What I Saw at the 2017 #MarchForLife

Tens of thousands marched through Washington, D.C., today. As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention.


Unlike with last weekend's festivities, there do not appear to be any aerial photographs of the 2017 March for Life online. Nor are any mainstream media outlets reporting crowd number estimates, best I can tell.

So it's very hard to say how many anti-abortion demonstrators came out in the nation's capital today. I can say that from my perch atop a building overlooking Constitution Avenue, it looked like a hell of a lot. It took more than two hours for the crowd to pass me on foot as they traveled from the Washington Monument across town to the Supreme Court steps. The guy next to me on the roof shot a time-lapse video of the whole thing, if you'd like to see the mass of people for yourself:

But what stood out more than the size were the demographic characteristics of the crowd: It was overwhelmingly young people. Sure, there were Baby Boomers, and nuns, and priests, and parents with very small children. But for every one person outside the high school/college student demographic, there seemed to be five or ten inside of it. They came to Washington by the busload to speak, listen, march, and pray.

Over 58 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade, according to National Right to Life. The 44th anniversary of the decision, which legalized abortion nationwide, was last Sunday.

Evidence suggests libertarians are more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life. But as I've written, there's nothing logically inconsistent about thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.

Below is a taste of what I saw at the march.

Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade
Stephanie Slade

NEXT: Why Millennials Could Become the School Choice Generation

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. I think it’s great this march received some coverage from Reason, and while there are many commenters who are pro-life, I please ask that Reason does it’s best in the future to not accede to Eddie’s desires.

    Thank you.

    1. Come on, I didn’t think they’d *really* cover it! I would have held off on the snark.

        1. It’s a slippery slope to abortion, Kim Davis, and jokes that aren’t jokes.

          1. I seem to recall a lot of Kim Davis coverage in Reason without my prompting.

            1. The centrefold and calendar shoot were your fault, though.

              1. I have not consumed nearly enough alcohol for that comment to not reach my conscious brain you miserable sonuvabitch.

    2. It’s not “pro-life” anymore, it’s “anti-abortion”. Get with the progrom.

      1. Actually, it’s anti-rights. Wherever reasonable thought got a stride ahead of klavern superstition, a female human being is an individual and therefore has individual rights even if pregnant. The National Socialist idea is a Sophie’s Choice between being a free individual or a coerced milch cow (the exact term used when Darr? was herding frauleins into Hitlerjugend camps). The State, chooses, and Sophie obeys.

  2. A fetus is not a person.

    1. That’s why it’s bestiality, not rape, as I told the judge.

      1. You raped a fetus?

        1. No, he bestialitied a fetus. Try to keep up.

          1. My mistake.

      2. The unusually gentle quality of the coitus was also a major factor in the distinction.

    2. Why? I mean, I agree with you, but I don’t think I can prove it.

      1. Roe v Wade

        “…the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

        1. *headsmack*

          I think it is a mistake to use the rationale of the SC to define concepts that are defined very differently in the minds of the general public. A huge mistake.

          1. “Hey a government body of decision makers said so!”

            /not libertarian

            1. Whether something is libertarian and whether we live under a government are two different things.

              1. objective truth and the law are often two different things also.

                1. Who said I was discussing objective truth?

                  1. yes it was wrong for anyone to presume you were concerned with stating the truth with your words.

                    1. Well, this subthread certainly went nowhere fast.

                    2. You give two options yourself. Guess which one is correct.

          2. The public is often mistaken as to the law.

            1. And?

              The law is an ass.

          3. Suthen, this is the same guy who tried to argue that “silence” was evidence of something.

            1. Silence is violence. I heard that somewhere.

          4. Government (SCOTUS, etc.) definitions arise from the general culture, mores, traditions, etc., not vice versa as much as some would prefer that.

            1. Government definitions come straight out of a bureaucrat’s ass.

          5. I don’t see the “general public” defining personhood any different, or the Catholic church for that matter.

            I mean, you can make a reasonable argument that a fetus is “human life”, but what personality does a fetus have?

        2. Tautology

          1. I tried researching that term, and before I new it I came right back to the beginning.

        3. Appeal to authority…nice.

          I think abortion supporters are doing their side a terrible disservice to their position by using their increasingly noxious talking points to try and defeat the arguments of those who oppose abortion. Just last week, I read some fool explaining how the fetus is a parasite, which is a fairly new approach that’s destined to drive people away. Then there’s the pregnancy is servitude ditty. And you, declaring with no proof beyond a SCOTUS citation, that a fetus isn’t a person. None of these strengthen arguments in favor of a federal right of women to have abortions guaranteed and heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In fact, they weaken it–especially the parasite and servitude type ones–because they are abominations of language and reason.

          1. “Just last week, I read some fool explaining how the fetus is a parasite”

            Oh God, no! Somebody lit the cytotoxic signal.

          2. The parasite concept is taught in medicine even though there are major inconsistencies that emerge with a few second’s worth of thought. That maternal physiology causes miscarriage in most cases where the mother’s life is threatened or if the fetus is severely malformed is a biggie.

            1. Also, absent the emotions stirred by sympathy for humans, if one looks at the definition of parasite vs. symbiote, a fetus does behave as a parasite. It doesn’t generate/produce much of benefit to the host and consumes far, far more than it returns.

              One could argue that the fetus exchanges some fluids with the host, but so does a mosquito. And there are plenty of other parasites that can cause euphoric reactions in the host, so one cannot argue that a baby’s ability to trigger positive emotions in the mother is the baby’s symbiotic trade.

              1. And if you think along the lines of The Selfish Gene, it’s really the baby’s genes using the mother to thrive and replicate.

              2. The benefit is the reproduction of the host species. That’s a pretty significant benefit.

          3. I think abortion supporters are doing their side a terrible disservice to their position

            I don’t “support” abortion; in fact, I consider it sinful and wrong.

            The question is whether the US government has a right to punish women or doctors for performing abortions, and that’s a very different question. I think it’s quite clear that the US government does not have that right.

            A secondary question is whether a libertarian society would have the right to punish women for abortions. Again, I think such punishment would be inconsistent with libertarian principles.

      2. Schofield, of course you can’t prove it, because you are going to have to start with some assumptions that are based on different values for different people. Values do not have truth value.

        1. Personhood requires individuality. Individuality requires independence. A fetus is 100% dependent on the mother therefore not a person.

          1. So, a paraplegic who is ?100 percent dependent on their caregiver can be killed?

            1. So is a newborn baby and anyone can take care of them but you only have one mother.

              1. Think about this. If a fetus has rights do we charge a mother who accidently falls down the stairs with manslaughter? Maybe murder? What if she smokes or doesn’t eat healthy? Child abuse?

                1. Chemically harming your child in the womb is pretty evil actually, it is clearly different that accidentally falling down the stairs. Involuntary manslaughter (which I assume you were referring to) still requires some form of mens rea beyond a mere accident, so it is not the same as true accident of falling down the stairs.

                  I don’t know where you are going with the child abuse question, of course abusing your child is a crime (the argument merely rests on what constitutes abuse).

                2. I will leave this right here


                  1. 24 weeks is straight up murder. There has to be some limit.

                    1. 24 weeks is straight up murder.

                      Yup. My wife is at 25 weeks right now. The “straight up murder” line is waaaaay in the rearview mirror. Even at the 20 week anatomy scan, she was clearly a small human curled up in a ball, kicking, moving, and squirming. I first felt her kick around 17 weeks, and my wife felt it around 15 or 16.

                      My opinion is that implantation is a good “compromise” (allow for “emergency contraceptives”, but not much after). However, my experience with my wife’s pregnancy makes drawing a line after 20 weeks seem flat out barbaric.

                    2. Even at the 20 week anatomy scan, she was clearly a small human curled up in a ball, kicking, moving, and squirming

                      Looking human isn’t the same as personhood. After her accident, Terry Schiavo still looked like a human but was not a person anymore.

                    3. That sounds reasonable. However, the mother can still evict, as long as the fetus stays alive.

                    4. So long as the care for their creation (absent rape where they did not by definition participate in the creation).

                    5. If it is a human being at the moment of conception, then there can be no exceptions. It either is or it isn’t. That’s the argument that makes me the maddest when I hear it. You cannot kill a person for the acts, however abhorrent, of another.

                      Personally, I have trouble saying a small clump of cells has the same rights as an independent human being. But I also can’t see any essential difference between a baby 5 minutes before birth and 5 minutes after. So location, in and of itself doesn’t work as a definition either.

                      Viability is another common test proposed. But viability is also a matter of technology. At some point we will be able to grow a human being without being in a uterus at all. So that doesn’t work.

                      Where I’ve uneasily made my peace is when the brain starts to function, with the same kind of brain waves that the lack of are used to define the end of human life. That’s somewhere between 20 and 22 weeks. It is both an objective standard and consistent with law regarding the boundaries of protected human life at the other end.

                3. At what point, in your view, does the child become independent? When the umbilical cord is cut?

                  So if a full term baby is still attached, the mother can still “abort” it, because it’s part of her body… ? I once had a pro-choice woman answer in the affirmative to this question, but most humans would not.

                  I don’t like it, because I feel that abortion serves a valuable societal need, but ultimately logic seems to me grant personhood and rights at “viability” which due to technology will ultimately mean conception.

                4. And yet, every state has “fetal homicide” laws.


                  1. Enforcement of those fetal homicide laws is apparently in flux.

                    “Patel was arrested after she sought treatment at a local hospital for profuse bleeding after delivering a 1?-pound boy in a bathroom and putting his body in a trash bin at a Super Target near her family’s restaurant, according to court records. The records show she bought abortion-inducing drugs from an online pharmacy in Hong Kong.”

                    From a related, earlier article: “A pathologist for the prosecution also testified that the baby’s lungs passed a “floating test” ? the science of which has been contested ? indicating that the baby had drawn breath.”

                    How’s that not murder?

          2. Individuality requires independence


            1. Independent

              Free from outside control

              How do you characterize being in the womb?

              1. Friday night

          3. How do we decide which conjoined twin gets to kill the other one? fight to the death?

            1. If they will both die without separation, they pick the one they think most likely to survive … that’s a normal medical triage decision. Probably the one decision doctors hate to make the most, yet make it they must if either is to survive.

              1. That sidesteps the moral question. Assume they will both live without separation.

                1. Even better, assume that if you wait nine months, you’ll be able to separate them without any adverse effect on either.

          4. Well, it’s not a squirrel.

      3. My take is that a fetus is a person if and when it becomes “brain alive” for the first time, and not before. This by symmetry to someone becoming permanently brain-dead – they can be removed from life support and (given the appropriate legal permissions) chopped up for spare parts.

        Or as I put it when I’m feeling snarky: “Abortion stops a beating heart – but so do heart transplants.”

        1. Imagine you have someone who is “brain dead”. However, you know this person will recover in 9 months and will no longer be brain dead. Do you still have a moral right to terminate that life? Of course, the response will be that someone who is brain dead can’t recover. (We know for a fact that a diagnosis of brain death is not 100% reliable. People have recovered from it.) If this is true, though, that would mean a fetus is NOT “brain dead”, but something else and “brain dead” is an incorrect, possibly dishonest, way of describing the situation.

          1. It depends on how they’re measuring “brain dead.” Too often it’s just the state of the patient, persistent coma, never seen one like this recover, vegetative state, etc. without actual brain scans being run and getting a flat line. In fact, doing a Google search I only came up with one case of people recovering after being declared brain dead where brain scans were used at all, and that one explicitly mentioned that there weren’t “enough” done to properly declare him dead.

    3. what if it organizes itself into a corporation?

      1. Then yes. That would prove sentience.

        1. Sapience is what makes us human.

    4. And, in your opinion, at what exactly point of development, a human become a person? Does two days old premature baby is a person? If yes, what the difference between a premature baby who was born on week 24 and a 24 weeks old fetus? If not, would you allow to ‘abort’ 2 days olds, 2 month olds, 2 years old babies? Some ‘babies’ cannot survive on their own until after high school. Should we start ‘aborting’ everyone who don’t work and exists purely on welfare benefits?

      1. You know who else wanted to retro-actively abort the useless and the infirm?

        (The answer is early 20th century progressives.)

    5. Yesterday’s Executive Order changed the 14th Amendment. It now reads: “All ova fertilized…

  3. Sheesh, now Wapo is trying to shut down private persons recording time-lapse video of public events. Sad!

    I’m not surprised there were a lot of Millennials. The Always Sunny episode will always be relevant.

  4. I think Stephanie Slade’s article was articulate and very much implied her viewpoint (and the viewpoints of other individuals).

    1. Agreed. Although I lean pro-life based on the principle of all human life being sacred, regardless of far along it happens to have physically progressed or where it resides, I must admit that I believe the sheer amount of governmental oversight and possible criminal inquries required to investigate what may be arbitrarily deemed a ‘suspicious miscarriage’ by overzealous hospital staff would lead to an unacceptable infringement upon our rights.

      Maybe I’m being a touch hyperbolic with that scenario but who knows. To be honest, it’s a subject which I feel a great deal of conflict over and have yet to make peace with my stance in the matter. That’s why I never comment on abortion threads.

      Either way, I appreciate the fact Reason gives Ms. Slade an occasional opportunity to gives us a libertarian perspective that isn’t regarded by some as overtly Cosmo.

      Cheers, Steph. Hope you stick around for awhile.

      1. You are not being hyperbolic, that is not a possibility, it is a certainty. That is how it was before and how it is now in a zillion countries where abortion is illegal.

        1. It is an absolutely certain that the state will abuse the power and harass innocent people. That said, the state already abuses the power to prosecute murderers and rapists to harass innocent people and yet, to the extent we should have a state at all, murder and rape should be illegal.

          I do not think the reluctant pro-choice argument is immoral though. The state is utterly incapable of enforcing even legitimate crimes in moral manor. The inherent evil of the state is why I think the abortion issue should ultimately be solved by a change in culture (to accept the person-hood of unborn humans) and technology (artificial wombs, removing any property rights rather person-hood based arguments).

          1. ultimately be solved by a change in culture (to accept the person-hood of unborn humans) and technology (artificial wombs, removing any property rights rather person-hood based arguments).

            Bing bing bing! Perfect artificial wombs would seem to dramatically weaken almost all good pro-abortion arguments.

            1. It doesn’t completely solve it though without the cultural change. I’m currently reading the Darkship Thieves series (a very libertarian series and the first book won a Prometheus award), and the hypothetical future society in the book procreates exclusively through artificial wombs so that the women can continue to work. It’s not delved into too deeply but the parents (rather than just the mother) clearly retain property rights, including termination, until some unelaborated point in development. I don’t think it is a logically inconsistent position even though I disagree.

      2. I am exactly where you are, Trigger.

      3. Having a child pushed me toward the pro life side. When my now wife got pregnant, it was not what I was looking for at all all the time. 5 years later, best thing that ever happened to me.

      4. Sounds like the perfect is the enemy of the good here. Can’t have a justice system composed of humans without having human error.

      5. TH, you expressed exactly how I feel. Well done.

        And count me in as one who is glad Reason covered it.

        Screw the rest of the media; someone should abort it.

      6. Brava ms. Slade, well said trigger!

      7. I feel the exact same way on this. I think reasonable people from all sides on the debate could come up with a solution that 85%+ could agree on: “Restricted from conception? No. Allowed day before birth? No. So, somewhere in between then, yes. 20 weeks? 24? We all good on 24? Great, take the rest of the day off.”

        Even with a good compromise, I’m afraid of the application of government power required to enforce it.

        Although I don’t like what it does to our culture, I can really appreciate the good that accrues to the gene pool from allowing abortion.

    2. The thing Stephanie overlooks is that definitions aren’t logical. Logic is a set of rules of inference, and GIGO still applies. If a woman is defined as not an individual at times, then she at times lacks individual rights. Stupid assumptions yield dumb derivations.
      But observe the foaming hysteria of the bigots the GOP had to pander to to keep electricity legal just now. They correctly blame the LP for Roe v. Wade. Back when the LP had guts (and was kept off the teevee by all three networks) The electoral vote for John Hospers and Tonie Nathan came in as the Republican court was mulling over Roe v Wade. The Court decided against political suicide, exactly as in the recent Gay Marriage case, in order to stop a large bloc of voters from voting Libertarian. No effort or expense has since 1973 been spared to infiltrate us with mindless programmable mystics. Eternal vigilance is in order.

  5. As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention

    I’m sure they’ll show a photo from space that demonstrates “clearly there was no one there”

    1. Don’t they usually just wait a few hours after the main event and take their shot then?

      1. Whatever works, really. So many methods.

    2. “This fetus bites back”?

  6. Nice to see all the George Michael fans.

  7. I’m just glad there’s no pics of the pro-life extremists with the knitted aborted-fetus hats.

    1. This made me laugh.

    2. Actually, that would be very cool. I can see the design incorporating a coat-hanger, somehow.

      BTW, I don’t think you can really hang a coat from a coat-hanger, they’re much to flimsy. Shouldn’t we call them “shirt-hangers”?

  8. Thank you Stephanie, good article.

    It would be very informative if someone would take the time to put together an audio montage comparing the rhetoric of the speakers at the March for Life and the Trump protesters. Mike Pence vs. Ashley Judd for example.

    The difference between the MFL speakers – talk of liberty, inalienable rights, the sacredness of life – and the angry, ugly rhetoric of the protesters is very stark.

    Also, I notice no broken windows, bloody scalps, burning cars, or even trash on the ground in these photos.

    1. Sure, sure, she skipped a photo of the deep dish pizza.

      1. By coincidence this very evening I made a thin crust pizza with so many toppings on it that it could be mistaken for deep dish. This might explain my pro-life but sometimes abortion is necessary position.

  9. Them pictures be whiter than Bernie Sanders event!
    Seriously, thanks for the article. But I was surprised to see CBC noticing it happened, even if 75% of the article is how abortion isn’t a big deal! and it’s on decline anyway and TRUUUUUUUMP!!!

    1. Martin Luther King’s niece is a prominent prolife advocate. I’m not sure if she was at the march, but the criticized the so-called women’s march:

      “Who’s going to represent those little baby girls who’ve been aborted?”

      1. I’m sure, but look at Slade’s photos! It’s like canada up in that shit!

        1. If you’re black, associating with the March for Life is like flipping off the Democratic Party, which for some weird reason is considered to be an act of Betrayal of Your People. So it takes a good deal of boldness. But I still saw black demonstrators when I went to earlier Marches.

          1. The company I work for hired a black electrician a month and a half ago. I have been training him since then. We haven’t discussed politics at all until today. We didn’t talk much, but he did say, “taxation is theft” I already like him more.

            1. Whispers in his ear ” you complete me”

          2. “Betrayal of Your People”

            It’s truly repugnant that so many so-called “anti-racists” have this attitude that non-whites belong to the Democrat Party and cannot vote based on their own individually formed opinions.

            I’m glad I’ve never met one of these shitheels in real life, because if one of them told me that I’m “betraying” “my people” by not voting blue, I’d probably lose my shit and end up in jail. I don’t fucking belong to any political party or racial group. I’m an individual human being with the ability to think rationally (until I pass the 12-beer mark).

            1. The Democratic and God’s Own party are looter collectivist gangs. Since electricity replaced chattel slavery the Dems have gone over to communism to bring it back. The Republicans started out as commies (see Uncle Tom’s Cabin, The Red Republican) but the impetus of foaming mystical fanaticism carried them first into the National Socialist camp (after Bert Hoover lost), then into anti-communism. Republican anti-communism is not economic at all. They hate commies because commies don’t love Jesus. The Libertarian party, which operates leveraged spoiler votes to change the laws, does not need to compromise with ku-klux and other mystical looter coalitions. As the party of principle we quietly force the repeal of bad laws. Their tears and blood drawn are delicious, and I could watch commies and nationalsocialists fight all day–and place bets on the side.

          3. There’s a special place in Progressive Hell for members of “oppressed” groups who don’t fall in line and vote like they’re supposed to. Cases in point: the “progressive” left’s treatment of Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Milo Yiannopoulis, etc. Hell, they’re even comfortable calling them “uncle Toms” and “clowns in blackface”.

            Racist as fuck.

            1. Move over, Uncle Sam! It’s time for Uncle Tom to drive!
              ~Kmele 2020

        2. Not enough Asians.

        3. Canada had abortion laws back in the Dark Ages, but repealed them all. Canada never did have much of a Ku-klux klan, though, nor a Landover Baptist Church.

  10. Thank you, Reason, for sending out your prolife caucus to cover this.

    More Stephanie Slade, please.

    1. Congrats, Fuse.

      Especially interesting:
      But for every one person outside the high school/college student demographic, there seemed to be five or ten inside of it. They came to Washington by the busload to speak, listen, march, and pray.

      And this is legit as well:
      Evidence suggests libertarians are more likely to be pro-choice than pro-life. But as I’ve written, there’s nothing logically inconsistent about thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.

      Even though it lights the Hihn signal.

      1. Should have bolded aggression.

      2. Stefanie is gonna make the list! Yay!

        All I ask is she gets ahead of John Titor.

        1. Hey friendo, that would bump me down to #10!?!

          1. Not if you kill Titor.

            Let’s get all No More Heroes in here!

            1. Bitch, I got a time machine and multiverse theory is true. Bring it on.

              1. Since I’m not on the list, I see myself more as Sylvia Krystel in this analogy…

                1. Wow, did you ever just date yourself. I haven’t heard that name in…uh…I cant remember.

                  1. For those who missed the best gaming satire of 2006-2012, wiki link and if I weren’t on iPad I would provide the opening video (look it up).

                2. I’m going to guess you don’t have the tits for it. Hopefully.

                  1. Maybe in volume, but how do you compete with that?

        2. It won’t be until mid-day Sunday that this thread is desecrated by MH.

        3. *Looks up from counting gold (((teeth)))*

          I’m sorry, what?

    2. More Stephanie Slade, please.


    3. Less Steph YAF, and less Lyndon la Rouche!

  11. Reason giving EQUAL TIME?!?! WTF?!? Is this some new editorial initiative or something? Stephanie, you won’t be invited to the BEST cocktail parties with articles like this!!!

    1. Define ‘best’.

      1. Robby gets so drunk he reveals The Secrets of the Hair.

          1. I never get invited to those parties 🙁

          2. Yeah, that’s about the least interesting thing I could imagine following the words “Robby gets so drunk he…”

            1. …puts on a MAGA hat and starts working on his car engine?

              1. Perhaps less likely but not exactly the direction I was going.

            2. he puts on his goat ropers and has congress with….. oh nevermind.

              1. Now you’re just being disgusting. But warmer.

                1. Last time somebody wanted to watch Robby masturbate a grizzly bear. Is this what you wanted to hear, Rhywun?

                  1. Dear God no. Sometimes I forget where I am.

          3. I think it’s rather obvious that it involves orphan blood.

        1. I was thinking the best ones are the ones you don’t have to carry around a five gallon bucket of sanitary wipes so you can disinfect your hands after every handshake.

  12. Mark me down as a grouch, but I’d kind of like to know if they picked up after themselves, vandalized any monuments, broke and windows, torched any cars, or punched anyone.

    Anyone know?

    1. I think there’s a clue here:

      “As usual, media outlets paid the protest minimal attention”

    2. They did pick up after themselves, but they also tortured and murdered the homeless.

      1. The surviving homeless were subjected to Christian rock, which is even worse.

        1. Pantera rocks! (Not really)

  13. It’s insane how the regular media ignores this march every year.

    ABC deleted Trump’s March for Life reference from the online transcript of his recent interview, which was hilarious.

    ABC:So could you hear the womens march from your office? They say there were millions at this event.

    Trump: Nope. You guys gonna cover the March for Life next week? They have millions and you guys never cover it. Why is that??


    Great reporting Ms. Slade.

    1. It’s one the front page of Google News.

  14. What a bunch of busybodies. My body, my choice– church ladies.

    1. Hey did you ever figure out that energy actually includes entropy and that NPT isn’t the only ensemble anyone ever uses?

  15. Regardless of your position on abortion, it’s pretty much undeniable that these posters are less 100%-pure-insane than their pro-choice Wymyns’ March counterparts.

        1. I’ve got $20 on Hermes.

      1. Halp, James Cameron!

  16. “thinking people of all ages and stages should be protected from aggression.”

    By whom, there’s the rub.

    1. STEVE SMITH, duh. He hates aggression by others.

    2. Protected from aggression by whom
      Protected by whom from aggression


      1. It’s trueman; he spouts one inanity or the other in the hopes that someone will mistake it for some profundity.
        He’s an idiot.

        1. “He’s an idiot.”

          I’ve never hidden the fact. I also know some of the tricks writers play with the passive voice. ie “The cake was eaten.”

          1. mtrueman|1.27.17 @ 10:48PM|#
            “I’ve never hidden the fact. I also know some of the tricks writers play with the passive voice. ie “The cake was eaten.”

            Well, look there! The idiot admits to being an idiot and proves it once again!
            Folks, he’ll be here as often as he can sneak back in an hope no one notices!

      2. Opens up a whole can of worms, doesn’t it. Best just leave this by whom stuff out of it. It makes a fine platitude as it stands.

        1. mtrueman|1.27.17 @ 10:45PM|#
          “Opens up a whole can of worms, doesn’t it.”

          No, it seems to suggest you should offer more lame bullshit.
          No one here is fooled by your pretensions. Fuck off, and troll for hits on your pathetic blog elsewhere.

          1. There’s nothing pretentious about my comments here.

    1. RIP – he was Richard Rich in Man For All Seasons.

      1. He was great, but at the time I kept thinking about Richie Rich.

        1. Richie Rich and Caspar the Friendly Ghost are the same person. Think about it.

          And they should fornicate.

          1. Casper.

      1. My thoughts exactly. After last year, I’m used to these people dropping like flies. This one is really bothering me, though.

        1. He aged the way I wish I could have. That black and white pic of him is excellent. He just rolled with years and adjusted his fashion accordingly. Yes, Madonna, I’m looking at you. I look like a terminally ill 27 year old rather than the 47 year old I am. Time to throw out the flannel hoodie I suppose.

          1. I’m in my mid-40s and still get carded…in the U.S. anyway. Buncha babies.

            1. Honey, don’t flatter yourself. Some of them are trained to card anyone that looks under retirement age now. Thank a lawyer and/or government official south of you.

              1. It’s really dependent though, I’ve recently turned 30 and haven’t been carded in ages outside of liquor stores (who always card everyone here), even though the law says I should be carded. I think regrowing my beard has been a big part of that though, gotta cover the baby face.

                1. I’m in my late 40s and still get carded at some big chains like Rite Aid, but I don’t think I’ve ever been carded at a liquor store, ever. (NY liquor stores are not run by the government FWIW.)

                  1. Part of it certainly corporate culture. 95% of the time I shop at not only the biggest chain in the state but the biggest individual liquor store in Houston. That said I don’t remember ever not being carded in a liquor store. I think the POS system they use requires input of an age. Grocery store POS systems commonly do the same thing but he employees are much more likely to just click through it.

              2. In all seriousness, my wife and I can easily pass as being in our late 20s or 30s.

                No one believes us when we tell our age – and my wife is older than me!

                1. Scratch that 20s part – 30s.

                  1. I looked like a teenager until I was about 30. Then I got a real job and realized I was probably just undernourished the whole time. Then I went gray around 35 and that was the end of that.

                    1. Well, I am very thin.

                  2. Rufus aged before our eyes.

          2. I’m shocked to learn he was only 77. It seemed like he was in his 70s for the past 20 years or more.

            But he had a great voice.

            1. It seemed like he was in his 70s for the past 20 years or more.

              he was a very very very heavy drinker for a long time.

              1. *eyes bottle of whisky*

                So I could look like John Hurt, or I could look like Donald Trump and Penn Jillette…

                1. 7 bottles of wine a day. sometimes “what you drink” (and how) is the key-factor in the decrepitude. plenty of heavy drinkers don’t start to disintegrate in their 40s. you have to put some special effort into it.

    2. I will always remember him as the proto-monkey-man in Altered States

      oh, JOHN Hurt. My bad. I will always remember him for his greatest performances, both of which feature the word, “bleargh”

      1. LOL. Great movie, though.

      2. He was a great trumpet player, too.

    3. John Hurt is my Doctor tbh

  17. If you try to kick a person off your airplane in mid flight for refusing to make a gay wedding cake, you are responsible for the damage his corpse does to the border wall.

    1. Welp, now we know what was in the box.

        1. Layne Staley’s skull? How much did that cost?

          1. Less than it cost him. The needle marks in the orbital sockets tell a cute forensic tale.

  18. OT, for anyone worrying about Trump’s latest Imperial Edict, from BBC

    The text of the order was released several hours after it was signed. Among the measures are:

    Suspension of the US Refugee Admissions Programme for 120 days
    A ban on refugees from Syria until “significant changes” are made
    A 90-day suspension on arrivals from Iraq, Syria, and countries designated “areas of concern”
    To prioritise future refugee applications on the basis of religious-based persecution – but only if the person is part of a minority religion in their home country
    A cap of 50,000 refugees in 2017 – less than half of Mr Obama’s upper limit

    However, a mention of creating “safe zones” within Syria, seen in an earlier draft, was removed from the final order.

    1. I’m relieved at that last part.

      1. I heard that evil Trump is going to outlaw abortions for Syrian refugees

        1. I recall mentioning to Mike Godwin about Hitler’s encouragement of abortion among “inferior” races.

          That was when he ventured into the comments once. Funny, I haven’t seen him around lately.

            1. You know who else we haven’t seen around lately?

    2. To prioritise future refugee applications on the basis of religious-based persecution – but only if the person is part of a minority religion in their home country

      This is good. 95% of the “refugees” that Obama admitted from Syria and Iraq were Sunni Muslims. Less than 5% were Yazidi and Christian, although these two groups have been the hardest hit.

      1. I will never stop pointing out that PM Zoolander found the idea of priority for Christians and Jazidis disgusting, and abolished the program when he got to power.

  19. I was just watching the news. Apparently, Donald Trump was elected president at some point. Does anyone else know this?

    It’s somewhat surprising, I must say.

    1. He was not elected, he was installed by Russian tanks.

      Sentient T-34/85s who look like anime chicks for some reason, specifically.

      1. I really don’t want to know why you seem to know so much about animes involving schoolgirls and Soviet era combat vehicles.

          1. Oh, I knew what you were talking about. Anime, visual novels, whatever.

            I’m just saying…it’s suspicious.

    2. What? Dude, you’re crazy. He’s just some weird reality TV star; who the hell would vote for him?

      1. Bush would ever give up power and allow elections anyway.

    3. Naw that was just a joke from The Simpsons.


  20. The religious indoctrination of children is a serious problem where I live. It’s almost child abuse to trick a child into believing this insanity. Religions are the original alternative facts. Beware of this shit.

    1. You know what else is like child abuse? Killing them.

      1. I was trying to post that, word for word, but when I try to post something the page goes to some weird ad page then reloads to a blank page.
        The blank page won’t load anything, just keeps reloading a blank page. I have to open a new window and start all over. My comments appear about one in ten times. It is very frustrating.

    2. This is a totally new, original thought, and certainly not something I was taught since I was 5. Thank you, random new poster who is totally not a sock!

      Smrt fa?izmu, sloboda narodu!

      1. Where random poster lives is empirical evidence that there is no god.

        1. Meh, they made a great car back in the eighties

      2. Ah yes, the days when “Serbo-Croatian” was a thing.

    3. We’ve gone from Nietzsche to this people. This is why New Atheism sucks.

      1. Anything that ends with “theism” sucks.

        1. “ism”


    4. The religious indoctrination of children is a serious problem where I live.

      Those damned religous children getting up early on Sundays, abstaining from sex in high school, and wearing those stupid WWJD bracelets! Get off my lawn you Invisible Sky Daddy believers!!!

      1. What Would (Denver) J Do

          1. Damn straight. A vape loaded with shatter- nicotine is the Debil (unless it’s in a cigar)

            1. I don’t know how you do concentrate. More power to ya.
              I just got home from the store. Mix and match 2 quarters, get the early bird price for the half.

              1. Just do less. Upside: you don’t smell like a skunk.

            2. I read that as loaded with Shattner, for some unexplainable reason.

              1. Dude, whatever floats your boat.

      2. I have it on good authority that all the religious guys are pussies and all the chicks hot, sex-starved vixens. What’s the problem?

    5. The bible and church are the reasons I’m not religious.

      There are non religious arguments on both sides of abortion.

      1. No doubt it is a difficult issue. I’ve thought about it a lot, going back and forth between the two sides. In the end, I think Walter Block’s evictionism makes the most sense, if applied after legal personhood is established. When legal personhood begins is the thorny issue, of course. Somewhere in the second trimester is my guess. I also think this is what most reasonable people would conclude.

        1. At least as far as where the law should be, that sounds about right. Its no easy thing. it all hinges on personhood, and i suppose how strict we interpret the NAP

          1. I don’t think you can look at “legal” personhood, though. It was once legal to own slaves, too. In some cultures, it was legal to sacrifice virgins to volcanoes or whatever else was to hand, which was a real waste of virgins, but what can you do?

        2. I’m pro legal abortion, but the assumption that prolife is automagically unlibertarian is horse shit.

          1. Why have I never seen THAT word before?

            1. What, “horse”? It’s a 4 legged mammal.

            2. That’s a good word.

              1. It’s not mine. I stole “automagically” from a tv ad about some music app a few years ago.

                1. I’ve only ever seen “atuomagically” in Erfworld, so…

                  1. You read Erfworld while waiting on the next OotS, then?

        3. First, I doubt there are many people at all who are “pro abortion”. The few women I know who have had one did not get pregnant so they could do so, so we need to put that meme aside.

          “When legal personhood begins is the thorny issue, of course.”
          IFAIK, this is the only issue which needs resolution. I tend to agree with you, but there are plenty who are willing to define it ‘way earlier.

          1. Actually, there are “pro abortion” people. They tend to be racist, although not always, and the idea is that it decreases crime and spares innocents from being forced to live in appalling circumstances.

            1. DenverJ|1.27.17 @ 10:27PM|#
              “Actually, there are “pro abortion” people.”

              I’ll bet four or five.

              1. Meh, there seem to be a few of the Lena Dunham types who want to celebrate their abortions. It is, however, a small but vocal minority. Similar to the anti-abortion people who spend their free time protesting outside abortion clinics.

                Abortion is a complicated issue that doesn’t lend itself well to black and white moralizing for most people’s principles.

                I’m guessing the majority of the people at the march for life would be sympathetic to a rape victim who took RU-486. And most of the people at the women’s march last week probably would have some moral unease at aborting a fetus at 8 months.

          2. Yep. “Reduce harmful procedures” seems like the only way forward.

          3. I certainly wouldn’t describe these men and women a pro-abortion.

        4. Outside of rape, the evictionism argument completely ignores the mother’s decision to engage in a procreative act. Beyond that, I’m not convinced that trespass should be capital crime. I don’t even see how a fetus is a trespasser though when they are put where they are without their consent.

          1. I think that’s where the pro-choice argument and especially the evictionist argument is weakest. Their analysis starts in medias res. I don’t think I have seen an evictionist argument that fully addresses the problem that the mother tacitly consented* to the “trespass” and that the fetus didn’t consent to it.

            *Minus rape

          2. What?? There is no contract created during the sex act. That line of argument carries no water from any kind of legal perspective. As for the trespass, that is what evictionism claims, that you can evict but not kill.

            1. Sex is procreative act no matter how many preventatives we use. You inherently consent to the possibility of pregnancy. The fetus certainly doesn’t consent to its existence, hence the responsibility of those who did consent (the parents) to care for the child or arrange for someone else to. If they can transfer to an artificial womb that is fine but they would still be financially responsible until they transfer that responsibility.

              I’m not positive that all evictionists are pro-life under currently available technology either.

              1. I’M 1000% SURE!

            2. So, if there is no “contract”, there is no agreement. Hence, the sex act is rape.

            3. So, if there is no “contract”, there is no agreement. Hence, the sex act is rape.

          3. “the mother’s decision to engage in a procreative act.”

            This, along with the fact that a fetus becomes a human being at some hard-to-discern point, has made me somewhat less pro-abortion rights. I’m still reluctantly in favor of it since a government prohibition brings severe problems with it.

          4. Well, according to the Left, women are too emotional and ignorant to be able to control their own choice to engage in a behavior that has a high likelihood of resulting in pregnancy, so they can’t really be held accountable for their own decisions. Also, men are really just animals who prey on unsuspecting women with the sole intention to impregnate them against their will.

  21. My hometown made The Onion. I miss Chicken Waffles.

    1. Haven’t seen Waffles in a bit. Wonder where he is. Also, don’t call him chicken

      1. Isn’t Waffles also Vampire?

        1. Who knows. I can’t keep track

        2. Did he get bitten by Hihn? I thought Hihn didn’t have any teeth anymore. I suppose they make vampire dentures.

  22. OT: So, Reason — I’ve been working everyday since 12/28/16, 12-15 hours a day (I work in IT), and have another long weekend of work coming up.

    I go out of my room and my proggy roommate (who has a very cushy 8-5 job where he spends have his time posting leftist crap on facebook and watching the daily show), started complaining about how “stressful” his job was today, and grunting and groaning randomly.

    I really don’t know what to say to that, so I turned around and walked right back to my room.

    1. Don’t live with a proggy roommate. Life is too short.

    2. Hang in there – it’ll get better. It might take a couple decades.

    3. However much of a douche your roommate is, if 12-15 hour days is a standard rather than a limited crunch time thing, you should get another job. Life is too short for that.

      1. usually it’s not that bad, but dec/jan is the worst time of the year by far. getting lots of comp time at least

        the joke is I am out maybe once a month to LA or San Diego to go to the theme parks, visit family, see a Giants game in San Diego, etc, because if I’m not physically out of the bay area I will end up working.

        So I have SD and Vegas coming up at the end of next month, the SD / Giants for my B-Day in April, San Diego / LA in May, July, August, Reno in June.

        So yeah it’s either 7 days a week 12+ hrs a day, or 4/5 day weekend to get out of Dodge. Nothing in-between

        1. I feel you, as a lawyer I sometimes have absolutely brutal months and other times where I work a normal work week. I’d almost prefer the crunch time being at a predictable time a year. I definitely choose to work at a small firm rather than big law though because working those hours all the time is not worth the marginal increase in salary. No point in making money if you don’t have time to spend it.

          1. well said, agree completely. I’m at a smaller company in IT so when it’s crunch time, that’s pretty much all you’re doing. A few years ago I didn’t have a single day off in 5 1/2 months, but I do have a flexible schedule now and can take a lot of time off during lulls.

            I got my first Disneyland pass because I have family down there, and went 17 days in a year (8 trips). I need it to keep sane, lol.

            Crunch time is nice though, I think I do better work under pressure than when it’s slow.

            1. Crunch time is nice though, I think I do better work under pressure than when it’s slow.

              Yes, as long as it isn’t all consuming. It sounds like your employer does a good job of giving you leeway to make up for the rough parts. Crunch time makes the day go a lot faster than when you’re twiddling your thumbs.

            2. Of course, but when crunch time is all the time its not crunch time anymore. Crunch time is when its even worse!

          2. How many freaking lawyers are there on Reason? Also, fuck the bar exam. I haven’t wanted to kill myself this much in a very long time.

            1. The bar exam sucked, but when I realized how high the passage rate is and that the number of retards in the room was higher than the failure rate it didn’t seem so bad. Absent moving between states (and dependent on reciprocity) you only have to take it once!

            2. “first thing we do is kill all the lawyers” -Bill S.

    4. Push him up against the wall, get up in his face, and hiss “motherfucker, if I have to listen to one more whiny little pussy bitch about anything, I’m going to gut that person like a fish.”
      It’ll be fun, I promise.

      1. I mean, at least DenverJ gets laid after listening to whining.

        1. Unless i get annoyed enough to tell her what i think of her stupid stupidity.

          1. Don’t be stupid, DenverJ.

        1. That show had great acting but was a bit much.

    5. Just think about how all the saved retirement money you’ll have to enjoy life while he’ll still be an idiot whinebag. That should make you feel a little better.

    6. Get another job. I really hope you are paid well for that.

  23. These people just obviously don’t understand the magic of having a pregnancy aborted and never having to deal with the consequences.

    1. I wish I were a woman so I could get pregnent and have an abortion. It’s not fair. Those bitches need to check their privilege.

  24. It’s like the only two political choices in the US are (1) make everybody pay for free abortions for anybody who wants them at any time, and (2) throw women and doctors in jail for performing any abortions.

    How about we just keep government out of the abortion issue altogether? Most people consider abortion sinful, but not everything that is sinful needs to be criminalized.

    1. If abortion is murder (or abortion after a certain level of development is murder) this is not an acceptable compromise. Payment with confiscated tax money for abortion is a non-sequitur, that is completely unacceptable to any libertarian.

  25. Leftie bling lovers pissed at bling which ain’t lefty:

    “Melania Trump is eating jewels on Vanity Fair Mexico’s cover, and people are furious
    “First lady Melania Trump is on the cover of Vanity Fair’s Mexican edition, and many Mexicans are both baffled and furious, given the current strain between President Donald Trump and Mexico.”

    WIH that image would have anything to do with Trump’s closed-borders stance is a mystery to me. Maybe an abortion is involved.

    1. an “insult to our country,”

      Is there some shared national trauma about eating diamonds that completely escapes us gringos? Because I read the article and it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

        1. Nope. No click on your blind links.
          I got your number.

          1. During his time living in New York City, he is credited with bringing in the first shipments of chicle, the base of chewing gum. He failed to profit from this, since his plan was to use the chicle to replace rubber in carriage tires, which was tried without success.

            Thomas Adams, the American assigned to aid Santa Anna while he was in the U.S., experimented with chicle in an attempt to use it as a substitute for rubber. He bought one ton of the substance from Santa Anna, but his experiments proved unsuccessful. Instead, Adams helped to found the chewing gum industry with a product that he called “chiclets”.

            The Trickster God is the one true god.

            1. I’m sorry he didn’t make a bundle on his efforts, but he seems a bit ‘flexible’:

              “His political positions changed frequently in his lifetime; “his opportunistic politics made him a Liberal, Conservative, and uncrowned king.”[9] He was overthrown for the last time by the liberal Revolution of Ayutla in 1854 and lived most of his later years in exile.”

              1. He was flexible in the way all tyrants are: whatever will keep them in power. He even failed repeatedly at that though.

              2. It seems like losing almost half of Mexico’s territory at the time to the US, including Texas, Nevada, and California would be a bigger black mark against his legacy.

                And now I’ve got The Yellow Rose of Texas stuck in my head. Even though the story that Santa Anna lost Texas because he was more concerned about getting busy with a woman, who in the parlance of the time would have been described as a ‘High Yellow’, is somewhat apocryphal.

    2. I must mention that the Chron is ‘fish in a barrel’.
      Can’t remember the name of the former NYT writer who blew the whistle on the top-down, narrative-directed editing direction, but from acquaintances who do and did write for the Chron, that’s pretty much what goes on there.
      Judging by the paper and e-version, it seems the quota is something like 4-5 Trump-bashings per day. Some are really lame (‘What Trump’s Name Means in Chinese”), others less so but misleading anyhow, as in when K. Pender (one of the few who refuses to write in lefty language) still got stuck with a headline regarding how the Dow rise ‘didn’t help the poor’ when writing about the dramatic rise since the election.
      I do not know her, but I’m sorry she has to tolerate that shit.

  26. I just now became aware of this. BBC: Makes our media look fair, balanced and intellectually honest.


    1. Anybody who watched the Brexit coverage live as it happened would be disabused of that notion. They were freaking the fuck out, it was easily the most enjoyable night of news coverage I watched in 2016. When Sunderland came in for Brexit and Newcastle (Labor hotbeds and therefore what conventional wisdom assumed were Remain hotbeds) barely came in as Remain rather than a blowout you could see quite plainly the physical change in their demeanor. It is doubly evil as it is tax payer funded.

      1. “…it was easily the most enjoyable night of news coverage I watched in 2016…”

        Better than the slow realization by the lefty US press that the hag was gonna be the President Reject?
        Dunno, that was hard to beat; I kept expecting some state I’d missed was gonna go hag-wunnerful, and it never happened.

        1. Yeah it was definitely better, because no matter how fun our election was we still were stuck with Trump at the end of it.

          1. Ya know, that was my take at the time, but given the +/- ratio since then he (and/or his staff) have done a pretty good job.
            I despise his protectionism, but I’m not sure the cancelation of the Pac agreement was harmful; I opposed that since that miserable fucking liar Obo hid what was in it, and I trusted him to screw me every chance he got.
            Man, I’m happy he’s gone!

          2. I loved seeing the NY Times(?) “likely winner” meter needle move slowly away from “almost certainly Hillary” over the course of the evening.

    2. Prefacing every question with a laundry list of virtue signals is going to be the new normal at press conferences. Fucking hacks.

    3. OMFG. I thought his response was remarkably restrained.

      1. Restrained in the face of a “strafing run”. In fact, that is where I got my handle from. Lefties dump a pile of highly debatable statements on the table and then wrap up it up with an unanswerable question.

        1. Lefties dump a pile of highly debatable statements on the table and then wrap up it up with an unanswerable question.

          exactly. its become so shallow and transparent that they’re completely disinterested in the content of any answer = they just want to shit up the entire environment, and make the conversation about “DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WE WANT EVERYONE TO HATE YOU? HOW DOES THAT MAKE YOU FEEL = GIVE US SOME JUICY QUOTES TO MISCONSTRUE”, as though that’s “holding government accountable” or “helping expose crucial information”, or anything that might be considered within the public interest.

          1. They’re always saying “Let’s unpack that answer” yet it never crosses their mind to “unpack” the bs question. It’s Tower of Babel heights of incoherence.

            1. They’re always saying “Let’s unpack that answer”

              iow, ‘let’s translate it into what we want it to mean’

              the most common (and tiresome) form of argument i hear from millenials on the intertubes is the

              “So what you’re saying is [INSERT GIGANTIC FLIMSY STRAW MAN], right?”

              Which, for ‘twitter fights’ is fine and all; its when ‘Prestige-Media Journalist-Professionals’ do it in “interviews” that it gets completely fucking ridiculous.

          2. The TPP was DOA, whether Clinton or Trump became president.

            1. I dunno. I think Hillary would have approved it despite what she campaigned on. She’s not going to turn her back on that sort of graft.

          3. The thing that bugged me was in the first press conference, the WH press corps asked the new guy, “Do you promise you won’t ever lie to us?”

            That’s not really a question for a presidential briefing, that’s a question a woman who just went through a bad break up asks the guy she met at the bar 15 minutes before closing time. If you had asked the last guy that same question, you might not be in this mess.

        2. “So, when did you stop beating your wife?”

    4. “Did you feel the president undressing you with his eyes, and how nauseous did you become in his presence?”

  27. What’s the difference between a pile of dead babies and a red corvette?

    1. She made a raspberry pur?e. I think I love her.

    2. dead babies are a woman’s RIGHT

    3. I don’t have a red corvette in my garage.

      1. Are you the protagonist or antagonist in a Sugarfree short story?

  28. How many dead babies does it take to paint a barn?

    1. Probably a few thousand, because you have to build the barn first.

  29. What’s worse than 100 dead babies in 100 trash cans?

    1. It’s supposed to be “in a trash can”, not 100 trash cans.

      1. If you’re going to do dead baby jokes, at least get them right. You’re like Biff Tannen with your delivery of your lame jokes.

        1. Arguing over dead baby jokes…why aren’t there any libertarian women again?

  30. “Strike abortion down and it will become more powerful than you can imagine”— OB-Gyn Kenobi.

  31. What’s the difference between a pile of dead babies and a pile of leaves?

    1. 7th grade just flashed before my eyes.

    2. It’s no fun to cut up a pile of leaves with a chainsaw.

      1. I thought that it was harder to move a pile of leaves with a pitchfork.

  32. Why do strangers keep spraying me with Fabreeze?

    1. I shudder to think what flavors of Febreze they have in Japan.

      1. I shudder to think what flavors of Febreze they have in Japan.

        “Crab Fandango”
        “Autumn Fermented Soy”
        “Mollusk//Volcano Bouquet”
        “Over-Anxious Student”

      2. +1 Cuttlefish

  33. Suthenboy made a good point above in the thread,

    when you have any leftist protest, listen to their speeches. They are angry, mean, ugly, bitter people. List to Ashley Judd’s speech.

    then compare that to a right or libertarian gathering – life, liberty, freedom. Peacefulness.

    Just look at the pictures people use to describe the event. The Women’s march had freaks dressed up as Vaginas, or people screaming, or whatever. Here it is groups of people….. smiling, upbeat, positive. Says a lot

    1. Indeed it does. Leftists (especially leftist women) are miserable bastards. They go insane over anything they don’t like, and do anything to grab attention. We all saw our Facebook feed after the election. Does anyone recall anything remotely like that from their right leaning friends when we got our first affirmative action president eight years ago?

      1. My Facebook feed still looks like that. Hence my vastly reduced time there. And eight years ago, even in the most extreme right-wing sources I saw at the time, there was not the level of apocalyptic rhetoric that I see now, not just on Facebook, but in “mainstream” news sources. This is because Trump is a challenge to the left like no other. He’s shifted the Overton Window and contradicts the pseudo-religious leftist dogma that history moves only in their direction.

    2. Of course. Conservatives and real libertarians believe that most people and modern western society are basically decent, as long as we have the rule of law in place and some people willing to defend it. Yes, there are very real problems, but most of them aren’t totally intractable if we’re willing to work together to at least some extent.

      The socialist, leftist disciples of Marx, Alinsky, Cloward, and Piven believe that they alone are great and superior beings, and everyone outside of their group completely sucks (“deplorable”, as it were). They believe they and they alone are fit to rule over all, and they will never be happy until they think they have finally achieved permanent dominance over society. They know this can’t happen until they have torn down all existing societal structure from within and rebuilt it in their own image. And the best way to do is to divide people until we’re all at each others’ throats. That’s why all their messaging is now based on rage, divisiveness, and hatred.

  34. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for everyone.Work for three to eightt hrs a day and start getting paid in the range of 5,260-12,830 dollars a month. Weekly payments.54u
    Find out more HERE
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.moneytime10.com

    1. Home abortions?

  35. Jeez, and I though Agile Cyborg was hard to read and try to make sense of.

    1. I like this one: “How many babies have died … for the pro-life political agenda?”

      That’s the kind of daring, outside-the-box thinking that is usually associated with the weird guy sitting next to you on the bus and sharing his worldview with you.

  36. Pictures only? Does that mean Ms. Slade couldn’t get anyone from Reason TV to go with her? Or that Reason TV didn’t want to have to edit together a bunch of cringeworthy quotes that embarrass the pro-life crowd like it has to do for the progressive get-togethers or Trump rallies?

  37. I go to bed early and look what do you stooooopid mammals get into!!!!

    1. I figured Hihn to arrive much later than he did.

  38. Always been a tricky issue, specifically the notion of when one acquires their rights and why. I am in favor of abortion rights, but I acknowledge it is a difficult issue and understand those opposed to it.

    I simply don’t shed the same tears as I do from a first trimester fetus as I would for an infant.

    I just wish that those opposed to abortion would not have abortions, and perhaps persuade others of their position, but not use the law. It is similar to gay marriage and homosexuality on some levels…if you religion forbids it, don’t be gay or get married, let others do as they wish.

    1. It would be fine stance if abortion didn’t involve murdering a human being.

  39. But what stood out more than the size were the demographic characteristics of the crowd: It was overwhelmingly young people.

    Because it was during the work week and they don’t have jobs.

  40. The pro-choice side in the US is on the losing side of history. Not only does the US have the most liberal abortion laws in the world (Roe v. Wade allows for abortion up until quickening, regardless of state law), but due to ultrasound technology, a hundred years from now people will view Roe v. Wade as a relic of barbarism.

    Unless, of course, you believe that having the same abortion laws as China, North Korea, Cuba, and Vietnam (but not any other Western nation where abortion is usually restricted up to twelve weeks) makes you on the ‘right side of history’.

    1. I disagree. I look forward to a future where longevity causes us to look at offspring as an undue nuisance and expense, and permits abortion up to college-age

    2. Indeed. I’ve always believed that abortion will be viewed several generations from now, the same way people view slavery today. “How did anyone think that was a perfectly acceptable thing?”

  41. Somewhat OT:

    Take a look at the feminist movement today, and you’ll see women parading naked or in vagina costumes and wearing “pussy hats”. Their grievances are typically imaginary; the worst thing they can ever think of is the possibility that they might have to pay for their own abortions. The whole spectacle makes women look like vulgar, juvenile whiners.

    The men’s rights movement, on the other hand, would be ridiculed out of existence if they used these tactics (and they’re already mercilessly mocked today for speaking out about the various legal mechanisms that explicitly favor women). How much of an uproar would we hear of men paraded around naked (at a non-gay parade) and wore penis costumes or penis glans hats? They would probably be put on the sex offender list.

  42. Facebook gives you a great opportunity to earn 98652$ at your home.If you are some intelligent you makemany more Dollars.I am also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i never tell alie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!!
    ????????> http://www.moneytime10.com

  43. Yep. This is the harvest from George Waffen Bush Executive Order #1 ordering subsidies, handouts and government jobs for faith based community fanatics. In the 1980s children were brainwashed into reporting their parents for victimless peaceful pursuits–as in Orwell’s 1984.

  44. Just had to corpse-hihn this thread.

    A fetus is not a person.


    Two women, both two weeks pregnant. One wants to have a baby, the other doesn’t and is going to get an abortion.

    One is considered a baby–a person, by everyone. The other is a ‘clump of cells’

    Something terrible happens–both women are stabbed to death.

    Autopsy reveals their pregnancies.

    The murderer is charged with 4, not 3 or 2 murders.

    Because the default position of the government is that a fetus IS a person, with rights–including the right to life.

  45. I wonder how many of those girls are against contraception too? Are these young girls saving it for marriage to a man who can support their dozen kids? Few millenials will make enough money for even two kids, since they have to support the Baby Boomers. Those who want to have sex will have to use male and female contraception. (Someone tell those teenage virgins taking it in the butt still can get you pregnant.) A very sad and deluded group of young people.

    Thank heavens most libertarians want to keep the govt out of the issue and are defacto pro-choice. Check out LIBERTARIAN views at http://pro-choicelibertarians.net

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.