The Independents: Kennedy, Matt Welch, and Kmele Foster

"NSA stuff has been really fertile grounds for disagreement with other Fox and Fox Business hosts," explains Kennedy, co-host the new Fox Business show, The Independents. "They see that there is a a split between freedom and safety and they would much rather err on the side of safety."

Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with Kennedy and her co-hosts, Kmele Foster and Reason Editor in Chief Matt Welch, at Reason Weekend 2014, Reason Foundation's annual donor event, to discuss the show, how their libertarian viewpoints have been recieved, and why their best guest was also their worst. 

About 4 minutes.

Shot by Zach Weissmueller and Paul Feine. Edited by Meredith Bragg.

The Independents airs on the Fox Business Network every Monday, Tuesday, Wedensday, and Friday at 9 p.m. ET, 6 p.m. PT.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    You guys are like Genesis. Kmele is Peter Gabriel, Kennedy is Phil Collins, and Matt is Mike Rutherford. Kmele needs to go solo and break out by himself so that Kennedy can find her pop voice and Matt can make mediocre side projects.

  • GILMORE||

    Hold on

    Matt is clearly Phil Collins. He plays the drums. Kmele, Peter Gabriel = ok. Kennedy seems more Tony Banks-ish to me. They're still in the phase where they're working on the "Against All Odds" soundtrack, but Matt hasn't done 'No Jacket Required'... or rehearsed the material for the Invisible Touch tour yet. I don't think Matt's short time as head-chair has really given him his "Live Aid" moment that would boost his solo career.

  • ||

    You think Matt is Phil? I don't see "In The Air Tonight" as his style. It seems more Kennedy to me. The major point is that Kmele needs to do "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" for us.

  • GILMORE||

    I think the key differentiating point here is that you Actually *Like* Prog Rock...

    And I'm normal.

  • ||

    Look, man, it's fucking awesome when you're stoned. Sue me. KING CRIMSON AND HAWKWIND 4EVA

  • GILMORE||

    Funyuns are 'awesome when you're stoned'.

    in a variation on Hemingway =

    "'Always listen sober to the music you think is awesome when you're high. That will teach you how shitty your taste really is."

  • PapayaSF||

    The opening acts were KISS and Suzi Quatro.

  • PapayaSF||

    I went to a Hawkwind concert in the '70s and my ears rang for two days.

  • Ted S.||

    Matt is Steve Hackett.

  • SusanM||

    I get more of a "Devo" vibe from Matt.

  • ||

    So you're saying that Matt is a Mongoloid?

  • ||

    Damn Kennedy, do u even lift?!

  • Lady Bertrum||

    She's got tiny little calf muscles.

  • Lady Bertrum||

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    "Stay at home son".
    I'm going to work that into my regular rotation.

  • ||

    She should tell us what she can deadlift.

  • DEG||

    I'll take a wild guess and say Matt deadlifts the least of the bunch.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Dude needs to squat more.

  • ||

    Matt is a libertarian, a dad and pushing past 40.

    He needs to live the dream, find an ez chair and grow a gut.

  • Dumbass||

    Matt, the way real humans talk about things is most certainly the anti-msnbc way

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    So is Matt really tall or are Kennedy and Kmele just short?

  • ||

    What if they're all really short and Matt happens to be the tallest?

  • Brian D||

    Is Nick wearing an Aperture Science T-shirt?

  • Christophe||

    Looks like it.

  • Christophe||

    More proof that Libertarians are just shills for giant evil corporations. /derp

  • ||

    Matt, seriously, say it. Nigger. It's just a word. It won't eat you up like Nibbler.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Even white chicks are saying it -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG2EGOB9-lc

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

  • Mike M.||

    Ummm, no, bad idea. There's a lot of disagreement among blacks about the wisdom and propriety of them using the word, but there's pretty much universal agreement today that whites can't say it under any circumstances.

    Trust me, Kmele Foster isn't going to have Welch's back if the scummy left-wing baying hounds in the media decide they want his hide on the wall.

  • ||

    So you're saying Kmele, who is one of the most principled libertarians you'll ever see, wouldn't defend Matt's free speech rights in such a case.

    You are one of the stupidest mother fuckers around. How does that feel? Is there any pain involved?

  • ||

    Bull shit.

    Kmele would stand by his principles - as most - if not all - of us here would.

  • ||

    Kmele would have Matt's back...but that would not stop the left wing hounds from frying Matt's ass and simply ignoring Kmele.

  • GILMORE||

    Just in case anyone already doesn't know ? = "Zero Dark Thirty" is a very stupid and poorly made movie.

    also, the gratuitous inclusions of Obama & Bloomberg stick out as clear 'product placement'

    Its probably ruined for anyone who's read the book 'manhunt' by Peter Bergen (or seen the HBO doco on it.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w06I6_aTuHc)... which clarify that the whole process took hundreds of people over a decade, and was largely tied together by *an accident*.

    Whereas the film tries to make it about "one lone woman bucking the system and the bureaucracy, following her (unexplained) *passion*"

    The dialogue is a horrible mix of exposition and attempts to give the characters some kind of artificially injected 'personality', since the 'acting' is largely just people making 'frustrated and exasperated face' for 2.5 hours.

    Im just in it for the bit at the end, which I have not reached yet, but god its horrible getting there.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I like the shorter version:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYfB2bMn86A

  • GILMORE||

    As a side comment - I've watched more and more of Breaking Bad (halfway through S03), and Wow is that a well-made show.

    (although there's some fair criticism that the "Drug Dealer/user" side of the show is mostly a fantasy world where Pure Evil lives and where all drug users descend into killing their own babies, and all Drug Kingpins are psychopathic mass murderers... its still perfectly fine to play it that way for the purposes of the show.)

  • ||

    I think in Mexico the drug trade is damn near pure evil.

  • Cytotoxic||

    The black market environment selects for violent psychopaths. Directed evolution.

  • ||

    The black market environment selects for violent psychopaths. Directed evolution.

    Agreed. I don't blame Mexico or Mexicans...i blame American drug warriors.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And Mexican ones. America doesn't force other countries into these stupid shenanigans.

  • Pathogen||

    That's arbitrary...

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    The Tortuga thing wasn't really an exaggeration.

  • GILMORE||

    Yes.

    Contrast the way "traffic" shows that, versus Breaking Bad.

    In breaking bad, the 'drug kingpins' are more 'fantasy characters'. Which is fine! But its not attempting to be 'real' the way the lives of Walter/Jesse are dealt with on a very intimate level.

  • Tejicano||

    This is at the top of my list of reasons to legalize drugs. The way things are now every Dollar spent goes to fund all that killing.

  • Tejicano||

    Yeah, the movie basically spans one active year in the life of the main character. Set in Albuquerque, there are something like 250 people killed - which is about double the usual murder rate for the whole state of New Mexico.

  • Tejicano||

    Bleah...

    Replace 'movie' with 'series'....

  • Virginian||

    Eh, the death count is really inflated by the big huge event from Season 2. Take that out, and it's much more realistic.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I felt it was realistic right up until the final season. Then it became way too implausible for me to buy even though I still enjoyed it.

    But the finale some considerable holes in it.

  • Tejicano||

    I saw what you wrote there.

  • Tejicano||

    Yeah, and I understand that the deaths are spread across NM, TX, and places in Mexico - but it still is a big headcount to be connected by one degree to a single individual over one year.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Those are valid critiques. I never felt like I really knew the Jessica Chastain character. While Chastain is a fine actress (tip, go check out 'Take Shelter' starring her and Michael Shannon)I wonder if they cast her also because of her natural beauty, which would make her easier to watch for the audience.

    Unsurprisingly, she is said to look absolutely nothing like the real CIA analyst she is based on.

    But the last 20 minutes are brilliant filmmaking, so you'll enjoy that I suspect.

  • GILMORE||

    Nada Bakos was the "real" person

    http://alturl.com/h7bxt

    I'd still hit it.

    And yes, you never get 'to know' her character. Its a terrible bit of filmmaking for something 2+ @#$&@ hours long. There's zero in the way of characterization or motivation. its all exposition.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Who cares? It's not about the characters it's about the events.

  • GILMORE||

    They call that 'a documentary'

  • GILMORE||

    Oh, and it really adds that dimension of "realistic professionalism" when CIA people all refer to Pakistanis, Jordanians as, "Paks" and "Jords",, Pehsawar as "Pesh", yet still feel the need to say "Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden Bin Laden" just in case anyone who came to watch the film might possibly *forget* who the Target of this Manhunt actually is.

  • Cytotoxic||

    So today I learned that Gilmore has really good taste in TV and really awful taste in movies.

  • GILMORE||

    You think this is a question of "taste"?

    0D:30 is a badly made movie.

    I am 3/4 of the way through it and could write you a book about why.

    The only other movie I've commented up in the last week was "Starship Troopers" which is Awesome.

    The latter is far more debatable than the former.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You're wrong. 0D30 is a great movie. The pacing is perfect. Keeps things exciting without losing the audience.

  • GILMORE||

    "Pacing"

    you could have said almost anything else, and you might have had a point.

    Sorry bud. The *book* was paced better.

  • GILMORE||

    You must have really loved the gratuitous scene I just saw where they go out of their way to contrast "this president" (Obama) with =

    .."*your guy*! (Bush) who sold us on Iraq with WMDs that never existed!... *this guy* is analytical and thoughtful and needs *proof*!"...

    Classy stuff, and clearly crucial to the storytelling.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That part sucked. Didn't care that much. I still contend that the pacing was perfect.

  • GILMORE||

    3 hours.

    Cecil B DeMille did the whole fucking OLD TESTIMENT in that length of time.\

    Not to mention that 3/4 of that time is spent in *exposition*. Just people 'telling you stuff'.

    Lawrence of Arabia = "sex for 3 hours",

    Zero Dark Thirty = "I got a handjob for 2 1/2 hours, then had a rough 10min quickie. In the dark. While the dog watched"

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yeah but it was such interesting exposition. I don't mind exposition at all if it builds up to important events, which it always did in that movie. These events were so important and interesting that they deserved proper setting and introduction.

  • GILMORE||

    "Cytotoxic|5.4.14 @ 10:20PM|#

    Yeah but it was such interesting exposition."

    How many brothers did Abu Achmed al-Kuwaiti have? 8? Oh! And which roads did he make phone calls from? How about a 10min montage about how he moves from X to Y to Z... none of which matter because all we care about is the house... but who cares, another 10min scene doing a 'car tracking' scene when in fact all of that was done by satellite... and lets now do another scene with a fake Leon Panetta who says nothing useful except provide the character the opportunity to say, "I'm the Motherfucker who found the house!" which was completely crucial to the final scene where we see "what happened".

    All of that, *essential* to telling the story.

    also, shall I read the credits out loud to you rather than just show them on the screen? Why not.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Lawrence of Arabia = "sex for 3 hours",

    Zero Dark Thirty = "I got a handjob for 2 1/2 hours, then had a rough 10min quickie. In the dark. While the dog watched"

    This is the best comment on the internet.

  • ||

    Cytotoxic has the worst taste in anything ever. I wouldn't put much stock in what a sociopathic Canadian Objectivist chickenhawk virgin thinks, dude.

  • ||

    What?!

    Mother fucker is a goddam CANUCK!!!

    This whole time i thought I was debating a real human being not some animal.

  • GILMORE||

    Minor 'ZD:30' complaint =

    Apparently they don't think anyone will wonder what happened to the pilots of the chopper that went down.

    With all the time, money, and gratuitous things *added* to the way-too-long movie, this is a pretty lame oversight

  • Cytotoxic||

    Nobody who thinks Futurama was ever any good should critique others' taste in anything ever.

  • ||

    "Zero Dark Thirty" is a very stupid and poorly made movie.

    Still a cool NAME for a movie.

  • GILMORE||

    yes

  • Tejicano||

    Really? I guess I will never get how some minor aspects of the military I lived with are viewed by others as "cool".

  • ||

    I have no idea what the name means or where it comes from.

    To me it sounds like a name of a Philip K Dick novel.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    It's just military jargon for half past midnight. It was chosen precisely because the fimmakers thought it sounded cool and marketable.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It means early in the AM, before normal people are up.

  • Bobarian||

    ^^This. Or after sane people have gone to bed.

  • Tejicano||

    To me it was generally when we got up for early PT (physical training). Sometimes it was when we were going on an early morning helo (helicopter) flight.

    To me it just means generally before dawn.

  • Virginian||

    Read "Really Fucking Early"

  • ||

    You guys are ruining that cool sounding movie name for me.

  • Tejicano||

    Men. 'Beer thirty' was/is always a better time of the day anyway.

  • Tejicano||

    Bleach... "Meh", not "Men" Fucking autocorrect...

  • Army of the 12 Monkeys||

    "Beer o'clock" is always a good time.

  • lap83||

    I didn't think it was that bad, but I'd have a hard time calling most movies "very stupid" considering I've seen Troll 2.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • GILMORE||

    "Healthcare.gov" is a pretty conclusive counter-argument to her hackitude.

  • Cytotoxic||

    the state -- which many see as a slow, hunkering behemoth -- is really one of our most exciting risk-takers and market-shapers.

    The massive distortions and risks the USG is taking through QE are certainly 'exciting' and they shape the living hell out of our markets, so hack has a point in the YouTube intro if nowhere else.

  • ||

    How can the state which uses TAXPAYER dollars - that is not their own money - be considered a 'venture capitalist'? What risk are they taking except for the potential to waste other people's money? The government 'shapes markets'?

    I stopped at the eight minute mark.

  • ||

    I was just thinking. Her position doesn't account for history. Large parts of humanity's ideas, breakthroughs and inventions - by design, accidentally or otherwise - often from the private sphere or in some cases through support of Monarchs.

    Are we to ignore this because the Internet and Google? And even then, I get the distinct feeling she's not telling the full story. I'm sure there's more to it than the shill 'government as innovators' nonsense.

  • Pathogen||

    "How can the state which uses TAXPAYER dollars - that is not their own money - be considered a 'venture capitalist'?"

    Similar to a dude who stole your car and took it for a joy ride is considered a "venture motorist"?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "...church bells will ring across [Vermont] at 4 p.m. Monday, the hour the First Vermont Brigade was ordered into action [at the Battle of the Wilderness in the Civil War]. A wreath bearing the Freedom and Unit seal of Vermont will also be laid at a monument to the Vermont Brigade on the battlefield in Virginia....

    "About 3,000 Vermonters, part of a Union force of about twice that size, held off a Confederate force of about 14,000 for four hours, until it got dark. That first day Vermont lost 1,000 men..."

    http://www.pressherald.com/new.....ttle_.html

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'm guessing "Freedom and Unit" was a typo for "Freedom and Unity."

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I don't feel like linking the article because its long and boring and we've heard it all before, but what's the deal with progs and their hatred of the suburbs and 'McMansions'?

    Is it really so simple that they just hate people living in a more decentralized area politically because it makes them harder to control?

    I raised that point on the Salon article in reference and it seems to have struck a raw nerve.

  • GILMORE||

    "what's the deal with progs and their hatred of the suburbs and 'McMansions'?"

    Its where their parents are from = therefore, they despise it.

  • ||

    Exactly. Self-hatred is a massive hallmark of these types. And then they project it all on the rest of us.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Examples of said raw nerve:

    checkitout 1 hour ago
    @A Serious Man It's really creepy how the right wing just makes up stuff in general and thinks they personally are so important that we want to control them.



    No interest in controlling as long as you don't overuse your share of the commons. You seem to think you get free run of the commons, so there will be trouble.

    Weird, I could swear there were people all around my suburban neighborhood that work and pay taxes to the Leviathan. Oh what's that? They dare drive cars that pollute the air? Guess that makes them freeloaders.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    so there will be trouble

    Oh? What are you going to do "checkitout"? Beat me up?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Careful, he might spray you with a blast of smug like skunk.

    Because living in a cramped apartment building and taking the subway makes your morally superior to the vulgar bourgeois Kulaks in the suburbs with their strip malls and backyard lawns. And don't get him started about those hicks in flyover country.

  • Tejicano||

    I seriously doubt he would even know what CCW means and definitely wouldn't be packing. That would leave him personally with no options to enforce his opinions on me.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm sure that he believes that if we just pass the right laws, the police and military will do his dirty work for him. And concerning the police, he's probably correct, but Oh, what fun we'll have when these guys feel it necessary to muster!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Brienne's Valyrian Steel sword?

  • Tejicano||

    Which I find doubly funny since between him and me I'm the only one with a military ID (reserve) on me.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Seems to individualistic to them; not enough 'community'.

  • ||

    And yet if you have a street pot luck or put up a basket ball hoop the planners come down on you like a hammer.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Did not ask permission! What good is a community without authority?

  • PapayaSF||

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Comrade Seeger knew life was better in the block houses personally built under the supervision of Comrade Stalin.

    Seriously, how big a self-important asshole do you have to be to take issue with people wanting livable housing conditions?

  • ||

    That's not what it is. Most of the "suburbia haters" came from suburbia, and they are consumed by a tremendous amount of self-hatred and origin-hatred. They hate the suburbs because they see themselves in them, and since they hate themselves, they hate the suburbs. It's beyond ludicrous to hate a particular type of construction density--it just makes no sense--but it works if you realize it has nothing to do with the actual houses/setup but rather the person's inward-facing issues instead.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, that and the fact that architecturally, McMansions are a gaudy mish-mash of everything wrong. They would have turned Ayn Rand into a serial arsonist.

  • ||

    They said the same thing about Brown Stones...which are now praised architecturally.

    Also today given the constraints of zoning setbacks and building regulations there is very little one can do to break the mold.

    If anything the regulations put in place to combat McMansions have made them far worse then they otherwise would be.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    They said the same thing about Brown Stone

    Really? I have never come across that. Any place you could point me to? I'd be interested in reading it.

  • ||

    There was an article here at Reason years ago that had quotes from the "architecturally elite" of the day.

    Good luck finding it.

    Oh i just found this:

    http://books.google.com/books?.....ge&q=brown stone reason magazine&f=false

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Thanks!

  • ||

    Epi, I think i am going to use this on the next person who bitches to me about McMansions.

    "So McMansions huh? you don't like them. Did you by any chance grow up in suburbia in a single family home?"

  • ||

    You should. I think you'll find, without exception, that it'll be the case.

    Remember that class war is primarily the upper middle class vs the upper class. They may use the poor in their games, but look at all the catalysts for class war in the last 200 years and see where they came from.

  • PapayaSF||

    It's beyond ludicrous to hate a particular type of construction density

    Have you forgotten the eco-warriors? McMansions and suburbs in general represent "excessive" consumption and use of automobiles, which are killing the planet, don't you know.

  • ||

    I heard one guy - in discussing people leaving Montreal proper for the suburbs - say in a radio call-in show - for lower taxes are screwing the city out of tax money and are stupid for doing so.

    I've lived in the suburbs all my life. Couldn't care less what some jackoff from the city thinks. In fact, I'm looking to move to a more remote area - if I can convince the wife.

  • Ted S.||

    Chibougamau? :-)

  • ||

    A little too remote. They don't take to my kind up there too well. What, with my accent, big city attitude and espresso machine.

  • ||

    What is funny is McMansions in a strict definition are big houses built on the small lots where those little boxes once stood and are lamented because they change the character of the neighborhood.

  • Pathogen||

    Jentrafakashun?!

  • ||

    Is it really so simple that they just hate people living in a more decentralized area politically because it makes them harder to control?

    Yes.

  • Mike M.||

    New Dem Benghazi "strategy" floated: boycott the Select Committee hearings.

    ROFLMAO, awesome. When the left's instinct is that they should run away and hide as though that's going to solve their problems, it means that they officially realize they're in deep shit.

    Kind of like when those stupid-ass Wisconsin state democrat lawmakers fled the state a few years ago in a pathetic effort to stop that Walker budget bill. The truth is finally starting to come out, and they know it.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Benghazi = Birtherism v.2

  • Tejicano||

    Seems to me that spray can of "Fake Scandal" paint is just about empty. Don't you have any other color handy?

  • ||

    Sockpuppets don't do originality, dude.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why do libertarians want a US consulate in Libya that taxpayers foot the bill for?

    Fuck Libya. If you go there I assume you want to die.

  • PapayaSF||

    Way to change the subject, dude. The scandal is that 1) the administration knew of specific threats there, 2) had been asked for more security, 3) did not try to rescue people, despite the lengthy attack, 4) lied about it afterwards, and 5) revoked some poor schmuck's parole in an effort to deflect blame.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The Sequester cut funds for many security ops - $300 million in the State Dept.

    THAT is a libertarian position!

  • Cytotoxic||

    HUR DUR I DON'T UNDERSTAND PRIORITIZATION DUR

  • VG Zaytsev||

    And teh sekwester was so diabolical that it cut funding for security before it went into effect.

  • ||

    Why do libertarians want a US consulate in Libya that taxpayers foot the bill for?

    I don't. I also didn't want Lybia bombed and I didn't want terrorists armed with my tax money.

    Obama doing all three, getting burned over it and then lying about makes a libertarian like me hope he pays a political price so others won't make the same mistake.

  • Pathogen||

    "Why do libertarians want a US consulate in Libya that taxpayers foot the bill for?

    Fuck Libya. If you go there I assume you want to die."

    Yeah... bitches wouldn't get raped if they didn't dress like whores!

  • Brian D||

    I'm sure they still have cases and cases of "Racism!" paint.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    You are seriously off your meds this weekend. Run out?

    Give it a fucking rest, retard.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Really? You're going to tell Charles Woods that is son is actually alive and well, happily living under an assumed name somewhere in Costa Rica?

    What are you going to deny next? The Holocaust? The Moon landing?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I know four good US citizens died there. How does that explain the whacky GOP freakout over it?

    Hundreds of US embassy personnel died under GOP presidents and the Dems said nothing.

    It is just New Birtherism.

    HE IS A GODDAM KENYAN!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Hundreds of US embassy personnel died under GOP presidents"

    Mostly under William Howard Taft.

    /dirty joke

  • GILMORE||

    Buttplug

    Hundreds of US embassy personnel died under GOP presidents and the Dems said nothing

    WTF? A US Ambassador has not been killed in an attackin the line of duty in ~40 years. The last being under Carter. (Dubs - I knew his kids)

    More importantly = no one got caught *lying about it*, ever.

    pretending "nothing happened" is retarded.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So the 241 US Marines that dies in the US Embassy in Lebanon 1983 don't count?

    Of course Reagan was President! Why they don't count then! The GOP is above criticism!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Perhaps because Reagan didn't try to cover it up to get reelected?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    He even did the right thing: lob some missiles and bombs in retaliation and then bug out.

  • Mike M.||

    That wasn't an embassy Weigel, you stupid-ass motherfucker. That was the Marine barracks located at the international airport.

  • GILMORE||

    "Palin's Buttplug|5.4.14 @ 9:12PM|#

    So the 241 US Marines that dies in the US Embassy in Lebanon 1983 don't count?"

    yes, of course. And it was a huge fucking deal that affected us policy for decades and resulted in all sorts of reactionary attitudes towards the middle east that connect directly to Benghazi.

    Read: The exact OPPOSITE of how you're treating this. And more importantly (since you are ignoring the above point) = NO ONE TRIED TO CLAIM IT WAS AN "ACCIDENT" OR A "PROTEST" OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN A TERRORIST ATTACK

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I get why the whole 'Obama left those brave US soldiers hanging' line is red meat for people who want a butt kicking Uncle Sam, but why should non-interventionist libertarians be angry that we did not escalate that battle? The only thing I should think is wrong with that was, why were we sending our people in there in the first place.

  • Cytotoxic||

    but why should non-interventionist libertarians be angry that we did not escalate that battle?

    Um. Because US diplomatic personnel were under attack? Are you trying to out-stupid PB?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am a non-interventionist. We should not have had those people there, and launching a major military attack in a foreign city coming off a civil war is not something that usually makes anything better for the US.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I am a non-interventionist. We should not have had those people there, and launching a major military attack in a foreign city coming off a civil war is not something that usually makes anything better for the US.

    You are wrong, as usual.

    However, I'd actually respect Obama if he had said something like that instead of lying his ass off about what happened and especially blaming it on a US citizen exercising his free speech. To then order the arrest of said citizen is just flat out tyrannical and evil.

  • Virginian||

    but why should non-interventionist libertarians be angry that we did not escalate that battle

    You are truly a piece of shit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Why would a non-interventionist libertarian want a large strike on a foreign country ordered?

  • Virginian||

    Why would a non-interventionist libertarian want a large strike on a foreign country ordered?

    I want the men this country sends in harm's way to be backed up when the shit hits the fan. Only a retard, which you deny you are, would mistake one for the other.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I want the men this country sends in harm's way to be backed up when the shit hits the fan."

    That is a recipe for spiraling intervention you know.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That is a recipe for spiraling intervention you know.

    That is total bullshit.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ipse dixit

  • GILMORE||

    "why should non-interventionist libertarians be angry that we did not escalate that battle?"

    who just said that "They were angry we did not escalate"-something?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    A lot of people seem to be upset that we had some capability to storm in and support these people, right? The last thing I wanted was us to involve ourselves in the situation more.

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:07PM|#

    A lot of people seem to be upset that we had some capability to storm in and support these people, right? The last thing I wanted was us to involve ourselves in the situation more."

    Who here was saying they were upset we didn't "storm in"

    What are you talking about? please cite what you are responding to.

    The comments made here = The administration lied and attempted to cover up what happened in order to prevent criticisms in advance of the election.

    That is what "a lot of people" are talking about. You are talking about something else entirely.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Gilmore, gilmore, I'm debating people making that exact argument right below our exchange here!

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:07PM|#

    A lot of people seem to be upset that we had some capability to storm in and support these people, right? The last thing I wanted was us to involve ourselves in the situation more."

    how did you know what that "situation" was?

    No one was told what "the situation" was because the administration tried to lie about what had happened.

    Your point is meaningless.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "how did you know what that "situation" was?"

    Any uncertainty about the situation would, of course, have counseled for more, not less restraint.

    As far as the lying, sure, heap coals on the administration's head all day and night for their lying, they lie about everything under the sun. I just do not see anything to criticize because they did not launch a major military intervention. That sits better with a national security conservative, not a non-interventionist libertarian.

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:22PM|#

    "how did you know what that "situation" was?"

    Any uncertainty about the situation would, of course, have counseled for more, not less restraint."

    Clearly you believe then that this situation merits far more examination - why do you oppose an inquiry into the Government's covert interventions abroad, Bo?

  • GILMORE||

    " I just do not see anything to criticize because they did not launch a major military intervention"

    Who proposed a "major military intervention", Bo?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    but why should non-interventionist libertarians be angry that we did not escalate that battle?

    You are a moron who confuses the NAP for pacifism.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am not talking about the NAP, I am talking about non-interventionism. How do you square non-interventionism with starting a covert operation in a far flung country and then when that operation gets into trouble ordering a major military strike in the same place? Do you really not see that as escalating intervention?

  • Virginian||

    Once you have men dying, you are involved. It's like being a little bit pregnant. It is morally wrong to leave them out there to die when you have the capability to extract them.

    If I got the chance, I'd put a bullet in Obama's head for it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So really, we have CIA operatives working around the globe. You really are saying that whenever any of them gets into trouble meddling in the affairs of those nations we should mobilize a major military strike to support them?

    Do you consider yourself a non-interventionist?

  • GILMORE||

    "whenever any of them gets into trouble meddling in the affairs of those nations "

    Why do you accept our government meddling in the affairs of other nations if you are a non-interventionist, Bo?? It makes no sense.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I don't accept it, and I certainly would not double and triple down by wanting major military strikes to back them up.

  • GILMORE||

    "
    Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:24PM|#

    I certainly would not double and triple down by wanting major military strikes to back them up."

    who proposed major military strikes, Bo? No one knew what was going on because the government was lying about what happened, bo. Why do you oppose government transparency, bo?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Headline on the right side banner

    Retired General Says 'We Should Have Tried' to Send Help to Benghazi During Attack

    Don't act like this is not a big thing on the Right these days, or that several people are not making this very argument right now in this very thread.

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:28PM|#

    Headline on the right side"

    you are arguing with advertisements on the website, Bo? Don't you realize we don't all see the same ads, Bo? I think you type SoCon so often that you might receive strange ads. Who is proposing we attack Libya, bo, because your fixation with opposing a non-existent military attack is bizarre.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I'd like to thank Bo for so efficiently shredding the case for non-interventionism. I haven't seen non-interventionism get so well shredded since the last time I did so myself.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I would like to thank Cytotoxic for making this comment, do I need any more evidence to make the actual non-interventionists take pause about their position here than the fact that Cyto agrees with it and thinks it refutes non-interventionism in general?

  • Cytotoxic||

    This is hilarious. You're like a fallacy machine.

  • GILMORE||

    'How do you square non-interventionism with starting a covert operation in a far flung country and then when that operation gets into trouble ordering a major military strike in the same place? Do you really not see that as escalating intervention?"

    How can you "oppose intervention" your government is lying to you about? You do not even know they are there? How can you tolerate your government lying to you about its activities?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If all you are upset about is Obama lying, good for you, I agree. But several people here, and many more on the Right, are making a great deal of noise about how he should have ordered a major military strike to save 'those four Americans.'

  • GILMORE||

    "many more on the Right, are making a great deal of noise about how he should have ordered a major military strike to save 'those four Americans.'

    How would they possibly have been able to propose this, bo, if no one knew what was happening because we were being lied to, BO?

    Who is proposing attacks NOW, bo?

  • GILMORE||

    "several people here, and many more on the Right, are making a great deal of noise about how he should have ordered a major military strike"

    Who should have....?

    The person who lied about what was happening?

    Where are these proposals bo? What do you mean by, "major"? Nuclear weapons? Invasion? paratroopers? I fail to see anyone mentioning these things, bo?

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:15PM|#

    How do you square non-interventionism with starting a covert operation in a far flung country"

    Exactly! why do you keep supporting Obamas covert use of the CIA abroad, Bo?

  • Cytotoxic||

    What Bo is arguing is that it is moral and upright for America to leave its diplomats to be killed by Islamolunatics because escalation! Fighting back is bad! [Insert stupid cartoonish pacifism here]

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, here are your bedfellows, fellows! Islamolunatics and the equation of non-intervention with pacifism.

    A rose by any other name smells as neconnish?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wow, Gilmore, you're becoming manic over this. Take a breath and let someone reply to you before you double post.

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:29PM|#

    Wow, Gilmore, you're becoming manic over this"

    I'm so interested in learning about what "major military operations" were proposed that you oppose.

    also, why you seem to think that these Major Operations are more of a problem than the actual CIA activities themselves which the current president lied about. it is strange since you are an ostensible 'non-interventionist' that you ignore the actual 'intervention' and instead seem to be focused on some theoretical non-event which no one could possibly have proposed, given that no credible information was made available about the event until months after the fact.

    But I want to learn more, bo, from a Real Libertarian.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think a military strike like that contemplated by this general and those on the right (and here it seems) think Obama failed in not authorizing, done in a large foriegn city, is a major military strike, yes.

    I can not tell if you are being coy or stupid in repeatedly acting like no one is calling for this.

  • GILMORE||

    Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:49PM|#

    I think a military strike like that contemplated by this general.."

    Bo, I keep telling you, arguing with fake people is strange. No one here is a "general".

    ".. and those on the right (and here it seems) think Obama failed in not authorizing..."

    How could anyone argue with Obama about this? he was telling everyone it was a protest, Bo? why would anyone order a military strike against a protest?

    Why do you not care about Obama's lies, Bo? there was no military strike. Some men killed Americans, and then Obama lied about it. There is nothing to attack any more Bo, so there is nothing to 'oppose'. Why do you allow our government to intervene abroad, and then lie about it? Don't you think a libertarian should oppose foreign interventions, and also oppose politicians who lie about them?

    I think this is more important than being angry about your internet banner-ads, Bo.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    gilmore, like all trolls you roll on ignoring the response you manically beg for. You act like Cyto, Virginian, Francisco, etc., have not already answered my question about why should interventionists be angry we did not escalate things with a support attack.

    "There is nothing to attack any more Bo, so there is nothing to 'oppose'. "

    You sound like Hillary Clinton. What difference does it make now?

    "Why do you allow our government to intervene abroad, and then lie about it? Don't you think a libertarian should oppose foreign interventions, and also oppose politicians who lie about them?"

    It is funny, and a bit sad, that you think this is so cute when it was easily answered a few posts ago: to the extent people are mad about the administration lying or getting involved in Libya at all, goodie for them, but clearly there are people who are upset that Obama did not escalate things by ordering a military strike to save or support those under attack in Benghazi. All your coyness on the subject can not make everyone's comments written here plain as day go away.

  • GILMORE||

    "there are people who are upset that Obama did not escalate things by ordering a military strike to save or support those under attack in Benghazi"

    I find it strange you are more upset about impossible hypotheticals rather than actual interventionist policy engaged in by your own government, and then being lied to about it?

    For an interventionist, you seem strangely happy with intervening, but then fighting about 'what if's' after the fact? Again = bizarre.

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 11:03PM|#

    You sound like Hillary Clinton.

    But Bo, don't you agree with her that there is nothing to be upset about, and that we did the right thing? You are strangely partisan in your attacks against Hilary Clinton. I can only attribute this to some bizarre anti-democrat impulse. As a proper libertarian, Bo, you should learn to be above such partisan leanings.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Apparently self-defense = 'escalation'

    I think I may have invented Bo in my sleep to demonstrate the absurdity of non-interventionism. If I didn't I could have done a better job.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    How do you square non-interventionism with starting a covert operation in a far flung country and then when that operation gets into trouble ordering a major military strike in the same place? Do you really not see that as escalating intervention?

    The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

    These were NOT CIA operatives, it was a fucking diplomat. There by invitation of the Libyan government. Being attacked (having their rights violated). There doesn't get to be a more legitimate government action than that.

    I seriously doubt a credible rescue operation could have been mounted given the time frames and what was known about the situation. I care more about the cover-up than the lack of action...

    ...BUT if a rescue effort could have been mounted, it CERTAINLY would have been justified. This isn't interventionism, it's straight up self defense.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Francisco, if that 'diplomat' and his entourage were not engaging in covert intelligence activity I will eat my hat. They were not setting up shop for handing out passports, I can tell you that.

    We have similar intelligence operations going on around the globe, if you are in support of the general principle that we should authorize air strikes in large foreign cities to help any of them whenever they run into trouble, then I just can not see how you can not see that undermining any claim to non-interventionism.

  • GILMORE||

    "Bo Cara Esq.|5.4.14 @ 10:51PM|#

    We have similar intelligence operations going on around the globe

    Why do you support this blatantly interventionist policy? Do you not believe that people who lie about interventions are preventing a proper political discussion about American foreign policy?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Invited guests of the Libyan government. Attacked and killed.

    We have similar intelligence operations going on around the globe

    As those countries do here in the US. We do NOT kill them.

  • Cytotoxic||

    B-but escalation! Neocons! /Bo-tard

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You really have no argument to make other than your usual lust for war. It's sad, really.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Neocons! War-Lust! Escalation intervention buzzword buzzword!

  • Ted S.||

    It depends on what you believe about the death of Arnold Raphel.

  • Mike M.||

    Hey Weigel, if the democrats flee Washington to avoid the hearings, are you going to flee right along with them? ROFL.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Count actress Alicia Silverstone among those Jews advocating against circumcision.

    "In her new book, “The Kind Mama: A Simple Guide to Supercharged Fertility, a Radiant Pregnancy, a Sweeter Birth, and a Healthier, More Beautiful Beginning,” the celebrity explains her personal decision not to circumcise her son, Bear, according to the website Beyond the Bris: News and Views on Jewish Circumcision."

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/a.....cumcision/

  • ||

    It seems that the amount of exposure Silverstone gets is disproportionately larger then her actual accomplishments and therefore her talent as a comedian.

    Then again maybe she is some sort of punk rock comedian's comedian.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Are you thinking of Sarah Silverman?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    'Corning' reflexively hates all Jewish/liberals.

    It is a Bircher thing - Hollywood Jew, Jew Banker, New York Jew, and so on.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

  • ||

    'Corning' reflexively hates all Jewish/liberals.

    Holy fuck.

    What are you even talking about dipshit.

  • ||

    Are you thinking of Sarah Silverman?

    Lulz

    yes

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're forgiven then!

    See, we can be reasonable!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I retract my comment about Corning's anti-Semitism. He is no bigot - instead he is just stupid.

    Alicia Silverstone - Sarah Silverman - whatever.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Hillary Clinton received Lincoln Award, calls Lincoln “the greatest president who ever served our country”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/.....award.html

  • PapayaSF||

  • ||

    Of course, the government takes them down.

    They'd rather let shit rot than let people lead the way.

  • PapayaSF||

    As one of the comments there noted, better signs = few parking tickets.

  • ||

    This one was such an improvement they left it up for 8.5 years and only took it down because it was scheduled to be replaced. When they replaced it they made changes to the sign to maintain the intent of the guerrilla sign.

  • PapayaSF||

    I love that story.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    You know, it's like you guys don't even *want* to get trolled. What's wrong with you?

    "(RNS) A new coalition of secular organizations hopes to combat prejudice and discrimination against atheists, humanists and other nonbelievers....

    "“Our goal is a world where there are no social costs for being secular, where people do not have to risk losing relationships, jobs and elections when they are open about their nonreligious beliefs,” said Todd Stiefel, chair of Openly Secular....

    "Openly Secular’s first project is to gather stories from nonbelievers who say they have faced discrimination. One of the first contributors is Jessica Ahlquist, the Rhode Island teenager whose battle to remove a prayer banner from her public high school brought her national attention in 2012."

    http://www.religionnews.com/20.....imination/

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I say let them have it. It is bound to stir up hilarious infighting among the social justice warriors that think atheists and humanists are too privileged to have priority.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I am a secular humanist (which makes me a devil to conservatives).

    I thought all libertarians were. Secular = no establishment of religion, and humanist = human supremacy in problem solving over superstition/religion.

    Reason is worth fighting conservatives over.

  • PapayaSF||

    One of the first contributors is Jessica Ahlquist, the Rhode Island teenager whose battle to remove a prayer banner from her public high school brought her national attention in 2012.

    Here's a hint for avoiding discrimination, Jessica: don't be an asshole.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Jessica is a Freedom Fighter.

    The sooner we can snuff out the Christ-Nut conservatives the better the Libertarian Party will do.

    I want to see the day a SoCon is publicly shamed like a racist is now.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I want to see the day a SoCon is publicly shamed like a racist is now.

    And this is why you are crazy.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why? All theocrats want to do is limit freedom to their definition of it.

  • Pathogen||

    There's a lot of that going around..

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    You got your remark off first, but my version was better.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why do you defend SoCons? Are you a Sanctum Santorum fan?

    Go libertarian! It's cool now!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciLllSAcF-8

    (may be NSFW in some workplaces)

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Question for all...

    Is it just me getting fed up with it, or has Shitstopper crossed over from being a slightly annoying troll to Mary-grade disruption in the past few weeks?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    He has his manic episodes from time to time.

  • ||

    It's a sockpuppet. Its entire purpose is to disrupt and MAKE THE PUPPETS DANCE. And if you respond to it, you feed it. That's why those of you who respond to it are dumbasses.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "It's a sockpuppet. Its entire purpose is to disrupt and MAKE THE PUPPETS DANCE."

    So a sockpuppet is the same thing as a troll?

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Couldn't say anymore. I blocked him and Bo a little while ago with reasonable and HnR has been a much nicer place since.

  • Mike M.||

    Shithead is particularly full of himself right now because he went to the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which for a JournoList piece of crap like him is just about one of the greatest honors there is.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    He is a SoCon PB.

  • Virginian||

    Bo knows socons. Bo knows!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Thanks for providing a heap of evidence of how silly that trope is. If you want to make the case that Eddie is not a SoCon, go right ahead, but I doubt even he is going to join that effort.

  • Virginian||

    I'm not making any cases, I'm just mocking you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Again, kind of demonstrates how empty your mockery is there.

  • Virginian||

    Does a SoCon float when thrown into the river? Inquiring minds want to know.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Interesting that you are so worked up about what you see as persecution of social conservatives on this libertarian website, to compare it to witch hunts.

  • Virginian||

    I'm not worked about imaginary persecution, I'm just enjoying your pedantry and desperate flailing.

    How many SoCons have you found today? Is there a list?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "imaginary persecution"

    ?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Why are anti-liberty SoCons given this free pass by H&R commentors?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is interesting, or rather alarming.

    I think it has to do with a significant number of regulars here being actual conservatives, and another significant group that has decided on various grounds that targeting SoCons deflects criticism from where it more rightly should be, on 'progs.'

  • Professor Woland||

    I think for most of us who dislike the Socons as much as the Progs, the Socons aren't really that scary. They're risible and generally impotent. The social tide is so much against them that their disagreeable opinions might be a good for a laugh, but they aren't particularly threatening. The proglodytes are a much greater danger, there is a real sense we could collapse into a Doctor Zhivago type scenario if the dime store Marats out there gain a strong enough foothold. I don't mean to dismiss the very real threats to liberty that Socons can create on local and state levels, but those seem much more likely to fade away over time as the culture changes, whereas the sorts of dangers the left presents are more likely to spread misery on a broader scale and to become more entrenched.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I can fully understand thinking the SoCons are the lesser evil and threat today. I actually agree with that, and have many times before.

    But what is so interesting to me is that so many here get upset when SoCons are criticized. If you want to find them be the lesser evil, sure, but when you start getting mad because someone calls them evil, then that is, well, mighty interesting.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I've lived in CA for forty+ years. The SoCons have never been a threat here, but the Proglodytes are a clear and present danger to liberty. And the SoCons, such as they exist, are natural allies against the those proglodytes.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Because I have naked photos of you and keep threatening to post them:

    http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sc.....n-butt.jpg

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    (response to PB)

  • PapayaSF||

    "We must protect high school students from prayer banners!!1!"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Woah...woah...woah...

    How is one an "asshole" by pointing out a "prayer banner" has no place hanging in a public school. If the text of the banner was, say, "La ilaha illa Allah", would you be as judgmental to poor Jessica?

  • Virginian||

    What exactly did the banner say?

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    From Wikipedia:

    Our Heavenly Father.
    Grant us each day the desire to do our best.
    To grow mentally and morally as well as physically.
    To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers.
    To be honest with ourselves as well as with others.
    Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win.
    Teach us the value of true friendship.
    Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West.
    Amen.
    —School Prayer, Cranston High School West

    Absolutely a no-no per the First Amendment.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    As is should be.

    Heavenly Father = Top Man.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Absolutely a no-no per the First Amendment.

    I think separation of church and state is a bastardization of 1A.

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    No law was made. Free exercise was, however, prohibited.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "No law was made. Free exercise was, however, prohibited."

    You think the establishment and exercise clause only apply to statutes and not things like regulation or administrative policies?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I think it means what it says. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    People, can exercise their religion wherever and whenever they please. The limit is on Congress, not people.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But Francisco, the same legal doctrine that applies the 1st Amendment to the states applies the 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc. None of them were intended to apply to the states and local governments at first.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Find the words "Congress shall make no law" in 2,4 or 5A.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Do you want to argue that the 2, 4 or 5th was meant to apply to the states as well as the federal government?

    Or perhaps more to the point, do you think states can make any campaign finance laws they want? They can force gays into the Boy Scouts?

    Because all that is in the First Amendment too, which is applied to the states along with the Establishment clause.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Do you want to argue that the 2, 4 or 5th was meant to apply to the states as well as the federal government?

    Let me type more slowly that you might understand.

    2, 4 and 5 apply to all government, AS WRITTEN.

    1A specifically limits Congress, AS WRITTEN.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I notice you did not answer the second and third question there Francisco.

    Also, Francisco AS WRITTEN!!!! the Bill of Rights was a series of amendments to...the Federal Constitution, and only applied to the federal government.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Also, Francisco AS WRITTEN!!!! the Bill of Rights was a series of amendments to...the Federal Constitution, and only applied to the federal government.

    Bullshit.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    10A clearly says the Constitution can prohibit the States.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Wow. You just went off the deep SoCon end of the pool.

    I did not see this theocrat budding here.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I did not see this theocrat budding here.

    I am an atheist, ass-clown.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I am an atheist

    I believe you. But a "person" can't exercise their religious preference while representing the state.

    It is not even a challenged issue any longer yet you are dredging it up again.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I can exercise my religion anywhere I fucking please, provided I'm not on private property. Because an administrator works for the government doesn't mean he is not a person and is prohibited from exercising his religion.

    I know what the current law says and I know what the Constitution says. AND AS I SAID, separation of church and state is a bastardization of 1A. Federal laws prohibiting religion in school are a direct violation of 1A as written.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So Francisco, the Constitution does not bar teacher and administrator led prayers in the public schools?

    And apart from the Constitution, do you as a libertarian support that?

  • Virginian||

    the Constitution does not bar teacher and administrator led prayers in the public schools?

    The federal Constitution does not.

    And apart from the Constitution, do you as a libertarian support that?

    Of course not.

    See, something can be bad policy, anti-liberty, and 100% Constitutional. Conversely, something could be good policy, pro-liberty, and unconstitutional.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The federal Constitution does not."

    So, like Francisco you do not think any of the First Amendment applies to the states? State's are free to restrict speech, association, and free exercise to their hearts content?

    "ee, something can be bad policy, anti-liberty, and 100% Constitutional. "

    Sure, that's the post office or most defense spending. But interestingly, this did not start being about whether this was constitutional, but whether a kid was an a**hole for fighting against it. Do you agree it was bad, anti-liberty policy for a school administrator to hang this banner up in a school that this young girl was compulsed to go to and her parents were compulsed to pay for?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    So Francisco, the Constitution does not bar teacher and administrator led prayers in the public schools?

    Correct.

    And apart from the Constitution, do you as a libertarian support that?

    1. A person may do as they wish, PROVIDED in doing so they do not infringe upon the rights of others.

    2. The ONLY legitimate role of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

    So long as I am not forced to pray, I don't really have a problem with it. Simply choose not to participate.

  • GILMORE||

    "the constitution" does not, and had not for 200+ years.

    in 1992 justice kennedy slapped that one with a no-no.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman

    to this day most people feel this was an extreme over-reach.

    Regardless; what would you know, idiot? You're just a student.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Federal laws prohibiting religion in school are a direct violation of 1A as written.

    No, they're not. The reason why is how public schools are funded. Schools get money at the local, state, and Federal level. Title I funds are disbursed by the Feds to the States, which then disbursed them to their local school districts. So as it stands, Cranston High School West is a building that is partly (probably mostly) funded by the Federal government, and the material for that banner was possibly funded that way as well. The Federal funding of a public display of faith smells like establishment to me.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Oh?

    I didn't realize public schools were Congress?

    As in:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Congress is the one that passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. If those ESEA Title I funds are going to support a religion, then yes, it's establishment.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I see your point, but I can't find anything about funding schools in Article 1 Section 8. (Oddly, it does specifically state that Congress can establish a post office. Funny how they'd get so specific on that but be general wrt everything else. ;-))

    So what we've got here is a failure to cumoonicate justification based upon an unconstitutional act.

  • Virginian||

    Absolutely a no-no per the First Amendment.

    This banner creates a state run and tax funded church?

    Or does the existence of this banner prohibit the exercise of religion?

    It's unconstitutional only because those parts of the Constitution have been stretched out immeasurably by various judges.

    It is unconstitutional the same way Obamacare is constitutional: because the men in black robes hath said so.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    er, Virginian, wouldn't you, as a libertarian, want an expansive reading of the establishment clause?

  • Virginian||

    er, Virginian, wouldn't you, as a libertarian, want an expansive reading of the establishment clause?

    I would want a pro-liberty reading of the Constitution. I would argue that the expansive reading of the Constitution has, in the main, harmed liberty. I think we are less free now then we were 100 years ago in many ways, thanks to the expansive reading of the Constitution.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    " I would argue that the expansive reading of the Constitution has, in the main, harmed liberty."

    What the?

  • Virginian||

    Wickard? Korematsu? Bell? Miller?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are confusing expanding government in spite of the limits of the Constitution with expanding the Constitution. The Constitution is a list of tightly limited enumerated powers and rights reserved to the people marking government action in those areas off limits. We should want that to be read expansively.

    Though with your SoCon defense upthread maybe your dislike of that makes a lot of sense...

  • Virginian||

    Someone's confused here, but it isn't me.

    Korematsu and Roe are the exact same thing: creating something out of nothing. Just because you and I see the latter as a positive result doesn't mean the process isn't a bad idea.

    Giving an unelected cabal total power over the law is a bad idea, period.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think it is you that are confused.

    If you think extra-textual readings of the Constitution are bad even when they limit government power, because in the long run they usurp democracy, well OK (but are you ready to dump cases like Lochner where the Court struck down progressive legislation based on freedom of association and contract principles, principles that are extra-textual?). But for the most part the Constitution is a list of rights limiting government and carefully enumerated powers. I certainly want that first part read expansively, and if one understands that the enumerations are limits I want that read 'expansively' too (the limiting parts).

  • Virginian||

    Right, and I want to have my cake and eat it too. I live in the real world. In the real world, going around the plain meaning for good causes makes it easier for bad people to do the same for their ends.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    The plain meaning limits the 1st Amendment to the states. Does that mean you think state and local governments can abridge speech, pass campaign finance limits, force churches to marry gays, etc?

  • Virginian||

    No, the federal Constitution applies to the federal government. The policies of state governments are governed by their respective constitutions.

    For a law student, you sure don't understand how federalism works?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    This banner creates a state run and tax funded church?

    Yes it does. Right there in the school where secularism should reign and the Age of Reason should be taught.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You sound like a Jacobin, hardly a libertarian compliment.

    Government should not aid or attack any religion.

  • PapayaSF||

    This banner creates a state run and tax funded church?

    Or does the existence of this banner prohibit the exercise of religion?

    It's unconstitutional only because those parts of the Constitution have been stretched out immeasurably by various judges.

    This. Seeing a prayer banner is not an imposition. If someone "feels uncomfortable" or disagrees, suck it up. If the school was forcing people to say a prayer, then sure, I'd object. But this is about as much a "violation of the First Amendment" as the representation of the 10 Commandments on the Supreme Court building.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Woah...woah...woah...

    ...
    Vernon T. Waldrip?

  • PapayaSF||

    One is an asshole for battling about it. So some people put up a prayer banner. Meh.

    I don't consider an Islamic prayer equivalent, because 1) most people in the school weren't Islamic, and 2) I don't consider all religions equivalent. I know I'm supposed to, but I don't.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Here's a hint for avoiding discrimination, Jessica: don't be an asshole."

    She is an a**hole for opposing a prayer banner in her public high school? Maybe she had this crazy idea (from the LP Platform):

    "We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    How is that banner aiding or attacking any religion?

  • PapayaSF||

    Exactly.

  • SugarFree||

    When you have to play stupid to win an argument, you aren't winning the argument. You just look stupid.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Neil Young displays his usual modesty over the song "Ohio," about the Kent State shootings

    "“It’s still hard to believe I had to write this song,” Young, a Canadian, explained in the liner notes of his ‘Decade’ anthology. “It’s ironic that I capitalized on the death of these American students.""

    http://ultimateclassicrock.com/csny-ohio/

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I hope he'll remember...

  • Sevo||

    ...“It’s ironic that I capitalized on the death of these American students.""...

    Hey, Neil, how many dead in Li-b-ya?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Embrace of Atheism Put an Indonesian in Prison

    "...[Alexander Aan] had joined an atheist Facebook group started by Indonesians living in the Netherlands, and in 2011 he began posting commentaries outlining why he did not think God existed....

    "He was released on parole on Jan. 27 after serving more than 19 months on a charge of inciting religious hatred....

    "According to human rights organizations and various surveys, religious intolerance is on the rise in Indonesia, at least partly because of the growing influence of radical Islamic groups that use street protests and acts of violence to support their aims. Some of these radical groups demonstrated in Jakarta, the capital, before Mr. Aan’s trial in West Sumatra in 2012.

    “His case very much ties in with that whole trend,” said Benedict Rogers, the East Asia team leader for Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights organization founded in Britain. The group released a report in February warning that religious intolerance in Indonesia was spreading beyond traditionally conservative Muslim bases like West Java Province.

    “Of course there would be religious people who would take offense about someone publicly expressing this view” about atheism, Mr. Rogers said. “But I think if it weren’t for this growing Islamism and extremism, Alexander’s case probably wouldn’t have happened.”"

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05.....rison.html

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Damnedest thing just happened. I was reading that article an got to the word "rejuvenating" and the same word was said on the movie I was watching just as I read it.

    Wonder what those odds are? Maybe I'll go buy a Powerball ticket.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    That's an interesting article. I may need to start tapping the veins of my orphans.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I am a secular humanist

    I thought you were a singing hat rack.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Freedom, Brooks! It is what I do while you goose-step with the GOP!

  • Pathogen||

    Palin's Buttplug|5.4.14 @ 9:57PM|#

    Freedom, Brooks! Kneeling with my mouth wide open, waiting for the Obama money shot. It is what I do while you goose-step with the GOP!
  • Cytotoxic||

    That would imply he has a use.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Odessians are beginning to form grass-roots resistance to the pro-Russia infiltrators and traitors. They're exercising the 2A without it. Libertarianism in action.

    Mr. Farisyuk, normally a businessman dealing with marine electronics, carries a pistol under his blue blazer. "After Crimea, we came to the local government offering to help, but they told us they don't see any risks here." So he and like-minded activists, including military veterans and many civilian volunteers, joined forces and developed an action plan, which included installing checkpoints at entrances to the city to spot suspicious visitors.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/art.....77596.html

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Other countries are watching this and saying, "we better not get nuclear weapons, or we might have unrest like in Ukraine!"

    /sarc

  • ||

    Why are the pro-Russians traitors and the pro-Europeans not?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Because the pro-Russians are murdering people, banning political parties in places they've seized, and acting to further aggression by a belligerent foreign entity. The pro-Europeans would like to trade with the EU and not get murdered for protesting. I'm tired of explaining things that are really obvious.

  • ||

    So ummm why are pro-European Ukrainian troops assaulting Sloviansk and Kramatorsk?

    No murder there right? They used Nerf bullets I guess.

  • Hydra||

    Worst GOT episode evar. And not just because of the complete lack of exposed tits (a series first?)

  • ||

    Spoiler: Meera Reed is Jon Snow's twin sister and daughter of Lyanna Stark and Howland Reed.

  • Hydra||

    Back in March I was ordered by people at work to get caught up on GOT so we could talk about it Monday mornings. After watching the first 3 seasons (30 hours) over a weekend, I was like, wow this show kicks ass! But I think that was because I was watching the episodes in bunches -- if you watch it one hour per week NOTHING HAPPENS.

  • ||

    Lyanna Stark used her worg powers on Rhaegar Targaryen first to make her Queen of Beauty at the Turny at Harrenhal (she did win the Tourney or would have as the Knight of the laughing tree so she did sort of earn it) and then later she had him take her to the Tower of Joy to hide her pregnancy with Howland Reed from Robert Baratheon.

    Should point out the Starks have used their Worg powers to secure their position in the north for 1000s of years and in fact it was Torrhen Stark who used his power to bring Aegon the conqueror to Westeros in the first place to destroy the Iron King who was slowly taking over the southern kingdoms and threatening the North.

  • Hydra||

    Whoa whoa whoa slow down.

    That's like 2 seasons worth of happenings at the current rate, I can't keep up.

    They spent two full scenes establishing that the butch knight's new squire can't ride a horse or cook rabbits, and another two with the Hound and Arya going nowhere and complaining about each other. I would give a spoiler alert but you can't have spoilers when NOTHING HAPPENS.

  • ||

    NOTHING HAPPENS.

    Yeah none of that stuff even happened in the book.

    In the book casters keep is taken over by the Others after the mutiny and Jon's Dire wolf just shows up one day at Castle Black and Bran and his group never get captured by the mutineers at Caster's keep. Jon never goes up there with a band to take em out either.

    Bran does use his power's to control Hodor but under totally different circumstances and Bran does see Jon from a distance and they never meet but again under totally different circumstance. In fact it should have happened before Bran went north of the wall when Jon was with the wildlings band.

    I have no idea what the fuck the hound and Arya are even doing as it is not what they did in the book. The book also hardly even follows Brian and Pod at this point in the story either.

    It seems like a clean up episode for all the loose ends they created when they drifted from the books.

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Breanne and Podrick would be an awesome sitcom.

  • ||

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

    Heh
    I don't have the skillz.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    This has been a really dull thread. How about...

    "The Benghazi-Industrial Complex

    "Will the pseudo-scandal be enough to stop Hillary from running?

    "There were, and are, legitimate questions about Clinton’s conduct before and after Benghazi....According to the conclusions of her own Accountability Review Board...“systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” might have contributed to the four deaths....

    "But these are issues of competence, not corruption. There is as little evidence that Clinton or anyone else in the administration engaged in a cover-up of Benghazi as there is that Hillary ordered the whacking of her old friend Vince Foster. It is a fantastical notion that continues not just to survive but thrive, in defiance of any application of fact, among the “vast right-wing conspiracy” Hillary decried so long ago....

    "Let’s face it: The BIC [Benghazi Industrial Complex] is here to stay, fueled by a mania on the right to somehow, in some way, validate Issa’s declaration that Obama is the “one of the most corrupt presidents of modern times” and, above all, to tarnish Clinton ahead of 2016 by linking the former secretary of state directly to the deaths of Stevens and the others."

    http://www.politico.com/magazi.....z30nqFYz5g

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Maybe if I stick a stick it with a stupid name those darned emails will just go away."

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Freedom, Brooks! It is what I do

    You're not free if you're not free to be wrong

  • SlV||

    I'm in the Land of Lincoln and deep dish pizza. I see why 50% of these fucks want to move to another state. I need a clause in my contract that Illinois work is going to cost them a lot more.

  • Derpetologist||

    Today on Derpbook, I was talking with a prog about Benghazi. He actually said "what difference does it make?", unaware that he was quoting Hillary.

  • Derpetologist||

    Today on Derpbook:


    Once again, the broken window fallacy is, well, a fallacy. Another false comparison, unless of course you are speaking specifically of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, which netted BILLIONS in taxpayer dollars for defense contractors that were providing the weaponry to blow up schools and bridges, and the contractors to repair those roads and bridges, and the private security forces to protect them at 5 times the rate of the US Military. All of which, of course was completely orchestrated and designed by said corporations, that are foreign multi-nationals, that were mapping out plans for war from day one of the Bush presidency and arguably had a hand in allowing 9/11 to happen unobstructed. Cheney's company alone has made 50 billion+ to date and he inevitably profited handsomely from it. That is where the broken window fallacy makes sense.
  • Derpetologist||

    Cont'd


    When it comes to roads and bridges and crumbling infrastructure or the post office or other necessary and needed services the comparison doesn't really apply, because those things actually have to be maintained and fixed. Not to say there isn't a lot of superfluous and unnecessary spending going on in government, but about 90% of that is on non essential military spending. Keeping troops stationed in hundreds of bases around the world and spending billions on planes and weaponry that are never going to be used and we're never needed in the first place as well as spending billions if not trillions rebuilding countries we destroyed in the first place unnecessarily is the TRUE broken window fallacy in US government.
  • Sevo||

    D'ist,
    This isn't bad IMO:
    "Keeping troops stationed in hundreds of bases around the world and spending billions on planes and weaponry that are never going to be used and we're never needed in the first place as well as spending billions if not trillions rebuilding countries we destroyed in the first place unnecessarily is the TRUE broken window fallacy in US government."

    This, OTOH:
    " All of which, of course was completely orchestrated and designed by said corporations, that are foreign multi-nationals, that were mapping out plans for war from day one of the Bush presidency and arguably had a hand in allowing 9/11 to happen unobstructed."
    Suggests a trip to K-Mart for the blue-light special on tin-foil hats.

  • Derpetologist||

    He says something sensible from time to time. Broken clock, etc.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

  • Sevo||

    Apropos of a spring day:

    "Cain going on disabled list for SF Giants"
    [...]
    "because of his sandwich-related injury."
    http://blog.sfgate.com/giants/.....sf-giants/

    Ever try to catch a knife that fell off the counter? Know anyone who tried twice?
    As I understand it, Matt Cain will likely *never* try to catch a knife again.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    Clint Barmes of the Rockies once snapped a tendon carrying deer meat upstairs to his apartment.

    Hunter Pence, back when he was an Astro, lacerated himself when he ran into a glass door in the process of hotubbing with a female companion.

    But my favorite is what happened to asshole and former Dodger Kevin Brown when he was a Yankee: he got pulled from a start early and punched the wall in the dugout in anger, breaking his hand and effectively ending his career.

  • Hydra||

    As a Cubs fan, nothing beats Sammy Sosa throwing out his back with a particularly violent sneeze, and Kyle Farnsworth tearing up his knee by kicking a fan (the spinning kind, not the kind that says stuff about your sister while you're in the bullpen).

  • Sevo||

    Leave my sister out of this!

  • Sevo||

    Gag-fest:

    "2014 Goldman Environmental Prize"
    [...]
    "Among those who gave impassioned speeches were Bobby Kennedy, who decried big business and big government as spoilers of the environment"...
    http://www.sfgate.com/parties/.....-84981.php

    All as recorded by the social-scene writer and photoger for the Chron...
    Paging barfman!

  • Derpetologist||

    For the sake of variety, comments from another prog:


    Your inability to collect common sense facts to conclude why the administration were to believe the attack was a direct result from protest about a youtube video is amazing. Any well functioning person can see how these two things are connected. Do you honestly think the day these terrorist chose to attack a US embassy there just happened to be a GLOBAL RIOT? That is an amazing coincidence. Think about it. You need to unplug from right wing talking points and just look at the facts, then form your own opinion. All i see out of you is the same tired arguments I hear from the right every single day. Have a good day bubble boy.
  • Cytotoxic||

    GLOBAL RIOT

  • Pathogen||

    I wasn't invited to the GLOBAL RIOT... just say'n...

  • Sevo||

    Pretty sure the GLOBAL RIOT was of a piece with the proletariat storming the steps of the Winter Palace.

  • Grand Moff Serious Man||

    I really would have liked to have participated in the Establishment Clause discussion, but Bo ruined that.

    So I'll state my point here:

    I don't think it establishes religion to permit public institutions to display items of a religious nature. That in of itself is not a problem.

    But I feel their is merit to the argument that if your tax dollars support an institution like public education, then you are becoming an accessory to any religious shenanigans that the money is used for.

    Now of course this is an excellent libertarian argument for school choice but the government has decided to simply forbid banners and such from being hung.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah I'm not arguing it's good policy, that it's libertarian, that it's in keeping with the general principles of Jeffersonian democracy, that I support it, etc.

    I'm just saying that it's only unconstitutional if you have an expansive reading of the Constitution. And I'd argue that such a reading of the Constitution creates more problems than it solves, in the long run.

  • Derpetologist||

    So a prog is now trying to tell me the Nazis weren't socialist. I wonder if he knows where the name came from. I should pay real close attention because he studied this in college and stuff.

  • Acosmist||

    I was at a bar once where a really loud, chubby girl was saying dumb things. Among those, "Nazi Germany was the most capitalist country in history."

  • RishJoMo||

    This makes a whole lot of sense to me dude. Wow.

    www.myAnon.tk

  • msss||

    dear matt; yes immigration has been problem for a long time and not addressed as it should have been but Obama has made it into a CRISIS! your comment about history shows me I am to excuse slavery -it has been around too long . stand for more than ;its been a long standing problem. you and he are opening the gates to our country. there is lots of violence in the world, your answer doesn't meet them.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE