Hit & Run

Nick Gillespie on RT Tonight, Talking About Pols & Media Circus

|

Nick Gillespie will be on RT's The Alyona Show tonight, talking about the crazy stories coming out of DC like something out of congressman's YFrog account. Go here for more info or to watch online.

NEXT: Dutch Government Plans to Make Cannabis Cafés Member-Only Clubs; Foreigners Need Not Apply

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.

  1. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites you people are! Truly amazing that Reason would Deep 6 a story this important to its readership:

    Did I miss where Reason was all over this story or do the Hit & Run editors not find it newsworthy that Rand Paul doesn't believe in the First Amendment?

    http://www.salon.com/news/opin.....index.html

    "But if someone is attending speeches from someone who is promoting the violent overthrow of our government, that's really an offense that we should be going after -- they should be deported or put in prison." - Rand Paul

    1. Rand Paul isn't 100% on the good side, but when he is, he pretty FUCKING RIGHT!

      1. How would you know if you got your information from Reason?

        1. I got my information from CSPAN. That speech he gave about protecting our civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act was fucking awesome.

          1. But I agree with you; Reason should say something about that quote from Rand. It's sounds interesting.

            1. Can we get somebody, anybody from the staff to say something, anything about this? Tim? Jacob? Matt? Anybody? Hello?!?!?

              1. Dude, CALM THE FUCK DOWN. You're more annoying than rectal. Think about that for a second.

                1. I assumed it was rectal. You don't think so?

                  1. I was thinking it seemed concern troll in the Hobie Hanson/DanT style, actually.

                    rectal can't form coherent sentences, after all, being a mongoloid.

                    1. You call me rectal, but you're the one with your head up your ass.

                    2. PWND!

                  2. Speaking of thinking about me:
                    warty old man, when you jerk-off thinking about me, have 911 on your speed dial.

          2. What do you think about Reason failing to cover his remarks about putting people in prison for attending political speeches?

            1. I think they haven't gotten around to it yet. IIRC, it's not like it's a newsroom where assignments are handed out. They pick and choose what they want to write about, and they don't always jump on things immediately.

            2. I think they haven't gotten to it yet. I also think you need some Valium.

            3. How/Why is reason.com obligated to cover every story to please every person? How/Why is the absence of any particular story at reason.com an indictment of reason.com?

              1. The absence of any mention of this very important story, about well-known and influential libertarian Rand Paul disavowing the First Amendment, is itself an indictment of reason.com. Combine that with all the heavy advertising Paul's been doing around here and you have to wonder if they're not laying off him for reasons other than they just "missed" the story. That's why I asked the question.

            4. It's not half as annoying as your goddamn whining and spamming the last five threads with it. You remnd us fucking constantly about your own shitty blog, rather, go fucking post it there.

              1. The pointing out of the hypocrisy is more annoying than the hypocrisy itself, I agree, but the hypocrisy is more consequential. Therefore it's important to point it out.
                I'm not sure what your cognitive impairment is, Sugar Free, but the link I posted was from Glenn Greenwald, not a blog that I maintain.

                1. Fuckwit. "post it on your blog" rather, I know it wasn't from your shitty blog. Reading is sooooo hard.

              2. are you slow? I told you it wasn't me, he/she told you he doesn't know what you are ranting about. Eat a fucking chocolate bar

  2. Awesome, more Ayona!

    1. I knew you fried everything you eat there but pussy?

      1. I like to eat the skins first.

        1. Hmm, crispy prepuce!

  3. I can't watch these Russia Today clips at work (which is where I have a decently fast internet connection), so I have to ask, what is Russia Today? Is it like CNN for russians in America? Why do they always feature Reason writers?

    Any help is appreciated.

    1. It's a spinoff of that nude news channel from Russia, but due to our puritanical ways, Alyona's tits and pie are clothed.

  4. Nick Gillespie will be on RT's The Alyona Show tonight, talking about the crazy stories coming out of DC like something out of congressman's YFrog account

    I'm only watching if Nick is showing his junk, with, or without the leather jacket

    1. Why would you think anyone would give a shit whether you watched or not? Maybe you can post about it on your blog and have no one read it.

      1. baby, is so cranky.

        1. Have you two set a date yet? Will there be an open bar? Can I bring my mother?

          1. here
            Bring your own drugs*/sheep/mothers/weapons
            No clothes allowed
            We have our own still,microbrewery and weed greenhouse*

          2. Bring your own drugs*/sheep/mothers/weapons

            No clothes allowed

            We have our own weed greenhouse, still and microbrewery

            here

          3. Bring your own drugs*/sheep/mothers/weapons

            No clothes allowed

            We have our own weed* greenhouse, still and microbrewery

  5. If you were watching CNN in the last few minutes, the New Jersey Texan, Paul Begala, put his foot in his mouth once again by saying that "Unless you are in a relationship with a guy, you can't be more 'pro-gay rights' than Ted Kennedy."

    Paul Begala, the homophobe?

    1. "Unless you are in a relationship with a guy, you can't be more 'pro-gay rights' than Ted Kennedy."

      Michelle Bachmann is in a relationship with a guy.

      1. As someone who fancies himself a closeted butt-sex enthusiast, I was quite offended by Begala's remark.

    2. You provided no context, and assuming for a moment that a dead person (Kennedy) can be pro-gay rights, I take Begala's utterly insignificant remark to mean that an actual gay person probably has more understanding of the issues involved than a straight person. If that's true, then it follows that only women can be gynecologists, and only men can give proctological exams.

      1. Make that prostate exams. Right cavity, wrong organ.

      2. I have just one or two questions:

        First, why is Ted Kennedy the most 'pro-gay rights' heterosexual male who has ever existed?

        Second, didn't Begala forget about lesbians or bisexuals?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.