Video Games

The Gamer Congressman

Is Rep. Jared Polis the first in a wave of libertarian-leaning video game enthusiasts?

|

In 1975, the year Jared Polis was born, computer programmer Will Crowther produced the first adventure game. Known, appropriately enough, as Adventure (though its full name was actually Colossal Cave Adventure), Crowther's text-based fantasy creation was a precursor to what would eventually become a $100 billion home gaming industry.

As Polis grew up, so did the games he loved. As a teenager in La Jolla, California, his first obsessions were fantasy role-playing adventures for early Apple computers, such as Wizardry and Ultima. As a young Internet entrepreneur making a fortune in online greeting cards and flower sales, he gravitated to strategy games like Warcraft and Heroes of Might and Magic. Today, the three-term Colorado Democratic congressman continues to slay demons in Diablo and conquer the world through force or diplomacy in Civilization V. "It's one of the main things I do with my free time as recreation," Polis says. "I'm definitely a gamer."

Not coincidentally, the first out-and-proud gamer in Congress also happens to be its most libertarian-leaning Democrat. Since entering office in 2009, Polis has emerged as a leading voice on civil liberties, from gun rights to online privacy, from defending Bitcoin to advocating legal weed. On lists of potential House successors to Ron Paul, his is often the only Democratic name.

"I think the Internet community tends to be libertarian in general," Polis says. "That doesn't mean there's not people across the [political] spectrum. But I think if there's a bell curve of people, it shifts a little bit to the libertarian side in terms of those who are active in Internet-based communities."

As more people who grew up on video games graduate to positions of political power, a tantalizing question emerges: Will they, too, tack in a libertarian direction, regardless of political party?

Rise of the Gamer Dad

Close your eyes and think of a stereotypical gamer. Is he a bowtie-wearing gay father of one with a penchant for beekeeping who represents Colorado's 2nd District in the House of Representatives? Probably not. But maybe he should be.

Video games are no longer the province of the young. According to the Entertainment Software Association, the average gamer is about 30 years old; Polis is 39. Nor are they a fringe cultural phenomenon: Americans spent $20 billion on games in 2013, twice the amount of money they spent going to the movies. The global game market is approaching $100 billion a year. While the top-grossing film of 2013, Iron Man 3, earned $1.2 billion worldwide, the top-grossing video game of 2013, Grand Theft Auto V, surpassed $1 billion in sales in just three days.

Once inexorably connected to the identity of Generation X (think War Games and Space Invaders), video games have proven their cultural staying power among the Millennial generation, and are even being adopted by older cohorts to help keep their minds and bodies active.

Given that more than 60 percent of United States residents are under 45, and thus haven't really known an America without ubiquitous video games, you'd think Polis would have some good company among his congressional peers. But he has yet to find any other D.C. pols who share his hobby.

"None of them have outed themselves to me yet," he says. "I would love to play with another member. So I'm hoping somebody has the courage to out themselves and we'll challenge them in League of Legends or something like that."

It's true that Congress skews old, averaging 57 years old for representatives, 62 for senators. Yet one in five frequent gamers is over 55, according to a December Reason-Rupe poll (see info here). Statistically, there are likely a few other Beltway pols with a fondness for Sonic the Hedgehog or Lara Croft. It's not hard to imagine a near future in which traditional congressional softball and hockey games are supplemented with flag-capturing matches in Team Fortress 2. So what can we expect from the nascent Gaming Caucus?

Polis

A first clue comes from looking at gamers as a whole. We've had Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads; perhaps it's time to start talking about Gamer Dads. Polis himself became a father in 2011. Rather than abandoning his passion, he found gaming a useful way to pass the time when dealing with a newborn, and a fun iPad diversion for his now two-year-old son. No longer are video games a potential scourge corrupting the minds of American youth; they are an integral part of the play and development of toddlers.

Gamers consistently outpoll non-gamers in supporting the freedom to decide what to do with their bodies and their lives, without undue government intrusion. In the Reason-Rupe poll, a majority of frequent gamers said that less government is better (54 percent), that free markets solve economic problems better than government (53 percent), and that government is a burdensome impediment to people improving their lives (57 percent). While no more likely than non-gamers to describe themselves explicitly as libertarian, players believe in greater numbers that people should be allowed to smoke marijuana, gamble online, consume caffeinated energy drinks, buy home genetic testing kits, and manufacture their own 3D-printed guns.

That libertarian-leaning outlook maps pretty well onto Jared Polis' politics. As representative of one of the more liberal districts in Colorado (encompassing Boulder and some Denver suburbs), Polis does hold some traditionally Democratic positions, such as supporting the Affordable Care Act, emphasizing non-fossil fuels, and backing hate crime laws. But his departures from party orthodoxy are many.

Polis is a strong proponent of charter schools; so much so that he started two of them himself. He has been a consistent critic of President Barack Obama's record on surveillance and mass metadata collection, supporting attempts by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) to rein in the National Security Agency. He is unabashedly in favor of ending the war on drugs, backing the federal decriminalization of marijuana. He wants to block the feds from prohibiting firearm ownership due to marijuana possession offenses by citizens living in states that have legalized weed. He voted against the most recent farm bill, arguing that the subsidy-fueled legislation was anti-market.

Who Holds the Controller?

Unsurprisingly, Polis is at his most passionate when government policies stifle Internet freedom, such as when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late last year began intervening in the home consumer genetic testing services offered by businesses like 23andMe.

"I was outraged when they shut down 23andMe for no reason," says Polis, a 23andMe customer. "Obviously people have the right to know their own genetic code. There's no question about that. That was a ridiculous overreach." The congressman took to social media to tweet his opposition to the crackdown, and co-authored an objecting letter to the FDA with the libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), with whom Polis has been working to legalize industrial hemp research and cultivation.

More cheekily, Polis in March needled his fellow Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), after Manchin wrote an anxious letter urging Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen to ban the digital currency Bitcoin. Cleverly mimicking Manchin's hysterical language, Polis mockingly asked Yellen to consider banning the U.S. dollar. "Dollar bills have gained notoriety in relation to illegal transactions; suitcases full of dollars used for illegal transactions were recently featured in popular movies such as American Hustle and Dallas Buyers Club, as well as the gangster classic, Scarface, among others," he wrote. "Printed pieces of paper can fit in a person's pocket and can be given to another person without any government oversight. Dollar bills are not only a store of value but also a method for transferring that value. This also means that dollar bills allow for anonymous and irreversible transactions."

But the issue that really galvanized both Polis and a nascent bipartisan Internet freedom coalition—while also outing the congressman as a gamer—was the 2012 attempt by the entertainment industry and its advocates in Congress to curtail online behavior through the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA).

The bills, in a stated effort to fight online piracy, pitted Hollywood, the music industry, and even initially large game corporations such as Nintendo, Sony, and Electronic Arts against top online media platforms and service providers such as Facebook, America Online, and Reddit. SOPA would have given courts the power to demand that Internet service providers block access to websites accused of hosting pirated content, and to demand that search engines block these sites from search results. It also would have expanded criminal laws to make streaming pirated content punishable for up to five years in prison. Proponents claimed the legislation would prevent rogue websites from hosting pirated content, but critics warned that it would force ISPs to police content and block access to sites based on very loose piracy claims. Such a demand, opponents feared, would be impossible to fulfill, leading to shutdowns of sites and entire domains.

Copyright holders, with their decades' worth of lobbying muscle, initially had the upper hand against the more motley crew of Internet freedom advocates, in part because members of Congress didn't fully understand what they were voting on.

"Many of them, who mostly, obviously are not experts on tech, when there's an issue, like for instance, SOPA and PIPA, they rely too much on kind of what lobbyists tell them," Polis says. "And so until they have to get schooled on it by their electorate or others, what's going to be kind of the default is what the incumbent interests are telling them. … In that particular case they said, 'You're against piracy, aren't you? Then you support this! … Until they had the full 360 degrees of understanding they just thought, 'Oh, I'm against piracy. Therefore I support this…"

Polis turned to the gaming community to rally opposition to SOPA and PIPA. He posted on online forums hosted by Riot Games, a Santa Monica, California-based company that produces League of Legends (arguably the most popular PC game in the world right now, claiming 27 million users daily), to encourage players to contact their legislators and oppose the legislation. Revealing himself as an avid player of the competitive fantasy combat game, with a fondness for characters such as Maokai (a magical, animated tree) and Anivia (a giant frozen phoenix), Polis explained to players why SOPA was a problem.

"I'm particularly concerned that SOPA might stifle the kind of innovation that brings us games we love," he wrote. "The bill makes it far too easy for angry competitors to sue good law abiding companies out of existence. It threatens any company or website that depends on user-generated content, even companies like Riot. Instead of coming up with great ways to keep making games like [League of Legends] even better, companies will have to spend their money hiring lawyers. That's why companies like Riot, who want to protect the games they create, are opposed to SOPA."

Polis' secret life as a gamer was now public knowledge. "People knew I was a techie," he says. "And other members would come to me on tech issues. But I don't think I publicly talked about being a gamer before that."

Polis' call to arms, coupled with online protests and site blackouts by Internet heavy-hitters such as Reddit, Google, Mozilla, eBay, and Wikipedia, got results. "The level of interest was really unprecedented," he says. "I remember members of Congress were deluged with thousands of calls from constituents on what had previously been a very arcane issue." The big game companies also dropped their support of SOPA.

The House in 2012 ultimately postponed any con­sideration of SOPA and PIPA, but the coalition that arose to oppose them has its antennae up for efforts to revive those or similar policies. Advocates are particularly wary of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-country trading coalition of which the United States is a member. Details of its secretive negotiations released by WikiLeaks indicate a possible increase in restrictive rules on patents and copyrights. Opponents of SOPA and PIPA worry its policies could be resurrected quietly within a trade agreement outside the realm of public debate.

Don't Smoke and Play

Polis' identity as a gamer doesn't get him the kind of attention that, say, being a gay dad and C-SPAN fashion controversialist does, but his understanding and connection with the video game community, combined with his grasp of tech and intellectual property issues, put him in a unique position in any struggle for reform of copyright and patent regulations. Polis says he now occasionally encounters fellow gamers at town hall meetings who ask if he'll play with them ("absolutely," comes the answer).

But just because he plays online games and supports legalizing marijuana, don't expect Congressman Gamer to advocate mixing weed with group play. "I've had some of those folks on my teams while they're high, and they're not as good," he says. "Don't try to queue with people in League of Legends who are high on marijuana. It'll be to the detriment of your team."

As to whether Polis will turn again to his brothers and sisters in the gaming community to slay some legislative dragon in D.C., he said it will depend on what comes down the line, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. "For anything that will have a detrimental effect on the gaming community," says Polis, "I won't hesitate to call out on gamers."

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.

245 responses to “The Gamer Congressman

  1. Google “Jared Polis on the issues” and read about his record overall. I would characterize him as a nanny-state Democrat with an occasional libertarian bent. Also, after you watch his anti-fracking mini-documentary, check out this: http://coloradopeakpolitics.co…..use-again/

    1. It does not take much for a democrat to become “the most libertarian democrat”.

      Hell i think Franks held that title for a bit cuz of his online gambling position…and he is a total scum bag statist.

      Calling a democrat the most libertarian is like telling your kid that she is best painter under 18 in the house.

      1. Hell i think Franks held that title for a bit cuz of his online gambling position…and he is a total scum bag statist.

        That’s just not true. Franks was probably the most statist person in congress outside of Bernie Sanders.

        Also, the most libertarian Democrat is Ron Wyden. He’s anti-NSA, pro-pot legalization, and wrote an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal arguing that we should simplify the tax code and lower the statutory corporate tax rate.

  2. The to-be-sure clause:

    “As representative of one of the more liberal districts in Colorado (encompassing Boulder and some Denver suburbs), Polis does hold some traditionally Democratic positions, such as supporting the Affordable Care Act, emphasizing non-fossil fuels, and backing hate crime laws.”

    Yet it’s possible to work with him on issues where we agree.

    Now, assume someone from the other side of the aisle. An anti-libertarian who supports military spending, a larger federal welfare state than libertarians want, and “right wing fundamentalist” policies on cultural issues. Yet at the same time this person is a homeschooler, denounces the whole idea of government-run schools, advocates for educational freedom, wants to tackle entitlements by adopting benefit cuts, and wishes to restore work requirements for welfare and limit disability claims.

    Wouldn’t that be someone you could work with?

    Won’t you guess his name?

    1. You can work with anyone on any individual issue. Has that ever been in doubt?

      1. Refer back to robc’s 1st rule of libertarianism.

        1. Never get involved in a land war in Asia?

      2. One would certainly hope so!

        But in the example I gave – Rick (“Antichrist”) Santorum, one generally doesn’t hear of his freedom-friendly ideas. He’s not in Congress any longer, but he has a following. Imagine a joint press conference with some libertarians on entitlement/education reform.

        1. You might have a point if he actually beleived any of the things you wrote, but his past behavior indicates he’s a statist with a rightist bent.

          I don’t particularly believe he would do a thing about entitlements, and his platform on immigration is stupid.

          So you’re going to have to make the case that home-schooling matters enough to me to consider him, since I don’t buy your assertions on the other stuff.

          In short, he’s bad on all the stuff I care about, and I don’t really believe he’s going to do what he claims on the stuff we agree on.

          That, and the fact that he’s SO EPICALLY BAD on privacy matters, means that no, he’s not that guy we can work with on anything. He’s garbage and good riddance.

          1. You might have a point if he actually beleived any of the things you wrote, but his past behavior indicates he’s a statist with a rightist bent.

            Sure, but the same is true of Polis as well. Just because Polis agrees with libertarians on the things progs should generally agree with libertarians on, does not make him “libertarian leaning” anymore than Santorum is.

            1. Where did I say it did?

              You won’t see me worshiping at the altar of Polis. No idea where that came from.

              1. Where did I say it did?

                You didn’t. The article did. I was being topical, not replying to your specific views.

                1. okay your post was just in completely the wrong place and you quoted me, no worries

        2. He has no freedom friendly ideas. He’s another fascist neocon who’s real deities are Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.

          He voted for medicare part D and No Child Left Behind. He supports foreign aid. He wants America to have a global empire. He’s for foreign aid and tarriffs.

          A social conservative we can actually work with is Pat Buchanan. He has no power, but he should be invited to more libertarian events. His book on WW2 is one of the best on the subject.

          1. Pat’s book on WWII sucks. I would almost say it is the worst book written by a conservative on the subject, but Malkin’s ode to internment exists so perhaps mild Hitler apologia should take second place to it.

            1. I haven’t read it. But I don’t think it’s up for debate at this point that FDR maneuvered us into WWII against the will of the American people.

              1. Pat’s book is more about Churchill/UK and justifying the German view of WWI/WWII than the conduct of the US. It’s bad history and (perhaps a worse crime in Buchanan’s line of work) unconvincing apologia.

                I will say that FDR, and American policymakers more generally after the late 20s, were amicable towards the USSR and took a hard line against Japanese imperialism & immigration in a way which alienated this previous ally.

                1. “I will say that FDR, and American policymakers more generally after the late 20s, were amicable towards the USSR”

                  So much so that some simply got paid by the Bolshies.
                  FDR should be famous for his claim that ‘Stalin didn’t want to take over any countries’.

                2. I don’t think it’s all that bad to push back against the dominating view of Wilsonian idealism being blameless. A very large portion of the blame for WWII in Europe should fall on Wilson’s foolishness. Particularly tragic was his popularizing and legitimizing ethnic nationalism.

                  1. I completely agree, Virginian. There have been some good histories which do just that, and I for one have been persuaded that Europe before WWI, imperialism and all, was far better than what followed.

                    Unfortunately Buchanan is caught in the awkward position of being an ethnic nationalist himself, and so does not make the reasoned argument that the status quo ante was in many ways preferable than the emergence of a nationalist Europe post-WWI. In the same tome he celebrates Germany during WWI for liberating Poland and other Eastern states from the Russian Empire’s “prison of nations” (more than a bit distortionary, since these states were in the event of a victorious Germany to become client states ruled by a congerie of Hapsburg and Hohenzollern monarchs with privileges for German minorities and businesses), while criticizing the Western powers (UK in specific) for dismantling the Austrian and German empires along similar lines. (Indeed, the narrative is somewhat sympathetic to Wilson, making him into the hapless and well-meaning puppet of Anglo-Saxon perfidy rather than justly condemning his intrusions.)

                    Similarly schizophrenic, Nazi Germany’s revanchism is cited as a rationale for its pre-WWII aggressions, whilst French/Russian revanchism is condemned and blamed for WWI. It is a selective, rather than principled, critique of WWI-WWII wherein the UK gets a majority of the blame for a situation which was at least equal parts the result of German bellicosity.

                    1. I for one have been persuaded that Europe before WWI, imperialism and all, was far better than what followed.

                      Right. Paul Johnson’s Modern Times is what first brought this fact to my attention.

                      I do remember when Buchanan’s book first came out the metrocons at National Review were pissing themselves.

            2. The best book on the subject (and admittedly some tough slogging) is Hoover’s “Freedom Betrayed.”

              1. I might have to pick that up. While no fan of Hoover for his economic nonsense, I don’t think he was all that terrible in his foreign policy.

      3. I will not and cannot work with kitty Hitler!!!

        http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multi…..59295c.jpg

    2. Rick Santorum?

  3. “But his departures from party orthodoxy are many”

    The average American also departs from the Democrat party on many issues, is it now considered newsworthy for a Dem politician to resemble an average person?

    1. yes

    2. The average American also departs from the Republican Party on many issues, because most Americans don’t even vote.

      1. I don’t remember saying anything about Republicans, but ok

        1. Two party system, plus some here think one party is better than the other. Current-office-holder Derangement Syndrome.

          1. plus some here

            Oh, the classic “some” here, is that you Obama?

            Some say…

            1. I thought I was Gary Johnson.

              1. .

  4. Combining your favorite and least-favorite subjects in one story –

    An Episcopal (not Catholic) priest in Hawaii runs a bar and has published a book called The Beer Drinker’s Guide to God.

    http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr…..-guide-god

    1. Which raises the question: What happens when he walks into his own bar?

      1. Oh, come on, that was a good one.

        1. Yes it was funny, but more importantly, you said ‘raises’ the question instead of ‘begs’ and I love you for that and forgive you all the dumb things you’ve said before today.

    2. An Episcopal (not Catholic)

      Are there Catholic Episcopals?

      1. Kitty Hitler…grammar nazi…

        I’m seeing a trend here, Corning!

        1. You know who else liked to hang out with beer-drinkers?

      2. sort of –

        http://www.usordinariate.org/i…..age&page=7

      3. Diet Catholic- all the pomp and none of the guilt.

        1. +Henry VIII

  5. most libertarian-leaning Democrat

    Who wants to repeal the 1st Amendment.

    1. I think the new Captain America movie is an apology for the fascism that has seeped into the democrat party.

      First you now have all these kids saying “Hail Hydra” only somewhat ironically also you have Nick Fury using the same excuse for Hydra’s infiltration of SHEILD that Obama uses for NSA spying…namely “I did not know derpy derpderp.”

    2. How so? The article said he supported hate laws but they weren’t specific. There are hate speech laws, which do go against the First Amendment, and then there are general hate laws which, while redundant (because assault, murder, trespassing and vandalism are already illegal), impractical and cost-ineffective, do not concern the First Amendment. It is physically impossible to regulate people’s thoughts so I don’t believe that “thought crimes” exist because, again, it’s physically impossible.

      1. It is physically impossible to regulate people’s thoughts so I don’t believe that “thought crimes” exist because, again, it’s physically impossible.

        Doesn’t stop the statists from trying….the result is that innocent people get fined, imprisoned and killed.

        1. I prefer to focus my energy on concrete issues rather than political rhetoric.

          1. At least, you do when it serves you.

            1. Care to elaborate? You’re not the first here to accuse someone else of being selfish.

              1. .

          2. focus my energy

            ummm…

            Reading your comments so far. I am calling bullshit.

            1. So replacing the current tax code with the FairTax has no significance to you? What about reforming SS, Medicare, Medicaid and cutting military spending to help balance the budget?

              1. .

                1. fuck you tulpa|5.24.14 @ 12:14PM|#

                  .

                  Thank you…i knew something was fishy. Thought it might by Shrike or mary but it didn’t feel right.

                  Tulpa and his bullshit explains a lot.

                  1. I had no idea shreek or shriek or whatever was a FairTax supporter, and isn’t Tulpa a protectionist conservative who also can’t distinguish between general hate laws and hate speech laws?

                    1. .

              2. How many Democrats support the FairTax?

                http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..00025:@@@P

                How many favor reforming entitlements?

                True, some are OK with cutting defense, but that’s just to free up even more money for welfare programs.

                Yes, yes, Bush. I agree, but don’t kid yourself that there is any economic hope for liberty with Team Blue.

                1. Since when did hating both parties equal preferring one over the other? That’s what you’re doing. Thanks for proving my point.

                  I’ve never voted for a Democrat or Republican in my life but since you apparently think my vote belongs to team red you accuse me of being soft on the other one. I voted for a Constitution Party candidate once for fuck sakes.

                  1. .

      2. …”do not concern the First Amendment.”…
        I think they do, since the criminalize an expression of emotion rather than the act.

        1. expression of an emotion

          That is not speech. Hate laws that don’t concern speech are all about motives. Again I oppose hate laws, but alot of people put way too much damn energy into the subject, energy that would be better spent on economic issues. I swear the only taxes that some here have paid were at the counter otherwise they wouldn’t care so much about hate laws.

          1. That is not speech

            Where has that been ruled? What is the deciding case?

            Because the court cases I’m aware of indicate strongly in the other direction.

            1. The cases regarding Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo are still fresh on my mind and I don’t remember them being about speech. Now just about everything revolving around WBC regards speech.

              1. .

              2. The cases regarding Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo are still fresh on my mind and I don’t remember them being about speech.

                They weren’t about emotion not being speech either, so that’s two fails.

                You made a definitive claim you said “That is not speech” either you can point to a ruling that says that or you can’t.

                1. If I remember correctly they were about physical acts unless you count Fred Phelps picketing their funerals.

                  1. Due respect, I’m not interested in your remembrances, you made a claim that emotional expression wasn’t speech.

                    Support that with caselaw or admit you can’t. Please keep in mind, that I’m not interested in your opinion, or what you think are arguments for or against your opinion, that is wasting my time. Ive been very clear here, I am interested in caselaw.

                    If you have some that supports your position please post it, otherwise I’ll assume you don’t, that you cannot support your (incorrect) assertion that emotional expression is not speech, and our discussion will be over.

                    1. They were about physical acts unless you count Fred Phelps picketing their funerals.

                    2. So no caselaw, got it.

                    3. .

          2. .

          3. “That is not speech”

            Right, it’s uh, let’s see, what would you call ‘an expression’?
            Why, I think you’d call that “speech”!

            1. Again the cases regarding Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo had nothing to do with speech whereas just about everything regarding WBC does.

              1. And again, that does nothing to support your claim that emotional expression is not speech.

                I don’t know why you think you can offhandedly wave at two cases and then assert they prove your point, but they don’t and we’re not going to let you claim they do.

                1. They were about physical acts unless you count Fred Phelps picketing their funerals.

                  1. And AGAIN, due respect, I’m not interested in your remembrances, you made a claim that emotional expression wasn’t speech.

                    Support that with caselaw or admit you can’t. Please keep in mind, that I’m not interested in your opinion, or what you think are arguments for or against your opinion, that is wasting my time. Ive been very clear here, I am interested in caselaw.

                    If you have some that supports your position please post it, otherwise I’ll assume you don’t, that you cannot support your (incorrect) assertion that emotional expression is not speech, and our discussion will be over.

                    1. I didn’t say “remember” that time. They were about physical acts unless you count Fred Phelps picketing their funerals.

                    2. I didn’t say “remember” that time.

                      You were basing your post on your memory, no?

                      So, now that the bloom is off that rose, it’s obvious you’re ignorant of the law and have nothing to support your claim that emotional expression isn’t speech.

                    3. “If I remember correctly” is a figure of speech.

                      So, now that the bloom is off that rose, it’s obvious you’re ignorant of the incidents regarding Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo and have nothing to support your claim that they concerned speech.

                    4. OOOH SICK BURN!

                      Except you made the initial claim that emotional expression isn’t speech, and despite being asked, politely and otherwise, you have provided nothing to support your assertion.

                      You seem to, again, think that vaguely waving in the direction of cases and implying they matter has proven something, but when asked to actually post caselaw, you fail totally.

                      Your posts don’t prove your point, they demonstrate that you know you’re wrong.

                    5. Good luck trying pass off the motives of a physical hate crime as freedom of expression.

                    6. Good luck getting people to ignore that you were repeatedly asked for caselaw to support your claim that expression isn’t speech and repeatedly failed to provide it.

                      I don’t care about your tired attempts to dodge, and change the subject to something I don’t care about, you made a claim, and you have repeatedly failed to produce one iota of information to support it.

                      I think at this point it’s safe to say you know you were lying or wrong and won’t admit it.

                    7. You kept ignoring the fact that the Matthew Shepard and Gwen Araujo cases were pertained to physical hate crimes unless you count Fred Phelps picketing their funerals.

                      I’m sure you’re just yankin my chain so enough with you.

                    8. And you keep ignoring that none of that proves in any way your claim that expression isn’t speech, and that you keep failing to provide caselaw that supports you in any way.

                      Repeatedly waving at cases you don’t understand as though they demonstrate your point only continues to demonstrate your ignorance.

                    9. I’m sure you’re just yankin my chain so enough with you.

                      You made a claim you can’t support and are running because you’re a lying fucking coward.

                      Which is exactly what we all expected from you when you started with the stupid fucking dodging goalpost moving.

                      Run. It’s easier than admitting what we can all see, that you’re full of shit and you know it.

                    10. Pick up a damn dictionary. Speech and expression aren’t synonyms. They have some similarities but they aren’t the same.

                    11. Still can’t support your claim with any caselaw, got it.

                      I don’t need to pick up shit, cunt, YOU made the claim you currently are distancing yourself from.

                    12. I didn’t distance myself from anything. You’re just a random jackass on the internet playing word games.

                    13. Still no caselaw to support your claims, got it.

                      CentristClassicalLiberal|5.24.14 @ 2:47PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I’m sure you’re just yankin my chain so enough with you.

                      The things you say aren’t to be trusted. It’s interesting, however, that you think asking you for caselaw to support your claims makes me a “random jackass on the internet playing word games” it says a lot about you and your intellect.

                    14. Pick up a damn dictionary. Speech and expression aren’t synonyms. They have some similarities but they aren’t the same.

                      I didn’t realize the American legal system based its decisions on Webster’s.

                      I’ll tell you what. Find me a Supreme Court case in which the decision is based in whole or in part on the definitions provided by the Oxford English Dictionary. I’ll wait.

  6. Polis’ gaming doesn’t make him a more likable politician. Polis’ politics make him a less likable gamer.

    1. .

      1. That’s still not Tulpa, you blithering idiot. Google his name and you’ll see he’s not.

        fuck you, murican

  7. Wonderful! Great moments in Western Civilization. The advantage that all of us reading this article today will have for the future, is that all of us living now will be dead in the 21st Century. Which means that we will no longer be able to enjoy the benefits of the 21st Century such as gaming and so on.

  8. I am going to say it. This current college generation is the worst ever, and this world is doomed.

    I came across this Oberlin College site and read a couple of the posts about how tough these kids have it.

    It’s a blog for marginalized students.
    “If you see or hear racist, heterosexist/homophobic, anti-Semitic, classist, ableist, sexist/cissexist speech etc., please submit it to us so that we may demonstrate that these acts are not simply isolated incidents, but rather part of structural inequalities.

    http://obiemicroaggressions.tumblr.com/

    1. this world is doomed

      Oh please you’re just the other extreme, and you’re not the first person to say that.

      Help me fight for the abolishment of income/capital gains taxes and then we’ll discuss your foil headery.

      1. .

      2. WTF? Are you suggesting the latest wave of PC is a good thing? Oh, and for the record I *have* directly supported the FairTax, so do my credentials meet your threshold?

        1. Your belief in conspiracy theories distracts you and takes away energy that could and should be used for fighting for tax reform.

          1. Don’t tell me what to do fuckface.

            1. I didn’t tell you or him to do anything.

              1. Yeah, ya kinda did. You implied that my multitasking capabilities are as limited as yours apparently are.

                1. At worst I made a suggestion, but even that wasn’t my intention, and the ability to multitask relies on available resources. One still takes away from the other.

          2. Conspiracy theories? Did we forget our meds today? Remember, blues every other day and whites every day.

            The fact that you can’t see that those who most strongly oppose your supposed preference for tax reform are the exact same group that favors PC bullshit demonstrates your complete ignorance of the world around you.

            1. By your logic I should forget about marijuana legalization because liberals are more likely than conservatives to support that as well.

              You’re not on a conservative website. You’re on a website that’s conservative on economics and liberal on cultural issues.

      3. Oh please you’re just the other extreme, and you’re not the first person to say that.

        Help me fight for the abolishment of income/capital gains taxes and then we’ll discuss your foil headery.

        You want to know the biggest thing blocking free market economic reforms? People who believe what these college kids believe and advocate socialist or, in some cases, legitimately Communist economic reforms to fight ‘oppression.’

        These are not separate issues. They are clearly connected issues in which people are indoctrinated with a victimhood mentality and are then manipulated through their false victimhood to vote for authoritarian economic and political policies.

        1. racist, heterosexist/homophobic, anti-Semitic, classist, ableist, sexist/cissexist speech

          “classism” is the only one that pertain to economic issues. The others have nothing to do with economics thus they have nothing to do with communism, and no requiring a business to have a parking spot for disabled people is not socialist. Very few believers in capitalism would go that far as most of them aren’t even libertarians let alone purists.

          1. “classism” is the only one that pertain to economic issues. The others have nothing to do with economics thus they have nothing to do with communism, and no requiring a business to have a parking spot for disabled people is not socialist.

            What? When did I say it was?

            More importantly, saying ‘classism is the only one that pertains to economic issues’ shows that you’ve apparently missed the last 50 years of left-wing political thought, which has been based in its entirety on the puritanical idea that ‘the personal is political.’

            To them, there is nothing which does not pertain to economic issues or issues of ‘social justice’ which, over and over again we are shown, they claim can only be solved through hyper-socialist economic reforms.

            Let me ask you: What economic policies do you think someone who writes:

            “If you see or hear racist, heterosexist/homophobic, anti-Semitic, classist, ableist, sexist/cissexist speech etc., please submit it to us so that we may demonstrate that these acts are not simply isolated incidents, but rather part of structural inequalities.

            is likely to support? Are these people pro-capitalism in your estimation, or are you capable enough of rational thought to realize the type of policies they believe are necessary in order to eliminate racism and sexism from society?

            1. I’m in the upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart, you’re in the right quadrant. You attack one side. I attack both.

              Also, my sexual orientation has nothing to do with politics.

              Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson is a leftist on cultural issues but if you think he’s a leftist all around then you’re delusional.

              1. you’re none of those things, you’re just a tiresome sockpuppet

              2. I’m in the upper quadrant of the Nolan Chart, you’re in the right quadrant. You attack one side. I attack both.

                Yeah, I’ve never said anything bad about conservatives on this site. You’ll never see me criticize Breitbart.com, the Wall Street Journal, or anyone at National Review.

                Literally two days ago, I posted about some idiot op-ed in the Wall Street Journal making big government right-wing arguments about the VA. I also posted on one of the independents threads this week about what a piece of shit Victor Davis Hansen is and up above I said positive things about Ron Wyden. I also see attacks in this very thread on Santorum and Malkin, both of whom I also hate.

                You’re right though, I just love me some Republicans.

                Also, my sexual orientation has nothing to do with politics.

                That’s because you’re not a leftist, you moron. You’re tiresome and annoying, but you’re certainly not a prog.

                To the progs, identity is politics.

                I also notice you didn’t answer this question:

                Are these people pro-capitalism in your estimation, or are you capable enough of rational thought to realize the type of policies they believe are necessary in order to eliminate racism and sexism from society?

                Want to know the correlation between people using the term ‘ableism’ and people voting for socialist economic policies? That Venn Diagram is basically just a circle.

                1. Haven’t you learned that correlation is not causation?

                  Going by your logic I should oppose marijuana legalization because liberals are more likely to support it than conservatives.

                  You are a small-minded collectivist.

                  And I didn’t accuse you of defending Republicans, I accused you of being a socially conservative loon.

          2. .

  9. OT: Last video of UC Santa Barbara shooter before rampage.

    What a fucking douche bag. Note the quintessential progressive envy.

    1. Is he intentionally trying to act like a comic book villain or are comic book villains copied from life?

    2. OT: Last video of UC Santa Barbara shooter before rampage.

      UC Santa Barbara is a wonderful place. You’ve got middle aged professors beating up 16 year old anti-abortion protesters, you’ve got drive by shootings…truly, progressives are noble ubermensch who will usher us towards utopia.

      1. The shooter, Elliot Rodger is the son of a Hollywood director. He seemed to lead the good life.

  10. “I think the Internet community tends to be libertarian in general,” Polis says. “That doesn’t mean there’s not people across the [political] spectrum. But I think if there’s a bell curve of people, it shifts a little bit to the libertarian side in terms of those who are active in Internet-based communities.”

    This is nuts. Are there even 10 websites on the whole intertubes where a libertarian wouldn’t get shouted down or banned by lefty or righty statists?

    1. This is nuts. Are there even 10 websites on the whole intertubes where a libertarian wouldn’t get shouted down or banned by lefty or righty statists?

      I do think Republicans on the internet are more libertarian than Republicans generally. Libertarians get more of a fair shake at Hot Air, Ricochet, etc. than they do from national ‘moderate’ Republicans.

      That said, internet progressives are drastically farther to the left and more totalitarian than most Democrats in America. I have Democrat friends who are generally reasonable even though I disagree with them. I have never seen a left-wing website where the people there wouldn’t gladly see their opponents herded into camps.

      1. I have never seen a left-wing website where the people there wouldn’t gladly see their opponents herded into camps.

        The climate change left seems to want to do that to climate skeptics…

        Don’t know if they are exactly part of the “Internet left-wing”

        Our left-wing (tony, Shrike) are not violence prone. Joe was a bit face punchy.

        1. Go read Raw Story or Salon and then get back to me.

          1. I think i used the wrong quote.

            internet progressives are drastically farther to the left and more totalitarian than most Democrats in America.

            I was only saying that there are non-internet progressives (climate change) who are pretty damn totalitarian and there are Internet progressives (tony and Shrike) who are not so totalitarian…at least not the death camp sort of totalitarian.

            Not disagreeing that totalitarian progressives can be found easily on the Internet. They are easy to spot.

            1. Shrike, maybe. Tony? Tell me where his “mixed economy” ends short of exclusively genitalia and reproductive organs.

      2. The psychotic internet left is now making a renewed push for slavery reparations. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote about it a couple of days ago, and now Sadbeard Yglesias has followed suit.

        Never mind the fact that affirmative action and hiring quotas basically ARE reparations.

        1. Question: How much does a French immigrant who moved here in 2002 owe to a Nigerian immigrant who moved here in 1997? And when the French immigrant has children with the Nigerian immigrant, how much does the child’s white half owe to his black half?

          Also, I am 1/128th Native American. When my people finally get our reparations for the land the white man stole, do I only get 1/128th of what a full blooded Native American gets, or does the one drop rule entitle me to all of it?

          1. …”do I only get 1/128th of what a full blooded Native American gets, or does the one drop rule entitle me to all of it?”

            Psst!
            I can get you a teaching position!
            E. Warren.

          2. How much would Obama’s white half owe his black half?

        2. I am for slavery reparations if it means putting all federal land into private hands.

          Dependants of former slaves are as good of hands as any.

          1. Descendants

      3. Re: your second paragraph you’re absolutely right.
        Because of where I live, all of my friends are Democrats. But I never hear any of them talk about trigger warnings, microaggressions, white privilege, cisgenderphobia or whatever.
        They do all hate Republicans, but I can’t blame them.

        1. As a fan of Hardcore Pawn and Jerry Springer (I know they’re fake, that’s not why I watch them) who hates anything related to the NAACP (i’ll give Gary Johnson a pass) i’ve never heard of “cisgenderphobia”. Sounds like a case of typical internet contrarianism. Heterophobia technically exists but it’s either a phase experienced by gays who have had it hard or directed towards bisexuals.

          1. As a fan of Hardcore Pawn and Jerry Springer (I know they’re fake, that’s not why I watch them) who hates anything related to the NAACP (i’ll give Gary Johnson a pass) i’ve never heard of “cisgenderphobia”. Sounds like a case of typical internet contrarianism.

            Cisgenderphobia is very real in certain crazy ass transgendered people.

            You haven’t lived until you’ve seen a trans person rant which includes the words ‘die cis scum.’

            1. So a few trans people who had it hard go through a negative phase. Sounds alot like of the example of heterophobia I used.

              I’ve spent more time playing video games with trans people than you have reading about them. You’re the one lacking leverage here.

              1. I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I never said it’s ‘common’ or that most trans people act this way.

                I said there is a fringe of crazies who think and act that way and I’m not sure how you playing video games with transgendered people in anyway negates the provable fact that there are crazies who do not represent the average trans person.

                I also like the assumption that I don’t know any transgenders, which you’ve apparently based on no evidence whatsoever.

                1. You haven’t lived until you’ve seen a trans person rant

                  Be a little more clear next time.

                  1. .

                  2. You haven’t lived until you’ve seen a trans person rant

                    Which came right after this sentence:

                    Cisgenderphobia is very real in certain crazy ass transgendered people.

                    I was clearly talking about a group of crazies, not the general population. I was very clear. You just happen to have graduated from the American Socialist School for Internet Commenters Who Can’t Read Good and Say Stupid Shit Due to Not Reading No Good At All.

                    1. People rant about all sorts of things. They were in two separate paragraphs.

                      I’ve never been to a public school so don’t go there with me.

                    2. People rant about all sorts of things. They were in two separate paragraphs.

                      Bwahahahahaha. They were in two separate paragraphs? Apparently the instant you press ‘enter’ and form a paragraph brake, the previous thought has nothing to do with your current one.

                      I’ve never been to a public school so don’t go there with me.

                      Well, the public school I went to taught us that a train of thought is capable of leaping over the break between paragraphs. Whatever privileged academy you attended, you should really ask for your money back.

                    3. I never said that a train of thought couldn’t transcend paragraphs, but you said “listen to a trans person rant” as if they all rant a certain way.

                      I’m a graphic designer. A visual thinker. Not a linguist. I speak Unix better than any human language.

                      http://youtu.be/_n4J2cqrZ0M?t=4m30s

                    4. you’re not any of those things liar, you’re just another tiresome sockpuppet

                    5. Who am I a sockpuppet of? Will Wilkinson? Gary Johnson? What kind of thinker are you so I can tell you that you aren’t? Did you even click the link? It’s a movie about asperger’s syndrome. Speaking of which, watch Gary Johnson and early media appearances of Ron Paul. Obvious aspies are obvious.

                    6. “Obvious aspies are obvious.”

                      tell us more about yourself tiresome sockpuppet

                    7. .

        2. It depends to what extent they’ve been influenced by academia. I’ve had a couple of friends who were gender studies majors and one who majored in African American studies. I’ve heard the first three terms mentioned by all of them, although not the last.

          1. (not the last term)

            Maybe it’s a recent phenomenon

      4. I think that depends on the site. Some conservative sites are batshit insane. FreeRepublic, for instance.

          1. lol Cali has been here much much longer then Bo.

  11. the first out-and-proud gamer in Congress also happens to be its most libertarian-leaning Democrat.

    Nah, that’d be Ron Wyden, who is himself not even close to the most libertarian-leaning contemporary Dem pol. Polis is a prog — one more consistent than his peers, but a full-blooded prog nonetheless.

    Is Rep. Jared Polis the first in a wave of libertarian-leaning video game enthusiasts?

    If you have to ask…

    Close your eyes and think of a stereotypical gamer. Is he a bowtie-wearing gay father of one with a penchant for beekeeping who represents Colorado’s 2nd District in the House of Representatives? Probably not. But maybe he should be.

    /doesn’tknowhowstereotypeswork

    Gamers consistently outpoll non-gamers in supporting the freedom to decide what to do with their bodies and their lives, without undue government intrusion.

    Barely.

  12. An article about a dreaded member of the Democrat party. Better not let the Kochs see this one. I see the usual right-wing apologists are out an about. The commenter above thinks Leftists want to put “opponents” in camps. How far down the rabbit hole do you have to be in order to believe that. There are about 100 Democrats who don’t like the WonD, but 99% of the articles on Reason are about how great it is that Rand Paul is in the Senate. I wonder why that is.

    1. Dude, I’m at work. Please save your DRINK-worthy posts for the afternoon.

    2. In case you didn’t know the Koch brothers gave up on libertarianism years ago and Reason spends alot of time attacking Koch-backed candidates especially when there’s a big L libertarian running against them.

      1. .

    3. “The commenter above thinks Leftists want to put “opponents” in camps. How far down the rabbit hole do you have to be in order to believe that. (sic)”

      “The Gulag (Russian: ?????, tr. GULag, IPA: [???lak] ( listen)) was the government agency that administered the main Soviet forced labor camp systems during the Stalin era, from the 1930s until the 1950s.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulag

      Yep, pretty far fetched.

      1. No need to respond, I already get why right-wingers and Bush apologists are upset about an article about a Democrat. I was talking to libertarians, here.

        1. I am a libertarian.

          The democrat above said the Internet leans libertarian.

          I have come across some pretty fucking nasty left wingers (nasty specifically to libertarians) on these here internets and they do not seem to be a small minority.

          Sevo may be to the right of me (maybe to the left) but i am pretty sure you are not the go to guy for checking libertarian credentials.

          You are a concern troll being concerned.

          1. Over on the m/w thread, commie kid was hoping to explain why union thugs were all warm and fuzzy, but he was only gonna do that to those who he decided were libertarians.
            Combine stupidity with ego-mania, and you’ve got our guy!

            1. You are a liar in addition to being ideologically-blinkered, I see. I was asking why libertarians cared about labor union protesters. Go over to the thread and see for yourself…

              https://reason.com/24-7/2014/05…..p-early-mo

              1. To save you the time, here’s the copy and paste quote:
                ..”Want to explain to the 10% of people here that have some appreciation of libertarianism, as opposed to an appreciation of right-wing talking points, why they should care about labor unions.”

                Now, dipshit, let’s see the red-line spin you need to get out of that.

                1. apathy =/ support. Everyone knows the difference. See above comment. Specifically, the “you are a liar” part.

                  1. Appreciation =/ apathy either…

                  2. Hey, you might get something in the back-pedal competition.
                    Sorry, commie-kid; the quote is right there.

              2. I’m a libertarian cult member

                From that thread that YOU linked to.

                Hmm..

                Seems like your attempt to segregate out the evil republicans from the good libertarians just blew up in your face.

                You hate us all and all that bullshit about ‘real’ libertarians was nothing but concern trolling.

                1. Well, of course he hates you. Republicans are an opposition force, but not philosophically coherent enough to become the type of hate object that libertarians can be to socialists. We are quite nearly the polar opposite of the Jacobins in our political tendencies; of course “American socialist” would hate us for our fidelity to ideals about humanity and morality which are at once superior and contradictory to his own.

                  1. I also dread cult members who make absolute moral judgements about people they disagree with. I
                    ‘I’m sympathetic to libertarianism so I find it difficult to respond to arguments about how I hate libertarians. I don’t like right-wing bullshit masquerading as libertarianism –if that’s what you mean.

                    1. You’re a lying piece of shit who’s been called on every lie you’ve posted to date.

      2. Pretty sure political prisons in Cuba and North Korea could be described as camps.

        Not hard to find a westerner defending Cuba and North Korea on the Internet…just last weak i was in a public chat with some lunatic defending north Korea.

        1. Maybe you are conflating “opposition to going to war with” with “support”

          Do I doubt that somewhere, someone out there supports mr. Kim Jung? No. Does the person you were chatting with online make public policy or can they be considered prominent?

          1. “Do I doubt that somewhere, someone out there supports mr. Kim Jung?”

            Yeah, like the guy you claim is libertarian?
            “That unwanted history is of Chomsky himself casting aspersions on critics of the Khmer Rouge. During Pol Pot’s reign, Chomsky disputed the refugees themselves. Since Cambodia, he has expanded his game to North Korea and Bosnia.”
            http://www.frontpagemag.com/20…..-observer/
            I’d say ‘prominent’ fits here, too.

    4. and I thought the Koch brothers were behind the violent video game conspiracy, so going by your logic this guy is actually one of the Koch-backed politicians and Reason is Propagandizing for them.

      You suck at your own conspiracy theories.

      1. .

        1. So is that good or bad?

          1. .

    5. The commenter above thinks Leftists want to put “opponents” in camps. How far down the rabbit hole do you have to be in order to believe that.

      What I actually said:

      That said, internet progressives are drastically farther to the left and more totalitarian than most Democrats in America. I have Democrat friends who are generally reasonable even though I disagree with them. I have never seen a left-wing website where the people there wouldn’t gladly see their opponents herded into camps.

      I was explicitly contrasting the insane sociopaths who congregate at websites like Democratic Underground with the normal Democrats who, although I disagree with them, are just normal people.

      In other words, I was flatly saying that the average Democrat is not the sort of person who would want to see opponents in concentration camps. It also occurred in a post where I mentioned Democrats with whom I’m friendly and who I generally like.

      Your reading comprehension is really fucking bad.

      1. “sociopaths who congregate at websites like Democratic Underground with the normal Democrats who, although I disagree with them, are just normal people.”

        There aren’t right-wing sociopaths? Name one Democrat in office, or any prominent Leftist that has published any article in the last 10 years who has suggested doing anything like what you suggest. You’ve been watching too much “Homeland”

        1. There aren’t right-wing sociopaths?

          Wait, you’re not capable of discussing discrete items?

          1. Sure. I’m still waiting to hear about prominent Leftists that want to put right-wingers or libertarians in prison camps?

              1. Hmmm, hotair, frontage mag, breitbart. There’s a theme here…

                “Irish” below already posted this article or the one it was linked to. He must go to Michelle malkin for advice on libertarianism too. Hail Manzanar!

                I repeat: name one prominent Leftist that wants to put their opponents in jail. You right-wingers have been trying real hard.

                1. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 5:22PM|#
                  “Hmmm, hotair, frontage mag, breitbart. There’s a theme here…”

                  Deal with the *facts*, slimeball:
                  “His main complaint is his belief that certain nefarious, unidentified individuals have organized a “campaign funding misinformation.” Such a campaign, he argues, “ought to be considered criminally negligent.”
                  Torcello, who has a Ph.D. from the University at Buffalo, explains that there are times when criminal negligence and “science misinformation” must be linked. The threat of climate change, he says, is one of those times.”

                  Yes, he wants to throw people who disagree with him in jail.

            1. Sure.

              Then why bring up right wingers in a total non sequitur?

              I’m still waiting to hear

              No, you aren’t you posted this at 4:05 PM EST, well after Irish posted links to the exact thing you’re asking for.

              I don’t know why you think lying about something so obvious will serve you here.

              1. “well after Irish posted links to the exact thing you’re asking for.”

                Neither of those people advocated putting people in camps. Calling people who celebrate shutting down the government anarchists isn’t advocating imprisoning them. When did you Republicans become such fucking squishes?

                1. Neither of those people

                  There were more than 2 links.

                  As I said, I don’t know why you think lying helps you here.

                  In addition, you completely duck my other point.

                  Listen, you’re obviously a lying piece of shit, I’ve said everything I intend to that isn’t to point out you’re a liar and insult you.

                  I have no use for your kind, and the silly games you think you can get away.

          1. Overheated rhetoric about idiot right-wingers who want to shut down the government and people who want to prevent other people from voting does not mean putting them in camps. Any moron not in a right-wing cult can tell the difference.

            Maybe you need help… Start with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

            The first step is acknowledging you have a problem.

            1. “John Holdren, Obama’s [proposed] Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet”
              Direct quote:
              “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
              http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/

              But I guess we’d have to find the person who wouldn’t accept the abortion and got thrown in jail to suit your requirements?
              Or does it have to be translated into another language?
              Do you think anyone is fooled by your constant bullshit and outright lies?

              1. This story about John Holdren has long since been debunked. Is it still being hocked on Breitbart.com? I have an interest in right-wing epistemology so help a brother out.

                1. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:21PM|#
                  “This story about John Holdren has long since been debunked. Is it still being hocked on Breitbart.com? I have an interest in right-wing epistemology so help a brother out.”

                  Yeah, shitpile, ‘help a brother out’ with a cite for your claim.

                2. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:21PM|#
                  “This story about John Holdren has long since been debunked.”

                  Still waiting! Can we assume you are once again lying through your teeth?
                  Cite, shitpile.

            2. Overheated rhetoric about idiot right-wingers who want to shut down the government and people who want to prevent other people from voting does not mean putting them in camps. Any moron not in a right-wing cult can tell the difference.

              Anyone who thinks having the same voter ID laws as every other country on Earth equates to ‘preventing people from voting’ has no place to call someone else a cult member.

              Voting ID laws do prevent people from voting of course…they prevent people from voting twice or voting when they’re not citizens.

              Also, was McCarthyism just ‘overheated rhetoric?’ Because an awful lot of Harry Reid’s statements are virtually indistinguishable from McCarthy’s. Add to that the various conservatives who have been forced from their jobs by left-wing mobs, and you’ve also got a nice little left-wing blacklist going.

              Again: You scumbags would have erected a statue to Joe McCarthy by now if he’d gone after the ‘right sort of people’ instead of leftists.

              1. “various conservatives who have been forced from their jobs by left-wing mobs”

                You mean like Donald Sterling? Examples, please.

        2. “Any prominent Leftist”? Like, in Europe and other developing countries as well as the US? While it is trivial to find examples of such in the US, the case becomes absolutely staggering once you look abroad to see whether more classical liberals or socialists have suggested the inclusion of political and social crimes directed against their political and social opponents.

        3. Politicus USA: Koch Brothers should be sent to prison for 20 years.

          I could go on. What I especially love is this:

          Name one Democrat in office, or any prominent Leftist that has published any article in the last 10 years who has suggested doing anything like what you suggest.

          My exact point was that internet leftists are far crazier than the normal kind. Therefore, whether or not ‘prominent’ Democrats have done something, is of no relevance to my thesis about the insanity of internet leftists at Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Raw Story, or Salon. Although there are enormous numbers of actually high level Democrats and leftists who have argued the Koch Brothers should be jailed on spurious charges, that climate change deniers should be sent to prison, etc., so if you’d like I could provided you with dozens of citations to respected progressives advocating eugenics, imprisonment of dissidents, or genocide.

          Again: You can’t fucking read.

          1. These people are prominent?

            1. “These people are prominent?”

              Once again, I have trouble believing anyone is this stupid and disingenuous, so I’m writing you off as a troll playing a role for entertainment.

              1. I don’t have a problem believing American Socialist isn’t that intellectual. After all, those are the comments he made.

                I’m not going to try to assume to venal motive. It’s more fair to him to just assume he’s honest, but not very bright.

            2. Hey, the straws are off farther to the left! Try grasping a bit more.

              1. Why don’t you tell us what they are saying over at Breitbart.com?

                1. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 3:20PM|#
                  “Why don’t you tell us what they are saying over at Breitbart.com?”

                  Straws are getting harder to come by?
                  You get your ass handed to you, and the best you can do is insinuate that people read a site you don’t like?
                  Lame, even for lefty assholes.

                2. Why don’t you tell us what they are saying over at Breitbart.com?

                  I frequently do, particularly when Breitbart posts sickening articles about how we should put every Mosque in America under surveillance.

                  Even our resident warmonger Cytotoxic has posted frequently about how scummy the conservatives at Breitbart tend to be.

                  Take this article, for example, in which Breitbart commenters are pissed that a judge in England didn’t take away the home of a terrorist and sell it as a civil forfeiture. Note: The guy’s family was still living there and would have been thrown onto the street if they’d done this.

                  Absolutely disgusting and worthy of criticism. Am I allowed to say mean things about the wanna-be Commie murderers who comment at Raw Story now that I said something mean about Breitbart.com?

          2. Another prog bites the dust. Even after moving the goal posts, you destroyed it and sent it running.

        4. Obama likes throwing journalists in jail.

          I am sure Hilary had more then a little to do with putting the “Benghazi” youtuber in jail.

          That Obama 2016 director is going to jail.

        5. And if we don’t limit it to 10 years, why, we got some real winners!

          “John Holdren, Obama’s [proposed] Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet”
          Direct quote:
          “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
          http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/

          Yeah, those lefties are all about persuasion, aren’t they?

  13. You would think that a website from a magazine published since 1970 that spouts the efficiencies of the free market could get it’s commenting section together. Reason website master, you are no Dagny Taggart.

    1. Why, yep, compared to those government-run web sites, well…
      Oh, wait!

    2. “could get it’s commenting section together.”

      I’m guessing the implication behind that is preventing the non-PC posters from posting. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of Libertarianism. Of course, it’s a pretty common idea for Socialists.

      1. I’m guessing the implication behind that is preventing the non-PC posters from posting. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of Libertarianism. Of course, it’s a pretty common idea for Socialists.

        They own the site, so it wouldn’t be anti-libertarian for them to ban people who post things they don’t like. It’s their property after all.

        That said, I like comment sections that allow for actual argument and don’t ban people for making statements that are unpopular, provided that they aren’t just trolling.

        I guess that’s because I’m smart enough to see people making bad arguments and explain why they’re wrong, as opposed American Socialist who apparently can’t exist in a world of competing ideas.

        1. Whose competing or trolling? I’m glad there’s an article on Democratic libertarians. There’s a lot of them in Congress. I observed in the comments section that there were a lot of “libertarians” applying litmus tests that they don’t apply to Republicans and pointed out that their allegiances may lie elsewhere. Unfair?

          1. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 4:53PM|#
            …’I’m glad there’s an article on Democratic libertarians. There’s a lot of them in Congress.”
            Lie. There are zero.

            “I observed in the comments section that there were a lot of “libertarians” applying litmus tests that they don’t apply to Republicans and pointed out that their allegiances may lie elsewhere.”
            Lie. You’ve seen nothing of the sort

            “Unfair?”
            Concern trolling noted.
            Buzz off, commie-kid

          2. I observed in the comments section that there were a lot of “libertarians” applying litmus tests that they don’t apply to Republicans and pointed out that their allegiances may lie elsewhere. Unfair?

            I also observe a Catholic in this comment section complaining that Reason would never write an article about how ‘libertarian’ Rick Santorum is just because he happens to agree with us on like three issues.

            The reason people have a problem with claiming Polis is a libertarian is because he’s a left-wing statist who should be pilloried as such. If Reason wrote an article proclaiming that we should all applaud the two issues on which Lindsey Graham or Rick Santorum are libertarian, they’d get a similar backlash.

            Of course, Reason would never publish such an article because they have a tendency to act as if ‘cool’ young Democrats are libertarian but would never claim the same thing about old, fuddy-duddy Republicans.

            If anything, Reason’s biases tend to lean left and give leftists a benefit of the doubt they never apply to right-wingers. That’s why they tend to get a backlash. It’s not because the commenters are biased in favor of Republicans, it’s because Reason is biased in favor of Democrats and gets rightfully called on it by the people who comment here.

            1. Right, there are issues I expect any Democrat to agree with libertarians on. Then there are some issues I would be happy to find a Democrat who agreed with libertarians. Then there are some issues that I would be very surprised to find a Democrat agreeing with libertarians, and would be willing to call such a person a libertarian Democrat.

              Good on Polis for supporting pot decrim, but a libertarian would support legalization, not decrim. My opinion, although I am open to the argument that he’s going for the one bite at a time approach.

              Oh, and anyone who supports Obamacare isn’t any kind of libertarian anything.

            2. Reason’s biases tend to lean left and give leftists a benefit of the doubt they never apply to right-wingers.

              None Dare Call It Cosmotarian.

            3. Yeah, right… but any Republican who would put abortion doctors and their patients in jail is a ok with Reason “libertarians”. I got it.

              Maybe the reason the commenters on Reason write articles with some sympathy towards Leftists (a ridiculous assetion in my eyes) is they are tired of the silly, right-wing position paper comments in the commentariat.

              1. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:07PM|#
                “Yeah, right… but any Republican who would put abortion doctors and their patients in jail is a ok with Reason “libertarians”. I got it.”
                Lie, asshole.

                “Maybe the reason the commenters on Reason write articles with some sympathy towards Leftists (a ridiculous assetion in my eyes) is they are tired of the silly, right-wing position paper comments in the commentariat.”
                Opinion from lying asshole.

          3. I’m glad there’s an article on Democratic libertarians. There’s a lot of them in Congress.

            Bullshit. Name them and provide evidence.

            1. Evidence is racist.

            2. Bill Richardson immediately comes to mind. Jay Inslee, Patty Murray, Gavin Newsom. I loved Dennis Kucinich. Want to see their positions on marijuana legalization versus Reason-hero Rand Paul, who– as I mentioned– would criminalize abortion.

              1. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:14PM|#
                “Bill Richardson immediately comes to mind. Jay Inslee, Patty Murray, Gavin Newsom.”

                So, you’re the guy griping that the murderous lefties we’ve linked don’t meet your exact specifications, and then you list Gavin fucking Newsom as a democrat libertarian congress-critter?!
                What a fucking liar!

                1. I understand how he might not be up to snuff for right-wingers. Which prominent lefties have you linked to that advocate putting people in camps? I’ve yet to see one.

                  1. Which prominent lefties have you linked to that advocate putting people in camps?

                    FDR and all the Asian Americans he put in concentration camps. Course, he never said out loud that he would do that until he decided to go ahead and do that.

                  2. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:24PM|#
                    “I understand how he might not be up to snuff for right-wingers”
                    Asshole, he’s the guy who threatened to throw people in jail for not sorting their fucking GARBAGE, you idiot! And he’s not anywhere close to being in congress! What sort of swill are you drinking?

                    “Which prominent lefties have you linked to that advocate putting people in camps? I’ve yet to see one.”
                    Asshole, I’ve linked this at least twice:
                    “John Holdren, Obama’s [proposed] Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet”
                    Direct quote:
                    “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
                    http://www.zombietime.com/john_holdren/
                    Yeah, those lefties are all about persuasion, aren’t they?”

                    If you’re in the ‘hood, I’ll be happy to read it to you, since you seem incapable of reading it yourself, shitpile.

                    1. Here, you dolt, look:

                      “Mandatory Compost Sorting Law Takes Effect in San Francisco”
                      […]
                      “Passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in June, the ordinance is part of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s attempt to move city toward a 75 percent diversion rate in 2010 and a 100 percent rate in 2020.”
                      http://waste360.com/news/manda…..o-20091019

                      Yeah, real libertarian hero, there.

                    2. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:21PM|#
                      “This story about John Holdren has long since been debunked.”

                      Let’s see the cite, shitpile.

                    3. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:21PM|#
                      “This story about John Holdren has long since been debunked.”
                      I see the claim, I see no cite. C’mon, shitpile; let’s see it.

                    4. Nah… Why bother? Gavin Newsom is that guy that was marrying gay people in sf in 2004 while he was being pilloried by people who write for hot air and frontage mag. Did you miss your monthly subscription?

                    5. american socialist|5.25.14 @ 10:06AM|#
                      “Nah… Why bother? Gavin Newsom is that guy that was marrying gay people in sf in 2004 while he was being pilloried by people who write for hot air and frontage mag.”

                      THAT is the justification to claim that grease-head is a libertarian?!
                      Fail, jackass.

              2. Not one of those is libertarian. They may agree with libertarians on at least one issue, but that does not make them libertarian anymore than it makes Sean Hannity libertarian. Fail.

    3. Damn, bro. You totally kicked that strawman’s ass!

  14. Every single Republican in the House is better on the 1st Amendment than Polis.

  15. Yeah dude lets jsut roll with that. Wow.

    http://www.YourAnon.tk

  16. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.Fox81.com

  17. also happens to be its most libertarian-leaningleast statist Democrat.

    FTFY, Scott. Just because someone’s gay doesn’t mean he can’t be a worthless fuck of a politician.

  18. american socialist|5.24.14 @ 8:21PM|#
    “This story about John Holdren has long since been debunked.”

    I’ve asked four times, but those requests might be in the ozone.
    Here it is: Let’s see the cite that debunks the claim.

  19. its awesome,,, Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.Fox81.com

  20. f?nd th?s interesting

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.