Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Terrible Free Speech Record: Matt Welch on Tonight's Stossel

Watch Fox Business Network at 9 p.m. for a full hour on America's front-running statist

|

Shut up! Already. Damn. ||| Reason
Reason

I teased this before, but got the broadcast date wrong. Beloved television host (and Reason.com columnist) John Stossel is devoting his whole show this week (9 p.m. ET tonight on Fox Business Network) exploring the many statist facets of Hillary Clinton. As part of that, he was kind enough to ask me to come on for a segment and talk about the presumptive Democratic nominee's long and terrible record on all things free speech. The Stossel team unearthed some truly gruesome video clips to help make the point as well.

You can read about our putative Censor in Chief in my March cover story, and in a couple of follow-ups: "Tech/Gaming Journalist: 'I think' Hillary Clinton's 'war on video games' was 'well-intentioned,'" and "Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump's Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?" It's also worth remembering something I didn't mention in any of those pieces: She also led a futile charge to recriminalize flag-burning as recently as recently as 10 years ago this month.

And lest you think Donald Trump is a comparative free-speech champion, read some Damon Root.

NEXT: A brief word on Brexit

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. When are the Reason cosmos going to write a few anti-Hillary articles?

    1. These overeducated cosmopolitan homosexuals at Reason live only to denigrate Our Trump, i fear.

      1. The One, True Trump. One Trump, to rule them ALL!

    2. `You just hate her because you hate all strong women

      1. strong women

        So, is she in this category due to increased Kegel lifting capacity?

    3. Yeah! and maybe a post or two about Gary Johnson, he’s only the LP candidate! and it’s radio silence up in here.

      1. Keep your Johnson out of sight.

      2. Didn’t you hear Gary Johnson tanked his campaign and endorsed Hillary Clinton? I thought you cosmos watched CNN.

  2. the many statist facets of Hillary Clinton.

    MOST

    QUALIFIED

    CANDIDATE

    EVAR

    !!11!!1

    1. We need to elect her to keep that fascist Trump out of the White House. I’ll bet Trump thinks every Constitutional right is subject to reasonable restrictions.

  3. So she doesn’t like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, or 10th Amendments. Otherwise, she’s not bad.

    1. She’s cool on certain aspects of the 14th and has been throughout her adult life, or at least since they became politically popular.

      1. She has a soft spot in several of her heart-analogues for the 16th and 17th amendments, as well.

      2. She’s cool on whatever she can stretch the 14th to mean….

    2. She’s probably not a big fan of the third either. I’m sure she’d love to quarter troops in everyone’s homes. What better way to make sure us peasants are behaving ourselves?

    3. She’s completely solid on the 3rd. And that’s like a whole 10% of the Bill of Rights! C’mon, what more can you ask for, really?

      1. Whoops, maybe CA is right

          1. I don’t know, sounds like one of those “special interest groups” that have “too much money in politics” and need to be stamped out by the do-gooders.

          2. You laugh, but there was a 3rd Amendment case recently. Let me see if I can dig it up:

            http://volokh.com/2013/07/04/a…..ment-case/

            1. As for other underused amendments, if I’m not mistaken Anna Nicole Smith’s trip to the Supreme Court was an 11th Amendment case.

    4. You can take the 5th out of that list…it is definitely her favorite one. She fuckin’ loves the fifth.

    5. Me thinks she might need the 5th.

  4. She wants all her emails to be released.

    If that’s not pro free speech, I don’t know what iHAHAHAHAHAAA!! Damn, couldn’t quite get it out!

  5. She’s cool on certain aspects of the 14th

    “Management reserves the right to put their thumb on the scale of justice when deemed appropriate.”

  6. “Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump’s Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?”

    Because Clinton attacks free speech in ways that the media approves of.

    When she goes after “money in politics” (hilarious given how much money the Clintons have made just in the last ten years), the media cheers. When Clinton goes after “violent video games,” the media cheers. Hell, even when Clinton goes after free speech in the name of “fighting terrorism,” the media cheers because “she can be trusted.” When Trump uses almost the exact words about free speech and terrorism, he’s bad because “we” (the media) cannot “trust him.”

    They’ll gush over her “incredible experience” even though she’s been a statist her whole life, not to mention she’s been a colossal failure on most major projects she’s dealt with.

  7. There’s a preview on Facebook on what seems to be tonight’s episode, and on this small snippet, one of Stossel’s producers goes out to the street to ask Hillary supporters about her record on civil liberties. One of them, some woman, answers that she likes her record because she’s fighting for gun control. Stossel turns to Juan Williams (one of his gests, along with Dan Mitchell) to ask him if the woman was serious and Williams gives the usual Proggie bromide: “Yes, because I want ro be free to walk around without the fear of being shot!”

    Typical of Proggies to shift the burden of their peace of mind on the rest of us, a responsibility which is impossible to meet. I don’t know the level of insanity tga6would ail a person like Juan Williams so why should my rights be predicated on how paranoid he feels?

    1. Aside from the fact the inherent irony of the fact they define civil liberties as taking them away from people so as to please their own agenda/narrative.

      They’re immaturity is quite impressive.

      1. Their.

  8. It is hard to describe the level at which I despise Hillary Clinton. Much more thanTrump, for sure. I despise him, but she’s just….more evil.

    We’re so DOOOOMED.

    1. Should’ve given more money to Rand Paul. Oops.

    1. I’ve been getting Brexit slogans, memes, and logos from my family around the world since last night, pretty much non-stop.

    2. Salty football tears.

      The joke of course is that European football players are the last people that will be affected by any sort of permit issues.

      1. I’ve said it a bunch of times before, but I wouldn’t mind seeing England fall to fourth in the league coefficient. Between FS1/FS2/local Fox Sports, every fucking CL matchday is the four EPL teams, Real, and Bar?a.

        A couple of years ago when Man City and Bayern were in a group with, I think, CSKA Moscow, Man City’s early kickoff in Moscow was on FS1. Bayern’s was shunted to a higher-tier channel.

  9. The Freedom From Religion Foundation complains about a sign in a small Texas town: “This is God’s country – Please don’t drive through it like Hell.”

    Consulted by the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, Professor Eugene Volokh suggests that this may be constitutional under the Humor Exception to the Separation of Church and State.

    Meanwhile, a Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney says it’s a “gray area” and they might not actually sue over it.

    1. a small Texas town

      Hondo is a city of 8k people. It’s almost an exurb of San Antonio. I stayed there for around 6 weeks or so off and on. Senator John Cornyn pulled some strings and got my hotel reservation cancelled for his dove-shooting buddies so I got to spend 2 weeks in downtown San Antonio.

      D’hanis, TX (just West of Hondo) is a small town. They can’t even fix the roof on their Catholic Church

    2. This atheist thinks the joke is funny (bad grammar aside). Save it for the important stuff, guys.

  10. Let’s all celebrate the appointment of Justice Brandeis to the Supreme Court!

    You agree, don’t you, that he was a people’s champion whose sexist legal brief for restricting the working hours of women was a triumpf for social justice?

    Or are you an anti-Semite?

    1. 100th anniversary of the appointment

  11. Hillary Clinton’s Terrible Free Speech Everything Record.

    You’re welcome.

  12. Did Reason mention Hawaii’s gun control measure today? I didn’t see anything about it

    1. Have they banned lava yet?

      1. They would, but they couldn’t figure out how doing so would punish icky gun owners

  13. Off topic, but…

    So, I had a chance today to speak with a few Remain fans here in the USA. All of them are lefties, which is the norm for people I come into contact with daily. I sort of initiated and pushed the conversation because they were completely silent, which is somewhat out of character. Same reaction from all of them. It’s about immigration and Donald Trump. My comment that it might be, at least in part, due to people feeling that they are losing their sovereignty to a gang of faceless, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, fell on deaf ears and at best elicited eye rolls. There was then mention of ‘those people’ in the middle of the country and ‘Donald Trump’. That was all they had. Then I read some articles on MSNBC and CNN to see where they were coming from. Holy fucking mother of derp.

    1. “My comment that it might be, at least in part, due to people feeling that they are losing their sovereignty to a gang of faceless, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, fell on deaf ears and at best elicited eye rolls.”

      Yeah, those riff-raff in Britain want the “sovereignty” to be racist, that’s all!!!!!!!!!! And we can’t allow that!!!!!!

      1. I thought it was because the Brits were pissed that they couldn’t sell crumpet flour by the pound.

    2. Don’t read the Guardian or your head will explode.

      1. Case in point:

        “Those of us who believed in human rights and collective endeavour thanked god for the European Union ? it was the political saving grace of the United Kingdom, as far as we were concerned.

        “Now, it’s gone.

        “Tonight I will go drinking, and talk with my British pals about how we can’t believe what’s happened. What will we be returning to when our time here comes to an end? I turned my back for what seems like a second, and my country seems to have voluntarily dismembered itself. Where’s home now?”

        1. Hmm, so this commenter is truly beyond the concept of patriotism. That’s a little bit sad.

          I guess this is the type of person who would make it a point to dump on the United States on the occasion of Memorial Day or Independence Day.

      2. I did, but it wasn’t worse than any of the others. I’m not recalling which of them right now, but it put all the blame on uneducated, poor, racist, white people. No problem with being poor or uneducated unless you’re white, because all of that is due to YOU being white, then it’s an auto in for being bigot racist nazis. I hate these people with the fury of a thousand burning suns. And they wonder how Brexit happened.

        1. “…put all the blame on uneducated, poor, racist, white people.”

          It is almost like they are herd animals that get handed talking points and the whole herd turns and stampedes in the same direction at the same time.

          Also I love people who blame racism on people of one particular race.

          Authoritarianism really does attract a special kind of stupid.

          1. Authoritarianism really does attract a special kind of stupid.

            Damn right. These people are apoplectic about not having people, in another country, tell them what to do and how to live.

            No wonder so many of them are afraid of firearms–they’d likely kill themselves out of some existential terror.

    3. But in all seriousness, I think your lefty friends do have half a point. I have talked with a number of Trump supporters and their comments w.r.t. immigration are all along the lines of “we can’t let the brown people in because brown people vote for socialists and that would destroy the country”. When I point out that there is no necessary connection between political ideology and skin color, when I point out that from the point of view of importing socialism, having 100 Mexican day laborers is far preferable to having 100 white European proggies, those arguments just fall on deaf ears. I have no doubt that some proportion of the Brexit voters felt similarly, after all London did just elect its first Muslim mayor and that undoubtedly shocked some people, but that in itself is not a good enough reason to dismiss the legitimacy overall of the Brexit campaign IMO.

    4. same here, my proggie roommate was freaking out because if this could happen in Britain, then Donald Trump would be elected here.

      I tried to ask questions about if he knew of the problems in the EU and what Britain was facing, and got a blank stare. Basically his knowledge was limited to ~ well the people wanting to leave are anti-immigrant so ….

      1. This is what happens when you’re a cog in the Borg and your masters have spoken. Must really suck being a sheep.

    5. Brussels has sent hither swarms of Officers.

    6. You have to be some kind of special ignorant to peg this on fucking Donald Trump.

      1. If Trump gets elected we will hear that about everything that goes wrong for the next…well, until another Bush gets elected.

        1. If Trump gets elected we will hear that about everything that goes wrong for the next…well, until another Bush gets elected.

          ??! I really dislike Troomp; but, I have to admit, the more the pants-shitting and false charges of “RACIST” I view and hear, the more angry I get and he starts to look a slightly bit more sympathetic.

  14. I’ll just leave this here. Put it on your FB page and let fun ensue.

    1. Heck at this point I’d vote for Larry the Cat for POTUS.

      1. Boris Johnson was born in New York and is more than 35 years old. Let’s kick out Weld, and have a Johnson & Johnson ticket!

        1. Well, it’s better than Felon & Dumpster Fire

        2. Unfortunately, he has to have lived in the US for the last 14 years, which means if he moves back now he couldn’t run until 2030.

          1. You’re no fun.

    2. Did you know that cats are much more popular in Portugal than dogs?

      1. I like both, but I like the idea of being able to go away for a weekend and not having to kennel the cat.

        On the other hand, I can’t take the cat for a walk in the woods.

        1. You had the wrong cat. Get a dog like cat. Although, then it will get pissed that it doesn’t get dog status.

          1. Get a dog like cat.

            I’ve walked a siamese on a leash. She dragged me into back alleys so she could eat the cobwebs next to dumpsters. She was an elegant but weird creature.

              1. When I found her she was in heat. When I brought her home, the neighbors called the police. People thought I was murdering babies with all the howling going on. Siamese can be loud. I miss her.

    3. So he’s a cat-bureaucrat. A “Chief Mouser.” Have we actually seen him killing a mouse? Or does he sit around all day eating lasagna?

      1. This has all been painstakingly detailed in his Wikipedia article.

  15. I’m not seeing any Welch.

  16. The lefty guy keeps making it all about Trump. Hillary’s supporters don’t even like her.

  17. “Do you want to live in Brazil and have to get to your home on a mountain in a helicopter?”

    WTF?!

  18. What’s going on with Welch? New glasses? New poindexter haircut? I can’t tell.

    1. not seeing matt every week means i am less attuned to the fine details. i’d guess its new frames.

      He seems to have gotten his suit-coordination-game in better order. I can’t even remember the last time my latent epilepsy was triggered.

      Matt’s libertarian-guest-on-libertarian-show game is also on point. did anyone see him on Maher’s show? how’d that go?

      1. Watch Maher? lolno

      2. I’m not watching Maher. Fuck that shit. I will say that it Welch needs to get clip-ons if he refuses to knot his tie to a nice, crisp dimple.

  19. THERE’S THE DOOR, WELCH. Don’t Stossel’s big novelty scissors hit you in the eye on the way out.

  20. Haven’t read the article or the comments yet:

    Hillary Clinton’s Terrible Free Speech Record
    FIFY

  21. “Let’s leave Trump out of this.”

    “Uh…”

  22. Hey, English press – feel free to steal this idea:

    Voters to Europe: Hit the Road, Jackboot!

    1. I’m not sure this guy sees the full consequence of what he’s advocating.

  23. OT: a group of cows is called a “herd”. You’ve got a “flock” of fowl, a “school” of fish, etc. A group of Trumps is actually a “Trump” of Trumps.

    1. an aggravation of Trumps

      1. How about the word for a group of peacocks: ostentation.

        Seems to fit.

        1. An ostentation of Trumps. That works, too.

          1. Is there a word for a group of clowns? “Bufoonery?” “Shriner?” “

            1. Is there a word for a group of clowns?

              An “alley

              In the circus, clowns had a special section in the tent where performers dressed for their acts because powdering their make-up could be messy. This section was typically nearest to the side of the tent in order for the clowns duck underneath the canvas to powder their make-up outside.

              Because the “powdering” section was the farthest from the opening to the main tent, it was also the darkest. The darkness outside and the tent wall along the side gave the appearance of an alley, so it came to be called “clown alley.” Before long, the clowns who gathered here to powder were called by the same name.

              After a while, the troupe of clowns came to be known as the “Clown Alley” and the area where they would wait between performances also adopted this name.

              Today’s clowns use RV’s and motor homes to dress and apply make-up, so the historical dressing area no longer exists. Hence the term is used for any organized group of clowns, whether or not they are affiliated with a circus or carnival.

              the same source also suggests it has association with the French “to go” (allez) = when circus leaders needed the clowns to fill in gaps, he’d shout = “Clowns Allez” (‘you’re up’)

            2. As a backup, I was going to suggest “Libertarians” as an equally valid term.

              1. A moment of libertarians

  24. Sorta OT: On the Reason article pointing out Bernie’s hypocrisy for supporting Hillary, a bunch of Facebook commenters keep repeating how Bernie said from the beginning that he would support Hillary if she were the nominee, like it’s some kind of refutation of the article.

    Of course, their “point” simply means that Bernie was a hypocrite from the beginning…

  25. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

    1. If you really liked Stossel you wouldn’t have waited 55 minutes to express it.

    1. Why does a Smiths record have a picture of Norm Macdonald on it?

      1. Ha I normally don’t click on youtube links but I love this song.

  26. Gary Johnson style social liberalism: California bill would apply more “anti-discrimination” mandates to religious colleges

    “The state bill targets the growing number of private universities that have obtained an exemption to anti-discrimination laws based on the argument that compliance would conflict with the religious tenets of that organization, said [sponsor Ricardo] Lara, who is openly gay.

    “These universities essentially have a license to discriminate, and students have absolutely no recourse,” Lara said Tuesday in a hearing before the Assembly Higher Education Committee approved the bill. “Universities are supposed to be a place where students feel safe and can learn without fear of discrimination or harassment.”

    “Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Campbell) cited standards of conduct at some schools that prohibit same-sex relationships and cross-dressing. Lara said enforcement of such policies could be challenged in court under his proposal.”

    1. “and students have absolutely no recourse,”
      Nobody needs more than one college to choose from.

    2. So don’t take any public money (including students’ financial aid). Problem solved.

      1. I think the sentiment there is right – but the reality is that it is effectively impossible to *be* a school and not take public money. demanding that institutions either be entirely free from public-taint, or else they must be entirely subject to govt meddling no different than state-run institutions, is more than unfair; its basically allowing that we can violate the free-exercise clauses of the constitution simply by forcing everyone to intermingle private decisions with public money.

        1. Agreed and yeah I wasn’t plugging a solution that I think has any actual chance of succeeding. It’s a thorny problem.

          1. It’s really not a problem.
            1. The Bill of Rights includes, as the very first amendment, The First Amendment.
            2. The Constitution does not authorize the Federal government to be involved with funding schools.
            3. The Bill of Rights specifically says, and I quote ” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
            Pretty cut and dried, I’d say.

        2. And the public monies thing is never used to apply the 1A, or even more especially the 2A.

      2. Apparently, the bill would allow that option.

        Which would mean, of course, that the hippy-cruncy-granola religions could still set up colleges and get state aid, while more traditional religions would be denied such aid.

        A curious result for an “anti-discrimination” bill.

      3. e.g. anyone paying property taxes is “paying for school”;

        if you don’t want your kids to attend the local state-indoctrination pit, should they be free to send their kids to a religious school, getting vouchers for at least part of the funds they bleed annually?

        why would this back/forth make the use of funds “public money”? the private citizen is already paying their gelt to the local school district, then having to beg to be freed from their control, only getting part of their own money back to use elsewhere….

        …why would religious schools who are on the receiving end of this shell-game have their constitutional rights stripped simply because there’s no other way to operate in a district? The only schools that are “liberated” from state-oversight must operate like monasteries and demonstrate annually that they receive not a penny in inadvertent ‘subsidy’? – Oh, the local fire department put out a brush fire on your property? Sorry – now you’ve received state benefits. One of your students had an allergic reaction, had to go to the ER? they USE ROADS?

        and so on.

        The idea that there’s some perfect delineation between “public and private”, and that religion can ONLY exist in a world stripped free of any commingling with “public” assets is a path to the French notion of Laicite, which is the polar opposite of what the Founders intended when they wrote the 1st amendment.

        1. I’m only offering a solution that would work in the current framework. I don’t necessarily think it’s ideal.

          1. i wasn’t busting on your specific point; i was just expanding on this idea that there’s a false-choice being made when we say, “unless you’re free of ‘public*’ funding”, anyone/thing can be stripped of any exemptions on religious grounds”

            *disclosure; my dad was involved in a big ‘freedom of religion’ SC case back in the 1980s. I’ve always had an interest in the arguments around the issue

  27. The Fusionist|6.24.16 @ 10:20PM|#
    “Gary Johnson style social liberalism: California bill would apply more “anti-discrimination” mandates to religious colleges”

    Eddie, maybe if you didn’t lie as often as you do, you wouldn’t be as despised as you are.
    Stuff your superstition up your ass.

    1. Hmmm…should I believe Sevo, or my lying eyes, about what Johnson says?

      “[T]hese religious freedom laws are really just a way to discriminate against gay individuals, the LGBT community,” says Johnson in the video. “That’s what they are about. I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should be engaged in any way in endorsing discrimination.”

    2. So you think that private religious schools should be forced to comply with the current social-justice cause-du-jour?

      I may think eddie pushes his personal angle excessively; but he’s generally not “wrong”, and he’s certainly not an intemperate dick who randomly insults people.

      1. I simply think that some people get way too excited about Johnson.

        1. Whereas in reality, Johnson wants to stick himself where he doesn’t belong.

      2. GILMORE?|6.24.16 @ 10:37PM|#
        “So you think that private religious schools should be forced to comply with the current social-justice cause-du-jour?”

        Nope. I think Eddie in his normal dishonest manner, is attempting to equate a campaign statement with enacting a law.

        1. What on earth are you even talking about, you drooling imbecile?

          And I mean that in the nicest way.

          1. The Fusionist|6.24.16 @ 11:18PM|#
            “What on earth are you even talking about, you drooling imbecile?”

            Facts, shitstain. And I mean that in the nastiest way, since it is what you deserve.

            1. Hey, Sevo, the jerk store called, and they ran out of you.

              (sorry, that’s the best I could do on short notice)

              1. POS, it’s the best you can do.

                1. Oh, I’ve done better.

                  A lot better, according to…

                  (wait for it)

                  YO MAMA

    3. Meh. He’s got a point. Freedom of association and all that.

      1. I don’t think this is a winning argument for libertarians, because you would then have to argue for rolling back civil rights to pre-1965 – which is fine by me but will fail miserably nationwide.

        1. Doesn’t matter if it’s a winning argument, it is morally, ethically, and constitutionally correct.

          1. Can you imagine GJ trying to support this position? He’d try to hand it off to Weld but I don’t think that would be any better.

            1. No, I can’t. I’ll still vote for him (or Trump if Colorado gets purple, because fuck Hilary), but Gary Johnson is not the most eloquent of those preaching the gospel.
              And, as much as I understand comprise, and getting the LP into the debates (!), Some things are moral issues.
              If you look at the 1st, the unifying theme, IMHO, is the idea that you are responsible for yourself. If you think Allah is truly God, I have no right to prevent you from following the path that your conscience tells you is true.
              Same as speech: you have no right to prevent me from giving voice to what I think is right.
              Scholars better than I have laid this out, better than I, and I’m sure you know this. This is for any possible lurkers .

        2. I like to put it this way: Suppose that a southern Senator – call him Senator Claghorn – had gotten up in 1964 and said, “under the principle of this so-called civil rights bill, not only would you have the colored and the white going to the same bathroom, you’d have men who think they’re women going to the ladies’ room, and employers wouldn’t be able to require their female employees to wear dresses, and they’d have to recognize marriages between male employees and other men…”

          The Senator’s own aides would have chlorophormed him and dragged him off the floor, they’d be so embarrassed at hearing him talk such nonsense.

          And the supporters of the bill would not only have indignantly denied that their bill contained such principles as Claghorn alleged, they would have accused Claghorn of spreading racist paranoia.

          1. Yes, Eddie, an exaggerated hypothetical is exactly what you use as an argument:

            “I like to put it this way: Suppose that a southern Senator – call him Senator Claghorn – had gotten up in 1964 and said, “under the principle of this so-called civil rights bill, not only would you have the colored and the white going to the same bathroom,”
            The HORROR!

            “you’d have men who think they’re women going to the ladies’ room,”
            Uh, what is a man who thinks he is a woman?

            “and employers wouldn’t be able to require their female employees to wear dresses”
            My goodness! The pope has vapors!

            “and they’d have to recognize marriages between male employees and other men…”
            Yeah, and?
            BTW, and I’m sure you know this, you are typically, dishonestly, conflateing the arguments regarding marriage equality effect on the government and an employer. Just ’cause dishonesty!

            1. You have a debating advantage, because your accusations are so incoherent, and so unconnected to what I actually said, that it’s incredibly difficult to find out what you’re actually accusing me of.

          2. See, Eddie, this is where I change sides. You are looking add marriage as a religious rite, which it is.
            But, the 1st prohibits government recognition of religion. So. Either
            1. I can call myself the “Church of Sweet Spin”, and the government has to recognize any marriage that I recognize.
            2. The government says”your not a real religion, but Catholicism is”, meaning that it is defacto “establishing a religion” contra the 1st
            3. Or, now follow me here, you get married on the church that will marry you, and the government recognizes civil contacts for everybody who files, but does not legally recognize marriage, since that’s a religious thing.

            1. Not recognition, sorry, establishment.

            2. I thought my hypothetical Senator Claghorn was talking about private businesses/employers. But we can get into marriage recognition, too, if you’d like.

              Indeed, I know that getting the government out of marriage is a key thing for many libertarians, and my only objections are that it’s virtually impossible, it’s undesirable, and in American politics it’s joined at the hip to attacks on the private sector, but other than that it’s fine.

              Of course, what the government is doing now isn’t any closer to your ideal than what I propose. Under the Oberwhatever precedent, the government extends to same-sex unions the benefit of government recognition, if the parties ask for it. That’s it. So how does that get you any closer to your ideal?

              1. And I know that in the U.S., civil marriage – and I’ve said this before – can’t copy the Catholic canon law of marriage point for point. The reason is that the Catholic canon law of marriage is too liberal in granting divorce. That is, a Christian is allowed to divorce a non-Christian spouse in certain limited circumstances, and to remarry while the nonchristian spouse is still alive.

                I would say that any Catholic who wants to get that kind of divorce and then remarry while the previous spouse is alive, should not get the new union recognized in a secular state like ours, since the divorce and remarriage are granted on religious grounds.

                So if the new couple wants their union recognized they should go to a country with less of a separation of church and state.

                1. So no, I’m not interested in having the U.S. copy the Catholic canon law of marriage.

                  And I’m not really a big fan of what the present Pope is doing with marriage right now, rolling back key reforms which were there for a reason: To keep the annulment process from becoming a divorce mill. His present Holiness is giving the green light to crooked and/or liberal bishops to run “annulment mills,” and I have no wish to copy *that* in the United States, either.

                  And I’m not interested in having the secular state recognize people remarrying while their spouse is alive.

                  But no amount of invective, boycotts, lawsuits, high-decibel screaming, and tantrums can change the fact that marriage unites a man and a woman – and anyone wanting the state to redefine marriage is most assuredly an enemy of liberty. The state didn’t invent the man/woman binary, and should not be allowed to define it out of existence.

      2. DenverJ|6.24.16 @ 10:37PM|#
        “Meh. He’s got a point. Freedom of association and all that.”

        Bullshit.
        No fan of Johnson’s ‘qualified’ approval of cake baking, but it in no way matches what Eddie links.
        At best, Eddie is a pathetic excuse for a propagandist. At worst, he’s a lying POS. I tend toward the latter.

        1. Could you give a citation to one of my numerous alleged lies?

          1. The Fusionist|6.24.16 @ 11:16PM|#
            “Could you give a citation to one of my numerous alleged lies?”

            Tell us about junior, Eddie. Tell us about how the RCC is a force for good. Tell us about how the RCC is discriminated against.
            No, I haven’t bothered to catalogue them Eddie.

            1. So, you’re relying on your feelings?

              1. So you’re relying on more lies?

                1. I know you are, but what am I?

        2. So, your argument is that Eddy is being disingenuous calling this law ” Johnson style liberalism.”
          Eddy then quotes Johnson saying ” “[T]hese religious freedom laws are really just a way to discriminate against gay individuals, the LGBT community,” says Johnson in the video. “That’s what they are about. I don’t think that the Libertarian Party should be engaged in any way in endorsing discrimination.”
          So, is or is not, Johnson saying that freedom of religion and freedom of association should take a back seat to “gay rights”?
          I have the right to discriminate against anybody I want, for whatever damn reason I want.

          1. Eddie, not Eddy, duh

          2. DenverJ|6.24.16 @ 11:24PM|#
            “I have the right to discriminate against anybody I want, for whatever damn reason I want.”

            Yes you do, and the difference between a campaign hedge and proposing a law is exactly the sort of half-truth that is Eddie’s stock in trade.

            1. Sevo, I have no doubt that you are as wise as you are beautiful.

              1. The Fusionist|6.24.16 @ 11:38PM|#
                “Sevo, I have no doubt that you are as wise as you are beautiful.”

                Eddie, I have no doubt you’re as stupid as you are dishonest. Passive-aggressive fits your dishonesty to a “T”.

                1. Well, yo mama fits you to a T.

                  1. If I didn’t know you better, I’d say you’re enjoying this, Eddie. Gonna be a lot of material for confession.
                    Hey, where’s all the links you save up all week?

            2. “… the difference between a campaign hedge and proposing a law is exactly the sort of half-truth that is Eddie’s stock in trade.”

              Sure I understand wanting to soft shoe some libertarian ideas at this point in time. But Gary didn’t float around, didn’t try to obfiscate; he flat out repudiated freedom of association.

    4. Sevo, I assert that it’s unsafe to put on a blindfold and run around with scissors.

      Ha ha, just kidding, if I said *that* you’d go and injure yourself rather than agree with me.

  28. OK, Quincy, see if you can find a cat video responsive to this!

      1. A reminder that many Confederate soldiers were conscripts.

        1. And wore sparkly hats. Sparkly, fabulous hats!

  29. Maybe Brexit will be one of Obama’s biggest accomplishments during his two terms.

    “UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage told Breitbart that the visit by President Obama, where he threatened to send Britain to the “back of the queue” if the public voted to leave the European Union (EU), backfired and caused a “Brexit Bounce”, swaying Britons to vote for Brexit.”

    (sorry having trouble linking)

    1. If true, that’s actually pretty remarkable.

      Polling from April shows that his visit/comments were not received well

      Support for the campaign to get Britain out of the European Union has risen in recent days, two opinion polls showed on Tuesday, suggesting U.S. President Barack Obama’s call for the UK to stay in the bloc had not yet had the impact he wanted.

      Forty-six percent of voters were in favour of a so-called Brexit, more than the 44 percent who believed Britain should stay in the EU, ICM said, citing the intentions of people who planned to take part in the June 23 referendum.

      That was a slightly wider lead for “Out” than in last week’s ICM online poll and it took some of the wind out of a recovery in the value of the pound which had hit a 12-week high against the dollar on signs that the “In” campaign was gaining momentum. [GPB/]

      The poll was conducted between Friday and Sunday, covering the period immediately after Obama made a blunt call for Britain to stay in the EU and warned the country would go to the “back of the queue” in trade talks with Washington if it left.

  30. This story is for Sevo, who I am sure will welcome this piece of good news:

    “Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who spent six days in jail for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses, has said that a new state law taking affect soon provides her the religious freedom accommodation she has sought from the beginning, and is putting an end to legal proceedings.

    “”I am thankful to the legislators for passing this law, to Gov. Matt Bevin for signing it, to Liberty Counsel for representing me, and most of all to Jesus Christ who redeemed me and is my solid rock on which I stand,” Davis said in a statement, shared by the Liberty Counsel.”

    1. Now you’re just trolling, Eddie.

      1. You think?

        But seriously, I don’t want him to get the idea that he can shut me up by calling me names.

        1. The Fusionist|6.24.16 @ 11:17PM|#
          “..;I don’t want him to get the idea that he can shut me up by calling me names.”

          Oh, Eddie I have no illusion that lying superstitionists can be silenced by pointing out they are such. Bleevers are immune to reason; that’s ’cause they’re bleevers.

          1. “Bleevers are immune to reason; that’s ’cause they’re bleevers.”

            That reminds me of someone, but I can’t think who…

              1. Even I will concede that Sevo is a much better person than Hitler…except perhaps in the charisma department.

                1. Unfortunately Eddie loses out in the honesty department.

                  1. OK, I retract what I said.

                    1. So you don’t get the joke of my retracting my 11:32PM remark?

                    2. Your ‘joke’ went nowhere Eddie. I know your mommy said you were clever; she lied.
                      Which is probably where you got infected.

                    3. The only time your mother *didn’t* lie was when she told me “OMG you’re so BIG!”

                    4. Yo mama doesn’t even know that a car’s passenger seat has an upright setting.

                    5. Oh, and also…your mother is sexually promiscuous. I just thought I’d add that.

                    6. Oh, and also, your ‘joke’ went nowhere Eddie. I know your mommy said you were clever; she lied.
                      Which is probably where you got infected.

                    7. Did you ever get a feeling of deja vu?

                    8. Did you ever get a feeling of deja vu?

                    9. Did you ever get a feeling that you’re a fucking ignoramus? You should.

                    10. Sevo|6.25.16 @ 12:44AM|#

                      Did you ever get a feeling that you’re a fucking ignoramus? You should.

                    11. Sorry, I didn’t hear you, I was too busy having sex with your mother.

                    12. The Fusionist|6.25.16 @ 12:51AM|#
                      “Sorry, I didn’t hear you, I was too busy having sex with your mother.”

                      She’s dead, shitstain. But that doesn’t bother you one bit, right? So long as it’s a carcass you think you can identify as a female?

                    13. See. One hundred Libertarians = 49 fistfights.

                    14. DenverJ|6.25.16 @ 12:55AM|#
                      “See. One hundred Libertarians = 49 fistfights.”

                      Eddie is a libertarian like turd and Tony are libertarians. Except they might be more honest.

                    15. I’ve been around fur a little while, maybe not as regular as some until recent.
                      I don’t know the story between you and Eddie, but, WTF? He’s religious. Most people are. He thinks abortion should be illegal. Perfectly valid within the libertarian framework if you believe that God makes little babies with soul’s.
                      He’s a good guy, imperfect like us all. Cut him some slack, and save it for the people that want to retry Stalinism.

  31. Spot the Not: Alex Pareene (Gawker)

    1. Aaron Sorkin is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.

    2. I grew up in a politically aware household: very civically-minded, good Minnesota liberals.

    3. Modern political speechwriting is certainly a skill, and one that requires experience and practice to master.

    4. Modern political speechwriting is not a high-minded pursuit for brilliant talents.

    5. We are actually a very rich country with a lot of resources and the ability to do almost whatever we want. We could eliminate poverty in America by spending a fraction of what we spend on defense.

    6. Matt Damon is why people hate liberals. He’s a smug, condescending, know-it-all who isn’t as smart as he thinks he is.

    1. 6. if he really said that, then i would despise him just a little bit less. So i don’t want to believe its true.

      everything else sounds like the tripe he writes (including the comment about sorkin; who i think the comment is more-apropos … for him to say)

      1. Alex Pareene looks exactly how you think you would look.

        1. Oh, he’s just got “punch me” written all over his face.

        2. Yes. I loathe him.

          I actually think, despite my distaste, that i could suffer to have a drink with the guy and not want to kill him. I can’t say that about any other gawker writer. I would glass them with their own drink and then brain them on the ground with the chair like a Joe Pesci montage

          Pareene, i think he would enjoy being insulted as long as it was with some wit. I’ve probably met him before as well. It wouldn’t surprise me.

          1. Oh Gilmore, you’ve bested me again!
            http://www.adweek.com/fishbowl…..-ALEX.jpeg

    2. 6 is the Not, although that phrase could apply to many, many people.

    3. #3 is definitely true. Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

  32. Fun fact: An American saying “rise up lights” sounds like an Australian saying “razor blades”.

    Spot the Not: Aaron Sorkin

    1. I like writing idealistically, romantically and swashbucklingly.

    2. I consider plot a necessary intrusion on what I really want to do, which is write snappy dialogue.

    3. I take anywhere between six to eight showers a day. I’m not exaggerating. I’m not a germaphobe: it’s all about a fresh start.

    4. Good writers borrow from other writers. Great writers steal from them outright.

    5. The validity of the ideas is less important to me than how dramatic and noble they sound.

    6. Heroes in drama are people who try hard to reach a virtuous ideal. And whether they succeed or fail really doesn’t matter – it’s the trying that counts.

    1. Yeah, 4. You’re out of your element donnie.

      1. You’re 1 for 2 tonight.

        But which one?

    2. That said …#4 is just a endlessly-misattributed quote about writing that EVERYONE who writes for a living says sooner or later…. so = he probably DID/ or could have said it.

      I just think its so generic that it would never be attributed to *him*.

      I actually think #5 is the Not. Because if he actually said that, it would mean he’s self-aware. and it contradicts #6 somewhat.

    3. 4 is less pompous than the other quotes

    4. I hope number one is real because it is hilarious, and I’m going to try to deploy the term swashbucklingly as frequently as I can.

      1. *applauds swashbucklingly at Crusty’s candor*

    5. 5 is indeed the Not. Winners may partake of the antithesis of Make America Great Again:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw

  33. An Associated Press review of the official calendar Hillary Clinton kept as secretary of state identified at least 75 meetings with longtime political donors, Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests that were not recorded or omitted the names of those she met.

    At a time when Clinton’s private email system is under scrutiny by an FBI criminal investigation, the calendar omissions reinforce concerns that she sought to eliminate the “risk of the personal being accessible” – as she wrote in an email exchange that she failed to turn over to the government but was subsequently uncovered in a top aide’s inbox.

    “Don’t sweat the personal stuff — and it’s *all* personal!”

    1. “Merrill said that Clinton “has always made an effort to be transparent since entering public life, whether it be the release of over 30 years of tax returns, years of financial disclosure forms, or asking that 55,000 pages of work emails from her time of secretary of state be turned over to the public.””

      That’d be years of doctored tax returns, edited disclosure forms, and asking that a portion of her emails be turned over to the public, ignoring the requirement that they all must be.

      1. The bitch purposely, knowingly, demonstrably, and deliberately committed several felonies in order to circumvent potential future FOI requests. Anybody else would be doing life. Her Hagness might very well win the Presidency of the United States of America, fer Bejeebuz’s sake!

        1. *the Bejeebuz thing was to signal that, even though I will have Eddie’s back, I’m not one of those filthy Catholics

        2. “The bitch purposely, knowingly, demonstrably, and deliberately committed several felonies in order to circumvent potential future FOI requests.”

          Certainly, but she also destroyed the evidence from that server when it was under subpoena; not *future* requests, not FOI requests, but criminal investigation subpoena.

    2. Ah, Rich, thanks for helping to keep us informed on Skullduggery Rotten. It seems only you an RC have the interest to keep posting how awful this alleged woman *really* is…

      ???????, ??? ????!

  34. Movie Pitch: if we’re going to be remaking every movie, might as well put a new spin on it. I think the remake of The Thing should have been a horror comedy where they alien is too lazy to make decent imitations of people but the humans have to play along in order to survive.

    1. Oh, Lord, the one thing worse than a Hollywood remake is a Hollywood “comedy.”

      Has anyone seen the “Free State of Jones”? Is it any good?

      (I ask because I was thinking of inviting my fellow Klavern members for a viewing.)

      1. I have no idea what you are talking about. There are scores of great Hollywood comedies.

          1. Like, within five years? Ten years? This century?

            I’m sure you’ll identify some, maybe you could give me some pointers.

            1. Maybe you just have a terrible sense of humor. Best In Show is from this century. That is a pretty clean film. I think Elf is a really funny movie, even though it is a Christmas movie for kids. School of Rock is really funny.

              1. OK, you win that round, let’s narrow it to the last couple of years.

                1. Some good comedies, all since 2008: Tropic Thunder (2008), Burn After Reading (2008), Ted (2012), The Dictator (2012), The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), The Interview (2014).

              2. Elf and School of Rock? Oh, it’s Crusty.

                1. Eddie doesn’t like the naughtiness. Gosh.

                  1. Wait? Am I Eddie? I thought we could engage in light-teasing(kinda-gay) here on Reason.

            2. Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore are decent comedies.

              1. Once again, Demolition Man wins a film category

                1. OK, I’ve got the best comedies of the last 20 years: Road Trip, Freddy Got Fingered, and Stealing Harvard

              2. Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore are is a decent comedies comedy.

                FTFY. Most of Sandler’s stuff I can’t stand. He was really funny on MTV’s Remote Control and went downhill from there.

                I’d rather gouge out my nipples and eyeballs with melon scoops than sit through Billy Madison.

                1. Billy Madison, gave us one of the epic burns out there.

                  “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

                  So I’ll give it points for that.

          2. While it’s nominally a superhero film, Deadpool was pretty funny, with a lot of dirty jokes you’d be embarrased to admit laughing at.

      2. I’d suggest The Palm Beach Story, but it would probably offend your Catholic sensibilities.

  35. Spot the Not; alternate and working titles of classic movies

    1. Star Beast

    2. Scared Sheetless

    3. It Had To Be Jew?

    4. The Lunch Bunch

    5. Extremely Violent

    6. The Christmas That Almost Wasn’t But Then Was

      1. [game show buzzer]

        The title character of Beetlejuice (1988) is named for a bright red star in the constellation of Orion, Betelgeuse. The studio disliked the title and wanted to call the film “House Ghosts”. As a joke, Tim Burton suggested the name “Scared Sheetless” and was horrified when the studio actually considered using it.

        -from IMDB

    1. 3. was a working title for Annie Hall. 2 sounds least likely.

  36. 1. Not a movie, it’s Han Solo’s nickname

    2. Birth of a Nation

    3. The Ten Commandments

    4. Thinner

    5. 80% of all movies ever made

    6. The Cuban Missile Crisis Story

  37. Currently listening/watching Welch on the short-lived Gavin McInnes Free Speech podcast from a year ago. Welch has such restraint putting up with the amateur bullshit of that show. But, McInnes does bring up a fifth column idea. Yeah right Mangu-Ward came up with that name, even if Welch shoots McInnes down.

  38. OK – who does the better version of John Dowland’s “Flow My Tears,” people who aren’t Sting, or Sting?

  39. Just for fun: ISIS leader mocked for wearing camo that looks like shawarma

    http://english.alarabiya.net/e…..utfit.html

    1. Delicious

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.