CPAC

Social Conservative Worries That the GOP Is Getting More Libertarian, And Also That It's Getting Less Libertarian

A party pulled in multiple directions

|

Beneath the image macro, the beach.

In a post Thursday about CPAC—a yearly lollapalooza for young conservatives and their gurus, currently underway in the D.C. suburbs—my colleague Robby Soave reported that social conservatives have been fretting about the libertarians making inroads in their movement. To see an odd manifestation of that fear, read this passage from Frank Cannon of the American Principles Project:

CPAC recognizes the need to include and give a voice to the full spectrum of conservatives, because without such a continuing effort, there is real torquing of the conservative movement from a fusionist conservatism towards a more libertarian, immigration-restrictionist, and corporatist Republican party.

Not to spell out the obvious or anything, but to the extent that a party is getting more corporatist and immigration-restrictionist, it is not getting more libertarian. At best, this is a poorly worded description of a party being pulled in several directions at once. At worst, Cannon is confused about what the words he's using mean.

In other CPAC news: Former NSA chief Michael Hayden is apparently under the impression that he's a libertarian. Maybe the word can mean anything you want.

Advertisement

NEXT: CPAC's Foreign Policy Split: Old Hawks and Young Doves

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. Your face is a libertarian.

    1. You’re a towel!

      1. Wanna get high?

        1. I have no idea what’s goin’ on.

  2. At best, this is a poorly worded description of a party being pulled in several directions at once.

    That’s how I read it. He’s (poorly) describing a coalition at odds with itself.

    1. I once heard the difference between union and unity described as such,

      “Son, if you take two cats and tie their tales together with twine, then throw them over a clothesline, while you may have a union, you damn sure don’t have unity.”

    2. The only thing poor about the description is the accidental use of the word “and” instead of “or”. It was in an online page that, while it probably had more time & cause to be worked over than most blog posts, still doesn’t deserve this kind of criticism, Jesse W., or an excuse for that headline here (whichever editor put it in), which would be more deserving of, say, a book. Thanks for calling att’n to the piece, even if the snark about it here wasn’t called for.

  3. You keep using that quote. I do not think it is what you think it is.

    1. Yeah, I really hate the way these internet memes invariably contain stupid errors, whether it be in spelling, grammar, or simple accuracy.

      In this case it’s accuracy that’s the issue. Here’s the real quote, which any self-respecting Princess Bride should recognize.

  4. Maybe the word can mean anything you want.

    I mean, Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian.

    1. But he’s a leftist so the Jaquette is OK with it.

    2. I call Bill a turd farmer.

    3. I remember when Guliani tried to define it…..

      Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

      What is it about the lisping, mincing NY GOP crowd (Guliani, Peter King, etc.)…are they all closet “bottoms”?

      1. That douchebag oughta get hooked on a dictionary and read what the effing definition of freedom is.

    4. He may be the most famous “libertarian.” Probably why casual observers know lots of wrong things about libertarians. I’m not much for the purity test but I can’t figure out how Maher connects himself to libertarianism.

      1. Oh, I remember, it’s because he wants to legalize MJ. I guess that’s one thing.

          1. But I LOVE meat!

            Ban him!

      2. I’m not much for the purity test but I can’t figure out how Maher connects himself to libertarianism.

        Ummm, what about extreme social conservatives like Ron and Rand Paul?

        When’s the last time a Congresscritter tried to deny an entire group of citizens (homosexuals) any defense of their constitutional righrs? Well, any Congresscritter since the Klan.

        1. When’s the last time a Congresscritter tried to deny an entire group of citizens . . . any defense of their constitutional righrs?

          When was the last time Congress was in session? So, Friday?

          And stop calling them constitutional rights. Your rights don’t come from the constitution, the constitution only specifies the *duties and limits* of government.

          ‘Cause if you want to go the ‘constitutional rights’ path, then you’re gonna have to show where it says homosexuals have any rights at all.

          1. Both of those concepts are now quaint, silly little thoughts of the past.

            We live in America. Go fuck yourself.

          2. Hihn: “When’s the last time a Congresscritter tried to deny an entire group of citizens . . . any defense of their constitutional righrs?

            When was the last time Congress was in session? So, Friday?

            You are confused about my statement, so I placed “defense” in boldface.

            And stop calling them constitutional rights.

            (laughing)

            Your rights don’t come from the constitution, the constitution only specifies the *duties and limits* of government.

            You’re as full of shit as Ron Paul. I’ll dumb it down for you.

            1) The Constitution defines (enumerates) certain rights.
            2) The Constitution further defends “unenumerated rights” — in the 9th Amendment, the amendment that racists and other bigots have always ignored — by denying ALL levels of governemt any power to “deny or disparage” certain rights, what most consider to be the unalienable rights names in the Declaration.

            Again, when’s the last time a Congressman tried to deny anyone the right to defend the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Like Ron Paul did to homosexuals.

            Still confused? On Friday, who tried to deny anyone the right to challenge the constitutionality of a law? Howzat?

            ‘Cause if you want to go the ‘constitutional rights’ path, then you’re gonna have to show where it says homosexuals have any rights at all.

          3. ‘Cause if you want to go the ‘constitutional rights’ path, then you’re gonna have to show where it says homosexuals have any rights at all.

            Proving, once again, that you’re as full of shit as Ron Paul.

            Umm, why would the constitution NEED to say such a thing? Blondes are never mentioned either!

            Ahhh, NOW I get it. NEGROES are never mentioned either. Are you also a racist, or is your bigotry resaerved for homosexuals.

            Have somebody explain the 14th Amendment and get back to us.

          4. Every day. A group of citizens called citizens of the USA. That was a softball.

        2. I didn’t realize extreme socialism conservatism was legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, opposing nanny state smoking and food regs, oppsoing police abuse, and defending the 2nd amendment. Can please stop defining social conservativsm on entirely on 2 issues. Fucking Bloomberg is probably a social liberal according to dipshits like Hihn.

          1. Can please stop defining social conservativsm on entirely on 2 issues.

            Those are the two which will destroy his so-called candidacy — and the two whch most severely violate individual rights.

            Indeed, that’s how he and his dad are liberty hustlers. Because mnost Americans are still bipolar, left and right, it would never occur to them to even wonder what their positions are on abortion and equal rights. Hell, I could take down Rand myself, with op-eds to the right publications. You need to deal with reality.

            And they’re clearly anti-libertarian.
            Perhaps that’s why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians???

            1. “Those are the two which will destroy his so-called candidacy — and the two whch most severely violate individual rights.”

              Yes, not having a piece of paper from the government calling you married is clearly worst then being thrown in a cage for years for having a plant. This is coming from someone who supports gay marriage and abortion in the 1st trimester abortion.

              “Perhaps that’s why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians???”

              You still seriously believe this Bullshit.

  5. “Maybe the word can mean anything you want”

    SOMEONE ASK BO!! HE’ll KNOW!

    1. Eh, you’ve got too big a war-boner to know the difference GILMORE.

      1. Where’d you get that impression?

        1. Where’d you get that impression?

          https://reason.com/reasontv/201…..nt_5122480

          I don’t have reasonable here at work, but Bo explains it in that link.

          1. You “got that impression” from…Bo?

            cute

            1. (i see now what you mean)

              “there’s a difference between “let’s avoid wars” and “let’s never intervene”.”

              yes. Thanks. never mind everything else.

      2. FYI –

        pointing out that ‘non-intervention’ isn’t functional as actual ‘foreign policy’…

        (given that what constitutes ‘intervening’ for the purists includes everything in the foreign relations toolbox – diplomacy, alliances, trade relations, sanctions, security agreements, aid, etc – it is nothing except an absence of ‘policy’.

        Never mind that there have been pointed criticisms made of the Rothbardian fantasy-world FP approach which no ‘non-interventionist’ has seemed capable of addressing)

        ..or that people like Sheldon Richman are batshit-insane?

        …neither makes one an advocate of an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy (aka “warboner”)

        Its like a vegan accusing everyone else of being Bloodthirsty-Meatists

        1. Gilmore, you’re delightful. As you struggle to run away from your stances you embrace them at the same time. You can’t help yourself.

          1. “‘MEATIST!!! I TOLD YOU!!'”

        2. Don’t bother Gilmore. There’s a certain breed among libertarians who cannot distinguish between the notion that statecraft will necessarily exist in the most libertarian government and raging warboner imperialism.

          These people cannot be reasoned with.

          1. “statecraft will necessarily exist”

            yep, more or less my point in a nutshell.

            the bizarre thing is that the same people who will declare me apostate for merely acknowledging reality, will then turn and declare ‘some’ interventionist-policy ‘better’ than others… despite having previously taken the position that there *is no flexibility possible* in their ideological framework. You’re either on the side of Good and Right, or you’re an *interventionist* for merely acknowledging that ‘all foreign policy involves some degree of influence-wielding that is coercive’

            else, why is it a claim of ‘non-intervention’-as-policy…. rather than a preference for ‘least-intervening’ policy? (probably a fair description of what i’d prefer)

            The ideological ‘grey area’ always re-emerges for their rhetorical convenience.

  6. Libertarian. That word that is used to describe everything from total fascism to total anarchy.

    1. Its like “democracy” that way.

      1. The Swiss Army Knife of words….it gives you the ability to shoot heroin while boning a Zebra and establish re-edukation kamps for badthinkers!

        Truly a wonderful word!

    2. Libertarian. That word that is used to describe everything from total fascism to total anarchy.

      On what planet?

      Once upon a time it meant fiscally conservatives and socially liberal, which David Nolan knew was a majority of Americans, in 1969. Still is.

      1. Planet Satire Michael….Planet Satire.

      2. “Once upon a time it meant fiscally conservatives and socially liberal, which David Nolan knew was a majority of Americans, in 1969. Still is.”

        I never got this definition.

        How would a fiscal conservative pay for all of the things social liberals want, like free rubbers, education, health care, child care, family leave, internet access, food and transgender bathrooms?

        There’s nothing Libertarian about any kind of Liberal (in the modern sense).

        1. Ayn Random Variation|2.28.15 @ 5:55PM|#

          HIHN: “Once upon a time it meant fiscally conservatives and socially liberal, which David Nolan knew was a majority of Americans, in 1969. Still is.”

          I never got this definition.

          How’s this …

          How would a fiscal conservative pay for all of the things social liberals want, like free rubbers, education, health care, child care, family leave, internet access, food and transgender bathrooms?

          Those are fiscal issues.

          There’s nothing Libertarian about any kind of Liberal (in the modern sense).

          The actual intent os socially liberal has been illustrated in the World’s Smallest Political Quiz for 30 years or so. The very term was (I believe) first used by libertarians starting with David Nolan.

          http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

          To deal with partisan bigotry, where “conservative” can also suffer knee-jerk reactions on the left, Nolan libertarian, like Gary Johnson, have begun using the term fiscally responsible and socially tolerant — which is the same as the original intent.

      3. When you see Ronald Reagan, Lyndon LaRouche, and Noam Chomsky described as libertarians in the media, you know that there’s a problem with the definition. Better to go with the Big L option that spells it out.

        1. Reagan was far more libertarian than Ron and Rand Paul! Don’t be brainwashed so easily.

  7. CPAC recognizes the need to include and give a voice to the full spectrum of conservatives…

    Make no mistake. We are NOT conservatives, and we’re here for your party Frank. /libertarian

    1. If you think the founding documents were libertarian, I think libertarians would be under conservative.

      If you think we could go back to governmental levels of the past, that’s also conservative.

      1. Libertarians overlap with conservatives on certain issues. We overlap with liberals on certain issues. That doesn’t make us conservative or liberal.

        1. The only thing that makes us ally with the Republican party (and conservatives in general) is that small area where the Repubs/conservatives pay lip service to limited government and personal initiative/accountability.

          1. Yeah, but the libertarian establishemnt spends so much time sucking up to the GOP that libertarians are as ignorant on taxes and the econmomy as conservatives.

  8. If I dye my hair blue, stop shaving my chest, and get a bunch of jangly earrings, it would be appropriate to say that I’m getting bluer, hairier, and more metallic… despite the fact that no single part of me is changing in all three of those ways.

    to the extent that a party is getting more … immigration-restrictionist, it is not getting more libertarian.

    So Ron Paul is not libertarian?

    1. “If I dye my hair blue, stop shaving my chest, and get a bunch of jangly earrings”

      I thought you were going to add something like “I would then run for office as a Libertarian.”

      1. Nope, still too tame.

      2. To run as a Libertarian, you need to dye your skin blue.

        1. Like the guy in Montana (???) who went on the colloidal silver binge?

          1. We used to see a guy in the ER all the time who abused silver and developed argyria (blue skin) as a result. He looked like a bad alien from Star Trek TOS. He was also pretty crazy, not sure if the silver did that (or the crazy led to the OD on silver).

        2. I thought it was yellow, but that the yellowing of the skin was actually an unintentional byproduct of the jaundice that all libertarians naturally develop when they seek solace from the cold cruel world of state ubiquity at the bottom of a bottle…

          1. Have one of your orphans use their tears to clean your monocle…..that should help remove the yellow tinge!

            1. But the tinge is blue! It’s blue I tells ya!

    2. Oh, look. The lying shitbag Tulpa is here.

      Before anyone assumes he’ll argue in good faith, read this.

      1. Wow, that’s the first time I’d ever read that thread.

      2. It’s almost as good as the juicy ham tears thread.

    3. “So Ron Paul is not libertarian?”

      I don’t know, ask Bo he is the only one who can determine what a real Libertarian is.

      1. I would swear it says “R” next to his name.

        1. Did he say “libertarian” or “Libertarian”?

      2. I don’t know, ask Bo he is the only one who can determine what a real Libertarian is.

        It’s been defined as fiscally conservative and socialy liberal since 1969. And that also describes a majority of Americans.

  9. I’m going to give Cannon the benefit of the doubt: He’s talking about the *Republican* Party here, so he’s probably referring to the confusion and chaos of the party’s various positions.

    He could have been *much* clearer, of course.

    1. Yeah he’s talking about Reagan’s definition of conservatism being a mix of 3 different groups or ideas: libertarian economics, security, and religious groups. He’s not saying that libertarians represent the other two ideas. It’s really the opposite. The context is that hose views, even to the extent that they disagree are part of conservatism.

      People may disagree on that definition of conservatism, but it’s not what the author has made it out to be.

      1. I always heard that conservatism was an unlikely alloy of libertarianism mixed with traditionalism. I always thought that was pretty accurate.

        It’s always why I always thought it made more sense for libertarians to reach out to conservatives then leftists. A conservative is at least part libertarian, I can’t really say the same about a leftist.

        1. A conservative is at least part libertarian, I can’t really say the same about a leftist.

          The Liberals of 20 years ago were as much libertarian as Conservatives are today.

          Civil liberties…drugs, sex, free speech, anti-war…

          Conservatives are ever so slightly more libertarian than the left. Which is to say they are 55% libertarian and growing, whereas the left is 45% and shrinking.

          1. Frank, I think I’d set those percentages lower, but I can’t argue with the trend.

            1. I think I’d set those percentages lower, but I can’t argue with the trend.

              The correct numbers are 13% conservative and 12% liberal. That’s when Gallup phrased it to mean a strong,self-defining commitment, not just going along to get along.

          2. The Liberals of 20 years ago were as much libertarian as Conservatives are today.

            Civil liberties…drugs, sex, free speech, anti-war…

            More like 40-50 years ago. Liberals were largely full authoritarian progressives by the late 1980s. Opposition to the state went from a moral obligation to treasonous sedition one day in January of 1992.

            1. Opposition to the state went from a moral obligation to treasonous sedition one day in January of 1992.

              It had a renaissance of sorts in the 2000s, though.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0

              1. It had a renaissance of sorts in the 2000s, though

                One more pseudo-libertarian thug attacking free speech!
                At least it admits it’s “stupidity”

                Trust me on this, they have no idea how silly they are.

            2. January ’93, actually.

              1. So … you’re saying that liberals saw opposition to the state as a moral obligation … until Clinton took office? REALLY?

            3. Liberals were largely full authoritarian progressives by the late 1980s. Opposition to the state went from a moral obligation to treasonous sedition one day in January of 1992

              Ummm, if they were authoritarian progressives, how could they see opposition to the state as a moral obligation?

      2. Yeah he’s talking about Reagan’s definition of conservatism

        Reagan said, in a Reason interview, “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ”

        Probably why he and Goldwater were defending gays in the 1970s. Along with Buckley and Friedman, they were libertarians at that time. Defending gays, proposing BIG tax and spending cuts, and of course Reagan’s New Federalism.

  10. Enigmatic alt text. Is that the Marquis de Sade? Is he going to the beach?

      1. The word is “inconceivable”? Haven’t seen the movie in the clip, so looks like it’s an enigma wrapped in a riddle inside a movie I haven’t seen.

        1. Haven’t seen the movie in the clip

          How.. how is this possible?

          1. Some people have boycotted anything and everything with Rob Reiner’s name on it lest he use his proceeds to further intrude into others’ lives via the state.

            1. I didn’t know he did that.

        2. I think I saw most of that movie on TV once, but it’s not necessary. It’s self explanatory by the clip, whose larger meaning in the movie I don’t remember. How can you not be able to conceive of things you’ve already seen?

    1. Prepare to die.

      1. As you wish.

      2. Stop saying that!

        1. Anybody want a peanut?

  11. General Hayden once had enough power to disappear pretty much anyone on the planet.

    A career intelligence officer who has always worked for, and worked to expand and wield, the might of the state’s fist.

    No, sir, you are not a libertarian. Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

    1. General, I served with Murray Rothbard. I knew Murray Rothbard. Murray Rothbard was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Murray Rothbard.

  12. I prefer the simpler times, when I was defined as a Republican who smokes pot.

    1. Real libertarians are Republicans that smoke pot and have buttsex with Mexicans.

      1. Smoking pot and sodomizing Mexicans go together like a fist in glove.

        1. Is getting sodomized one of those jobs that Americans just won’t do?

          1. Judging by the cast of your average Max Hardcore movie….an emphatic “no”.

            1. No that Master has awarded control of the Net to the communications Gestapo the future for free porn could under serious threat.

      2. But our hearts are beating inside Republicans according to Ronald Reagan (PBUH).

    2. A Republican who smokes pot, aka a libertarian.

    3. Al Franken called me this to my face.

      my ex-girlfriend brought me to a show the guy was doing @ Joes Pub back before he was a senator… when he couldn’t remember the name of the afghan operation before it got ‘pc’-rewritten – from ‘Infinite Justice’ to ‘Enduring Freedom’ -, i helpfully reminded him. He asked if i knew that offhand because ‘i was a republican’. My girlfriend excitedly screamed “he’s a libertarian!” and he offered the ‘oh, a republican who smokes pot’.

      My retort was, “Maybe i’m a Democrat who actually passed economics class?”

      I got a slight “ooooh” from 3-4 people. No one else thought it was much of a burn. neither do i actually. fuck that guy. the tickets were free and i still want my money back.

      1. Lucky for Al there’s Minnesota, otherwise he’d still have to pay the audience to watch his show. You bet-cha, uffda!

      2. Well I think it’s a good one. Award yourself one gold star,

        1. Not bad at all, especially on the spot.

          Al was just recycling an old joke. You had to come up with a new one. You win on points.

      3. “a Democrat who actually passed economics class”

        From what I remember of his political wit of the little I read years ago, it’s much too fact-based and mature to not go way over his head. You would’ve had to throw in “poopy pants” or something similar for him to understand.

  13. Contrasting today’s Republican party against the party of just 30 years ago it’s considerable how little hold the social conservatives have today compared to just a few decades ago. Of course the same could be said of the democratic party. Still, it’s a little difficult to understand how anyone would be willing to lose everything just to hang onto some prudish and outdated views.

    1. “Contrasting today’s Republican party against the party of just 30 years ago it’s considerable how little hold the social conservatives have today compared to just a few decades ago”

      Of all the trends Nick ‘called’, he got this one pretty much spot on.

      where is it… there’s an article where he pointed out that the SoCon “watershed” moment had come…and it was going to be all downhill from there.

      Anyone? I seem to recall it being somewhere in Bush’s second term.

      It was shortly before he and Matt started flogging the ‘libertarian moment’. around 2008-2010. 🙂

      1. Still can’t find it, but this interview nick did w/ Bill Moyers seems to reference it.

        (I think he’d been on a real tear in 2007 on how the Religious Right already had their watershed moment and their influence was basically over and in permanent decline)

      2. Probably in his first term, before he lost influence and a Repub Congress.

    2. Contrasting today’s Republican party against the party of just 30 years ago it’s considerable how little hold the social conservatives have today compared to just a few decades ago.

      You could say the same thing about Libertarians.

      1. Murray Rothbard =

        l. Slash Taxes
        2. Slash Welfare.
        3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges.

        Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire “civil rights” structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.
        4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals
        Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
        5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants.
        6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters
        7. America First. Stop all foreign aid
        8. Defend Family Values
        …public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that “establishment of religion” means not allowing prayer in public schools

        ….every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position … on such vexed problems as drugs, pornography, prostitution, or abortion… pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is… to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to “community standards.”

        Huh.

        I was under the impression that this ‘Rothbardian’ libertarianism was supposed to be more ‘left-leaning

  14. I think it means ‘I like the butt sex and week’.

    1. You blew the layup.

  15. OT: Your Saturday nut-punch

    WASHINGTON PARISH, La. — One of the worst days of Douglas Dendinger’s life began with him handing an envelope to a police officer.

    In order to help out his family and earn a quick $50, Dendinger agreed to act as a process server, giving a brutality lawsuit filed by his nephew to Chad Cassard as the former Bogalusa police officer exited the Washington Parish Courthouse.

    The handoff went smoothly, but Dendinger said the reaction from Cassard, and a group of officers and attorneys clustered around him, turned his life upside down.

    “It was like sticking a stick in a bee’s nest.” Dendinger, 47, recalled. “They started cursing me. They threw the summons at me. Right at my face, but it fell short. Vulgarities. I just didn’t know what to think. I was a little shocked.”

    1. Not knowing what to make of the blow-up, a puzzled Dendinger drove home. That’s where things went from bad to worse.

      “Within about 20 minutes, there were these bright lights shining through my windows. It was like, ‘Oh my God.’ I mean I knew immediately, a police car.”

      “And that’s when the nightmare started,” he said. “I was arrested.”

      A ‘living hell’

      He was booked with simple battery, along with two felonies: obstruction of justice and intimidating a witness, both of which carry a maximum of 20 years in prison. Because of a prior felony cocaine conviction, Dendinger calculated that he could be hit with 80 years behind bars as a multiple offender.

      1. What the officers and attorneys did not know was that Dendinger had one critical piece of evidence on his side: grainy cell phone videos shot by his wife and nephew. Dendinger said he thought of recording the scene at the last minute as a way of showing he had completed the task of serving the summons.

        In the end, the two videos may have saved Dendinger from decades in prison. From what can be seen on the clips, Dendinger never touches Cassard, who calmly takes the envelope and walks back into the courthouse, handing Wall the envelope.

        I’m just shocked. No perjury charges against any of the officers. Sheriff says they did nothing wrong. He’s suing.

        1. No perjury charges against any of the officers

          You know there were two prosecutors that testified that the guy asssaulted the cop? Everybody talks bad about the cops because they’re troglodytes but the prosecutors are just as evil and the judges are all former prosecutors – yet somehow they actually get the respect cops think cops deserve. Which makes them worse than the cops in my book.

    2. On the subject of nut punching, what ever happened to Radley Balko?

      1. He writes for the Washington Post now. I got that link from him in fact.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/

      2. Killed by extended testicular trauma.

      3. I decided to use the Internet to do a search while it’s still legal. WaPo.

        1. I decided to use the Internet to do a search while it’s still legal.

          Now, now, it’s still perfectly legal under our Net Neutrality laws. All we need you to do is fill out this Consent To Search form, this 99-B form, acknowledge that you are not knowingly utilizing the Internet for criminal purposes HERE, sign the Gender/Race/Culture Equality agreement here, and by doing the above you agree to pay a $0.75-per-character-$2.00-minimum fee for searching.

          Thanks for using USAGoogle!

          1. Yeah, like they’d restrict to to “knowingly”.

        2. The internet will remain searchable. Sure, the FCC may force Google to retool its algorithm in such a way that it only pulls in .gov webpages, but this is the price we pay for civilization.

          1. No, it’ll be more like this: “Google search results are unequal, demonstrating discrimination by race and sexual orientation….”

  16. The Washington Post?? Nice nut punch, Balko. Well, that explains why you completely fell off the radar. How many subscribers they have over there these days? A dozen? Half a dozen?

    1. Eh. He was preaching to the choir here, and the HuffPo readers agreed with him but blamed everything he wrote about on Republicans. At WaPo his message at least has a chance to get out to a few more people on the fence.

      1. Ah, missed that part. Must have happened while I was back home for an extended stay without Internet access. When I left he was attacking police misconduct. When I returned he was gone.

        Well, thanks for the explanation.

        1. I was back home for an extended stay without Internet access.

          Dude, Rykers Island isn’t really your home, you know.

        2. When I returned he was gone.

          That sort of thing happens at HnR. Just ask [REDACTED]

          1. Don’t talk about [REDACTED]!

            1. This is why there are no [REDACTED].

              1. Things were a lot better around here when [REDACTED] was running things.

                1. I have heard no denial to the allegation that [REDACTED] fucks [REDACTED].

                  Just sayin’….

    2. The Washington Post?? Nice nut punch, Balko. Well, that explains why you completely fell off the radar. How many subscribers they have over there these days? A dozen? Half a dozen?

      Roughly 2000 times more than Reason, dumbfuck.

      And what does circulation have to do with truth, Sluggo? You’ve always been a disgrace to the real Jhn Galt, who was never a trashmouth bully like you. But your street mob will always defend you!

      1. The guy calling people dumbfucks is also calling them trashmouth bullies. Points for boldness, I guess.

        1. Points for boldness, I guess.

          (laughing)You’re obviously confused by the distinction we libertarians call “agression”

          Like I said, “your street mob will always defend you.”

          Thanks for proving my point!

          1. What? Where did I say anything about aggression? You are clearly unhinged.

            1. Jordan|2.28.15 @ 4:38PM|#
              What? Where did I say anything about aggression? You are clearly unhinged.

              (snicker) The ones I replied to were using aggression, so you are confused about your own statement … but it’s ME who’s unhinged!

              1. (snicker) The ones I replied to were using aggression, so you are confused about your own statement … but it’s ME who’s unhinged!

                And somewhere, deep inside Hihn’s dementia, that statement makes sense.

  17. Former NSA chief Michael Hayden is apparently under the impression that he’s a libertarian. Maybe the word can mean anything you want.

    It seems to mean anything that Reason wants — like embracing extreme social conservatives like Ron and Rand Paul, as “proof” of their delusional libertarian moment.

    Libertarians have been a majority for at least 30 years, but the label is rejected by 91% of libertarians in the 2006 Cato survey conducted by Cato.

    http://bitly.com/1AGaBU7

    Keep in mind, the major swing in approval for gay marriage is proof of a libertarian moment. But Ron Paul trying to block any challenges to DOMA — the worst bigotry since Reconstruction — ALSO proves a libertarian moment! And if the sun rises tomorrow ….

    But libertarians aren’t just as tribal as liberals and conservatives!

    1. “extreme social conservatives like Ron and Rand Paul”

      Just for fun, remind us (short please, bullet points?) what exactly their ‘extreme social conservative’ policies are?

      Do they want to roll back drug legalization?
      Do they oppose Same Sex Marriage?
      Do they actively want to impose restrictions on Abortion?
      Do they want Abstinence-Only Education in schools?

      please, share.

      1. please, share.

        Tribal libertarianism!

        Do they oppose Same Sex Marriage?
        Do they actively want to impose restrictions on Abortion?

        Yes to both, dumbfuck. Thanks for proving my point!

        Your tribal lyalty forbids you from knowing that Rand Paul brags about trying to ban all abortions at the federal level. And that Ron Paul tried to ban any constitutional challenges to DOMA. Can you tell us anything more bigoted since Reconstruction.

        Anything else you’ve been totally brainwashed on? How about a libertarian moment, when Cato reports the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians!

        Is it tribal loyalty to deny libertarian tribalism?

        1. *Whines about tribalism*

          *Engages in repeated extreme hyperbole for the sake of his pet issues*

          Michael Hihn, the man who fundamentally lacks self awareness.

          1. Michael Hihn, the man who fundamentally lacks self awareness.

            (laughing) Is that your Tribal denial of these facts:

            “Your tribal loyalty forbids you from knowing that Rand Paul brags about trying to ban all abortions at the federal level. And that Ron Paul tried to ban any constitutional challenges to DOMA. Can you tell us anything more bigoted since Reconstruction?”

            Your puppetmaters will be SO proud!

            1. And now Hihn quotes himself like that’s some sort of validation/citation of his delusions. While also expressing paranoid fantasies about ‘puppetmasters’.

              Are you familiar with the concept of dementia Mr. Hihn?

        2. when Cato reports the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians!

          My God, you trot this shit out every stinkin’ time like it’s some sort of QED thread winner.

          1. HIHN: “when Cato reports the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians!”

            My God, you trot this shit out every stinkin’ time like it’s some sort of QED thread winner.

            (lol) I “trot it out” whenever I see libertarans being brainwashed. So you blame ME because the brainwashing is so frequent.

            1. I’m trying to be polite here, Hihn, but you really are an insufferable prick. Your Paranoid Personality Disorder does not wear well on you.

              1. I don’t think it’s a paranoid personality disorder, if he’s the ‘real Mike Hihn’ I’m pretty sure this is just legit dementia.

                1. (laughing) The Tribal Puppets cannot conceal their hatred for the proof of their gullibility … that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.

                  So they shout down the truth, like the thugs and bullies they have likely been all their lives.

                  90% of people who read online forums and comments NEVER post anything. So you help me show the 90% that you assholes are not typical of libertarianism.

                  1. “… that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians.”

                    Assuming that’s true, has it ever occurred to you that they reject the libertarian label because of purity obsessed lunatic assholes like you?

                  2. Please note, children, Hihn’s constant paranoia when challenged on his delusions. How he immediately attempts to construct some non-interactive, invisible audience that fulfills his needs when challenged by actual human beings. Note his persecutory attitude, where his opponents are ‘thugs and bullies’ for rejecting his irrational position. These are all signs of a delusional disorder or early onset dementia. Remember, if you start acting like Hihn, consult your doctor immediately.

                    1. Remember, if you start acting like Hihn, consult your doctor immediately.

                      The good news is, at least for him, is he doesn’t realize he’s babbling. The old guy feels like he’s still doing important work, rooting out all the libertarian posers at Reason.

                      Bless his heart.

                    2. ” rooting out all the libertarian posers “

                      Who is supposed to be left afterward?

                      Bo and Hihn? That’s a party.

                    3. Please note, children,

                      I’m LOVING the irony of your non-stop ad hominem attacks — totally devoid of substance — because I called out your bullshit here:

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5122893

                      And you continue proving the same trashmouth I’ve already called out!

                      Michael Hihn, the man who fundamentally lacks self awareness …
                      paranoid fantasies …Are you familiar with the concept of dementia Mr. Hihn? … I don’t think it’s a paranoid personality disorder, if he’s the ‘real Mike Hihn’ I’m pretty sure this is just legit dementia. ….ihn’s constant paranoia when challenged on his delusions. … Note his persecutory attitude, where his opponents are ‘thugs and bullies’ for rejecting his irrational position …These are all signs of a delusional disorder or early onset dementia. Remember, if you start acting like Hihn, consult your doctor immediately.”

                      But you’re NOT a thug and a bully!
                      (snicker)

                    4. “proving the same trashmouth”

                      [waves cane at sky]

                    5. Shorter Hihn: Wah, you’re a bully because you point out my clear symptomatic behaviour and psychological imbalances! Meanwhile, I’m going to call everyone who disagrees with me a dumbfuck!

                    6. Dumbfuck! (snicker)

                    7. I’m going to call everyone who disagrees with me a dumbfuck!

                      Only in self-defense, dumbfuck.

                    8. Consult your pistol immediately.

                    9. Consult your pistol immediately.

                      Typical of you thugs and bullies.
                      Thanks for showing us the proof.

              2. Your Paranoid Personality Disorder does not wear well on you.

                In the world of dumbfuck libertarians, it’s “paranoid” to accurately cite the results of a survey conducted by the Cato Institute. (gasp)

                That the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians. Might it be trashmouths like C.Anacreon who have created this fear among 91% of all libertarians?

              3. Sure seems like it…

        3. If you believe abortion is murder, banning it is fully within libertarian thinking.

          1. If you believe abortion is murder, banning it is fully within libertarian thinking.

            If you believe mass genocide is acceptable, then Hitler’s treatment of the Jews is fully within libertarian thinking.

            And if you believe abortion is murder then you deny the entire founding principle of equal and unalienable rights … which maans the woman’s unalienable right to liberty is precisely equal to the fetal child’s unalienable right to life. Check a dictionary,

            But thanks for showing how badly Ron and Rand Paul have perverted libertarianism, individual rights and the constitution.

            Here, the fallacy you’ve swallowed is that ANY rights are absolute. As we learned in high school, no rights can be absolute when they conflict with other absolute rights.

            IOW, the right to life is absolute. But so is the right to liberty. It’s also called Natural Law, which libertarians have revered for centuries.

            1. And in another example of Hihn’s stunning lack of self-awareness, he accuses others of an ‘absolute rights’ fallacy while arguing in favour of that exact fallacy. And also bringing up the Nazis for no reason whatsoever.

              1. And in another example of Hihn’s stunning lack of self-awareness, he accuses others of an ‘absolute rights’ fallacy

                I call out Titor again for lying about what I said

                And also bringing up the Nazis for no reason whatsoever.

                For any other mentally deficient, I exposed the logical fallacy in the statement that if one considers abortion to be murder then opposing abortion is in line with libertarian thinking.

                In my challenge … If one believes that mass genocide is acceptable then there was nothing wrong with Hitler’s treatment of the Jews.

                Anyone else confused on what a premise is, and how it’s used?

                1. And again Hihn provides that the only ‘mentally deficient’ person here is him.

                  Your moronic argument about massacring Jews is morally wrong because of aggression. ‘Your challenge’ is pure idiocy in the context of libertarian ethics. If one views abortion as murder, it also constitutes aggression. Whether you like it or not Hihn, being anti-abortion due to viewing it as a aggression is a perfectly valid libertarian position, not a logical fallacy.

                  You are so profoundly stupid that you think your logical fallacy actually proves that a coherent argument in regards to libertarian morality is a fallacy. In short, you’re a fool.

                  1. If one views abortion as murder, it also constitutes aggression.

                    Granted, that means there is a logical contradiction between planks 1.5 and 1.6 of the national LP’s platform. I recognize, of course, that such contradiction is merely reflective of throwing-one’s-hands-up as party conventions tend to be filled with screeching lunatics like Hihn who derail any attempt at rational discussion on the subject.

                    1. Indeed. When your argument against anti-abortion being a libertarian position comes down to ‘yeah well moral relativism because NAZIS!’ you can’t expect coherence.

                    2. John, The only place Hihn’s arguments are intelligible are inside his head. He couldn’t make a point with a pencil sharpener.

                      I think what the idiot is trying to say, without saying it, is that the libertarian position on abortion is that there is no libertarian position on abortion because both the mother and the fetus have equal inalienable rights.

                      He’s just too fucking stupid or lacking in self awareness to realize he’s not being clear enough for any rational person to understand his point.

                      I’m sure all the pieces fit together somehow in his slipping brain, but there isn’t enough gray matter left to be able to present his argument as to be intelligible to another person.

                      Sad, really.

                    3. Francisco d’Anconia|2.28.15 @ 6:24PM|#
                      I think what the idiot is trying to say, without saying it,

                      I’ve been “saying it” repeatedly … even boldface for liars like you.

                      is that the libertarian position on abortion is that there is no libertarian position on abortion because both the mother and the fetus have equal inalienable rights.

                      We’ve all just seen Francisco deny the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights! On what authority? None

                      The facts were learned in high school/

                      For any other retards, abortion is an issue of competing rights — commonly expressed as your right to swing you fist ends at the edge of my nose. Anyone else never heard of that concept? (lol)

                      Where rights are in conflict — ONLY the Court is empowered to draw the boundaries bertween the two — and they are obliged to do so in a way that best represents the rights of BOTH parties.

                      Statists and thugs instead demand the power to DENY equal rights to EITHER of those parties. Extreme pro-lifers deny the woman’s right to liberty, and extreme pro-choicers deny the fetal child’s right to life. They BOTH seek to impose their own anti-rights through state power. Period.

                      And as we see here, if I demand justification for their rejection of individual rights, they lie, insult and throw hissy fits.

                      But those of us with a brain see so-called libertarians refusing to discuss individual liberty.

                    4. I rest my case.

                      Hey Michael, serious question:

                      Have you recently suffered a stroke?

                      You do realize that well over half your arguments are unintelligible, right? You might try first, making a point, and then presenting arguments in favor of that point. People can’t read your mind.

                      People argue with you even when they agree with you, simply because you do such a horrendous job of presenting your argument. It’s not because they are stupid, it’s because you have absolutely no ability to put your argument into an intelligible format.

                      It might make sense to you, but everyone else here is scratching their head attempting to understand your point and at times, completely misinterpreting it.

                      This is why I ask whether you’ve suffered a stroke.

                    5. Your condition may also have affected your ability to understand the written word:

                      We’ve all just seen Francisco deny the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights! On what authority? None

                      I did no such thing. I was simply attempting to to do what you apparently could not, which is to explain your position in english as to be comprehended by humans. I denied, nothing. In fact I took no position whatsoever.

                      Hang in their buddy. I’m sure with some rehabilitation you’ll get at least some of your cognitive function back.

                    6. such contradiction is merely reflective of throwing-one’s-hands-up as party conventions tend to be filled with screeching lunatics like Hihn who derail any attempt at rational discussion on the subject.

                      Umm, how is it “rational” for you to deny the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights?

                    7. John Titor|2.28.15 @ 6:04PM|#
                      Indeed. When your argument against anti-abortion being a libertarian position…

                      Fifth request: On what authority do you deny the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights?

                  2. And again Hihn provides that the only ‘mentally deficient’ person here is him.

                    Ummm, you still lied about ‘absolute rights’

                  3. Whether you like it or not Hihn, being anti-abortion due to viewing it as a aggression is a perfectly valid libertarian position, not a logical fallacy.

                    One more time for the mentally challenged — the logical fallacy is to deny the woman’s equal and unalienable rights … on what authority do you do so?

                    Here it is again:

                    Here, the fallacy you’ve swallowed is that ANY rights are absolute.

                    As we learned in high school, no rights can be absolute when they conflict with other absolute rights.

                    IOW, the right to life is absolute. But so is the right to liberty. It’s also called Natural Law, which libertarians have revered for centuries.

                    The dumbass also lied about me defending “absolute rights” here:
                    https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5122921

                    One more time:
                    On what basis do you reject the concept of equal and unalienable rights?

                    Will he answer, or just continue shouting down the truth (as all social conservatives do)?

                    1. Shorter Hihn: I don’t understand what a logical fallacy is or what equal and unalienable rights are. I’m just going to throw a multi-comment hissy fit accusing my opponents of throwing them (projection, it’s the only way Hihn survives). Oh, and after crying about ad hominems above I’m going to constantly engage in them.

                      And again, learn to write in a competent fashion. Randomly CAPITALIZING words you think are IMPORTANT is not an ARGUMENT.

                      Thanks for playing Hihn, come back some day when you’ve been medicated.

        4. Rand Paul on the issues =

          “Senator Rand Paul opposes a national law banning same-sex marriage and federal penalties for drug offenders, and said there could be “thousands of exceptions” to any abortion ban. For many of the evangelical Christians and abortion-rights opponents …those positions are unacceptable.”

          Further

          “…Axelrod asked Paul whether he would try to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban abortion outright if he were president. Paul =

          “I think where the country is, is somewhere in the middle, and we are not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise,” Paul said.

          Conservatives were not pleased with his answer.

          …Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, wrote on Thursday. “Obviously, no president has the power to unilaterally ban abortion, but he does have the power to make the issue a priority — something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do.””

          Rand Paul is so SoCon, he’s roundly rejected by contemporary SoCons.

          i fail to see what the point is re: Ron Paul. he was supported by ~half the people here when he ran for office. I don’t recall his ‘controversial’ social positions at the time.

          1. “Obviously, no president has the power to unilaterally ban abortion, but he does have the power to make the issue a priority — something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do.”

            What crevice did he pull this out of? Seriously – these people are not even worth listening to.

            1. I really do need to find that article from way back that Nick wrote re: “the Decline and Fall of the Religious Right”

              They are still convinced (*sort of) that that can dictate ‘conservative’ policy positions, and that they represent the ‘core, mainstream’ of the US.

              Its unfortunate that the recent CPAC commentary didn’t really take note of this (AFAIK?) – it was more obvious back in 2008-2012 that the ‘religious right’ and SoCons were being shoved aside and being told to shut up and pound sand.

              I mean, it wasn’t *obvious*, but its definitely happened. I dont think anyone in the ‘beltway conservative world’ will admit it, because they want to keep everyone’s money flowing… but the fact is, the bible beaters aren’t really the cool-kids in DC anymore, and haven’t been for a while.

              People like Ralph Reed used to think of themselves as political kingmakers. Now they can’t get so much as fucking consulting fees. No one really gives a shit about the ‘religious right’ vote anymore because on issues like ‘gay marriage’ or ‘abortion’, most people are actually pretty moderate. But the SoCon lobbyists refuse to accept it.

            2. Rhywun — another one exposed.

              … does have the power to make a priority — something most Americans assumed Rand Paul would do.

              What crevice did he pull this out of? Seriously – these people are not even worth listening to.

              Umm, Rand’s own Senate webpage, so you’ve been totally brainwashed!!!

              http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3

              The page title is “Sanctity of Life” which is your first clue.

              I am 100% pro-life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being. It is the duty of our government to protect this life as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. For this reason, I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception.

              That’s a federal bill, sport.

              1. You think his legislative efforts on abortion have any bearing on what he would do as president? That’s cute.

                Here’s a hint: if Rand Paul goes on the campaign trail and says “I will make ending abortion a priority”, he will not last longer than it takes to buy his plane ticket into Iowa.

                And that is why he won’t do it.

                1. You think his legislative efforts on abortion have any bearing on what he would do as president? That’s cute.

                  That’s not what I said … while making a fool of you.

                  Here’s a hint: if Rand Paul goes on the campaign trail and says “I will make ending abortion a priority”, he will not last longer than it takes to buy his plane ticket into Iowa.
                  And that is why he won’t do it.

                  (lol) YOU AGREE WITH ME!!! That’s indeed why he has two different stories — one for his own voters in Kentucky, another for the suckers like you (and Reason). He did indeed con you, as we’ve all seen.

                  1. My goodness, you’re tiresome. I have better things to do. LIke gouge my eyes out.

                    1. Hey, you’re the one who made a fool of yourself .. and got called out for lying.

          2. Gilmore again! I cite Rand’s own words. He cites hearsay!

            .. and said there could be “thousands of exceptions” to any abortion ban. “

            SUCKER. He sponsored a bill to ban all abortions at conception!

            http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=3
            I introduced S. 583, the Life at Conception Act on March 14, 2013. This bill would extend the Constitutional protection of life to the unborn from the time of conception.

            How many times must I keep documenting the same facts to you?
            Gilmore also posted this outrageous lie re abortion.

            “… Paul =”I think where the country is, is somewhere in the middle, and we are not changing any of the laws until the country is persuaded otherwise,” Paul said.

            But (laughing), on his Senate site, to his own voters, he says the opposite

            “I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment. As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them.

            Senator is a federal legislator!
            But don’t let the facts interfere with your Tribal Loyalty. You people are as gullible as Oabma’s supporters!

            1. !! !!! !!!

              great.

              Again = what’s your point?

              1. Again = what’s your point?

                That you’re full of shit about Rand Paul … as I documented in his own words.

                Hey, you brought it up. And you posted the lies, all on your own.

                1. “you’re full of shit about Rand Paul”

                  Really? we both copied different quotes from *his* website. You also call comments/quotes he himself made “lies”.

                  which is all besides the point = so what?

                  You don’t like Rand Paul. Fine. Do you think someone else is *better*?

                  What’s your objective with all the name calling and juvenile ‘snickering’?

                  Do you have any broader point beyond simply being a perpetually-contrary bore? If you think ‘libertarians’ are particularly ‘tribal’ – what exactly is the superior, cosmopolitan worldview that we’re missing, exactly? You seem to have left that part out in all of your petty sniping.

                  1. we both copied different quotes from *his* website. You also call comments/quotes he himself made “lies”.

                    Liar. Pathetic liar. (lol)

                  2. If you think ‘libertarians’ are particularly ‘tribal’ –

                    Shame on you. I never even implied such a thing. What I’ve said, and I’ll be more explicit for your pathetic brain, is that SOME libertarians can suffer from blind tribalism just like SOME liberals and conservatives.

                    It’s nothing about ideology, it’s about being blind followers of … anything. Like this:

                    You seem to have left that part out in all of your petty sniping.

                    So … to you … it’s petty sniping to defend both the truth and thinking for one’s self. You kept coming, thus making an ever-increasing fool of yourself. Now you want to “shoot the messenger.” Typical of statists.

                    Do you have any broader point beyond simply being a perpetually-contrary bore?

                    Every time you insult me, I’ll jam it down your throat … with facts. I’ve been handling statists like that for 50 years.

                    1. So, no = you don’t have a point?

                    2. So, no = you don’t have a point?

                      (snicker) I had seveeral. I called you out as a liar. And I ridiculed you for calling it “petty sniping” when I defend both the truth and thinking for one’s self. And you even try to “shoot the messenger”

                  3. He used to like Rand and Ron Paul, until he didn’t.

                    Note on this FB page he used to list them both as Favorites (look in the block marked “other”).

                    1. So, he’s a sad lonely old man who comes here on weekends to fight with people so he can feel ‘relevant’

                      makes sense.

                      i’m not sure how his “calling everyone dumbfuck” campaign is supposed to rally voters to Gary “i already lost once” Johnson, or something.

                    2. He used to like Rand and Ron Paul, until he didn’t.

                      Until I learned they were for federalism except when they’re not. And for individual liberty, except when they’re not. What’s your excuse?

                    3. Until I learned they were for federalism except when they’re not. And for individual liberty, except when they’re not.

                      Ron Paul has been rigidly consistent in his views for decades. Facebook has only been around for about 10 years, and your profile seems to have been created in 2009. So, you ‘liked’ Ron Paul even though you surely should have known he had these views for decades.

                      My guess is someone in the Paul camp pissed you off, recently. Or, your mind is deteriorating – nothing wrong with that, we all get old.

                    4. Another retard!

                      HIHN: “Until I learned they were for federalism except when they’re not. And for individual liberty, except when they’re not.”

                      Ron Paul has been rigidly consistent in his views for decades.

                      So?

                      Facebook has only been around for about 10 years, and your profile seems to have been created in 2009. So, you ‘liked’ Ron Paul even though you surely should have known he had these views for decades.

                      “So” implies that you’ve made a logical conclusion. When you learn how to read, you’ll see that many readers HERE don’t know Ron Paul is a total statist fraud.

                      My guess is someone in the Paul camp pissed you off, recently.

                      So you excuse Ron Paul being a bigot and a stastist …. because I didn’t know it? What’s your excuse for Reason not knowing it?

                      Or, your mind is deteriorating – nothing wrong with that, we all get old.

                      Am I a big enough dumbfuck to excuse him being a bigot and a statist because I didn’t know it?

                      You’re also full of shit on how well known his heresy was, and for how long. But you Paulistas ALL act like thugs, which goes along with social conservatism. Statists are thuggish by nature.

                    5. “you Paulistas”

                      Dear silly old man,

                      No one here is even particularly nuts about Paul.

                      Its just that he’s the most viable ‘libertarianish’ candidate. So he is covered.

                      You can go back to screaming at the clouds now.

                    6. Dear silly old man,

                      Dear dumbass

                      Its just that he’s the most viable ‘libertarianish’ candidate.

                      (lol) Which is WHY he’s such a threat.
                      Apparently ALL of you puppets are ignorant on politics.

                      Barry Goldwater predicted that the Moral Majority could destroy his party. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it’s already happened.

                      So, if social conservatives could destoy a major party, then what would they do to something so fragile as the libertarian movement … when 91% of libertarians reject the libertarian label?

                      In fact — duh — that’s why you repeatedly lie about his extreme social conservatism. You KNOW it will destroy him. And he’ll bring down the libertarian brand with him.

                      So your blind-faith tribal loyalty is a threat to liberty.

                    7. Is your ‘work’ here part of improving the libertarian brand, then?

                    8. Is your ‘work’ here part of improving the libertarian brand, then?

                      (laughing) Just exposing stupid assholes like you who never knew that Ron and Rand Paul
                      (a) Oppose gay marriage
                      (b) Actively try to ban all abortions.

                      For those who cannot believe Gilmore (or anyone) could ever be so fucking stupid, here’s the proof.

                      https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5122780

                      (walks away laughing even harder)

                    9. Is your ‘work’ here part of improving the libertarian brand, then?

      2. Do they want to …

        Since none of those things will actually happen in this reality, I’ll take a socon over a prog if he happens to have some belief in free markets. Focusing on “social” issues is just a smokescreen.

        1. I’ll take a socon over a prog if he happens to have some belief in free markets.

          Like Rick Santorum and Christine Bachmann.

          Focusing on “social” issues is just a smokescreen.

          Yeah, fuck anyone who defends indvidual liberty agaunst the state!

          1. It’s Michelle Bachman you fucking retard which kind of makes me think you are a mongoloid like Michelle….mission accomplished Mikey poo.

            1. It’s Michelle Bachman you fucking retard

              I’m so deeply sorry, but I don’t follow those assholes as closely as you.

              And let the records show, despite my retardation you know who I meant!
              Thank you for playing. Please select one of our lovely parting gifts.

    2. actually, you know what? don’t.

      1. actually, you know what? don’t.

        Sorry, I’d already humiliated your blind tribalism. And I’m still laughing.

        1. “blind tribalism”

          was that when i politely asked you what you were frothing about?

          what’s your objective, exactly?

          1. was that when i politely asked you what you were frothing about?

            Politely frothing? (snicker)

            Since you forgot your own dumbfuck question. You had asked if Rand Paul would ban abortion and if he opposed gay marriage.

            1. And what is your objective, please?

              1. And what is your objective, please?

                Like I said: answering the dumbfuck question that you forgot you’d asked.

                And, now, ridiculing your use of politely and frothing.

                But it feels like I’m kicking a cripple.

    3. It’s incredibly rich to see someone decry others as ‘delusional’ while upholding approval of gay marriage as a ‘libertarian moment’. Yes Hihn, libertarianism is all about state approval of marriages.

      1. ANOTHER brainwahed Pauilista!

        John Titor|2.28.15 @ 3:13PM|#
        It’s incredibly rich to see someone decry others as ‘delusional’ while upholding approval of gay marriage as a ‘libertarian moment’. Yes Hihn, libertarianism is all about state approval of marriages.

        (laughing)The state is still involved. Then what?

        You’re also a liar about me saying approval of gay marrige is a libertarian moment. Have you ANY shame at all?

        1. I love how absolutely delusional you are. You’re screaming conspiracy theories with no basis in reality while accusing others of ‘brainwashing’.

          Keep in mind, the major swing in approval for gay marriage is proof of a libertarian moment.

          Direct quote from you, idiot. If that’s not what you meant, then perhaps you should learn to write coherently like an adult, rather than a brain addled child? Proper sentence structure and grammar are your friends if you want to actually argue something.

          1. Titor exposed again!

            “Keep in mind, the major swing in approval for gay marriage is proof of a libertarian moment.”

            Direct quote from you, idiot.

            Fucking liar. This is what I said. (Emphasis added for the mentally impaired)

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5122766

            Keep in mind, the major swing in approval for gay marriage is proof of a libertarian moment. But Ron Paul trying to block any challenges to DOMA — the worst bigotry since Reconstruction — ALSO proves a libertarian moment! And if the sun rises tomorrow ….
            But libertarians aren’t just as tribal as liberals and conservatives!

            That’s ridicule, dumbfuck.

            If that’s not what you meant, then perhaps you should learn to write coherently like an adult

            Next sentence, same paragraph, chump.
            (snicker)

            1. Shorter Hihn: “Directly quoting me makes you a liar! My piss-poor writing ability and shitty attempts at ‘ridicule’ are fine! Now I’m going to continue writing like a fifteen year old! *snicker* ”

              Yep, you constantly screeching about your delusions sure is ‘exposing’ me. Please, continue your incoherent, childish writing. I’m sure your imaginary libertarian audience loves it.

              1. Titor exposed yet again!

                Shorter Hihn: “Directly quoting me makes you a liar!

                Pay attention. As PROVEN:

                1) You intentionally ignored most of my paragraph.

                2) Then you said, “if that’s what you mean ..” (after deleting what I said!)

                Keep showing everyone what a Rand Paul supporter is like.

                1) Why would you lie so brazenly when the proof of your lie is directly above your “response?”

                2) You still refuse to say on what authortity you deny the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights. I wonder why.

                1. Shorter Hihn: My incoherent ramblings don’t make me look insane at all! No, it’s all you other people who look crazy!

                  1. Also, I’m incredibly amused that you’d spend this much time screaming about how you’re ‘exposing a liar’ when you’ve also made comments about me being a social conservative or supporting Rand Paul. And yet I’ve said nothing supportive about either. Funny how you’re constantly dreaming up delusional opponents rather than dealing with real ones. Apparently your constant lying is nothing.

                    Of course, given your limited cognitive abilities, I’ll have to translate it to idiot-speak:

                    LOL Hihn exposed AGAIN!

                    Look, dumbfuck, you intentionally MADE UP things I didn’t say.

                    Maybe you should stop being so delusional. *snicker*

                    1. Titor called out AGAIN!!

                      you’ve also made comments about me being a social conservative or supporting Rand Paul. And yet I’ve said nothing supportive about either.

                      Where did I say that, chump? Do you know how to post a link, or is that beyond you also?

                      See that Orange “#” at the top of every comment? Right click on it, then select “copy link location.” It’s now in your clipboard. Do you know how to paste?

                      You’ve again been called out as a liar on this page. (sigh)

                  2. No, it’s all you other people who look crazy!

                    (lol) I proved it. Directly above this denial of yours.

                    AGAIN, why do you lie so much, when the proof is still here and so near?

          2. Titor called out … refuses to defend his wacky claims.

            Dumbass liar said: (just above)

            It’s incredibly rich to see someone decry others as ‘delusional’ while upholding approval of gay marriage as a ‘libertarian moment’. Yes Hihn, libertarianism is all about state approval of marriages.

            HIHN:

            (laughing)The state is still involved. Then what?

            No answer. Just more attacks. Fraud exposed and documented. Again

            (walks away laughing)

        2. There HE is. There HE goes again
          Look everyone he posted it once again! Isn’t he just the most principled guy around?? Oh my god.

          I can almost see your arthritic, elderly frame glowing in the dark lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room giggling like a little girl as you once again type what you believe to be ironclad arguments and hit submit. I imagine you, little senile shit, laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your can of Ensure onto the floor. But its ok, your Filipina LNA will clean it up in the morning. Oh that’s right, did I fail to mention? Your children have power of attorney and you live in a nursing home! You’re a senile, Depends-shitting fucking fuck up and your caretakers are probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all god damn day, every day, for a bitter old man who spends all his time on Reason posting about fucking Rand Paul. Just imagine this, your mother had you and then she thought you were going to be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand and then you became a dementia-ridden bag of pus and shit living the end of his life in poverty. A pathetic waste of human life. Your nurse probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes you could just disappear. She can’t even try to talk to you because all you say is “Paultard” and “Bitch didn’t get an abortion!”.

          1. You became a parody of your own self. And that’s all you are. A sad little hunched-backed man, laughing in the dark by himself as he prepares to indulge in the same old dance that he’s done a million times now.

            And that’s all you’ll ever be.

          2. SO MUCH hatred.

            “I can almost see your arthritic, elderly frame glowing in the dark lit by your computer screen which is the only source of light in your room giggling like a little girl as you once again type what you believe to be ironclad arguments and hit submit. I imagine you, little senile shit, laughing so hard as you click it that you drop your can of Ensure onto the floor. But its ok, your Filipina LNA will clean it up in the morning. Oh that’s right, did I fail to mention? Your children have power of attorney and you live in a nursing home! You’re a senile, Depends-shitting fucking fuck up and your caretakers are probably so sick of you already. So sick of having to do everything for you all god damn day, every day, for a bitter old man who spends all his time on Reason posting about fucking Rand Paul. Just imagine this, your mother had you and then she thought you were going to be a scientist or an astronaut or something grand and then you became a dementia-ridden bag of pus and shit living the end of his life in poverty. A pathetic waste of human life. Your nurse probably cries herself to sleep everyday thinking about how bad it is and how she wishes you could just disappear. She can’t even try to talk to you because all you say is “Paultard” and “Bitch didn’t get an abortion!”.

            Shame on you. I never said either. Do you believe only pot smokers support legalization? (Does it even understand the question?)

    4. “DOMA — the worst bigotry since Reconstruction”

      Some old japanese people might disagree with that

      1. Enyap|2.28.15 @ 6:35PM|#

        Some old japanese people might disagree with that

        Thanks. I had not realized Ron Paul’s shameless action might be equivalent to the Japanese Internment camps. In fairness (???), Ron only wanted to deny their defense of constitutional rights, not herd them into concentration camps with no charges and no trials.

        BTW, did you know that Clinton’s written appology to the survivors blamed it on wartime hysteria and leadership failurea at the top (FDR unnamed)?

        1. What color is the sky in your world? And what does fuchsia taste like?

          1. Monty Crisco|3.1.15 @ 2:43AM|#
            What color is the sky in your world? And what does fuchsia taste like?

            (laughing) Here’s proof that Clinton apologized, dumbass.

            http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp…..inton.html

            Or … if you’re pissed that I defended Ron Paul, I’ve just shown you to be a thug. So what color is the sky outside your cave? (lol)

  18. I find it bizarre that anyone would advocate getting more “corporatist” as a positive thing.

    Not that they know what it means or anything, but “corporatist” is a hate-word for progressives. It’s like deliberately labeling yourself “neo-liberal”.

    1. I find it bizarre that anyone would advocate getting more “corporatist” as a positive thing.

      That’s what Jesse called him out on.

  19. Who the fuck is this crazy man? Is it Mary?

    1. I’ve seen Hihn show up once and awhile, he’s a special breed of crazy likely separate from Mary, he may or may not be this guy.

      Admittedly he seems to have slightly improved his writing ability over time, he no longer uses internet shortforms and smugly writes *laughing* at the end of every paragraph. Now he just calls people dumbfucks.

      1. He is not Mary Stack. He is in fact the person whose site you link to.

        Here is the proof.

        He is also, most assuredly, batshit crazy. He blathers on, making sense only to himself, like a stroke victim. His writing here looks nothing like his writing elsewhere, which leads me to believe that he may just be losing his mind in his old age.

        Not worth the time debating as he is incapable of it.

        1. Not worth the time debating

          It really is like arguing with a mental patient – one with a bad case of Tourette’s and, sadly, a knowledge of how to bold text. Thank god for reasonable.

          1. It really is like arguing with a mental patient

            Is that because I had totally humiliated you here:

            https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5122987

            …along with all my other foulmouth aggressors. Bullies are bullies. And why do they ALL support extreme social conservative positions? The Huckabee Wing of libertarianism hangs together like any other street gang.

            And I suspect the 90% of people who read here but never post are afraid of being assaulted if they don’t conform to the libertariate.

            Keep going, losers!!

            1. Is that because I had totally humiliated you here

              No, it’s because you think you know me but you don’t have a clue. For example, I have never and I mean never been called a “social conservative” in my life. I’m not going to make your head spin by elaborating my beliefs because you would just twist them around to fit whatever gotcha! you’re fixing to copy/paste next. For this reason, arguing with you is pointless.

            2. “why do they ALL support extreme social conservative positions?”

              Maybe you should write an explanation on your really interesting website, then post a link here so we can better understand.

            3. ” The Huckabee Wing of libertarianism “…

              WOW. You totally have seen through us. That’s it! The jig is up, boys! Pack it in! Old Man Hihn has called our bluff!

              1. WOW. You totally have seen through us

                So Monty confesses to being a dumbfuck … but he earlier attacks me for defending Ron Paul!!!

                https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5123761

                Nobody could invent anything so wacky.

        2. Francisco still ducks and runs!

          Francisco d’Anconia|2.28.15 @ 3:42PM|#
          He is also, most assuredly, batshit crazy.

          STILL calling you out. One more time: on what authority do you reject the entire concept of equal and unalienable rights? Be a man. Defend your own words.

        3. He is in fact the person whose site you link to.

          Wrong AGAIN. This is my website archive. Pick any topic, especially taxes or healthcare. (lol)

          http://www.LibertyIssues.com

    2. Virginian
      Who the fuck is this crazy man? Is it Mary?

      (lol) Tell us what you disagree with, so I can show you up as a fool also!

      1. LOL! (snicker!) VICTORY!!!!

        (plays with cats)

  20. What have we done to deserve this maroon M Hihn AND Botard AND Mary Stack AND…

    Oh, wait – deserve’s got nothing to do with it.

    weird

    Happy Saturday, almost everyone!

  21. I see you people are trying to give the angry senile man a stroke. I approve.

  22. This is awesome!

    it works for filtering out specific people… also, probably other stuff i’m not aware of. But basically “reasonable” for Firefox (needs Greasemonkey to run)

    This entire thread is only 1/3 as long now because everything ‘Hihnified’ is gone.

    (snicker!)

    1. Because everything ‘Hihnified’ is gone.

      You’re the dumbfuck who asked me …of Ron and Rand Paul:
      1) Do they oppose Same Sex Marriage?
      2) Do they actively want to impose restrictions on Abortion?

      It was here, for those who cannot believe ANYONE is so stupid:

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/02…..nt_5122780

      (laughing hysterically)
      And you’ve been throwing a non-stop hissy fit ever since I called you out.

      Check the link folks, and join us all in laughing at this ignorant thug.
      (snicker)

  23. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  24. That link was a terrible. “To refuse to use force against a aggressor when we can do it is to authorize his aggressions.”

    That is such BS. The singing revolution in Estonia occured without any troops on the ground. The USsR killed millions, yet there was no invasion to help out. Instead, individuals throughout Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania got together and had their peaceful revolution, and it worked.

    Since WW2, there has been over 70 interventions from the U.S. alone into other countries. Have we become more free? After WW2 (and even WW1) and all of the sacrifice of my brothers and sisters who served before me, didn’t result in these countries continuing to fight for their freedoms. The EU has become a bastion of socialism, and utilizes the violent state to ensure the surfs stay loyal to the state.

    Maybe if they fought for their own freedom, would they have fought to keep it. Instead, the fighting and sacrifices made were in vein, as these liberated countries chose slavery instead of being free.

    If you and the individual that wrote that drivel wish to intervene in other places, put on some boots, fatigues, or coveralls, grab an m16 and head on over there and fight your damn self. Don’t hide behind us waiving your don’t tread on me flag saying you support freedom, while pushing those of us who have balls enough to fight.. to fight some bullshit conflict while you claim how great your foreign policy of “selective” intervention is.

    1. Thanks, Vampire, for your thoughtful comments, observations and conclusions.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.