Republicans Say the REAL Enemy is the Damn Liberal Media

A recap of the latest Republican presidential debate.


Leave it to Chris Christie, of all people, to put last night's Republican presidential debate in perspective by pointing out the absurdity of regulating fantasy football.

By acclamation, the biggest loser in the CNBC-hosted shouting match was CNBC itself, whether it was the amateur-hour pre-game show, or moderators making unsolicited confessions about their own student loan debt, or pointed questions to Carly Fiorina about the odd political views of irrelevant former Hewlett-Packard executives.

But just when you thought the latest gotcha was a bridge too far, there came blundering Republicans like Jeb Bush, showing just why the GOP is an unreliable advocate for limited government. Even about fantasy football.

Despite all their talk about freedom, Republicans are still deeply conflicted when it comes to what people do in the privacy of their own homes. For instance Ohio Governor John Kasich has some bizarre ideas about legalizing marijuana.

And yet, somehow, there still managed to be a substantial discussion about fiscal and regulatory issues that actually matter. Carly Fiorina made some important points about the corrupting nexus between business and government.

Rand Paul brought some adult math to the table, on the debt ceiling, the sequester, and especially the long-term un-sustainability of entitlements.

And even Chris Christie was effective in one of his otherwise painful look-right-in-the-camera moments.

But as long as we're still in the long Donald Trump and Ben Carson phase of Republican primary season, you can bet that all candidates will continue focusing on the REAL enemy. No, not the debt, or entitlements, or even Hillary Clinton, but the damn liberal media.

NEXT: Rand Paul's Filibuster Over the Debt Deal Will Be More Interesting Than the #GOPDebate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Republicans Says the REAL Enemy is the Damn Liberal Media”

    Sorry Matt the Liberal Media hates you even more than the Republicans.

    1. Yeah, that’s why Matt is often a guest on MSNBC. That’s why Nick pens a column on Daily Beast. How many liberal commentators does Reason entertain. Let me answer for you…none.

      The paranoia you share with those Republicans is touching.

      1. Reason is more liberal than the liberals on social issues.

        1. And more conservative than conservatives on fiscal issues.

          But Reason keeps its commentators to libertarians, as opposed to the two examples I listed.

          1. and Nick’s Beast column tends to be reviled by the proggie crowd there. Matt gets invited because MSNBC finds him easier to get along with than many conservatives. Interesting that you totally miss how the network pretty much refuses to invite contrary viewpoints. They like to have libertarians periodically, mostly as a means of making libertarianism look unserious.

            1. Yeah, sure. That’s why they’re invited. Did you ever see Matt with Chris Hayes? Totally respectful of each other, with a professional sharing of ideas.

              Interesting how you totally ignore the question…how many progressivesake their way to the Reason pages? That would be none, yet the likes of neo-con Harsanyi are here often.

              Keep trying, wareagle.

              1. No, no progtards like AmSoc or Tony here. Of course not.

          2. As if your standard “liberal” Democrat commentator just doesn’t have a place to get heard.

            The problem with having your standard democrat commentator write an article as, ostensibly about libertarianism and politics, is that either they go:

            “What could freedom possibly have on democracy?”


            “Roadz! Somalia! I once knew a libertarian, and he wore a weird hat on the Fourth of July! You’ll kill us with your guns! Government is what people choose to do to each other!”

            And, based on local drinking games, everyone’s plastered before noon. Can’t have that.

            You might as well wonder why atheists don’t give religious zealouts a platform for explaining why they’re all going to hell.

            1. Or you could talk about how liberals have stood against religious zealotry, unnecessary wars, police militarization, the drug war, etc., etc., but– nah– it’s better to ally ourselves with politicians who make billionaires feelz good.

              1. you could talk about how liberals have stood against religious zealotry, unnecessary wars, police militarization, the drug war,

                Liberals have, sure.

                Proggy/Crony/Crypto-authoritarians? Not so much.

                Let’s just pick a few:

                Obama is now fighting (or at least killing) in a number of countries. Ineffectively, sure, but he gives up nothing when it comes to “unnecessary wars”.

                Obama has transferred vast amounts of military hardware to cops.

                Obama’s DOJ has fanatically pursued medpot growers and businesses in states where it is legal.

                If only we had some liberals in positions of power to oppose these things.

                1. Really? You are kidding right?

              2. Your Marxist Messiah Obama has done more to militarize the police then the least four administrations combined. And progressives do everything in their power to deflect criticism of Islamic aggression and extremism. Obama’s DEA has also been more aggressive in raiding pot dispensaries than the Bush administration ever was.

                And keeping billionaires happy? Obama and friends are extra special friends with both Bloomberg and Soros.

                Bottom line, you are (as usual). Completely idiotic and full of shit. Go pay your fucking mortgage you deadbeat.

            2. So, the sharing of opposing viewpoints just isn’t in the cards for libertarian media outlets, eh. Thanks, but I already said that.

              1. “Sharing of opposing viewpoints?” What does that even mean? Is it like when you have multiple view points simultaneously?

                It’s not like you hacks come in here and give credit to libertarians where credit is due, and “share viewpoints,” and make it all about sharing.

                Then, the next thing we know, you’re here whining that democrats just can’t be given a platform at a libertarian website. As if democrats just can’t get their message out to those who disagree with them.

                Do you realize how boring it would be if just started featuring the same damn commentators with the same damn perspectives that everyone hears practically everywhere else, all the time, about politics? Is it a tragedy that the likes of Debbie Wasserman Schultz just haven’t posted too many articles here?

                You guys really pick and choose when to go off on your equality/equal sharing/give everyone credit rants.

                1. I couldn’t care less if liberals are on these pages. Why don’t you look at the comment I responded to, which referenced how liberal media hates libertarians. The reality is, liberal media gives them a platform. How often is Matt a guest with hannity?

                  You libertarians whine as much as Republicans about liberal media, and it’s closed mindedness. You’re worse.

                  1. Oh, you’re just full of shit.

                    If your big problem with libertarians is that they whine about the media too much, then you have no perspective.

                    It’s not like democrats and republicans are the strong, silent, quietly reserved types when it comes to whining.

                    And, considering that you’ve made it your personal past-time to come to a libertarian website and explicitly whine to them about all the things they do that bother you (see practically every comment, including the ones on this thread), it’s quite rich to hear you complain about whining.

                    Hypocrisy much?

                    1. Don’t go away angry.

                    2. I would, but I’m just so damn pissed off at how horrible libertarians are for not inviting Marxists to post articles.

                      It’s like they have no respect for other people’s viewpoints. Probably because they’re all close minded, horrible people. They make me so mad.

                    3. Just go away.

                    4. Too much.

                    5. The nesting here really sucks.

                  2. Fox gives Stossel his own weekly show. Can you point me to which libertarian programs CNN and MSNBC offer?

              2. “So, the sharing of opposing viewpoints just isn’t in the cards for libertarian media outlets, eh. Thanks, but I already said that.”

                Of course, Reason Magazine makes it clear that they *represent libertarian thought*. They loudly proclaim “Do you want to hear Libertarian opinions, with the occasional guest post from a conservative or liberal? COME HERE!”

                Similarly, if you want to listen to Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, etc, they loudly proclaim that they are representing Conservative views, or at least their own views, of the news.

                Within the goals of these entities, they make it clear that they “spin” the news; they also make it clear that their opinions are different from what you typically hear. In other words, you aren’t likely to get this or that take on the news, unless you go visit them.

                (to be continued)

                1. (continued)

                  Contrast this with MSNBC, CBS, the New York Times, etc, etc, etc, which proclaim themselves NEUTRAL ARBITERS OF TRUTH, that THEN go on to favor so-called liberal views, more often than not favoring the Democrats, and attacking the Republicans, in all their stories. (How else can you explain how every Republican caught in a scandal will have an (R) next to his name, and will clearly be tied to the Republican party, but any Democrat caught in a scandal will be some random politician, not affiliated with any party, as far as the given story is concerned? Of course, perhaps I’m looking at this wrong: perhaps the assumption is that a corrupt politician embroiled in scandal would be, without question or doubt, be a Democrat, so it’s a surprise when a Republican is caught in scandal…)

                  In any case, Reason doesn’t need to invite opposing viewpoints (although they DO invite opposing viewpoints, every once in a while) because they don’t claim to be neutral.

                  And, for the record, you won’t ever find stories on Reason questioning the value of comments, while there are sentiments floating about on Main-Stream sources proclaiming the worthlessness of comment sections.

                  1. Analinguist, fuck you. Lick my taint.

      2. How many liberal commentators does Reason entertain. Let me answer for you…none.

        Wrong JackAss. Steve Chapman’s columns are posted here all the time. In ’08 he was initially a Hillary fan and ended up voting for Obama twice. He’s pretty reliably progressive in most of his views, with the exception of maybe gun control.

        And you wonder why so many people consider you to be a complete retard. STFU and have some more cake, retard.

        1. Oh yeah, Chapman and his views on guns make him a progressive. Right.

        2. Here is a quote from Chapman, from these pages:

          “I’ve voted for several Libertarian presidential candidates. The biggest single influence on my policy views is Milton Friedman. I absorbed Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand in college.”

          Yeah, what a progressive.

          1. Spoken by a true Stalinist.

        3. You should note the title of this: Steve Chapman, libertarian.


          “Every time we insist that the government assume the duty of protecting us from life’s many vagaries, the government is bound to insist in return that we stop doing things that could make its task harder or more complicated. They don’t call it paternalistic government for nothing — you get taken care of, but Daddy tells you what to do, or else.”

          “If you want freedom for yourself and your fellow citizens, you have to be prepared to accept life outside the cocoon of government guarantees. Sorry, but you have to grow up.”

          Try again to find a progressive on these pages.

          1. See, Loki, it’s not enough that has enough democrat leading commentators. It’s that, in the end, they’re still sort of libertarian. At a libertarian website. And say libertarian things.

            They’re not progressives.

            Jackand Ace will not be satisfied until Rachael Maddow agrees to post a weekly article.

            And until then, libertarians are just mean and closed minded for not sharing.

            So, when do the climate deniers get a seat at the AGW table? Oh yeah. Close mindedness is A-OK, as long as you’re right. And libertarians are wrong. So they need to share space and make people who disagree send in articles. Otherwise, their lack of sharing space is just another sign of their wrong-headedness.

            See, it all makes sense, just as long as you implicitly agree that libertarianism is completely wrong, and that progressivism is the way to go. Really, why can’t we expect that from a libertarian website?

            1. Then stop yer whinin’ about liberal media. Tell Winston your thoughts. I tried.

              1. Listen, if you care deeply about Winston, and need to go correcting his bad thoughts about the media, then you go ahead.

                Enjoy that.

                1. You realize that is considered media, right?

                  You are coming to a media website to whine about that media website, and to whine that the people at that media website whine about media.

                  Your hobby is whining about media.

                  Do you realize how even more retarded that makes you look?

                  1. Is that a trick question for him ?

                    1. +10 rhetorical question to the protarded

              2. instead of cool,aiming about the, I would prefer to see them prosecuted for sedition, and blacklisted. As part of a new wave of 21st century anti-communism.

      3. Re: Jackass Ass,

        How many liberal commentators does Reason entertain[….]

        Looks like the name Reason is just too nuanced for you, Jackass.

    2. A significant portion of Reason (and its commenters) desperately want to be one of the kool kids so badly they just can’t understand that no matter how much they write about pot legalization and open borders, they’re never going to be in the club because of their pesky insistence on totes uncool stuff like constitutional originalism and individual liberty.

      The sooner libertarians realize that there’s zero long-term profit in making common cause with people who literally hate them as opposed to people who merely think they’re occasionally impractical, the better off libertarianism (and the country) will be.

      1. ^Agreed!

      2. totes uncool stuff like constitutional originalism

        I only care about “constitutional originalism” to the extent that it coincides with libertarianism.

      3. The only way to fix the orogressive problem is to reduce the number of progressives. That is the only long term solution. Without acknowledging that p, everything else is just bitching about the situation.

    3. We have Jim Epstein’s excellent series here delving into how mendacious NY Times reporting led to repression of the nail-beautifying biz, so, yeah, maybe the Damn Liberal Media is similarly the real cause of most public policy problems.

  2. By acclamation, the biggest loser in the CNBC-hosted shouting match was CNBC itself, whether it was the amateur-hour pre-game show, or moderators making unsolicited confessions about their own student loan debt, or pointed questions to Carly Fiorina about the odd political views of irrelevant former Hewlett-Packard executives.

    But Gillespie said they were all legitimate!

  3. This video tells me nothing of substance. WHERE ARE TEH ZINGERS FROM TRUMP?

    1. YOU’RE FIRED!

  4. So Future Biff from Back to the Future Part II was based on Trump. So is Hell Valley libertopia or not?

  5. Jeremy Corbyn likes immigrants, gay marriage and pot. Where are the articles on Labour’s libertarian heart and the UK’s libertarian moment?

    1. Naive question, Winston. Who’s paying the salaries for these “libertarian” writers? It ain’t coming from anarchists in San Francisco, I’ll tell you that.

      1. Uhm, that’s because there are no *anarchists* in SF. They’re all straight up pro-state voters.

        1. Never been to SF, I take it? There are plenty of anarchists…they just don’t vote.

        2. Uhm, that’s because there are no *anarchists* in SF. They’re all straight up pro-state voters.


          1. They’re probably looking for government grants for their anarchist activities.

      2. Mostly ad revenue, probably.

        Oh, but you meant teh KOCHTOPUSS!!! The same KOCHTOPUSS!!! that also supports a significant portion of the annual budget of PBS. Yes indeed, Reason and the Public Broadcasting Corporation. Capitalism is pretty cool, innit?

  6. What’s the difference between the Libertarian Moment and the Whig Theory of History and Marx’s Inevitability of History?

    1. The Libertarian Moment isn’t a theory of history?

    2. No difference – all fantasy.

  7. You know who else said who the real enemy is?

    1. That wretched in individual in the mirror?…

        1. And … it is US!

      1. +1 for the Walt Kelly reference.

      1. “We have met the enemy. And he is us”.

    2. At this point, what does it even matter?

  8. When Landover Baptist Christie sneers the word “liberal,” you can be sure he means it as “favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms”, and not the “closet commie” definition favored by conservatives assigned to infiltrate and debauch the LP.

  9. Who let Winston into the Halloween candy?


      /Panicking soccer mom

      1. “Republicans Says the REAL Enemy is the Damn Liberal Media”

        That’s flatly ridiculous.

        The media is somewhere between socialist and fascist, there’s nothing liberal about them.

        Oh, and they are the enemy of the republicans, and everyone else outside the democrat graft complex.

        1. Fox News is the most watched news organization by FAR. This “liberal media” trope is bullshit, but still plays with the yokel base.

          1. Re: Eric,

            This “liberal media” trope is bullshit,

            So you think it is mythological? Even if it were true that Fox News is the “most watched” news organization (which is only the case when compared to other cable news networks), that does not mean the rest of the news media is not populated by Marxians.

          2. Fox News is a cable news network. So its does dominate its category but the category is very small. Just to contrast, on Sunday morning, October 18, for the main news shows, NBC, CBS, and ABC had almost 9 million viewers and Fox had less than 2 million viewers. So on this subject you are uneducated thus making you a yokel.

          3. that is not just nonsense, it is empirically wrong nonsense. Fox may be the most watched on CABLE, but that still leaves the other cable outlets plus the alphabet soup networks, which Fox’s numbers cannot touch. The implication that you only see bias in Fox is mostly revealing about you.

            1. Despite the name calling of “Faux News” from the loony left, the majority of political donations from FOX News employees still go to Democrats.

              At least *some* people at FOX donate to Republicans and other non-Democrat politicians. One election cycle a while back, there were ZERO donations from NBC employees to Republicans and a whopping TWO maximum $2,000 personal donations to Republicans from CBS employees.

              All of them except FOX are solidly in the tank for Democrats and FOX is about 70% pro-Democrat.

              1. Which is why we need a new generation of McCarthyism and a new Red Scare. Every leftist member of the media needs to be on a black list. No more room for Marxists in America.

  10. Bashing the liberal media? Did we jump into a time warp to 1972? How can anybody say that in age of Fox News, talk radio, etc., which is dominated by conservatives (at least people claim to be)?

    And how exactly will a “balanced” media make things any better? By focusing MORE on Hilary’s emails (which I guess conservatives are pissed that the ‘liberal media’ has written off as a distraction) rather than, I don’t know, CISA quietly slipping through Congress, a “substantive” issue that actually affects every American’s privacy.

    1. Just because there are segments of the mediaverse that are NOT dominated by lefty/proggy “liberals”, doesn’t mean that there are also segments of the mediaverse that ARE dominated by lefty/proggy “liberals”.

      The only interesting question is, which one dominates (the lefty/proggy bits, per ratings for broadcast, and per circulation for print), and which one runs the show on things like debates, etc. (again, the lefty/proggy bits).

  11. We’re so jaded into accepting candidates dodging questions that we don’t even call it out any more. Instead we accept “Well you’re being a bully” as an acceptable answer to a perfectly valid question on the viability of thier tax plan. I learned absolutely nothing new about any of these candidates that would cause me to vote for any of them. But apparently they “won” because they took on the “liberal media”.

    1. Re: Eric,

      Instead we accept “Well you’re being a bully” as an acceptable answer to a perfectly valid question on the viability of thier tax plan.

      The problem is that the moderators were wasting time positing questions that were not in that vein, Eric. Instead they were too busy showing off their smugness by asking questions like “Why are you such a hick?” and “Why don’t you go home and die?” Or committing journalistic errors that were embarrassing to say the least, for instance: Becky’s fumbling of a wonderful gotcha moment that Trump delivered to her on a silver platter. All of this only because they think they’re all too smart to be seen with rubes like the Republican candidates.

      CNBC has enough people who know their stuff and could’ve given the candidates a run for their money; instead, they squandered the opportunity like amateurs. It was just… awful.

      1. Except it wasn’t a valid question, at least as directed to Rubio. It was based on lies, and lies which the moderator had admitted to weeks ago.

        So, a dishonest question by any measure and definition is a “perfectly valid one”? I don’t think so, and I think the only appropriate response is to call it out.

  12. I think that the core group of moderators mission was to hold the candidates toes to the fire. Not out of liberal bias, but to try and keep the grandstanding to a minimum, and the force the candidates to actually provide answers to the questions. They came across as rude in some cases, and ill-informed in others.
    The problem is that presidential debates containing this many people are worthless. Each participant tries to cram too much into their little allotment of time, and we learn nothing substantive regarding their policies.

    1. Re: Eric,

      The problem is that presidential debates containing this many people are worthless.

      The problem so far is that the debates are the only format available to these candidates to get themselves to be known by potential voters. Relatively few people today look at social media and most of the more consistent voters (the elderly) only watch TV news.

    2. wrong. The perceived role of the moderators, from their viewpoint, was to make as many of the candidates look foolish as possible. It’s why they pushed the “why don’t you quit, Marco?” line, why Harwood misrepresented a tax plan for a second time, why questions about the political beliefs of HP execs came up. Sorry, if you want to be taken seriously as a journalist, then act serious.

    3. I think that the core group of moderators mission was to hold the candidates toes to the fire.

      No, the debate moderators so far have been interested in holding Republican candidates’ toes to the fire, and fluffing the pillows for the Dem candidates.

      That’s what “bias” means, you know: treating one group different from another because you hope that one side wins and the other loses.

    4. I think…

      That assertion is most certainly not supported by what followed it.

      The stunt pulled by CNBC’s “moderators” last night made Candy Crowley’s “I’ll save you by lying for you Mr. President!” routine look positively neutral by comparison.

    5. An interesting debate format occurred to me while listening to bits of the Republican debate. Because I was in and out of my vehicle at the time, I occasionally mistook some of the questioners’ voices with those of the candidates…

      …and it occurred to me: why not have a debate where, for at least part of the time, it is the candidates asking the questions?

      For that matter, why not have the candidates gather together, independent of any news organization, and have a several-hour duke-out, Lincoln and Douglas style? Such a duke-out doesn’t need to be broadcast on traditional media; it can be streamed, diced up, and put on a website for any interested person to seek out and watch.

  13. Eric-
    Either you didn’t watch the debate or you have your head so far up your ass you are at risk of re-eating that “poop” yogurt and cock sandwich you had for breakfast.
    It was clear from the very onset that the moderators only mission was to spark some type of Neanderthal mob riot between the candidate and sit back with a self satisfied smug grin and a latte and watch the knuckle draggers pummel each other.
    They were not the least interested in “holding the candidates’ feet to [any] fire” Nor were they interested in any real issues beyond school yard jabs at the debater’s character.
    Fer Christ sake they were discussing fantasy football! and had to be TOLD by Christie that that was ridiculous.
    Full disclosure: my fantasy record is 3-4 …I suck

  14. Start generating cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing j0bs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $9648 a month. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…


  15. It is sad that Matt and Jim don’t understand that this–the damn liberal media is the reason why no ones taling about this–the debt, or entitlements, or even Hillary Clinton among numerous other topics.

    They ARE a major problem.

    Any time real issues are brought up the media bleats ‘fake scandal’, ‘old news’, ‘settled science’ at their masters bidding loudly enough that the issues get pushed aside in favor of celebrity gossip and SJW madness.

    Deflection, as you two have done here, is the name of the game.

  16. Jackand Ace –

    “A libertarian opinion site like Reason should be judged just like major media outlets like ABC, NBC, CNBC, and Fox!”

    Are you obtuse? You might as well go to Salon and accuse them of not having too many conservative viewpoints.

    A debate moderator should be impartial and balanced. Just as the MSM should be. But they ain’t. They lean left and will almost never venture outside of their comfort zone on issues like gender pay gap.

    Matt gets invited to Fox too. Stossel has it own show on Fox business, and Kennedy some of her friends had a show on there. Fox actually dedicates air time and resources to promote “other” view points. Yeah, I know you think libertarians are just right wingers. But there’s Stossel on Fox, advocating for gay marriage and legalization of drugs and prostitution.

    1. Just as the MSM should be

      The main reason there is something like “the MSM” is because of government licensing and favoritism (channels, access to politicians, etc.). And media corporations that derive their income from government favoritism act accordingly.

      The point is: I don’t think you can ever expect impartiality and balance from individual media corporations or organizations. All you can do is remove the incentives that cause a disproportionate number of media outlets to lean one way or another.

  17. That’s the primary Domestic Enemy.

  18. Be careful now, Reason. Are you suggesting that the Liberal Media might not be more dangerous than ISIS with a nuclear arsenal? Some of these articles are making certain people question your Conservative credentials. Now, we wouldn’t want other people hearing that Reason had started to go Liberal, now, would we? Does Reason know what happens to good, Conservative magazines that go Liberal?

    I know, I’m sorry. You’re not Conservative, you’re Libertarian. Right. Libertarians are like black Democrats. Loyal to a fault. We may have to throw you a bone here and there, drop a few sentences about “smaller government” to get your tails waggin’. But then we toss that bone off into the night and ignore you for a few years. Take down pot dispensaries, sneak Big Brother back into your bedroom, pander to Islamophobia while we fight endless wars against our own hand-me-down weapons. What are you gonna do? Vote for a Democrat? Piss your vote away on some Libertarian that gets 0.2%. Hey, at least when you vote for that guy, one vote really does make a difference. HAWHAWHAWHAWHAHAHAhahahaha!!

    1. We get it, you get your information from the DNC newsletter.

  19. Leftists with a byline is certainly one problem. One that shouldn’t exist. But the opposition has no honor (neither does most of the GOP).

  20. Well they have a point… Some yahoo, non-national figure right wing weirdo says something loony and it becomes national news and then the media trys to paint all conservatives with the same brush.

    No Republican is Smart, has gone to college, has degrees in Business or Science… Oh wait there is Ted Cruz…

    Then when National Leaders of the Democratic Party say insane things it gets ignored by the media or justified:

    The War of Women, Occupy Wall Street, and Black Lives Matter are good examples of this.

    Then the Democrats lie all the time about Income inequality, that gun crime is growing, that there is such a thing as the Gun Show loophole, and just about anything coming from Any Clintons mouth.

    AND they ignore the things that are important to the Conservative, Fraud, Waste, and abuse of our tax dollars, the Debt, Deficit, and Budget…

    We allknow SSN needs to be reformed because we know there is not enough money to go around… Smae with the Debt of places like California and Illinois…

    So ya, the GOP is spot on!

    So Ya,,, it is pretty

  21. Live Free[er]?

    Dear Reason reader,

    one of the most personal freedom- damaging beliefs you can have [one of many :-)] , is the belief in the necessity of political involvement – to supposedly “improve” your life via the political process.

    Fact: as an individual you will _never_ enjoy a freer life for yourself until you completely reject the “drug”, “religion” [ or whatever else you want to call it] known as “political activism” or “involvement”, in its entirety.

    It is nothing more than a trap- a dead end that ultimately _decreases_ your chances for more personal freedom and happiness in this world.

    Regards, onebornfree.
    Personal Freedom Consulting:

    1. We really need to get you banned from posting your spam here.

  22. You can’t be macho warmongering wannabe leaders of the world whilst simultaneously whining that you got a question that’s hard. Jesus fuck what a bunch of crybabies.

    1. I’d like to see evidence that Democrats don’t whine when asked hard questions.

      Admittedly, it happens. The last hard question I remember being asked of Hillary! was about federal felony investigations into her emails, and she just laughed and laughed.

      And last I checked, Obama goes his best to ban any journalist who asks tough questions from future press conferences.

      So, what little evidence there is, indicates that Democrats are a bunch of crybabies too. Why should we put *them* in power?

      1. +1

    2. Your buddies cry and whine about perceived slights ALL. THE. TIME.

      Glass house.

  23. Nick has been mixing something into the water in his hookah … and then he starts writing about the TEAM RED’S debate.

    That article’s peak derp quote “The CNBC moderators mostly, who pissed off the audience and the occasional candidate with questions that I thought were all legitimate and at times pleasantly hostile.”

    Demonstrated that Nick’s cranial rectal inversion was so bad at that point he was breathing through his belly button.

    Hey. Moron. They hate you no matter what. Even with that back leather you are a dweeb to them. Free markets!? How gauche! Eat what you want, with as big a gulp sized as you want?! You vulgarian! Private gun ownership?! You murderous cretinous Neanderthal!!!! Kissing progtard Democrat ass is as stupid a proposition as kissing up to the progtard Republican freaks

  24. When the reliably despotic Christie has a libertarian moment there must be something sorcerous in the air.

  25. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.