Media

Updated! Show Suspended for 2 Weeks! Alec Baldwin Condemns "Libertarian Trash" Who Are "Defenders of Gay Rights"

|

This post has been updated at 10pm ET on November 15. Scroll down to read the update.

The latest rampage by rageaholic—and ultra-talented, btw—actor Alec Baldwin is on display at TMZ.com (click above to watch). After winning a case against a stalker, Baldwin saw fit to scream at and threaten a shutterbug on the streets of New York.

During the episode, Baldwin refers to the photographer as a "cocksucking fag," an insult that calls to mind a previous incident in which the 30 Rock alum and current MSNBC host threatened to foot-fuck a "toxic little queen" and "a toxic little bitch" who had libeled his wife.

While giving no quarter to what he sees as invasive photographers, Baldwin has checked in with advisers and concludes

This tweet came just hours after Baldwin had tweeted "Anti-gay slurs are wrong. They not only offend, but threaten hard fought tolerance of LGBT rights."

And not long after Baldwin had tweeted (and duly deleted) this slag on "libertarian trash" who defend gays:

I can't speak for the Breitbart crowd (though Andrew Breitbart was certainly a staunch supporter of gay equality) but the "libertarian trash" at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine's earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality. If the state is going to involve itself in marriage (and it shouldn't) among consenting adults, it should not draw invidious distinctions and treat some people as second-class citizens.

I'd like to think that Alec Baldwin can understand that about "libertarian trash." But if his now-you-see-it, now-you-don't Twitter feed is any indication, he's already on to more important topics, such as conflating "single-bullet theorists" with minimum-wage flat-earthers:

Update (10pm ET, November 15): According to Variety, Alec Baldwin's MSNBC show, Up Late, has been suspended for two weeks. The suspension comes not because of the event described above but due to a threat and insult Baldwin made to a reporter for a local New York Fox affiliate earlier this week. Along with other journalists hovering around Baldwin after his testimony against his stalker, the Fox reporter asked him questions. To which Baldwin responded

"If you're still here when my wife and kid come out, you're going to have a big problem, you know that?" 

He then insulted the reporter, saying, "You are as dumb as you look. You are with Fox, right?"

More here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Boston PD Drops Complaints Against Photography Rights Group

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. That’s some respectical crazy, stream of consciousness, there.
    It’s good to see he’s found a nice niche at MSNBC. A rich tapestry of insanity for its four veiwers.

    1. I like his special combination of anger and ignorance. Like watching toddlers brawl over a toy.

      1. or douche bags arguing over the douche

      2. Like watching toddlers legislators brawl over a toy bill

      3. Or retards trying to hump a doorknob.

        1. Male or female retard?

          1. Either? Pic one.

            1. No pics necessary. I’ll take your word for it.

          2. Does it matter?

        2. Or retards trying to hump a doorknob.

          +1 Dodgeball

          -1000 insomnia

    2. ” rich tapestry of insanity ”

      Baldwin may run his mouth sometimes but, overall, he’s probably the sanest progessive on MSNBC.

      1. TRUE! Or anywhere else, for that matter.

  2. Libertarianism is for closers!

    1. You know what it takes to be libertarian?

      Gold balls.

      1. Uh-oh. Mine are steel.

        1. You know who else had steel balls?

          1. Schweinfurt?

            1. +a zillion bombs

          2. Captain Queeg?

            1. +1 minesweeper

        2. This country has been downhill ever since we adopted fiat balls…

    2. These Somalian leads are weak!

      1. The Somalian leads are weak? Fucking Somalian leads are weak. The NAP is weak.

        1. You stupid fucking cunt. You, Warty, I’m talking to you, shithead. You just cost me $6,000. Six thousand dollars, and one Cadillac. That’s right. What are you going to do about it? What are you going to do about it, asshole? You’re fucking shit. Where did you learn your trade, you stupid fucking cunt, you idiot? Who ever told you that you could work with men? Oh, I’m gonna have your job, shithead.

    3. Once I took the “C” off a Taco Bell marquis that read “NOW HIRING CLOSERS”

      1. Say you’re saying you helped them “narrow” the talent pool?

  3. See this watch????

  4. The Breitbart people are most likely defending gays’ rights here because the enemy of their enemy is a loudmouth liberal. And yes, talented. Personally, I say let him have it out with the paparazzi. And the rest of us shouldn’t give a shit what these people do offscreen.

    1. Yep. It’s only a problem if you look to these people as rolemodels, instead of performers. And if you’re doing that, your parents have failed you.

  5. He’s nearly 60 and only now finds out cocksucker is an anti-gay slur? So he’s stupid or a hypocritical liar. Or both, of course.

    1. Hypocritical cocksucking liar.

    2. What if you call a woman a cocksucker? Is it a compliment?

      1. My thought on the matter is that sexual orientation is irrelevant. Calling anyone a cocksucker is denigrating to the practice or oral sex itself, which is just plain wrong.

        1. Depends on context and adjectives. Calling someone a cocksucker can be praise, or something you say to make sex hotter.

      2. What if you call a woman a cocksucker? Is it a compliment?

        I always thought it should be. Or at least a kudo on her dating r?sum

      3. ‘Nobody uses the word “cocksucker” correctly anymore. They seem to think it means some kind of a bad man.

        ‘No, it doesn’t. It’s a good woman.’

        — George Carlin

        Quoting from memory, so I probably don’t have it exactly right.

    3. He’s a 60-year-old man who hasn’t lived in an underground bunker. Of course he knows it’s anti-gay. At least, it’s anti-gay by implication.

    4. …but I will still say fag. That’s not anti-gay, right?

      1. No. A fag isn’t a gay person. A fag’s a fag.

          1. I think South Park established who the new faggots are.

            1. *makes Harley noises*

            2. I think South Park established who the new faggots are.

              “Friends of the Armstrong and Getty Show”….

        1. I thought a fag was slang for cigarette.

          1. Or a bunch of sticks.

          2. No. It is a younger boy in English boarding schools that was assigned to an older boy that had to do chores for the older boy. One such chore was to get wood (bundle of sticks) for the stove.

        1. fags are also cigs right? so you could be a fagsucker.

          1. Don’t blow your fag in my direction.

    5. I never thought of it as an anti-gay slur. I thought it meant someone who didn’t enjoy sucking cock, but did it for money or ingratiation.

      1. All the cocksuckers in my life have a special place in my heart.

    6. I guess the new Mrs. Baldwin (how many have there been now?) doesn’t take his angry red member in her mouth then.

      1. I guess the new Mrs. Baldwin (how many have there been now?) doesn’t take his angry red member in her mouth then.

        Yeah…that would put me in a mood too!

    7. nothing wrong with what he said. Dat 1st Amendment swag— cuts both ways

  6. I think the crazy is what made him so awesome on 30 Rock. Too bad he never learned anything from the character he played.

    1. You watched that shit?

      1. It was good shit.

  7. since when is cocksucker anti-ghey?

    1. Well, the negative implication comes from its use as an insult. If you call a man a cocksucker, you’re implying that a.) he’s gay, and b.) that’s a bad thing.

      1. ^This. Thanks.

      2. Next you’re going to try to sell me that motherfucker is an insult to MILF hunters or those with Oedipal complexes.

        1. When used as an insult, yes.

          I’ve always taken MF to specifically refer to the mother of the person at whom the insult is directed, ie an accusation of the most taboo form of incest. CS is an insult based on the act itself, not who the act is performed upon.

          1. It’s original meaning was closer to, ‘you’re the kind of guy who would fuck his best friend’s mother’, and didn’t imply incest. At least that’s what an old, black coot taught me back in the early 80s. Everyone should have an old black coot mentor to make them streetwise when they are around the age of fourteen.

          2. I’ve always taken MF to specifically refer to the mother of the person at whom the insult is directed, ie an accusation of the most taboo form of incest.

            I’ve always taken it to be punctuation.

      3. “You can’t cut the throat of every cocksucker whose character it would improve.”

        1. are you sure? can we try a little experiment maybe? a nominate Mr. Baldwin

      4. See also the phrase teabagger – generally used by those that pine for rational, reasoned, civil discourse.

      5. so what? Free speech still exists, right? Don’t go all cultural Marxist on me here

    2. The original incident involved the phrase “cocksucker fag.”

    3. When its said by a straight, its horrible bigotry.

      When its said by a gay, its transgressive and hip.

      1. You got that right, cocksucker.

  8. Also, as is often demonstrated here, libertarians (or those claiming to be such) are not consistent defenders of gay rights. So don’t pat yourselves on the back so fast, libertarians.

    1. I challenge the veracity of your reporting on the matter.

      1. Well, you see, advocating for the rights of gays to be gay and have consenual sex with whoever they want to, and to participate in the social construct of marriage with all the same government priveledges as straights is all well and good, but apparently if you also don’t support the “right” of gay couples to force florists, bakers, taylors, and all the other professions that serve the marriage industry to serve them, religious objections be damned, then you don’t really support gay rights*. Or something.

        1. I think you’re overstating Tonio’s case there, Loki.

          You’ll still get plenty of impassioned debate here on “and to participate in the social construct of marriage with all the same government priveledges as straights is all well and good” and unless Tony is getting involved in the conversation, nobody here thinks non-discrimination ordinances exercised against private parties is a good thing.

          But nice strawman.

          1. nobody here thinks non-discrimination ordinances exercised against private parties is a good thing.

            Revealed preference kinda says otherwise though when they will happily go along with such in order to obtain the more sacred goal of allowing homosexual monogamous couples to seek rent on the same playing field as heterosexual monogamous couples. In the real world where policy preferences have tangible tradeoffs, property and association rights stack up something less than the right to ask permission for government paperwork for some libertarians.

            It’s not really a strawman to draw out the complexities of a policy preference and acknowledge the fact that you are, inherently given the current legal framework, trading one liberty for another.

            1. I would agree with you, PM, but none of the marriage laws have contained NDO language as far as I can tell. NDOs that “protect” gays are separate laws that are in effect well before (sometimes since the ’60s) gay marriage was even considered a reasonable thing to debate. The New Mexico photography case is a good example of the perniciousness of NDOs without an assist from marriage law.

              Should we also call it a revealed preference when legally married people clamor for the end of state sanctioned marriage?

              1. Non discrimination laws, of course, exist separately already and are a travesty by themselves, independent of anything else. The practicality though, due to the combination of two shitty intrusions of government into social issues, is that the expansion of marriage is going to entail more people running afoul of non discrimination law.

                I think both civil marriage and non discrimination laws are wrong, so my ideal solution would be to do away with both in one fell swoop. But that’s never going to happen. Gay marriage will (relatively) soon be recognized in every state and by the federal government, non discrimination laws will remain, probably with expanded protections for sexual preference and gender identity, a few noisy, symbolic lawsuits will take place, over the course of a few years the people in the affected industries who won’t comply with the law will close up, the new entrants into those industries will (by definition) be those willing to abide by the law, and that will be that. Then 50 years from now our grandchildren can bicker over the way it all shook out the same way we now do about the 1964 CRA. And it’ll be equally irrelevant. The government will have expanded to the benefit of some and the detriment of others, and those on the wrong side will be forgotten in history’s dustbin (maybe rightly so). I just hope the majority of the libertarian movement is honest enough to not pretend to be appalled when it happens that way.

                1. Should we also call it a revealed preference when legally married people clamor for the end of state sanctioned marriage?

                  We should call it revealed preference any time our actions reveal our preferences. Which would be 100% of the time. The only time it matters is when our revealed preference is different from our stated one. Being honest with our stated preferences avoids the issue entirely. I’ll put my money where my mouth is here:

                  I’d rather deny gay couples equal access to an institution of government that I find illegitimate in the first place than to give any further claim of legitimacy to said institution by expanding it. And given the choice, I would prioritize the association, property, and commerce rights of others, including religious kooks, bigots, and assholes, over the marriage rights (which I view as illegitimate positive rights) of homosexual couples. I’m willing to accept whatever criticism for that viewpoint, but there it is.

          2. You’ll still get plenty of impassioned debate here on “and to participate in the social construct of marriage with all the same government priveledges as straights is all well and good”…

            Even though I agree with providing equal privileges of all to engage in marriage I’ve been called a homophobe because I want to define it down rather than up. Same-sex marriage debates suck. I mean blow. Er, I mean they’re not much fun, even with people you essentially agree with.

    2. Good trolling. B+.

      The only arguments around here are how best to achieve liberty and equality. There’s no disagreement over gay rights, Tonio.

    3. I thought everyone here was gay?

      1. Unfortunately too few, which is why I am reading reason comments and missing out on some Libertopian daisy chain.

    4. The singularly gay right there is is the right to be gay.

      Everything else is political gamesmanship.

      SLD applies.

      1. I read this comment as “the singularity gay right.” And I envisioned a gay right that is infinitely dense and with an infinitely small volume and gives rise to the gay big bang.

        I watch way too much Nova. Which is funded (of course) by…

        THE KOCH BROTHERS.

    5. True, there are some who don’t even support the right of gays to marry, and try to fold that into libertarianism with convoluted arguments I can’t even begin to follow. Don’t forget, however, progressives will say the same of you , that you are not a ‘consistent defender of gay rights’, if you do not support an Affirmative Action expansion of them into positive right claims that undermine the freedom of association.

      1. there are some who don’t even support the right of gays to marry, and try to fold that into libertarianism with convoluted arguments I can’t even begin to follow.

        You can’t follow the idea that the government has no business granting marriage licenses to….anyone? The move should be for government to get out of the marriage recognition business, rather than expand it.

        You can’t follow the idea that expanding groups to whom the government gives special treatment is bad? Should the government stop discriminating against the wealthy when they dole out cash? We all oppose welfare, of course, but shouldn’t we expand it for “fairness”?

        How in the fuck is it fair to single people to recognize marriage, gay or straight? It isn’t. Apply any argument about the unfairness of marriage and replace “gay” with “single” or even “poly_____”. It remains equally unfair.

        It kills me how unfair the inability to marry is to gays but it is fine to deny those same special rights, like passing on SS benefits, to single people. I am sure once marriage has been expanded all of those people who favored it for fairness will finally get around to supporting ending it for fairness? I will not be holding my breath.

        1. You can’t follow the idea that the government has no business granting marriage licenses to….anyone?

          You are making an argument against state recognition of marriage, not against gay marriage, I’m talking about previous attempts on this board to make arguments against gay marriage which is a different subject. Weird, you can’t see the distinction.

          These attempts usually follow the lines of if we expand marriage rights to gays, it solidifies the states hold on defining marriage. I don’t buy it on any level. You have to single out one class of people for discrimination for the single purpose of an allusive future advancement. Liberty does not advance through the sacrifice of others for a ‘greater good’.

          1. alelusive future advancement.

  9. douchiest douchebag since douching came to Douchetown, or just a competitor?

      1. ANSWER THE QUESTION!

  10. What’s an Alec Baldwin?

    1. A Cariforna cocksucker.

      1. see preceding comment re: douchiest….

    2. Didn’t he move to Canada to protest our lack of healthcare?

  11. I think he deserves third prize.

    1. “Hit the bricks, pal.”

  12. Of course he should call people cocksuckers.

    But I noticed this: “a previous incident in which the 30 Rock alum and current MSNBC host threatened to foot-fuck a “toxic little queen” and “a toxic little bitch” who had libeled his wife.”

    What happened there is a journalist wrote a false story about his wife.

    What would *you* call someone who libels your wife in such a public way? My only regret is that Baldwin apologized in that “incident.”

    1. He should *not* call people cocksuckers.

      1. why not? Free speech works both ways. As long as he isn’t actually physically attacking anyone, I see no problem.

    2. That was when he should have used “motherfucker”. Mia-used swears denigrate the language!

    3. I barely remember, but didn’t he last call a bunch of paparazzi fags because they produced photographic evidence that he and the wife were somewhere they claimed not to be in relation to some court case or jury duty or something?

      1. I forget the circs, but this is not the first Baldwin has been accused of homophobia for remarks he’s made.

  13. What happens when Baldwin discovers that most libertarians oppose ENDA? Will he revise his belief that libertarians support gay rights?

    1. Wouldn’t ENDA deny a gay employer of his right to hire whomever he wants to?

      1. Of course not. Just because it reads that way means nothing.

        I mean, look at all the hate crimes prosecutions against blacks attacking whites for explicitly racist reasons. That’s right, there aren’t any (prosecutions, that is; racially motivated black-on-white attacks, there’s plenty).

        1. I recall an examination of an FBI raw data field report in the late nineties had the figure at 6:1 black on white assaults versus white on black.

        2. And a disproportionate share of the non-black victims in those urban street crime or gay. Every month in DC in the gay paper some couple walking down the street get their jaw broken for holding hands, someone biking through a park has his or her bike stolen and is left beaten. The victims can be various ethnicities, but often gay, since that’s who lives in the gentrifying neighborhoods.

      2. Yes. And you cocksuckers wear such ugly shoes. No one wants to work around that, or the bad hair cuts.

  14. It’s just the Long Island in him. “Cocksucking fag” is like a term of endearment there.

    1. Well, I mean, look at how Long Island is shaped.

      1. Like a lobster claw? Ouch.

    2. Of course New Jersey is Long Islands Schweddy balls.

  15. If an Irishman can’t call someone cocksucker then I don’t know what Gran Torino was all about.

    1. You see, it was about a man, and his car, and this boy….

      Well, you know the rest.

  16. …the guy playing Santa Clause would be there even without the minimum wage paycheck.

    WTF is he even trying to say? That your Department Store Santa expects to be paid for his efforts? No shit. That without a Minimum Wage law Santa would be forced to work for free? That without a Minimum Wage law Santa would be unable to negotiate an agreeable rate of compensation with his employer?

    When I was a kid you sat on Santa’s lap and mom took a picture with the Polariod camera. Now, no personal cameras allowed and be prepared to fork out at least $8 for a ‘professional’ photograph. I think there’s some profit motivation in the whole business, and there will always be seasonal demand for people to play the role of Santa, regardless of the existence of any Minimum Wage Law.

    But I’m just some ‘Libertarian trash’ so why would you listen to me when you can subscribe to the Tweets of an intellectual giant like Alex Baldwin?

    1. It’s just a long-winded way of saying “they believe Santa Claus is real.”

    2. It would be great if someone could get him to elaborate on the relationship between Santa and the minimum wage.

  17. “The guy playing Santa Clause would be there even without the minimum wage paycheck.”

    A straw man if ever I did see one. Either he would still be there or his labor is a misallocated resource.

  18. who does he think killed Kennedy if not the Marxist?

    1. Well, after all it was you and me.

      1. Exactly what the devil would claim, so kudos for nailing it, Mick!

    2. Obviously either the CIA or generic Dallas right-wing “haters”.

      Because pretty much all left-wing shitheads like him who can’t come to grips with the fact that it was one of their own believe that.

      1. Yeah. Oh, and Jim Jones? He was obviously a right winger.

  19. lol, Arec Bardwin is useress to me!

    itcanberacistbecauseilikethemovie.com

  20. Alec Baldwin is like the new Charlie Sheen.

    1. +1 Winning!

  21. He’s not having a good run here. What’s the opposite of Reaganing?

  22. Ugh. Why can’t people like this just shut the fuck up and do what they are good at.

    1. Ugh, why can’t you just shut the fuck up and do what you are good at?

    2. Why can’t people like this just shut the fuck up and do what they are good at.

      implying Alec Baldwin is good at anything

      1. Yeah, I’m starting to think it’s not a coincidence that every role he’s been really good at playing was a complete asshole.

  23. “ultra-talented”? LOL

    One of my favorite lines in Team America is when (fake) Baldwin says “You can’t outact me, boy. Don’t even try.” Hilarious.

    “You are worthress Arec Baldwin.”

  24. OK, I’m actually pissed about the Santa Claus blast. I freaking volunteer as Santa Claus every year to raise money for local animal charities. Alec Baldwin is a dick. I hope he dies of bordatella.

  25. Who really fucking cares? He’s going to get hired cause he sorta can act, and cocksuckers are still going to suck cock. And the sun will also rise.

    1. That’s going to stand in for a verse in some urban translation of the Bible one day, I can see it.

      1. He’s really nailed Ecclesiastes 1.

        4 Generations come and generations go,
        but the earth remains forever.
        5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
        and hurries back to where it rises.

  26. The conspiracy nonsense is science by correlation and as any intelligent person knows, correlation is not causation.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/1…..wandowsky/

  27. Now that he understands “cocksucker”, somebody needs to tweet him about the word “fag”.

    Also, is he complaining about defending gay rights, or the fact that libertarians are invading the exclusive turf of leftists when they do so?

    1. is he complaining about defending gay rights, or the fact that libertarians are invading the exclusive turf of leftists when they do so?

      Probably the latter. Because in his universe there’s no way that a good little proggie like himself could ever have anything in common with those EVUL KKKOCHSUCKING, TEABAGGERZ, WANNABE RETHUGLIKKKANZ!!!!!!11!!!!!!!11!!

  28. Care about gay rights? I don’t give a shit. Good libertarian? Fuck you. Go to Somalia and play with your guns.

    1. A-B-C. Always Be Cocksucking.

  29. I thought he had already moved on to shitter.

  30. That’s retarded. Cocksucker is a perfectly good insult. Just like Turd Burglar.

  31. Alec is one bender short of a Charlie Sheen. I’m unsure if I’ll enjoy his further unravel; I really liked him on SNL, but I’ll watch and wait with popcorn in hand regardless.

    1. He is not as hateable as he should be in theory given all of this and everything else. He should inspire a Michael Moore level of loathing if you go just by what’s on paper, but that is clearly not the case. I would chalk it up to charisma, but Sean Penn has that, and if that guy were drawn and quartered by a mob the next time he was in Venezuela, I’d laugh my ass off. It’s difficult to put a finger on it why Baldwin in spite of everything, is actually likeable.

      1. Authentically crazy is a form of authenticity, which we all crave in these troubled times.

        1. Best explanation I’ve heard so far.

        2. That’s why I don’t bash Mel Gibson.

      2. I would chalk it up to charisma, but Sean Penn has that,

        ?!

      3. Is it him you like, or his GGGR and 30Rock personas?

        1. With Sean Penn, the only time I don’t wont to punch him in the face, or slam my heal in the motherfucker’s throat is when he is acting a part. I see Baldwin in an interview he doesn’t make me Hulk out.

      4. Sean Penn, charisma? The man perpetually looks like he is sizing up something he’s preparing to rape.

        1. That’s what the ladies dig. Creepy and charismatic are not opposites, they appeal to the same sense of intrigue.

  32. What a terrible, terrible actor.

  33. Good lord, he’s a complete douche no matter the topic. I’m not familiar with his more recent acting but no matter how good it may be it does not make up for the breadth and depth of his douchebaggery.

    1. He’s not good. His schtick is acting like he’s the best fucking actor ever. That doesn’t mean he is.

      1. He’s the best fucking actor ever at having the schtick of being the best fucking actor ever. Of course, given we are talking about acting, the art of pretend character, means he really is the best fucking actor ever.

        1. He’s good at French kissing an Irish setter. Very realistic.

  34. Please don’t start running TMZ stories, nobody cares about that asshole.

  35. I would love an SNL skit with Mel Gibson trying to convince Baldwin that he does not hate Jews while Baldwin tries to convince Gibson that he does not hate gays.

  36. He hates gays ever since he had to play one in his first made for TV movie, “Dress Grey.”

    He only agreed to work at MSNBC because he thought Maddow was a man.

    1. Well it’s worth considering that you never see Maddow and Ezra Klein photographed together.

  37. Is he claiming a drunken stupor? Or just not real bright?

  38. I know it’s fun to try and pin the hypocrite tail on the liberal to prove how much more tolerant you are than they, but at a point it just re-enforces their increasingly histrionic PC egg shell tip toe-ing about slurs and hate speech and the like.

    “Cocksucker” is a fine slag with a rich history. If you have gay friends who aren’t down with you saying it ( and you care) keep it in mind when in mixed company. If you have straight friends who get bent out of shape about it, why are they your friends? They sound like uptight pricks. Unless you’re trying to get them in bed or score drugs from them or something you should probably use it as much as possible around them until they either piss off or mellow out and stop being such cocksucking fags about it.

    1. And if “cocksucker” and “fag” are now verboten due to their homophobia as opposed to their vulgarity, then how about “sissy” or “pansy” or the like?

    2. “”Cocksucker” is a fine slag with a rich history.”

      So’s “shithead”, but a public personality saying it in a circumstance where it is bound to be broadcast is a fucking idiot.

      1. Why? Because of the children?

        1. Beezard|11.16.13 @ 6:27AM|#
          “Why? Because of the children?”

          Not at all. Because the idjit saying it is likely to suffer from the fallout.
          Just ‘friendly’ advice.

  39. I never got the impression that he is a fucking fantastic actor, only the impression that he thinks he is a fucking fantastic actor. All the Baldwins suck.

    1. Adam Baldwin is pretty cool.

      “I call it Vera.”

      1. Adam Baldwin thankfully is no relation to Alec and the others

        1. That’s a baldwin-faced lie.

    2. All the Baldwins suck.

      Oh yeah? Well then tell me who else could have delivered this line:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ackcZcUv6VI

  40. but the “libertarian trash” at Reason has been defending gay rights since the magazine’s earliest days in the late 1960s. In fact, when mainstream liberal and conservative publications were still arguing over whether homosexuality should be decriminalized, we were already talking about marriage equality.

    Libertarians are rights minimalist autocratic hipsters!

  41. Dude’s going to ObamaCare his career if he doesn’t get it it together.

  42. Wait. Alex Baldwin is still alive? Really?

    Well, don’t pay any attention to his latest rants. I’m sure he meant to say LIBRARIAN trash, because, you know, his vocabulary is sort of limited.

    1. What’s that you said about Liberians?

      1. I think he meant Libras.

  43. Alec Baldwin as a sociopathic minister falling to his death on Knot’s Landing is always fun, nostalgic viewing for me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zrawMQK2tk

    1. You’ve bekum a monstah!

  44. At least he didnt say ______, ____, ___, ______, ____, or ____. And he steered clear of ____, ________, and ______.

  45. I see nothing wrong with what he said. Free speech is still free, no?

    1. And another person who doesn’t understand that the 1st Amendment doesn’t protect you from criticism when you’re an asshole.

      1. I was going to post something else, but you’ve covered it in as few of words as possible.

      2. so? You think I’m an asshole. I’ll live. Still doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be free to be an asshole. Cheers

        1. Sensitive much? Irish was calling Alec Baldwin an asshole.

        2. I said Alec Baldwin is an asshole. I said that your point about free speech was wrong because free speech has nothing to do with criticism.

          Still doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be free to be an asshole.

          I agree. And then I’m free to criticize you.

          1. The right to be perpetually butthurt falls under the same provisions as the right to say offensive things, but the perpetually butthurt are actually the assholes, IMO, if for no other reason than they give all of the injurious power to the otherwise meaningless “taboo” words that the people who say offensive things utter.

      3. Of course it doesn’t. But there’s also something to be said about libertarians not stooping to “can you believe he said a word that people shouldn’t say?!”

    2. I see nothing wrong with what he said. Free speech is still free, no?

      Agree 100% Nothing sweeter than listening to progressives refer to people they don’t like as “cocksucking fags”.

      Because gay rights.

  46. I don’t have much sympathy with political correctness or gay “rights,” but Baldwin is simply another celebrity who loves doing what is called trolling when non-celebrities do it. He is the rare non-liberal.

  47. You would think libertarians would be suspicious of these “parent trigger” laws. Instead, they figure that since the teachers unions are complaining about them, they must be good. They can see how giving teacher’s unions inordinate power encourages them to abuse it, but don’t see how the same can be said about parents.

    1. What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

      1. He lobbed a tangent grenade into the cocksucking thread!

    2. Giving parents power over…the education of their own children is…excessive (inordinate)?

      Wait, what?

  48. WHAT IS AN ALEC BALDWIN

  49. SJW complains about a Burt’s Bees label. Company grovels for forgiveness.

    http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy…..09664.html

    The offensive wording?

    “Soak in the moisturizing seductiveness of shea butter and indulge in the scent of vanilla and rice milk. And let the catcalling commence.”

    1. Vanilla and rice? That’s racist!

      1. why don’t they just put “white patriarchy” on the ingredients label?

    2. AND YET CRACKER BARREL IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE WITH IMPUNITY!!!

      1. They’s just being technical… “Cracker Barrel” = FAT WHITEY. I see no problem. Plus the dumplings make up for it.

    3. All-natural skin care company Burt’s Bees has a reputation for being socially conscious reputation, but after many claimed that a description written on a jar of its moisturizer encourages the harassment of women, the cosmetics maker issued an apology.

      Fuck Burt’s Bees and their craven cowardice!

      Change the corporate name to “Butthurt Bee’s” and I might reconsider!

      1. You know who else had a reputation for being socially conscious reputation…

        1. Alec Baldwin?

  50. Because everyone knows there are no gay libertarians.

    They are by definition and default progressive democrats – because no one loves them and wants to protect them and hold them and squeeze them and call them George like Democrats, who are also the ones who Aren’t Racist ™ and care about The Earth ™ and want to end the War on Womens ™ and bring peace and harmony to all Nations and the poors.

    I mean, if they weren’t… then why would they want to be gay?

    (ducks, runs, hides)

    that said,

    29-year-old Colleen Kiphart, a communications expert…
    =””I was offended but didn’t know if I was overreacting, so I tweeted to Hollaback for perspective.” “

    Communications. Expert.

    They musta have a college degree or some shit for that.

    “”Because when *I* want ‘perspective’, I tweets myself some crazy-ass self-important militant feminist victim-trolls, STAT””

    Meanwhile, I’ll be lathering myself in Gud ol’ shae butter waiting for the CATCALLING TO COMMENCE. Bring it, bitches!

    1. so I tweeted to Hollaback for perspective.

      No, you wanted affirmation so you asked a group of professional victimologists and, shockingly, you got tons of it.

  51. You have to admit, with his Santa tweet he does make a pretty strong statement echoing market-based and even objectivist sentiments. Why should Santa be an altruist?

    1. No one said he should be an altruist, but if he won’t accept what the mall is able to pay, then he won’t have a job. Imposing a minimum wage doesn’t magically make the mall able to afford it.

  52. “ultra-talented”, my ass. He plays an asshole, and he is an asshole.

    -jcr

    1. Maybe he’s just such a dedicated method actor that he got stuck in character? Mind = blown.

      1. Out of all the self-righteous celebrity lefties, Alec Baldwin is one of the few I think I’d enjoy sitting down and having a drink with. The main difference from him and someone like Sean Penn is that Baldwin has a sense of humor and can genuinely laugh at himself. That goes a really long way in my book. Check out Baldwin when he’s just hanging outt with Seinfeld, the guy is smart and funny and interesting.

        I admit, he’s probably good at playing assholes because he’s got a lot of it in him. But I can’t dislike him like I do someone like Penn (whom I utterly loathe).

  53. I think the reason he never burns for any of this is that he’s kinda funny when he freaks out.

    He’s like the Sam Kinison of losing his temper in public.

    When I listen to (for example) his voicemail to his daughter, I don’t get angry or indignant – I laugh.

    And every one of his paparazzi incidents doesn’t come across as “dangerous guy being violent in public” – they come across as skits. Or as movie scenes. If he was in a Tarantino movie, and decided to whale on some photographer who was bothering him, while unleashing a spew of gay slurs and profanity, what would you do as an audience member?

    You’d laugh.

    I don’t know how he got into this untouchable zone, but he’s there.

    1. Consider the incident with Words with Friends on the plane.

      That whole thing just has this feel like it was written to be a skit on SNL.

      How do you get angry at a skit on SNL? You might groan when a skit isn’t funny, but you don’t get angry.

  54. Ban them all dude, ban them all!

    http://www.Privacy-Web.tk

    1. They did, for two weeks. Were you listening to The Dude’s story?

  55. Google is paying 75$/hour! Just work for few hours & spend more time with friends and family.On sunday I bought themselves a Alfa Romeo from having made $5637 this month. its the best-job Ive ever had.It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out http://www.Buzz95.com

  56. Wait ’till he finds out about the Koch brothers and their support of gay marriage!

    His brain might explode.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.