The Independents

Tonight on The Independents: Historic NSA Ruling, Senate Budget Showdown, NoKo Madness, Affluenza, Gay Laws in India, and Delicious Jacob Sullum!


He knows when you're awake. |||

Well, nothing much for a new libertarian-leaning cable news program to discuss tonight…OH WAIT—D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon issues a preliminary injunction against the National Security Agency's hoovering of metadata, declaring it "almost-Orwellian" and likely unconstitutional. Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum will break it down for the 9 pm (Eastern) crowd (6 pm Pacific, repeats at midnight). Meanwhile, panelists Ellis Henican and Kayleigh McEnany will help America process last night's 60 Minutes NSA infomercial, including discussion about amnesty for whistleblower Edward Snowden and more.

With the Senate tomorrow expected to pass the sequester-busting Ryan-Murray plan overwhelmingly approved by the House, the question arises: Have Establishment Republicans finally kicked the fiscally conservative grassroots to the curb? FreedomWorks President/CEO Matt Kibbe will be on to count heads and take names.

The … horr-or. |||

Also: What's worse—"affluenza" as a criminal defense, or the lack of criminal defense available to the non-affluent? Looking overseas, India just re-criminalized certain kinds of sex between consenting adults, and North Korea's Lil' Kim Jong Un is busy executing family members.

All these topics and more, tonight at 9 pm ET, with your host Kennedy, plus co-hosts Matt Welch and Kmele Foster. Click on the links to read the open threads for Episodes Four, Three, and Two. Send raw Twitter snark to @IndependentsFBN (#independents) and the best of the SFW lot will displayed on the television screen.

Open thread commence!

NEXT: Police Say Unarmed Woman in Ohio Was Shot in Head "Accidentally" During Botched Raid

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Independents would hit a much wider audience if you guys could get it on Fox.

    1. That’s very helpful, we never thought of that.

      1. PWN’D

      2. Well, what the hell do they pay you for?

      3. Yeah, Welch. All you have to do is somehow convince Fox to do away with the massive success of The Kelly File and put you in her place.

        How hard could that be, slacker?

      4. Keep Kennedy off the meth.

        1. That’s easy for you to say. The last time Welch tried to pry the meth pipe out of Kennedy’s mouth, he almost lost a finger.

          You do not get between an MTV VJ and her meth unless you’ve grown tired of cold uncaring struggle that we call life.

          1. Cold uncaring struggle? Jeez. Cooking some pork chops over an open fire, and/or getting a hooker, might raise your spirits young man.


            2. He’s been watching the Dadhole videos over and over.


        1. Yeah, if you’re gonna go heavy makeup go FULL makeup KISS-style.

  2. D.C. District Court Judge Richard Leon issues a preliminary injunction against the National Security Agency’s hoovering of metadata, declaring it “almost-Orwellian” and likely unconstitutional.

    How is an injunction ordered with a ruling that the program is likely unconstitutional? Either it is unconstitutional or it isn’t. Why is the judge hedging his bet?

    Have some fucking balls and say what you mean.

    1. It’s called kicking the can. At least he kicked it in the right direction for a change.

    2. It’s a preliminary injunction, dude. They’re not making a determination of the merits. They have to determine, inter alia, that there is “a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case.”

  3. kicked the fiscally conservative grassroots to the curb?

    Smothered in the crib? Strangled in the womb? The milkman shot on the way up the walk?

    1. Never actually let the fiscally conservative grassroots in in the first place so there’s no kicking to the curb necessary; they were already there?

      1. The curb *is* the fiscally conservative grassroots.

        That’s how it’ll play out in the last 5 minutes of the M Night Shyamalan adaptation, anyways.

    2. Smote the gleam from the encyclopedia salesman’s eye?

  4. I wonder if the show has the stones to play as a lead-in/fade-out for the Kim Jong-un segment

    1. It sounds like they stole the music for that from this. If not, good parody.

      Actually, good parody either way.

  5. Also, I start drinking early. They need to move the time slot back so I’m semi-coherent when they come on.

  6. Calling a preliminary injunction “historic” is jumping the gun a bit, but we can hope…

  7. Why not debate the merits of TEAM RED 35% TAX RATE vs. TEAM BLUE 36% TAX RATE? You know – fascism vs socialism?

  8. Why not debate the single best statistical measure of a healthy economy?

    Is it GDP? Wealth created? Low UE? Earnings? Net wealth? Market indexes? Building permits? Exports? Leisure time? Education?

    Make those fuckers think for once. (except Stuart Varney – he can’t think)

    1. Why would educational attainment even be a measure of a “healthy economy” (presumably short-term), dumbass? When has it ever served as such?

    2. Why not debate “Which idea should excite libertarians more: Hillary winning in 2016, or abolishing term limits so Obama can win in 2016?”

      Why not debate “What should make a libertarian more angry: critical media coverage of Obama’s church, or critical media coverage of Obama’s health care statements?”

      1. Could the 22nd Amendment be quashed as a violation of equal protection? Why is fair that George H.W. Bush and Carter can run in 2016 but Obama can’t?

        1. Later one would be presumed to take priority, right?

          1. Wouldn’t that be a violation of equal protection?

        2. HW and Carter only served one term, I’m not sure how that would violate equal protection, and in any case, the 22nd Amendment came later than the 14th Amendment, and as such, would supersede the equal protection clause even if it did apply

    3. Palin’s Buttplug: carrot or cucumber?

      1. Is he an ass or a hole?

    4. (gdp – 2g)/au

  9. FINALLY! It’s about time Toure weighed in on this important controversy about a fictional character’s ethnic makeup.

    “You do know, there is already a generous, benevolent black man in your children’s lives who lives in a place that is magical, who has given something to each and every American, whether they have been naughty or nice,” the MSNBC host concluded. “You know who I’m talking about?”

    That’s right! Barack Obama is black Santa Clause. Thank you, Toure!

    1. I don’t dispute that at all. Ever since they tried rolling out the healthcare website on October 1st it’s been like a libertarian Christmas of government humiliation and ineptitude put on full display.

      So yes, Irish, there is a black Santa Claus. He lies and lies and lies forever.

      1. If you like the coal in your stocking, you can keep it.

      1. Damn I miss the 80s.

        We were so fucking cool!

    1. Welch’s jacket is an anti-camera-surveillance device. It looks like it is moving.

      1. Polishing his geek cred with bad taste in clothes.

  10. Awkward introduction of guests–check

  11. I’m watching football with my brother tonight. I feel so left out.

    1. You should get other people from SeaLab on the show instead of him He was like the worst character.

      1. reply fail

    2. Irish|12.16.13 @ 9:02PM|#
      “I’m watching football with my brother tonight. I feel so left out.”

      That’s what TVs are made for. Just turn the sound off.
      I’m told there’s some other program on tonight, but why would you turn on the TV for that?

    3. So…you’re not a Ravens or a Lions fan? Good choice.

      1. Bears fan! The opposite of a Lions fan.

        1. Fuck da Bears.

          //Packers fan

        2. I’m sorry.

      2. Ravens fan. Avid. Goddamn, it was fun.

  12. I have a crush on Kmele. He’s cute.

    1. Also, Matt’s glasses – not so much Matt – just the hipster glasses.

    2. As a straight man, I kind of a have a crush on Kmele.

      They’ve got eye candy for all possible orientations.

      Kennedy for those who like women.

      Kmele for those who like men.

      Welch for those who prefer an eldritch horror clothed in an abysmal facsimile of human flesh.

      1. I had to google ‘eldritch’. Definitely not worth the effort.

        1. You probably need to read more Lovecraft. I mean, who doesn’t?

  13. Holy shit, conservative radio chick is just…wow

    1. I’m not watching. Is this a ‘she’s hot’ wow or a ‘what sort of a moron makes that kind of argument’ wow?

      1. She’s hot. But she essentially argued that Obama is bad, Bush is good. The NSA, Patriot Act and wiretapping are okay with the right administration running it.

        And her justification is like, classified, man.

        1. Right. The BOR was a useless waste of ink till BHO came along.

      2. She’s got a long, thick neck

        1. Slammer|12.16.13 @ 9:10PM|#
          “She’s got a long, thick neck”

          And obviously and empty head.

      3. Why can’t it be both?

  14. Kayleigh : Bush good, Obama bad.

    Rule of law; none for me thanks.

  15. Matt Welch *SMASH* conservative radio chick’s Bush apologia.

  16. Blondie: “I have all this evidence, it’s classified, though”

  17. Kennedy – invite uglier guests so you look like the better. Same strategy as bar-hopping.

  18. I wore a T-shirt to the gym today that said ‘Team Edward’ with a picture of Snowden on it.

    1. Picture (preferably wet) or it didn’t happen.

        1. This is why there are no Lady Bertrum libertarians.

          1. Isn’t she a suburban housewife? More people of that background need to vote libertarian.

            1. What’s this ‘she’ stuff?

              1. Forgive me for my microagression. Which non-gendered pronoun do you prefer?

                1. I prefer the proper noun – Queen B.

                  1. As you wish Queen B. Serious is sometimes unsure if directly addressing someone on threaded comments is advisable. Serious doesn’t apply real world etiquette to anonymous internet forums.

                    1. Awwwweee, you’re cute, too. (Ruffling Serious’ hair and patting him on the head)

              2. I was going to say. She’s right here, dude.

                It’s okay, LB. Serious just needs to get over his fear and learn how to talk to girls.

              3. Serious only views women as people deserving of third-person personal pronouns. Never first-person. Yeah, yeah, I know, he’s a terrible person, but he can’t help it. He was cheated on by a first-person personal pronoun once and can’t get over it.

                1. I got that bitch conjugating a verb right on the kitchen table.

  19. That’s right, Jacob Sullum wants your kids to “Just Say Yes” and try drugs. I remember that interview he did with Bill O’Reilly.

    1. I missed that one, but they should caption him with that.

      Jacob Sullum
      Told O’Reilly he wants your kids to do drugs.

    2. Why not do a show while high on drugs?

      1. Isn’t that every show?

        1. So that explains the columns…

  20. Third party doctrine is unconstitutional cock!

  21. Wow. This is the radio woman who was on, correct?

    She is good looking. I feel like she’s kind of got that bland Fox News look, though. She’s Fox Hot, by which I mean she’s a vapid blonde with a vague but clearly fake tan.

    I’m pretty sure Fox News has a cloning facility for these sorts of women in Roger Ailes’ basement.

    1. They need more redheads. Just saying.

    2. Look, you have to give Fox News some credit. Like all 24/7 news channels, their content is pure garbage, but at least Fox eye candies it up for those who are willing to sit through their garbage. MSNBC, CNN; they do no such favor.

      1. Jake Tapper is cute.

        1. Maybe Fox should recruit him, then. Keep their eye candy lead.

          1. Unfortunately, they lost S.E. Cupp to MSNBC and then to CNN.

            They definitely lost on that one.

      2. FOX ladies
        Brenda Buttner graduated from Harvard with honors with a bachelor’s degree in social studies. Buttner went on to be a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford , where she graduated with high honors and a bachelor’s degree in politics and economics.

        Gretchen Carlson graduated with honors from Stanford and also studied at Oxford.

        Jamie Colby is an attorney admitted to practice in NY , CA , DC, and FL . Colby is a former law professor, a member of Law Review and has been a National Board member of American Women in Radio and Television for several years. Attending the University of Miami Intl School of Business at age 14, she received a Bachelor of Bus Admin in accounting as well as her JD degree from the Univ of Miami.

        Kimberly Guilfoyle is a magna cum laude graduate of Univ of California , Davis and attended the Univ of San Francisco School of Law and Trinity College in Dublin , Ireland , where she studied and was published for her research in international children’s rights and European Economic Community law.

        Molly Henneberg earned her bachelor’s degree from Vanderbilt University , graduating summa cum laude.

        Catherine Herridge earned a Bachelor’s degree from Harvard College and a Master’s degree in journalism from the Columbia Univ Graduate School of Journalism..

        Megyn Kelly earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from Syracuse Univ and a J.D. From Albany Law School , where she also served as editor of the Albany Law Review.

        1. Molly Henneberg. Yummy. I love her brain.

        2. Guilfoyle is gorgeous, but she is very vapid. She was also married to Gavin Newsome.

          Gretchen Carlson was a beauty queen and is one of the least attractive women on the network. She is also one of the least inspiring personalities as well.

          But I guess the point you are making is that they have law degrees, so that means that they are intelligent.

          Failed lawyers who read off of a teleprompter and engage in simplistic populism! WOW!

        3. All you are telling me is that getting a law degree isn’t a very good signal of pundit intellect.

  22. Few weird facial tics aside, Jacob Sullum is a great speaker.

    1. It’s the drugs.

      1. There should be an episode where Sullum, Welch, Gillespie and that old VJ are high on some illegal substance.

        1. They have prescriptions for those amphetamines.

          1. They should film an episode in Seattle while high as kites. Much like I will be after my impending tennis match.

            1. “And now, let’s welcome our guest, named in a lawsuit against the Reason Foundation, commenter Warty!”

            2. According to some legend, when the Babylonian gods would convene on some important matter, they would deliberate twice, first sober and then drunk.

  23. Few weird facial tics aside,..

    Weird facial tics seem to be a prerequisite for a job at reason.

    1. No applicant with serene visage need apply.

    2. I think it’s just hand-in-hand with the sort of person characterized by intelligence/nerdiness/non-mainstream beliefs.

  24. Stock ticker, twitter on screen, fast talking hosts, and H&R…. I may be butting up against the limits of ADHD entertainment news.

    1. You’re missing a pretty good football game.

  25. China is really the country that’s going to have to keep the Norks inline. It’s their problem if it collapses under Junior’s leadership and all those people try to flee into Manchuria.

    1. That’s because they have Real TOP MEN in charge. /Friedman

      1. Come on. Who cares if China has massive pollution and smog? Thomas Friedman was there and was mighty impressed by one of their subway stations.

        Isn’t that really how you should judge a nation’s success?

  26. Starving orphans chasing the bus??

  27. Kennedy saying “I feel dirty” makes me want to put together a soundboard in the spirit of Smither’s computer

  28. Kmele is the only person without hipster glasses right now.

    1. One of them needs a monocle.

      1. Everyone needs a monocle.

        Except the poor.

        1. Subsidies for monocles!

  29. Holy crap the sideburns.

  30. Kind of Blue, by Miles Davis?

    1. I think that was the music leading to the last commercial.

    1. So is this a porn episode? How would John or sarc react?

      1. “Too skinny.” “Too fat.”

  31. “No punishment harsh enough!”

  32. These guys know people who traveled to N. Korea and made movies about it? Geez, my friends just drink and do drugs.

  33. Kennedy sings a few notes about sodomy.

      1. And Welch says it really isn’t lonely, depending on how you look at it.

  34. Will & Grace? Really Kmele?

  35. So what is the libertarian take on bestiality? Do animals have rights and if so can a human “own” them and can they consent to sexual acts?

    And necrophilia. Can a dead body be “owned”? Or does the dead person need a will or such for their corpse to be used for sex?

    And apply the same questions for cannibalism.

    Also at what age should the marriage age be? Do they need consent if under a certain age? And if so at what age?

    In turn at what age should the age of consent be?

    1. What does this have to do with anything?

      1. Open thread?

    2. You should ask libertarians these questions in person, record them, and put the videos on YouTube.

      Someone needs to ask libertarians tough questions like that.

      1. I bet you typed this while fucking your cat.

        1. His dead cat…

          1. The uneaten half of his dead cat.

    3. Lemme guess:
      You’ve spent just *hours* racking your brain to come up with trick questions you think will demolish libertarian views, right? RIGHT?! OH, BOY!!! YOU GOT ‘EM NOW!!!!
      Hint: Most of them really have nothing to do with libertarianism, so *a* libertarian “take’ on them. So your trolling isn’t going to go very far.

      1. Er no actually. I tried to think up questions beyond “Ew this is icky!” Libertarians aren’t socons so I chose some mostly controversial behaviors to see what you guys think. I mean I’d hesitate to google most of these things to see if there are any papers that libertarians have written on these topics.

        1. I mean if someone consents to being killed so they can be eaten and/or raped by someone else then wouldn’t libertarians support that? And I believe there have been cases like that?

          As for the marriage age and the age of consent I suppose that depends on when people are considered to be adults.

          Not sure about bestiality though. I suppose it depends if you think owners can do whatever they want to their pets. In addition if random strays are considered to homesteaded. Oh and if an animal can be grant consent.

          1. Bestiality is animal abuse, a minor crime.

            Age of consent should be about 16, according to local norms. Marriage is a contract – same restrictions on age.

            Necrophilia only by surviving spouse.

            Asking such questions, you may need some help.

            1. I’ve never understood how animal abuse laws can jive at all with libertarian morality. You’re restricting a PERSON’s right within respect to their own property.

              Sure I think abusing animals is a shitty thing to do, but can you justify making it illegal via a libertarian argument. Fuck no. And I don’t think it should be illegal either.

              AoC laws especially when stretched to more than contractual law I’ve never understood how these can possibly jive with libertarian morality either. And by contractual law I mean the state enforcing contracts, not… “can I touch your penis?” type “verbal contracts”, which the state shouldn’t be enforcing anyway.

              1. By “contracts” I mean stuff like marriage (which is essentially a life long contract), and stuff like mortgages or whatever.

                Not “yeah you can touch my boobie/twat/rod”, type shit– Which doesn’t mean they will say the same thing tomorrow.

                I guess only if like “you can touch my boobie for $5” then you should be able to get the state to force them to pay you your $5 back if they don’t live up to the “verbal contract”, but that’s it.

                1. To explain further, I think the “touch my boobie for $5” example, doesn’t necessarily mean they were giving consent to touch their boobie, they could have just been defrauding you. In which case they should be compelled to return the stolen property to you, but not forced to engage in the sexual act.

                  As for written contracts I think it’s a bit absurd to enforce such things on an 8 year old who signed a mortgage or a marriage contract and if you were dumb enough to sign a contract with an 8 year old, at most the state should get the 8 year old to return whatever they had left of your property.

                  On the other hand I’m confused how you can possibly claim coercion was involved if a 14 year old (yes still clearly a ‘child’ in many respects at least in our current retard society), touched your penis completely willingly. That is, unless you said ‘no’ and she still touched it anyway. But then it would be the kid who was guilty of assault, not the adult.

                  1. As it is, children and adolescents are treated at best as property/prisoners/slaves of their parents and/or the state with some exceptions carved out.

                    Maybe if we didn’t force adolescents into the school the state and/or their parents forced them into (aka prison day camps), and allowed them to take some responsibility for their own choices and futures the world wouldn’t be so full of entitlement fuck adults.

                    I was so incredibly fucked over by the high school I went to, and by the “choices” adults in my lives forced on me when I should have been able to choose my own vocational training or subjects in school I learned. Or just got a fucking job or apprenticeship without needing consent from my parents and/or my fucking useless ass high school principal. I am a very, very fucking bitter adult over how fucked I was by the decisions adults made for me which were “for my own good”. I’ve never been able to recover from it fully and even trust people as I once was able to. If I had been able to make my own choices with only consequences directly arising from the choices I made, and not those forced on me by well meaning dipshits I’d be a much more well adjusted and productive adult.

              2. I don’t think libertarianism implies that animals have zero rights. Sure, you can argue that and remain libertarian IMO, but I think you can certainly make a principled argument that animals have limited rights. Of course, for all but the craziest PETA member these would (as I said) be significantly less than human rights, and would depend on the kind of animal (i.e. a gorilla or chimp would have more rights than a lizard).

                1. I completely disagree, they have no rights other than what their owners say they have.

                  If you were to even fine someone for abusing their own property you are taking away their rights in favor of an animal which is incapable of reason and would be far more immoral than the actual animal abuse itself.

                  1. Something else just occurred to me also re: AoC.

                    Someone said I was being inconsistent by saying that I think a 16 year old should be able to choose their sexual partners, but not necessarily join the military.

                    The difference being when you join the military you sign a contract which would mean the state would have to enforce it. If they let a kid join but let him leave at anytime for any reason then I think they should be allowed to, but of course that would not make for an effective military. A recruiter would never want a soldier who could just leave at any time and wasn’t bound to follow orders.

                    There’s also no coercion involved by not letting a kid join the military, while coercion is involved when you say a 16 year old can’t choose their own sexual partner without possibly putting him/her in legal jeopardy.

                    Not letting a kid in the military is no different than allowing a police dept to fire someone for distributing racist materials. The cop has the right to distribute racist literature, but I see no reason why they have the right to be employed by the police department. Just like you don’t have the right to be employed by the military.

        2. There was a news story a few years aback about Washington state outlawing bestiality.

          Look it up and see what we said.

        3. Goldwin|12.16.13 @ 10:14PM|#
          “Er no actually. I tried to think up questions beyond “Ew this is icky!” Libertarians aren’t socons so I chose some mostly controversial behaviors to see what you guys think. I mean I’d hesitate to google most of these things to see if there are any papers that libertarians have written on these topics.”

          I’m sure there are articles written on some of the subjects by libertarians, but why do you think libertarians would devote a lot of time to debating cannibalism?
          Do you really care about those issues or are you just hoping to troll and get a bite?

    4. Rights are only for sentient self-aware beings like humans. Animals have no rights so there are no grounds for criminalizing bestiality.

      Necro/cannibalism: only if explicitly sanctioned by the will or other contract.

      AoC: I like sweet 16. 18 for marriange.

      1. Necro/cannibalism: only if explicitly sanctioned by the will or other contract.

        Can I collect some human cells from dust, extract the DNA…put it in stem cells I have harvested from my own body…grow the cells into some meat in a test tube and then eat that meat without anyone permission?

        If yes can I share or even sell that meat with other people?

        1. Also can i kill that meat and fuck it?

    5. 1. Animals have no rights (they have privileges extended to them).

      2. A human *can* own them (they already do, what world are you from?) and can have sex with them (is that really worse for the animal than being killed and butchered) BUT . . . in the libertarian world you would be free to call these people sick fucks and not associate nor do business with them. Unlike in this world where you *must* sell the little doggy in the window.

      3. Dead bodies are already owned (what world are you from again?) – by the next of kin. Sex with corpses follows the same pattern as above.

      4. Age of marriage is the same age as adulthood – defined as when you can legally enter into binding contracts without another’s permission. No consent if under that age. Marriage does not have a government specified form. Its a contract specifying responsibilities and privileges within the marriage and disposition of effects and offspring at its possible dissolution.

      How fucking hard is this to understand?

  36. Why does Welch hate his daughter?

  37. Sounds like a plan dude.

  38. Kennedy definitely has the new snarky Fox Business cadence down.

  39. BigT|12.16.13 @ 9:42PM|#
    “You’re missing a pretty good football game.”

    In the late ’40s, Indy teams didn’t believe pit stops could affect the race; Bud Moore proved ’em wrong.
    I’ll bet kickers are gonna be hot properties; 60yd FGs can win games.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.