’s some more Koch sucking libertarian blogger Greenwald of Koch-funded Cato Institute for ya!

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

    Now you know why the EU has to bail out Portugal. Damned hippies!

    Enjoy, and keep up the douchebaggery.

  • 28. HamsterFist  |  November 30th, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    You Commie-Fascist-Liberal-Conservative-Tyrannical-Freedom Loving Hippies need to write more, seriously guys! Your words always melt my face. (Enough of the ass kissing.)

    I have a question though. A common meme (if I am using that right) through your writing is the comparison between modern America and Pre-middle-collapse Russia. So why are you so surprised when you are treated exactly the same here? Clearly freedom is being put out of business and any dissidents will be punished. (See here: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2010/November27.html) So be careful, will ya?

    Look at WikiLeaks. Nevermind the conspiracy about their funding or reasons, but the U.S. Government is after them. For what? They broke NO U.S. laws, hell the recent documents might not have even been classified. So if Assange commits suicide by shotting himself in the back of the head ten times, or is somehow arrested for ‘terrorism’ you might want to give this whole journalism thingie another look. Once the journalists are rounded up and put on the trains to gas chambers, America has finally arrived on its destination to utter fascism. If that happens, bug the hell out guys!!!!!!

  • 29. TB  |  December 1st, 2010 at 11:08 am

    The Tyner stunt may not have been Koch-funded but never the less his stunt was Koch-inspired. Isn’t that the point of the article — that the Koch brothers are spurring on the anti-TSA libertarian movement? Anyways, Glenn Greenwald of the Cato Institute’s article also seems a little suspicious, he’s working for the Koch brothers too. lol.

  • 30. ac latour  |  December 1st, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    Tickling scenario!! – “Journalists”, particularly the wizards behind the infamously irreverent Exile, now emerging as self-styled enemies of civil libertarianism. Heehee! It was funny, but surely this now painfully protracted spoof is about ready for burial?

  • 31. Russophile  |  December 2nd, 2010 at 5:12 am

    The reaction from the libertards to Mark and Yasha’s initial article was quite remarkable, and remarkably intolerant. This from people advocating total freedom. The Glenwald guy went ballistic and seemed to be unable to contain himself. Is there a drug for verbal incontinence?

  • 32. Zachary Forest  |  December 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm

    Hey, maybe next you guys can write an article about how Julian Assange is just a tea party astroturfer. Oh shit, wait a minute, you didn’t write that article–which means I’m a complete fucking idiot libertard who can’t distinguish one from the other. Anyway, you guys outted the Koch billionaire brothers backing the Tea Party, now you’ve outted the TSA scam. Fact is, I’m a billionaire butt-maggot. Thanks to libertards like me for sticking up for our all-powerful billionaire-controlled security state, in the face of very real civil liberties violations–like for example the transfer of wealth from the middle-class to libertarian billionaires like the Kochs. Libertarians and liberals/progressives used to be very firm allies on such civil liberties issues, but unfortunately, progressives are waking up. And now anyone with a brain wants to spit on libertarians.

    And all this ass-kissing in the comments. Seriously, how could it be any other way? Be critical of libertarianism, folks. Much love to the Nation’s Koch-trolls in the comments section ; see how we libertard comment-trolls filled up the comments on Ames and Levine’s painful expose on what a bunch of fag-tools we libertarians are.

    Oh, and I keep chuckling at this line: “Glenn Greenwald of the libertarian Cato Institute” Wow, so even Glenn is bought out by Koch. So long as every single one of us sold out to the Kochs, I guess Ames and Levine will keep fighting against billionaires’ measures that front as “liberty” while impoverishing the country.

  • 33. CaptainMongles  |  December 3rd, 2010 at 7:10 am

    How does one jump on the Koch troll gravy train?

  • 34. Zachary Forest  |  December 3rd, 2010 at 8:25 am

    Wow, from the fact that I keep checking my comments, I have to admit you really got under my skin. I didn’t realize you guys allow dumbfucks like me here, but now it all makes sense…sorry, Massa Koch is calling me again, gotta do some throating…

  • 35. CensusLouie  |  December 4th, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    Ugh, why is it everyone in the comments who mentions different fallacy arguments never really understand them?

    Also, comments like “I hope he isn’t naive enough to believe that government intervention works” is so mind-blowingly reality-denying that it’s the perfect example of why ANY kind of libertarian should never be taken seriously. Libertarians, by their own self-admission, cannot distinguish good government from bad government. To say you’re against robber baron warlord billionaires but for the abolition of government shows how utterly hopeless and impossible Libertarian reasoning is.

  • 36. RedBastardGod  |  December 8th, 2010 at 6:17 pm

    Every libertarian I know is a creepy Ayn Rand bullshit loving capitalist apologist. They are the fucking scum of the Earth. They will be solely responsible for the extinction of our species.

  • 37. old man  |  May 1st, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Hi, I’m a paid PR troll and I’m angry that you exposed damaging facts about my masters who pay me. I was going to post a comment here pretending to be outraged over whether you called for comment before exposing corrupt puke monkeys like Radley Balko and Malcolm Gladwell. Fortunately, the Almighty Exiled Censor intervened to improve my pathetic comment, for which I shall be forever grateful. I wish the AEC would intervene to rescue me from a life spent anonymously commenting on behalf of corrupt puke monkeys like Radley Balko and Malcolm Gladwell.


Leave a Comment

(Open to all. Comments can and will be censored at whim and without warning.)

Required

Required, hidden

Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed