Online Gambling

Pot, Poker, and Prohibitionism

Do Republicans want to be the party of unprincipled killjoys?

|

Mike Lee calls for "a new conservative reform agenda" based on "three basic principles," one of which is federalism. "The biggest reason the federal government makes too many mistakes is that it makes too many decisions," the Republican senator from Utah explained in a speech at the Heritage Foundation last year. "Most of these are decisions the federal government doesn't have to make—and therefore shouldn't."

So why on earth is Lee co-sponsoring a bill introduced last month that would ban online gambling throughout the country, instead of letting each state decide whether to allow Internet-assisted poker? The contradiction illustrates one reason the GOP seems destined for permanent minority status: Too many of its members are unprincipled killjoys who do not understand that federalism requires tolerance of diversity.

The bill Lee supports, which would ban "any bet or wager" placed via the Internet, was instigated by casino magnate and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson, who would prefer not to worry about online competition. The motive for the bill thus violates another of Lee's three basic principles: opposition to "dispensing political privileges to prop the well-connected up."

But the blatant disregard for federalism is especially striking, since the bill's backers brazenly claim it is necessary to protect state autonomy. They have even enlisted Texas Gov. Rick Perry, an avowed fan of the 10th Amendment, to testify that a national ban on Internet gambling, which would override the policy preferences of states such as Delaware, Nevada, and New Jersey, is what the Framers would have wanted. The National Conference of State Legislatures sees things differently.

Poker is not the only subject that turns Republicans into advocates of a meddling, overweening federal government. Pot also brings out their inner centralizers.

Republican legislators have repeatedly criticized the Obama administration's response to marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington, arguing that the president is constitutionally bound to crush these experiments.  "Federal law takes precedence" over state law, Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) told Attorney General Eric Holder during a congressional hearing last week. "The state of Colorado is undermining…federal law, correct? Why do you fail to enforce the laws of the land?"

Republicans like Smith not only accept the fanciful notion, which is no less absurd for having been endorsed by the Supreme Court, that interstate commerce, which Congress is authorized to regulate, includes marijuana that never crosses state lines, down to a bag of buds in a cancer patient's drawer. They also argue, as Smith does, that "state law conflicts with federal law" if it does not punish everything that Congress decides to treat as a crime.

This insistence that only one policy—prohibition—can be allowed with respect to pot and poker is not just unprincipled but politically perilous. Polls indicate most Americans think marijuana and online poker should be legal, and that view is especially common among young voters.

According to a Reason-Rupe Public Opinion Survey conducted in December, 65 percent of Americans think the government should let people play online poker. That includes 70 percent of respondents younger than 45 and 69 percent of respondents younger than 55.

In a Gallup poll last fall, overall support for legalizing marijuana was 58 percent, including 67 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds and 62 percent of 30-to-49-year-olds. A CNN poll conducted in January put overall support for legalization at 55 percent and found a similar breakdown by age: Two-thirds of 18-to-34-year-olds said pot should be legal, and nearly as many 34-to-49-year-olds agreed.

How do Republicans respond to these tolerant majorities? They do not merely express their distaste for pot smoking and online poker playing, or argue that both pastimes should be illegal at the state level. They say the two activities should be banned at the national level, even though that position contradicts their professed commitment to federalism.

That is a "conservative reform agenda" of sorts, I suppose. But it is not at all "new," and it aims to reform us rather than the government.

NEXT: Brickbat: All This Science I Don't Understand

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. So why on earth is Lee co-sponsoring a bill introduced last month that would ban online gambling throughout the country, instead of letting each state decide whether to allow Internet-assisted poker?

    Because this one decision is too important to be left up to the states. Just this one. This and marriage. Just these two. And drugs. This and marriage and drugs. But just these three. Then it’s all about states’ rights and small government.

    1. Nobody expects the Republican inquisition!

      1. They will not speak…then we will apply….THE ORANGE FAKE SUNTAN LOTION!!!!

        /Boehnered

        1. Bring in … the Senate minority chair!

          1. ….fear.

            Fear and surprise.

            Fear, surprise and RUTHless efficiency.

            Fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Ghost of Ronald Reagan!

        2. It is safe to say that you are looking to purchase Revitol Stretch Mark Cream? Before you make that buy, here are a few truths that you ought to think about this item. As a piece of the entire Revitol product offering,
          revitol stretch mark

    2. This and marriage.

      It seems the federal courts have a hand in dictating marriage policy, so it’s not as if only one party is looking to federalize the issue.

      1. What the Democrats do or don’t do doesn’t excuse hypocrisy on federalism from those who supposedly support it, but then don’t when it’s their ox being gored.

        1. Of course. It’s just that the marriage issue is becoming a federal one regardless.

      2. But there’s only one major party that claims to want small federal gov’t, and says they believe in states rights. At least the democraps don’t pretend not to want gov’t intervention in all aspects of our lives.

        1. Yeah, forthright tyranny under the guise of bigger gooberment is vastly more respectable and appreciated.

      3. Reasonoids are big fans of political involvement in the lives of Americans. Nick Gillespie has said so.

        “Imagine, if you will, a country in which government … embraces things such as gay marriage, drug legalization, and immigration.”

        ~ Nick Gillespie, Leader of Reason.com Reasonoid “Libertarians”

        Reasonoids of Reason.Com, America’s Crypto-Republicans

        1. Wow, you’ve really doubled down on your dose of “Dumbass” pills today.

          Are you really so dense as to not see that each of those items is the government embracing individualism over federalism?

          It’s too early to deal with such ignorance.

          1. Wow, that’s the best you can muster from your mind.

            Are you this thick that you don’t understand jurisprudence?

            Where politicians make law, “embracing” as you idiotically put it, there can be no liberty.

            It’s too bad I must deal with your brand of ignorance almost every day of my life.

            Good luck stumbling through life!

    3. Constitution? We don’t need no stinking constitution.

  2. How can you expect stupid kids to know what is best for them? Clearly our brave masters must step in to keep us from destroying ourselves.

  3. Too many of its members are unprincipled killjoys who do not understand that federalism requires tolerance of diversity.

    And the democrats are not?

    1. Democrats don’t care about federalism.

      1. Sure they do, when it means more $…for the children:

        “In its letter, the Democratic Governors Association said the bill from Graham and Chaffetz would intrude on states’ rights.

        “Some states have chosen not to allow and regulate gaming; and for the many states that do allow it, gaming and lotteries are critical to producing the revenue needed to fund important state and local governmental services, such as public education,” the group wrote.

        http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli…..z2z39oYnG8

      2. Dems don’t care about tolerance, either, unless it means not tolerating viewpoints they don’t like.

    2. Any and all criticism by Reason of Republicans is, no doubt, a total endorsement of democrats.

      1. And vice versa, and often simultaneously.

      2. Just like a vote for a Libertarian is a vote for the Democrat, eh?

        1. Whatever you do, don’t summon Tulpa.

          1. I thought that was John’s shtick?

    3. It’s worse when a Repub. does this because that party at least says they care about Federalism.

    4. Democraps don’t give lip service or pretend to support federalism. THAT’s the difference.

  4. ‘Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder’. – C.J. Dennis

    1. The person who first told me of the classic Australian poem The Bastard from the Bush attributed it to C.J. Dennis.

      I have since found out that it has also been attributed Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson (Clancy of the Overflow and The Man from Snowy River) and Steele Rudd (Dad and Dave).

    2. And Inspector Gadget saw that they were everywhere! 😀

  5. Once again, The Mike Church Show (Sirius 125 6-9am EDT for those who care) has been all over the federalism the last week or so. In light of the NV cattleman, Mr. Bundy. Church is a better constitutional scholar than….anyone else I’ve ever read, seen or heard. Highly recommend his show and website if you’re interested. He’s done a shit ton of research in source documents, lists the books he references on his show, has produced documentaries – good stuff. I reoommend it.

    And he’d say about this, “Yeah. Typical….now here’s how it’s SUPPOSED to work….[two hour discussion of shit going back to 1750].”

    1. People really shouldn’t need a constitutional scholar to tell them how fucked they are. That being said, there is a lot of emphasis on EXPERTS! these days.

      1. I have to say, I was surprised at how much deprogramming I needed. What I’ve learned in the last 5 years (esp) – amazing. But then I think, what was I taught in school? What are all the myths and symbols and legends? What did I WANT to believe? It’s allllll about…shit that’s just WRONG.

        And I KNOW I’m smarter than the average bear and do more research. Still….I’ve undone a lot of early learning that was just patently wrong.

        Highly recommend Mike Church. Just a guy with a radio show, but MAN he’s done a ton of research and can point you to all the source documents.

        1. That’s fair. I just think people who don’t even realize something is wrong will get anything from someone who tells them just how wrong things are. But I suppose those people will never go looking for someone to disturb their naps in the first place. I’ve found that many people have a decent defense mechanism that just mutes the sound when disturbing thoughts start being discussed.

          1. I just *don’t* think…

        2. I agree with that sentiment and, as a father of 3 kids, I just hope that i can teach my kids enough skepticism to get them through the public school indoctrination centers with the education they need but not all the propaganda.

        3. I’ll throw in a recommendation for Andrew Wilkow as well, on the same Sirius XM channel. He’s also well-read on the Constitution, and he’s good at dissecting the issues. He’s big on (old-school) punk rock, and he’s far from a social prude. I tune into his show all the time.

    2. Mike Church? Isn’t he the detective who is possessed by Margaret Strauss?

  6. Also, gambling is one of the vices acts that really befuddles me, in terms of the govt interfering in it. Yeah, I’ve heard all the arguments, but it’s all such weak sauce. Teh Demon Rum – some of that most people can point to and say, yeah, I’ve seen some bad shit come of overindulgence. Even drugs.

    But gambling? Yeah, the odd “gambling ruined my family”, but…vanishingly small numbers.

    So why all the interest? I don’t get it.

    Now, tribal casinos and getting their hands on a shitload of cash at the state level, that I get. National level? Doesn’t seem like there’s money in it, soooooo…..I don’t get it.

    1. Obviously the problem is there aren’t enough natives to go around. If only the federal government could do something about that.

      1. Maybe we they kilt too many back in the 1800’s – I haz a sad. No more gamboling for them.

        /Whyte Injun

        1. DON’T!

        2. First they came for the gambolers, and I did nothing because I wasn’t a gamboler. Then they came for the gamblers, and I did nothing because I wasn’t gambler…

    2. The money is in the campaign donations from the established interests of the gaming industry.

  7. Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) [asked] Attorney General Eric Holder … “Why do you fail to enforce the laws of the land?”

    Holder’s answer

    1. “Fuck you, that’s why.”

      1. For once, I can agree with that remark. Hey, a broken clock…

    2. Who’s on first?

  8. “Most of these are decisions the federal government doesn’t have to make?and therefore shouldn’t.”

    “Don’t just do something, stand there!”

    Too bad doing nothing has gotten such a bad rap. Better to throw gasoline on a fire than to throw nothing, at least your intentions were good.

    1. Yep.

      And doing nothing is *always* an option.

  9. Mike Lee, huh.

    The guy who comes on TI, huh.

    The nerve of him, huh.

    Just goes to show it’s all talk, talk, talk, blah, blah, blah with these guys. Republicans who at the moment are talking like libertarians are doing it to attack Obama but they’re in reality once they get to power they will be exactly like the Democrats. I think they call it hypocrisy.

    1. ‘but in reality once they get to power they will be exactly like the Democrats. I think they call it hypocrisy.’

      1. Fucking freedom-rapers the whole lot of’em.

    2. I see that as a good sign. You can only get elected by talking libertarian and acting just like the democrats for so long before people will just start voting for the libertarian. Like the failure of Republicans running moderates that agree more with Democrats in order to hopefully get more independant voters. Why vote for the democrat light when you could just vote for the democrat? Why vote for the fake libertarian when you could just vote for the libertarian?

  10. The contradiction illustrates one reason the GOP seems destined for permanent minority status: Too many of its members are unprincipled killjoys who do not understand that federalism requires tolerance of diversity.

    I don’t think that’s exactly it. They’re just unprincipled killjoys regarding the wrong issues. They want to ban the wrong things. In a country that enthusiastically supports transfat bans, sugar bans, soda bans, etc, it’s hard to argue that being an unprincipled killjoy is a career killer. You just have to have a finger on the public pulse.

  11. Republicans can’t be THE party of unprincipled killjoys. For that to be the case, Democrats would have to NOT be unprincipled killjoys as well.

    1. So use the indefinite article. The outcome is the same.

    2. In context, I think the ‘principle’ of concern is Constitutional Federalism, i.e., enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

      The Democrats make no pretenses of adherence to such a principle, other than a perfunctory recitation of an oath of office.

      The Deems are indeed unprincipled, but the GOP is particularly and hypocritically unprincipled in this regard.

    3. In context, I think the ‘principle’ of concern is Constitutional Federalism, i.e., enumerated powers and the 9th and 10th Amendments.

      The Democrats make no pretenses of adherence to such a principle, other than a perfunctory recitation of an oath of office.

      The Deems are indeed unprincipled, but the GOP is particularly and hypocritically unprincipled in this regard.

  12. I’ve long believed that most of us make this more complicated than it really is. We start from the wrong premise, which is that politicians start from a principled position and work from there. I think the reason most are in power in the first place is because they reflect the chaotic minds of their constituents better. WE are mostly unprincipled. Hell, most voters don’t even know what the word means, especially as it pertains to the role of govt in a Constitutional Republic. Ask a random sample of people on the street what kind of govt we have and the vast majority will say a Democracy. Is it any wonder then that our leaders reflect this false and scary belief? They sway in whatever direction the current whims of the voters push them. There are no principles. Those are temporary and fungible… always. When you throw in good old Cronyism, you get the toxic brew we see today and that is reflected in this article. Mr. Adelson has interests. If you want his money and favor to keep your power, better not ignore him. Principles shminciples.

  13. Republicans are just democrats with bibles.

    1. The Bibles are just props. They don’t bother to read them.

  14. Senator Mike Lee was looking pretty good up until this. I guess the Republicans are going to run as the unprincipled party of corruption, crony capitalism, and big government now. The fucking law was written by a Sheldon Adelson employee. Who’s opposed to it in Congress?

    1. “Who’s opposed to it in Congress?”

      Several other bills have been introduced in Congress to legalize forms of online gambling, including a bill from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that would legalize online poker in states that choose to participate in a federal licensing system.

      http://thehill.com/blogs/hilli…..e-gambling

      1. Another federal licensing system. That sounds awesome.

      2. “including a bill from Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) that would legalize online poker in states that choose ”

        This shocks me to no end. I know Joe Barton, not personally. I was the Treasure for the Committee to Re-elect Joe Barton back in the 80s at Texas A&M.

        Congressman Barton is a super straight laced, up tight kind of guy in public. I suspect he is much the same way in private. I can’t imagine him being FOR legal poker.

        Course we all know that many publically straight laced person in public are sometimes private maniacs.

    2. ya. he was on my short llist of guys who didn’t totally suck. This one thing isn’t quite enough to remove him. But it’s about 90% enough.

    3. If Mike Lee existed as a liquid he’d be used to bleach buttholes.

  15. “The bill Lee supports, which would ban ‘any bet or wager’ placed via the Internet, was instigated by casino magnate and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson.”

    Facepalm.

  16. What is at the heart of this Republican hypocrisy on Federalism is Religion. The Republican Party has become the party of religious zealots, which is why, when you look at a political map of the US, the vast majority of red states are in the “Bible Belt”. Two years ago I attended a Republican convention in my home state of Georgia. During the convention, my Representative, Rob Woodall, gave a speech in which he stated that he has 4 criteria when voting for a bill, in this order:
    1) Does it follow the word of God?
    2) Is it Constitutional?
    3) Can we afford it?
    4) Do we need it?

    Really!?! He puts “the word of God” before the Constitution. After hearing that, I will NEVER vote for another Republican.

    Gary Johnson 2016

    1. I will NEVER vote for another Republican.

      Gary Johnson 2016

      Not sure if serious…

      (Protip: Gary Johnson was a 2-term Republican governor)

      1. He is one of the few I would vote for running as a Republican, simply because he has shown that he would stick to his campaign promises.

        Also, I think he is done as an R after the last Presidential cycle.

        1. Bob Barr is back as an “R”

      2. I’d still vote for Ron Paul, regardless of age issues. Probably his son, who I think is a Libertarian Manchurian Candidate.

    2. I was gung-ho for the Republicans until 1992, when they went hardcore with their “family values” message and Pat Buchanan declared KULTUR WAR. Until they can wrest power away from the culture nannies (which I admit is like breaking down a brick wall with a spoon), they’re gonna be, like Jindal said, “stuck on stupid”.

      1. It is possible to beat the ‘free shit’ party on all sorts of real issues, and what does the GOP focus on?
        In CA, one of the big issues is: Which toilet does Johnny pee in? Benes liabilites? Who cares?
        The GOP can rot in hell.

      2. Pat Buchanan declared KULTUR WAR

        He didn’t get the nomination. I remember because I voted for him in the primary. While I didn’t agree much with Pat he was running against the GOP establishment and a sitting president he referred to as “King George”. That sort of effort should always be encouraged.

    3. …”The Republican Party has become the party of religious zealots,”…

      I would say Xian zealots, since the free shit party pitches the religions of government and ‘mother earth’ with equal zealotry.

    4. “a speech in which he stated that he has 4 criteria when voting for a bill, in this order:

      “1) Does it follow the word of God?
      2) Is it Constitutional?
      3) Can we afford it?
      4) Do we need it?”

      If we remember that his competition is people who don’t ask *any* of these questions, then this list sounds pretty good.

      As a practical matter, he’s going to be running against people who ask of every bill:

      1) Does it make me warm and tingly thinking about it?

      2) Does it focus-group well?

      3) Do the leaders of my party want me to vote for it?

      4) Does it have a cool acronym?

      Compared to that, God doesn’t sound too bad.

      Especially if (as I suspect) this guy is one of those who believe that the Constitution, if not actually Godly, is at least fully consistent with the divine plan.

    5. “Does it follow the word of God?”

      That is interesting. I guess freeing the slaves was a bad idea (to note, it was also constitutional)–

      Leviticus 25:44-46, “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life”

      1. New Testament? What’s that? -idiot

        1. I’m so sorry. Could you tell me where in the New Testament it says slavery is wrong?

  17. These screwy microbrains would ban the unknown if they could get away with it.

  18. Look, it’s simple: Federalism is good, but in order for it to work, the states need to have the right policies. If the states want to do the wrong things, like legalize immorality and otherwise break sharia, then Federalism simply can’t work.
    How can you guys not understand that?

  19. Well, at least most folks seem to understand that the lesser of two evils, when it comes to the Drug Wars and other such morality-forcing efforts, usually have a D next to their name.

    George Soros personally funded many of the voter initiatives which decriminalized pot.

    Sad, but true. As it stands now – where it really matters (millions in jails…perhaps the worst action the gubment can take against citizens), the D’s are closer to being libertarians than the R’s – who most of the libertarians have cuddled up to.

    You couldn’t make this one up. Somehow, the ability to own 100 round magazines somehow trumps tens of millions affected by arrest, jail, criminal records, etc……

    Maybe both should be legal, but it’s hard to argue that the difference between 10 rounds and 100 rounds has affected the lives of millions and cost us tens of billions (or more).

    1. Legalizing pot is the only liberty issue that matters, so the Democrats are closest to libertarians because George Soros.

      I guess.

    2. Craig, can you not write one comment without sounding like a dumbass?

  20. Pot has nothing to do with Poker. Since Poker does not cause brain damage, I have no problem with its legalization.

    150+ Scientific Studies Showing the Dangers of Marijuana

    http://www.populartechnology.n…..ngers.html

    1. The dangers of thinking like assholes like you greatly aggravate the dangers of not obeying our Gestapo/Stasi/Police. Stick your stupid beliefs and opinions up your ass, you statist fuckwad.

    2. Of course, its universally known that alcohol causes brain damage, as well. I guess we need to ban it, don’t we?

      1. Sure worked last time!

    3. Throwing people in jail has no bad effects whatsoever. /statist

    4. “150+ Scientific Studies Showing the Dangers of Marijuana”

      The lame video actually said “altered brain activity in users”.
      That’s kinda the point, isn’t it?

  21. Frankly speaking, I’m always against any kind of gambling. Though I voted for Obama for the last two Presidential elections, I’m against Marijuana as well as Online Gambling. However, after reading this text, it seems opposition of republicans is more one casino mogul centric than ethical. It had always occurred me that why the US always frown upon online gambling but endorse land based casino gambling. After reading this post now I know why.

    1. Though I voted for Obama for the last two Presidential elections, I’m against Marijuana as well as Online Gambling.

      I think you mean to say that you voted for Obama BECAUSE you are opposed to pot.

      Because he has carried on the war on pot.

      Are you equally concerned with the link between Obama’s people and the corporate interests pushing on-line gambling?

      The group added several new staff members and also hired Jim Messina, who led President Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, to help with “grassroots initiatives,” including online gambling.

      http://www.publicintegrity.org…..bling-push

  22. This is why our country is screwed – “government should LET people play online poker.” Our government was never meant to govern our lives in any way, WE are supposed to be the kings and our government was supposed to serve US and do what we LET it do. This is why our founders fought over whether to even have a government and then designed one that was ONLY supposed to defend the country and regulate commerce between states. After the revolutionary war there was NO government and then when we did form one it was so small that few people ever noticed it in their lives for many, many years. The world did not end, nor fall apart when we had no government dictating our lives. If there was no government tomorrow, I would get up and do the same thing I do today – work as hard as I can and do the best to support my family – I do NOT need ANY government managing my life in any way. Evil is easy to recognize – God made us completely free and ANY attempt to take that freedom is evil. God made NO man a king over me and even if the Constitution did give them that power, NO man has power over me because a piece of paper says so. My freedom and rights are inalienable and God given and this world is FULL of evil that hates you for that freedom and wants to steal it and so many men are tools of that evil, many of them sitting in the pews on Sunday. There is only one way that evil men back off – “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

    1. For most of our history, politicians were afraid of the people. In the 1800’s, politicians weren’t just afraid of being voted out – they feared for their lives, people would come to town with their shotguns and kill them. You didn’t just raise people’s taxes back then, you had to get the support of the people. One of our biggest problems today is that politicians are no longer REALLY afraid of the people. Things are NOT going to get better, outside of a win or two, the tree of liberty has not been refreshed in many years. The time to take a stand is not when we are in the concentration camps, it is when we are told to wear the star of David or to buy health care. There MUST be a line in the sand and we MUST quit moving that line or we will face the gas chamber. ALL governments are evil, ours is no exception – without a firm line, ours will be NO different than Hitlers.

      1. “ALL governments are evil, ours is no exception

        nice phrase, think I’ll keep it.

    2. Who or what is this “God” you keep blubbering on about, b/c no imaginary bearded man in the sky “gave” me free will, or anything else for that matter.

  23. I think; the government must carefully balance moderate protection of society with liberty to use these games online. For me, gambling is a heavily regulated activity for good reasons. If the players play with rules and fixed their limits on regular gambling, then it would be possible to avoid such a thing like personal debt, bankruptcy, and a poor economy.

    1. OK, J.D., with comments like this, I can see why you’d trot out this retread.

    2. Anyone who will go bankrupt gambling legally will find an illegal game to bankrupt themselves with, if that’s what it takes.

    3. “I think; the government must carefully balance moderate protection of society with liberty…”

      oh bullshit. the government must suck my dick.

  24. Mark Twain – “Nothing so needs reforming as other people’s habits”
    These people are frauds.

  25. I’m always astonished at the selective outrage at Reason for certain government officials. As in this case, Lee.

    You do know, Jacob, that golden boy Rand Paul also supports the “Enforce the Law Act,” don’t you? Why no criticism of Libertarian Rand Paul on this issue? Quite honestly, you all want someone else to carry the banner on pot legalization rather than your own guy. And Rand Paul has done nothing on this issue. Why doesn’t Rand Paul introduce legislation to legalize pot in the entire country? More importantly, why don’t suggest that he does?

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…..ized-weed/

    1. Jackand Ace|6.14.14 @ 11:26AM|#
      “I’m always astonished at the selective outrage at Reason for certain government officials. As in this case, Lee.”

      And your partisan stupidity is never surprising, twit. From the article:
      “Paul, who is typically considered an ally of drug reform advocates, did not discuss the legislation’s potential effects on states’ marijuana laws during his Fox News interview. He has previously said he supports states’ rights to legalize marijuana, and that people shouldn’t be imprisoned merely for smoking marijuana.”
      It takes a brain-dead lefty like you to propose that the law is intended to imprison people rather than make Obo do what he says he’ll do.
      ————————
      “Why doesn’t Rand Paul introduce legislation to legalize pot in the entire country? More importantly, why don’t suggest that he does?”

      Ever hear of the concept that the fed should not be responsible for all things, twit?
      What an insufferable asshole.

      1. Sevo,

        Your post/response to Jackand Ace is a perfect example of exactly the same sort of thing you do to me every time I express my opinions and ideas on this site.

        Jackand Ace is called: stupid, twit, brain-dead lefty, and insufferable asshole.

        Of course this is OK for you to attack people who disagree with your opinions because you are a Libertarian, and everyone who does not agree with your thinking is apparently “sub human”.

        1. On The Road To Mandalay|6.14.14 @ 5:30PM|#
          “Sevo,
          Your post/response to Jackand Ace is a perfect example of exactly the same sort of thing you do to me every time I express my opinions and ideas on this site.”

          Correct.
          He (and you) get called on your bullshit.
          Don’t like it? Tough shit. Ask your mom for sympathy.

          1. Sevo,

            I don’t need any sympathy from my mom, or anyone else. Anyway, my mom and dad are both deceased.

            So, people who don’t agree with your view get “called” on their bullshit. Meaning that anything that you personally don’t believe is bullshit.

            At least you are consistent and predictable in attacking those with views different than yours.

            Anyway, the anonymity of the internet does protect you doesn’t it?

            1. On The Road To Mandalay|6.14.14 @ 9:44PM|#
              “Anyway, the anonymity of the internet does protect you doesn’t it?”

              Oh! Oh!
              Fuck off, twit.

              1. Sevo,

                There you go again. You must be what one of the posters named Brian refers to as a passive-aggressive type.

                You have a nice weekend. See you around. Nice posting with your ace.

        2. On the road…I learned to ignore him a long time ago. If his response is the typical response from a Libertarian, then he is their problem. I always like to let his responses stand….they are kind of emblematic.
          Enjoy your weekend.

          1. Thanks. Jackand Ace,

            You enjoy your weekend too. Looking forward to your taking our friend Sevo on again in the future.

          2. Jackand Ace|6.14.14 @ 10:23PM|#
            “On the road…I learned to ignore him a long time ago”

            Yes, Jand A, you learned l9ong ago to ignore anyone who calls you on your bullshit.
            And bullshit you have in abundance, Jand A, as does the twit road-guy.
            Have a ball Jand A! Lefty twits need every bit of ignorance they can find!

  26. Anyone else having trouble accessing reason from an android phone? Keepz telling me I’m forbidden, and I’ve cleared the cache, still happening, so…

    Help a brother out. Otherwise, I’ll have to talk to people when i drink in public!

    1. Drink in public? Are you at a Kings celebration?

      1. I’m a blackhawks fan in La so… womp womp.

        No, i do a stand up open mic later. I get food at the bar beforehand

    2. Jesse kept getting 404s yesterday. Not sure how he fixed it…

  27. A two month old post?

    What the fucking fuck y’all?

    1. Perhaps there’s no weekend work at Reason because of child labor laws.

      1. Hmmm, I didn’t consider the idea that they might follow child labor laws for their orphan slaves.

  28. invisible furry hand|4.16.14 @ 2:31AM|#

    ‘Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder’. – C.J. Dennis

    The person who first told me of the classic Australian poem The Bastard from the Bush attributed it to C.J. Dennis.

    I have since found out that it has also been attributed Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson (Clancy of the Overflow and The Man from Snowy River) and Steele Rudd (Dad and Dave).

    It is much more likely that The Bastard from the Bush is a “naughty” version of The Captain of the Push published in The Bulletin, March 26, 1892.

  29. The premise of this article is set forth by the author immediately. Republicans who don’t share Libertarian values and so on, are “unprincipled killjoys”. Of course they could be called worse names, but the premise is the same.

    The objective is to immediately demonize anyone who is considered to be an enemy of Libertarianism. Libertarian supporters posting on this site pick this up quickly and rush to the attack by demonizing any poster who dares to disagree with the author of the/this article.

    Reality check. Although this forum advances Libertarian beliefs there is no real Libertarian candidate for the Presidency. He/she will have to run on a Republican ticket, and once in office (if elected), will have to comply with the national GOP agenda. Senator Paul could be elected (which I doubt), but he is still a Republican. He may share some Libertarian beliefs, but (again) he is still a Republican.

    1. “Senator Paul could be elected (which I doubt), but he is still a Republican. He may share some Libertarian beliefs, but (again) he is still a Republican.”

      Why, yes. Yes he is. How…..obvious.
      Did you have a point or just more rambling?

      1. Sevo,

        Yes I do have a point. If you (and other Libertarians) believe that Paul is going to serve your interests if he is elected, you will be bitterly disappointed. He will serve the interests of the GOP. I think you got my point, but as usual had to say something just to harass me. No problem there, since I’m used to that.

        Anyway, I doubt if Paul is going to make President anyway. Of course if a Republican is elected, Paul might get a cabinet position, where he can wreak his havoc. Personally, I think we just might get Mrs. Clinton. That should send you, and those of your ilk, into a coma.

        1. …”That should send you, and those of your ilk, into a coma.”

          And you, of course, will be thrilled, since you favor using a gun to get people to agree with you.

          1. Sevo,

            I don’t even own a gun. Anyway, I can see that my remarks this evening have you all excited. Just relax and take your medications, and have a good sleep.

    2. BTW, didn’t you promise to leave? Many times?

      1. Sevo,

        I decided not to leave. I figure I have as much right to post my views here as you do. Don’t like it? Tough shit.

        1. On The Road To Mandalay|6.14.14 @ 9:46PM|#
          …”I figure I have as much right to post my views here as you do.”

          Indeed you do. You just seem to make promises you don’t keep.
          I think the term is “hypocrite”.

          1. Sevo,

            Now, now. Don’t be upset. Once again, take your medications and have a good sleep.

    3. I think the premise is to demonize anyone who is an unprincipled killjoy.

      You have to remember what many Republicans claim their principles to be. Then you see them go against them. I am disappointed in Mike Lee. I personally wouldn’t go so far as to demonize him, because he is free market type more than 95% of Congress, and that is a huge plus in my book.

      With Democrats, we just call them what they are; slavers.

  30. “Unprincipled killjoys” is just another way of saying “stupid.” Social conservative authoritarians like Lee are genuinely too stupid to comprehend that they hold philosophically inconsistent views – even when it’s pointed out to them. Their political philosophy springs from the same dumbness as their view that the earth is 6,000 years old.

    That also explains why conservatives/authoritarians are unable to recognize practical failures of their policies – not just objections based on principle. The war mongers still think foreign military interventionism is smart and drug prohibition is a good idea.

    When conservatives/authoritarians are right, it’s usually along the lines of broken clocks being right.

  31. “Do Republicans want to be the party of unprincipled killjoys?” Do they want to be? They already are. Amazing how many speak out both sides of their mouths claiming to be small gov’t federalists and then intervene whenever they can.

    1. pronomian,

      Neither of our two major political parties believe in small government, and never will. In fact they are really one party, and could be called The DemoPublicans.

      The only small government you are ever going to see is your city or county government, and depending on where you live that is not always small.

      What we really have is 50 little countries called states, and they can barely manage their affairs without some assistance from the federal government.

      If you want small government you might want to move to Lichtenstein or some such place. How about Switzerland?

      Have a nice weekend, and dream on.

  32. Enjoyed posting my comments on this article. As all can see, Sevo was upset that I had returned. But what can I say? If he doesn’t like it, then tough shit. That’s what he told me, so I’m just repeating it.

    Everyone have a nice weekend.

    1. On The Road To Mandalay|6.14.14 @ 9:55PM|#
      …”As all can see, Sevo was upset that I had returned.”…

      Oh, yes! You mean so much to me!

      1. Sevo,

        I must mean something to you or you would not keep on responding to my posts. Ha! Ha! Ha!

        Take care. Maybe you are cranky because you are constipated?

        I recommend an ice water, Castor Oil enema at 2 a.m. Cleans out the bowels and gets you thinking clear again.

        I think you could have a case of Optical Rectumitis. This is where the Optic nerve somehow gets connected to the Rectal nerve, and gives people a shitty outlook on life.

        Take care ace, and try that enema.

  33. Night all. Best wishes.

    Pray for Brother Sevo.

    Sincerely,

    OTRTM

  34. Why would Mike Lee sponsor that bill?

    How about because he and Harry Reid (Senator of a state that dislikes gambling competition) are co-conspirators?

    http://p.washingtontimes.com/n…..-sens-rei/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.