Donald Trump

Now It's Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians. That Escalated Quickly.

Slippery slopes: sometimes real.

|

BB
Michael Nigro/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Well, that was fast.

First, a black bloc protester punched alt-right figure and white-nationalist sympathizer Richard Spencer during inauguration weekend, and some people defended this blatant exercise of violent censorship on the grounds that Spencer is a fascist and as such should not enjoy free speech right. (The Nation's Natasha Lennard called it "pure kinetic beauty.")

Some weeks later, protesters at the University of California, Berkeley, smashed windows and set a large fire in order to prevent Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus. Yiannopoulos is not as extreme as Spencer—he does not identify as a white nationalist or a member of the alt-right—but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views and is closely associated with Breitbart and Trump-ism. Again, the black bloc said that defending people from fascism requires Yiannopoulos to be silenced by the mob.

The day after, similarly-aligned people tried to prevent Gavin McInnes from speaking at New York University. Black bloc protesters maced him as he left the building. McInnes, a former Fox News personality aligned with Trump and Yiannopoulos, certainly does make ugly and offensive statements. But was violence the best answer to those statements? Some say yes.

Today, I couldn't help but notice this, from Mike Monteiro, a design expert and occasional writer:

Punch
Screenshot via Twitter

Is he kidding? I can't tell. No clarification was offered. I emailed and tweeted at him. He did not respond. If it's a joke, at the very least he thinks it's funny to entertain the idea.

So how's that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it's okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it's okay to punch people who aren't Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn't punch them. You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there's the slippery slope for you. And we'll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide.

Meanwhile, the shut down of Yiannopoulos at Berkeley was so wildly successful that conservative students have been cowed into silence. Just kidding: They're actually bringing Milo back to campus, and Alex Jones.

As I wrote previously, research shows us that violent resistance is not the most effective tactic for stopping Trump, and runs the risk of making the broader public more sympathetic to the kinds of bad policies the Trump administration would like to enact. Violence is the language that fascists understand best.

Advertisement

NEXT: Cosmetology Board's Investigation of Free, Unlicensed Haircuts Is 'Outrageous,' Governor Says

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. What forms do I have to fill out to add people to the list?

    1. Just one, but you have to fit as many names as you can in 140 characters.

    2. Well, at least some libertarians are exempted. Not white, male, or believes in freedom of speech.

      I guess she wanted to tick all the right boxes so Mike Monteiro wouldn’t punch her.

      1. * sustained applause*

        #NeverForget

      2. Did Shikha delete that tweet?

        1. I don’t think so. Check the link in WakaWaka’s username.

      3. That was choot-y.

      4. Does Shika actually believe in any classical/negative liberties beyond the right to free movement across national borders?

        1. Does Reason?

          1. Yes. They also believe in the freedom to smoke pot and all the ass-sex you can handle.

            1. I MUST get invited to the next Reason office party.

          2. Which ones do they not believe in?

            1. Freedom of speech for one, unless their resident pro-immigration authoritarian has been canned.

              1. Please don’t refer to illegal border crossers as “immigrants”.

      5. You think condemning what someone said is the same as not believing in free speech?
        I would argue being able to condemn both sides is the very essence of free speech.

        1. She was victim blaming. Saying that you can’t blame the rioters without first blaming campus Republicans. Because apparently rioters can’t control themselves and the Republicans forced their hand. You can condemn both sides all you want, but condemning violent thugs hellbent of murder, assault and destruction of property because they disagree is not dependent on also condemning people that those thugs disagree with, that is not the essence of free speech. It’s a twatty excuse that should only seem reasonable to twats.

          1. Those republicans shouldn’t have worn that dress…

            1. you KNOW they wanted it.

        2. I know. When people say things I don’t like I feel the need to punch them and it’s not OK for them to force me to act on those feelings by existing like that. The nerve of some people.

  2. They’re actually bringing Milo back to campus, and Alex Jones

    Methinks it’s gonna be mighty noisy during that whole affair. Need to buy more popcorn.

    1. Hopefully Alex Jones for the lulz, not because they take him seriously.

      1. And Martin Shkreli.

    2. bear in mind, the UC Berkeley police department brought in extra cops the last time he showed up, and the fuck all they did was the result then.

  3. So how’s that for goal-post shifting?

    It’s also now OKAY to punch smug faux-libertarians who serve as useful idiots and then pretend that it’s strange and unusual that this would escalate.

    Yes. It’s open season on Robby’s.

    1. Robby’s more on the temporary helicopter-passenger portion of the political spectrum.

    2. Open season on Robby’s what?

      1. The alt text says something about hair, but the hand placement says something completely different.

      2. You know what.

    3. I still fail to see how pretending to be a libertarian is going to help with anyone’s plan for, well, anything.

      Maybe I’m too nice, but I think Robby is sincere enough. I really don’t see how “useful idiot” applies.

      1. Huh? Useful idiots are always sincere. That’s part of the definition. They’re too stupid to see how they’re helping their enemies.

        1. Sssshhhhh! (he doesn’t know)

  4. I kinda think he was kidding. The point being libertarians are being unsufferable in all their nerdy talk about freedom of speech wrt the prior punching.

    Of course the reason it is bothersome to them is the cognitive dissonance such principled arguments causes them to suffer.

  5. This. Progs are fucking totalitarian fascist terrorists. They are literally practicing terrorism, which is violence for political purposes. 100 Million People dead in the last century from Communism and it’s offshoots speaks for itself.

    You can go back to the other articles on this and I’ve said the same thing —- you are an idiot if you think they will stop at punching Nazi’s. They don’t like to punch Nazi’s or ‘Punch Up’, they like to Punch. Anyone that is not them is their enemy.

    How can people be so fucking stupid. This has repeated itself throughout history over and over again. The only thing that makes this country different is we have a 2nd amendment. At the Berkeley riots, someone defended themselves by shooting an attacker, and the fucking media portrays is as “shooting victim at the riots’….

    1. …but, they MEAN well. And at the end of the proverbial day, is that not all that matters?

    2. First, they came for the NAZIs…

      Then they came for the white male libertarians!

      Then they came for anyone who thought that “free speech” meant “free speech”.

      They ***WILL*** come for anyone who wants to talk about the 100,000,000 dead people!

      1. Well, hate speech is by definition not free speech. All they had to do was change the definition. Kind of like how they change the definition of racism so that the more-oppressed can’t be racist against a less-oppressed class.

        1. which is not actually true, that’s just their own version they’ve created for themselves so they can trick themselves into thinking they are not racist. The most racist people I’ve ever met are progressives but they are ‘allies’ and all that crap, so we’re NOT racists!

      2. Milo came for the while male libertarians as well, but I digress… 😛

        1. I thought he only came for the black ones….

    3. What’s worse, Nazis or blatant misuse of the apostrophe?

      Discuss.

      1. NAZIs validate my biases, so they’re cool! Blatant misuse of the apostrophe? Pisses me off, totally!!! Hang ’em high!!!!

      2. If you don’t support the Oxford Comma you deserve to be punched.

      3. If you don’t support the Oxford Comma you deserve to be punched.

    4. Did that shooting actually occur? Source? I can’t find anything on that, but I was thinking a shooting is the next likely thing to happen in response to violent leftist rioters.

      1. UW, not Berkley.

      2. I was there. Basically Antifa fags picked the wrong little Asian dude to beat on. If even Seattle police considered the shooting justifiable then it was justified. The campus is a gun free zone so there may be consequences yet for the little dude.

    5. I need a more succinct way to say this, so I can get it on a t-shirt: “Workers of the world, Marx was never one of you, and his asshole followers have murdered hundreds of millions of workers. Don’t be a sucker.”

      1. Less Marx.
        More Mises.

      2. Too long-winded for a shirt my man.

      3. How about this:

        Marxism = 100,000,000 dead

        Libertarianism = none

  6. And we’ll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide.

    Ok.

  7. Ha! Move over, Meryl Streep…that target is on my forehead now.

    1. You DARE to compete for the title of most vilified?

  8. G’head

  9. The dark night of fascism is always falling…

    Yada yada…

  10. “but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views”

    What are Milo’s deplorable views?

    1. He refuses to date Muslims. Or only dates Muslims. I forget which.

      1. I thought it must be that he makes fun of SJWs and calls them out on their bullshit. Ok, I didn’t really think that, I just thought that Reason is towing the leftist lion.

        1. Well, I believe he did actually say that he believes women and Asians can’t drive well.

          1. Who doesn’t say that?

            1. Definitely not Asian men (they do say it often).

    2. Milo supported Trump, that puts him in the basket.

    3. He apparently thinks people are mentally ill if they want to mutilate their reproductive organs or commit suicide when not allowed to. At least that’s all I’ve see so far from this site.

    4. Uhm, I find his hardline ant-immigration policies to be extreme. But otherwise I think his opponents generally out-deplorable him.

      1. We have more than enough ants in this country. Especially black ants.

        1. Open borders + free shit – that is how you get ants, democratic-voting ants.

    5. Basically he’s mostly a classical liberal mixed in with some Jonathan Swift-like provocations.

      Watching him deal with his enemies is very entertaining.

    6. His hair is better than Robby’s

      1. Look at mister alternative facts over here.

        1. Does KellyAnne attend those cocktail parties?

      2. Ah. It’s envy.

    7. That a poor white boy from West Virginia does not have more privilege than Malia Obama.

      1. And what about ” McInnes… certainly does make ugly and offensive statements”

        C’mon Robby, that is just fucking lazy.

        Call out specifics on Milo or Gavin, or leave the mewling inferences out of your comments.

        Your article would be better without them (the inferences).

        1. Robby is a festering pile of discarded virtue signals. He’s also intellectually dishonest and an equivocator extraordinaire. I’ve moved beyond encouraging him politely to stop being such a piece of shit. At this point, it makes more sense just to remind him what a piece of shit he is.

          1. It sounds like someone needs a nap.

    8. I saw a few people sharing articles about how he believes there should be a cap on women allowed to study STEM and that there aren’t more women in STEM fields because they suck at interviews. That’s pretty politically incorrect and offend me a little (as a woman), but then I realize I didn’t choose to go into any of those fields either… but you can see how this would rile up the hardcore feminists. I haven’t personally seen anything beyond those two examples though.

      1. The cap is dumb, I would hope it was being argued as a way to make people think about admissions in general, and to ask why those things matter (skin color, gender).
        interviews are rough, but lots of people suck at them. maybe theres a trend, made worse by the interviewer being a man.

        1. made worse by the interviewer being a man.

          …sitting there fantasizing how the interview really *should* go, then after getting pissed off because it doesn’t puts her resume in the trash can. You mean like that?

        2. I think most admissions people in academia are women.

    9. That unattractive people are ugly and obese people are fat.

  11. Its amazing how there is so many people who say we should punch Nazi’s who at the same time have such punchable faces.

    Don’t they look at themselves in the mirror?

    1. No, they would get caught in a loop where they punched themselves to death.

    2. I seem to remember it not turning out so well for the socialists who went around beating up Nazis…

      1. You mean the other socialists besides Nazis?

        1. Socialists hate Nazis. Don’t ever mix the two up in their presence.

          1. Socialists hate the folks from the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”?

            1. Yes, and don’t try to convince them that Nazi’s are socialists because Nazi’s are fascists. We all know that socialists are wonderful people who just want everyone to have a piece of the pie and they wouldn’t think of murdering 6 million Jews.

            2. They weren’t really socialists. That whole National Socialist German Workers’ Party name was just a 20-year-long scam. Germans aren’t very smart you know.

              1. They weren’t really socialists.

                They weren’t True Scotsmen, but had socialist tendencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

                1. Yeah, they must be socialist if ‘Socialism,’ is in the title. I mean that’s certainly a much more intelligent approach than pointing out examples of actual Nazi policy was socialist in nature. After all, The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is soooooooooooo democratic! Such a democracy it’s the very first word in the country’s name. Proof indeed.

  12. C’mon, it’s been obvious for a while that they’d be fine with using violence against anyone who disagrees with them. It’s a good thing the NAP allows for self-defense.

    1. Can we amend the principle to allow retributive violence?

      1. I’ve been wondering that myself lately.

      2. At this juncture it is illogical not to respond to force with force.

    2. It’s not “anyone who disagrees with them.” It’s nazis and fascists, two groups that just so happen to encompass anyone who disagrees with them.

    3. There’s only so far they can go. The cops will have no problem with beating the shit of them or killing them. And then there are those deplorables in the flyover. Sometimes I think it has to be GOP plants agitating them on towards their eventual misfortune.

      1. Nah, they have enough unbalanced loons that they don’t need to be agitated by outsiders.

        As for beatings by cops, offered as supporting evidence: In Portland last month bystanders were cheering the police when they broke up anti-Trump protests that were blocking traffic, the cops throwing some of the protesters to the ground in the process of subduing them.

        Portland, deep in the heart of “blue” country, that went for H. Clinton by a healthy margin (74% of the votes in the county where Portland is located went to Clinton, per a quick internet search).

        http://insider.foxnews.com/201…..ders-cheer

  13. “Now It’s Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians. That Escalated Quickly.”

    This is a very dangerous path they’re going down.

    1. Don’t we have the guns? I guess they’re not going to rumble outside the liberal enclaves anyway.

      1. Pretty much that. They’ll just mostly burn down their own enclaves and inconvenience a few of their lefty supporters on the sidelines. Then they’ll get their heads broke by the fuzz.

        1. When I say ‘they’ll’, I mean their useful idiots in the hood. The snowflakes aren’t going to punch anyone or otherwise do anything to risk physical confrontation with anyone. They’ll cheer from under their bunkbed while the cops beat the shit out of the unfortunate that they agitated into acting stupidly. The latter will get a felony record if they’re lucky enough to not get shot to death and the pajama boy brigade and their shrill harpy masters will not be giving a shit.

          1. Now that’s not fair. The pajama boy brigade will talk about how horrible it is that these poor souls are in prison for exercising their ‘free speech riots’. Some of them will probably even work at or start non-profits that collect money from other pajama boys and their shrill harpy mistresses to help with their legal expenses.

            These non-profits will of course pay the pajama boys who work at them a hefty salary. Doing well by doing good!

  14. I didnt know assault for words was currently legal

    1. It is not; under no circumstances, short of “I’m gong to kill you” while having the means and opportunity to immediately do so, do words serve as sufficient provocation to justify a violent response.

      According to these folks, just being of a different mindset seems to justify their violent actions against others.

      You know, your left wing socialist/Marxist loving ilk.

    2. If the cops don’t enforce it, then it’s legal.

  15. Hung up the heavy bag for the first time in a year or two. But as Owen Pitt in the Monster Hunters series stated, “If punching someone becomes aerobic exercise, it’s time to go to guns”, or something like that. Don’t feel like looking it up.

    1. +1 Zastava

  16. Not even one word of praise for my alt-text? Show some appreciation…

    1. I don’t even look for alt-text from you, Robby.
      I am that jaded.

    2. Show some appreciation…

      You aren’t the boss of me.

    3. Good alt-text. Now go out there and troll us some more! *pats Robby on ass just like his debate coach

    4. *sigh* No, the alt-text does not make you look fat. Can we go now?

    5. It’s unbecoming to solicit compliments.

      But well done.

    6. Sorry Robbie, you lost us with that POS article you published this morning about the College student recording his teacher

    7. I would point you to my 1st comment above.

    8. I LOLed

    9. Please applaud.

  17. I never heard the term “black bloc” before approximately the day before yesterday. Is the term actually a thing?

    1. I learned of the term after the Milo riots.

    2. It is, I first heard it (and encounter them face-to-face) at the G20 Toronto riots in 2010.

      1. Yup. I had fun with my friends waving a flag that said “COLD BEER” and passing out Natty light at the G20 in Pittsburgh while the communist fucks destroyed the Starbucks a few blocks away.

        1. Giving Natty Light is way more of a sin than any mere property damage.

    3. Yes, it’s been for years. At least since the WTO protests I think but I could be wrong about that.

      Mostly “anarchists” who play dress up, smash some stuff, and rumble with the riot cops.

      If you mention this on certain forums and some insufferable dipshit jumps in to clarify that “it’s a tactic not a group” then you found one.

      1. Ah…. I thought it was an offshoot of BLM or something.

      2. Yeah, the first time I can remember hearing about it was after the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, but I’m sure it’s probably older than that.

        1. Think it actually dates back to largely being a German thing in Non-Communist Berlin. The Anarchists wanted the freedom of the Stasi or something equally asinine.

      3. HEY, some of we “anarchists” are pacifists. We can be against the government AND support the NAP.

        1. I put “anarchists” in scare quotes because these particular guys are usually about as “anarchist” as Stalin.

          No offense intended to actual anarchists.

          1. Well, that is what they often call themselves. In their delusional world view, communism is the same thing as anarchism. It doesn’t occur to them that humans are naturally protective of their own property rights, and as a result, anarchism is de facto capitalism.

    4. Here’s a good wiki entry on it that somebody else linked to a few weeks ago.

      1. OK, it’s coming back to me. Basically a synonym for “antifa” scumbags.

        1. Not really. A huge amount of overlap, but not synonymous.

    5. The black bloc has been around since the early 90s. I’m sure it’s the catch-all term for anarchists.

      The Profane Existence collective started here in the late 80s (and, to my surprise, are still around). The ARA’s followed a couple years later. There’s a Boston group whose name I forgot.

      I’m sure they consider themselves black bloc.

      1. I’ll just call them all Blockheads.

        -jcr

  18. As I wrote previously, research shows us that violent resistance is not the most effective tactic for stopping Trump, and runs the risk of making the broader public more sympathetic to the kinds of bad policies the Trump administration would like to enact. Violence is the language that fascists understand best.

    I would suggest that getting public sentiment on their side is not a tactic they embrace – just the opposite, in fact. They’re out to provoke a backlash that justifies, at least in their mind, the use of violence as self-defense for an embattled minority. You can’t very well portray yourself as an embattled minority if everybody’s on your side, can you? It’s a “test of faith” sort of thing, like the Big Lie – it’s not that hard to argue that you’re in the right when you are in fact in the right or even when it’s at least an arguable point, but you can’t be counted as a trusted ally to the cause unless you’re willing to defend patently ridiculous falsehoods. This is how they separate the True Believers from the rest of the flock, taking notes on which ones are radicalized enough to be counted on to do what’s necessary when it comes time to start passing out the guns and the bombs. Screw those panty-waisted “supporters” who only support our side when it’s in the right. We want the ones who’ll strap on a suicide vest and walk into a daycare center if we tell them to.

  19. Now It’s Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians. That Escalated Quickly.

    Apparently the obvious implications of “Bash the Fash” were too subtle for you.

    1. They must have been referring to people with good fashion sense. That means you, Robby.

  20. Now It’s Okay to Punch Nazis and White Male Libertarians. That Escalated Quickly.

    Oh, you don’t know how quickly it’s escalating. *loads rifle*

    Say Robby, care to come out to my game preserve? We’re going to hunt the deadliest game. Well, not the deadliest game exactly, more like a member of the species who is the deadliest game.

    1. John,
      Is Robby a guest or a contestant?

      1. Based on the last sentence, I’m gonna go with contestant.

  21. It’s okay to punch nazis AND white male libertarians who wanna talk about free speech

    Wait, are there any other types of libertarians?

    1. I feel that I am more of a “Get off of my Lawn” libertarian

      A Crankytarian.

      1. Oh, a fellow traveller. I’ve been a curmudgeotarian for about six years now.

        1. I hate everyone. Does that count?

          1. That makes you a Misanthropatarian.

      2. Stealing Crankytarian

  22. There actually are laws against inciting violence, and by that I do not mean by giving speeches that the Left doesn’t like. Calling for people to be punched and murdered, urging people to riot, is actually illegal. Actually paying black bloc to show up and organizing their web site collaborations is blatant incitement of violence or even revolution/sedition. These guys don’t just happen to show up, they are organized. Too bad no one is enforcing it. You could apply RICO here.
    AND Milo calling out Muslims for murdering gays and calling out feminists for hating men is not exactly hate speech, it is the truth.

    1. I’m checking my Free Speech bingo card and I think you came close to hitting all of it.

      1. Black block blackout!

  23. In other related news: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. just turned over in his grave. Happy Black History Month.

  24. Yiannopoulos is not as extreme as Spencer?he does not identify as a white nationalist or a member of the alt-right

    But I had recently heard from a very reputable source he was an “Alt Right Leader”?

    oh, look, someone’s edited their prior stories, sans any notes. what used to be =

    protesters wearing black scarves over their faces hurled fireworks at the building where the alt-right leader was supposed to speak

    is now

    protesters wearing black scarves over their faces hurled fireworks at the building where he was supposed to speak

    How convenient. Isn’t the internet grand? Your posture can constantly evolve, and you never have to worry about intellectual consistency.

    1. Did he really do that? That’s pretty low mister Soave, why if I had a rubber hose I would…

      1. *unzips*

        Go on….

    2. I actually trusted Soave for a while before you started pointing this stuff out. You know he reads your comments too, and I think it’s pretty cowardly that he doesn’t reply.

      Thanks for keeping them honest, or at least consistently pointing out the ones that aren’t.

  25. Yiannopoulos is not as extreme as Spencer?he does not identify as a white nationalist or a member of the alt-right?but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views and is closely associated with Breitbart and Trump-ism.

    Excellent troll, Robby. I wonder how many people are going to leave this week?

  26. “holds a number of deplorable views ”

    I don’t follow him with the unspellable Greek name. What are these deplorable views?

    1. umm….he is sure that Donald Trump has a huge wang, does that count?

    2. Robbie has to say things like that, otherwise Dalmia will pepper-spray him.

  27. See wikipedia:

    National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) (also known as Smith v. Collin; sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of assembly. The outcome was that the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the use of the swastika is a symbolic form of free speech entitled to First Amendment protections and determined that the swastika itself did not constitute “fighting words”. Its ruling allowed the National Socialist Party of America to march.

    For fuck sake. Did any of the youngsters writing for Reason get any level of education regarding those distance times — the 70’s.

    I’m not going give Milo any clicks, so I’m not going to look him up. But there can’t be anything short of telling holocaust victims that it’s too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job that can be call “deplorable”.

  28. McInnes, a former Fox News personality aligned with Trump and Yiannopoulos, certainly does make ugly and offensive statements

    And its never necessary to ever point to them, because people should be protected from making their own judgements. That’s what Journalists are for! Making all our moral judgements for us.

    1. How can I possibly know how I feel about a subject until my betters inform me?

    2. McInnes fucking rocks. All you have to do is watch his video about why the progs aren’t moving to Canada to know that.

    3. The most “offensive*” thingMcInnes ever wrote was that “Transgender people are mentally ill”, ergo “Transphobia is Perfectly Natural

      (*in the sense of, “the thing the most people took offense with“- no one is “offensive” in any objective sense; it requires people to act offended)

      The reason the piece is never cited is mainly because no one actually wants to discuss the facts of the matter. Which is just Robby’s millenial-passive-agressive version of censoring those he disagrees with = denying them any voice of their own. He simply labels things “deplorable” or “offensive” but refuses to point at anything he’d have to defend that statement about.

  29. “Is he kidding? I can’t tell. No clarification was offered.”

    That’s the frustrating thing about using Twitter as a news source.

    1. For anything other than how inane Twitter is.

    2. It’s full of twats?

    3. Is Robby kidding when he labels McInnes and Milo as deplorables? I can’t tell. No evidence was cited.

      1. No evidence was cited.

        It’s in the Lefty Talking Points Manual. That’s all the confirmation he needs. It’s a good think he places no value on his credibility.

      2. Dunno about McInnes, offhand (and don’t care, really), but Milo isn’t exactly silent about his support for Trump. That’s enough for those who can’t process people as individuals instead of their group membership(s) to lump MY into the “deplorable” category.

  30. Don’t worry Robbie, you’re pretty safe from accusations of being a libertarian

    1. Funny thing is, they’ve already put their crosshairs on him for ridiculing the campus left. And he thinks if he just appeases harder, distances himself from the deplorables, and pretends like he’s helping their cause by showing why their tactics are counterproductive, that he won’t end up in the Freedom From Capitalism camps. It doesn’t work that way. You’re either #FullCommunism, or you’re a fascist sympathizer in need of the state’s boot on your neck.

      1. Let’s put it this way. There’s a lot about the so called right, or conservatives, that I don’t like. But for the most part, at least, they’re not insane. No one aligns their self with the left unless they are crazy or have really bad judgement. I’ll take my chance with the right if I have to choose a side, the left are insane.

        1. And which paranoid, ranting fat man helped you come to this conclusion?

          1. I’m guessing the several hundred that rioted and beat people that had the temerity disagreed with them.

            You know, the chaps on your side.

            1. Just because they’re against fascism too doesn’t mean they’re on my side.

              1. Mmmmm…that’s some good derp!

          2. I didn’t realize you were fat.

  31. Personally, I welcome any and all leftists to try to punch this white male libertarian.

    Come on, fellas, give me your best shot. That encounter will probably end very badly for you.

  32. Who is this person and why do I care what his opinion on permissible violence is?

  33. violent resistance is not the most effective tactic

    The “Aggression is immoral!”-appeal is downgraded when it comes to people he agrees with. Only people with deplorable *ideas* deserve condemnation. People who commit acts of violence must be appealed to with arguments that “there are better ways” to achieve their goals.

  34. Gee, who could have guessed that the far left would lump libertarians in with Nazis? I’m stunned!

    1. It’s right wing to want the state to leave people alone.

      1. Dude if you leave people alone, they’ll form a mafia like gang which makes a claim of being legitimate, then proceed to collude with multi-national corporations to crush your little start up business, make you pay large amounts of protection fees for basically no protection, and then send their goon squads to beat you up, shoot you, or just lock you up in a cage, at the slightest provocation… hey wait…

  35. Robby, when you talk about how bad someone is, like Milo, please cite evidence. I don’t follow Milo so all I know is that he’s an anti-SJW troll.

    You saying Milo is deplorable, etc, doesn’t really matter since that’s your opinion. Are you going to let us decide for ourselves, because without any evidence all you are doing is just virtue signalling.

    1. I can’t even think of a single person on the left who I like more than Milo. Not even one. But of course, being a libertarian, which is just like a Nazi, makes me a deplorable also. We’re all in that same basket, except for the righteous left.

      But, I’ll just go ahead and tell you what the problem with Milo is. He’s gay and he supported Trump. That’s all you need to know. He’s like one of them uppity negros who vote Republican.

      1. He’s kind of dumb and thinks that saying stereotypical things about minorities makes him provocative, which is sometimes true, and clever, which isn’t.

        1. So, he’s sort of like you?

          1. I make fun of lesbians only in the company of very close friends. It’s called manners.

            1. Aww, isn’t that so cute. Tony’s just so cute! Do you have the pink onesies with the carebear?

              1. Tony-The only things on the DL about him are his prejudices*.

                *well, some of his prejudices.

        2. In other words, he hurts Tony’s feelings, and that’s terrible.

          1. He offends only my sense of justice. Every single gay man I know is more intelligent than that one, but because he’s particularly stupid he gets a book deal.

            1. Hey Tony, are you going to call on Trump to kill Milo with cruz missiles?

              1. He’s busy killing Navy SEALS and little girls, but I suppose the liberals made him do it.

            2. “Every single gay man I know is more intelligent than that one”

              -insert Delphic maxim here.

              1. “And the Great Oracle said, that I was the wisest of all the gay men. For I alone knew that I knew dick.”

  36. Also, if you click on the Mike Monteiro link and read that piece he wrote, I think it’s pretty easy to surmise that he isn’t kidding at all.

    1. OTOH, who the hell is Mike Monteiro, why do I give a damn what he thinks, and how would like a personal visit from a few of us White Male Libertarians?

      1. I heard about him sometime last year when I saw a link to some video rant he made about making sure you get paid when you’re an independent contractor. He’s kind of like a leftard version of Robert Ringer.

        That rant was moderately entertaining, and apparently he gained fifteen minutes of notoriety from it.

        -jcr

    2. if you click on the Mike Monteiro link and read that piece he wrote

      I got about halfway through. Its knee deep in the same old SJW signalling-horseshit which is like, “protect your health!” and “organize your life” and all sorts of idiotic euphemisms for “sink deeper into you left-wing security-blanket echo chamber”.

      He can’t write, he doesn’t have any coherent ideas, i don’t see why his gibberish on twitter deserves a retort. If anything he’s scored a win against retards like Robby, because Robby is pretty much the shittiest defender of libertarianism that has ever pretended to have that job.

  37. How many points do I get for punching this guy? or Lena Dunham?

    1. You get no points for punching Lena Dunham, because that’s what she wants.

  38. Let’s hasten to add that black bloc people are closer to you guys in ideology than progressives, who are perfectly capable of understanding that violence is bad mkay.

    1. Since when are libertarians violent?

      1. When someone does something that offends them, e.g., sets foot on their lawn.

        1. When someone does something that offends agresses against them, e.g., sets foot on their lawn.

          FIFY

    2. Let me clarify that for you Tony-for Progressives, violence is bad, except when it is for the greater good.

      1. Same with libertarians, except for them violence is the only permissible social activity.

        1. Only against proglydyte twinks, so it’s no wonder you’re upset.

    3. “progressives, who are perfectly capable of understanding that violence is bad mkay.”

      HAHHAAAHAAHAAAHAAAHAAHHAAAAH! Tony makes a funny! And he only makes fun of lesbians in the most polite and PC sort of way.

      See, everyone, this is why I don’t block Tony. He’s a funny guy!

      1. What kind of insular vagina would block people?

    4. The rent boy is as mendacious as ever, I see.

      -jcr

  39. 2017: News = what some guy (who isn’t the president) said on Twitter

  40. What is with you guys jumping to the defense of people like Milo and Gavin (who I generally like and find entertaining)? They go out of their way to be outrageous and/or contentious, so I am sure there is plenty they say that could offend anyone.

    1. That doesn’t excuse violence. That’s what separates liberals from whatever perverse ideology you ascribe to

      1. That’s what separates liberals from whatever perverse ideology you ascribe to

        Masturbating while thinking about everyone with the exception of women taller than 6’2, women shorter than 5’2, men with shaved chests, men with shaved legs, Katy Perry, police officers, the cast of any NCIS show, postal workers, Asian tailors, and Canadians.

          1. I would not cross out Katy Perry, though. That’s bogus

        1. “with the exception of women taller than 6’2”
          In college there was a woman basketball player(D1) who I got to know intimately one semester. She modeled too. To leave her out of the spank bank would be a grave mistake.

          1. Also, Gabby Reese. Nuff said.

      2. It doesn’t take much to offend the effete cucksucker you’re replying to. Making fun of his Obamessiah will do it.

        1. That knit pussy hat must be too tight, Dave!

    2. To be sure, progs will be sorry to see Crusty first against the wall. However…

      /robby, 4 years out

    3. What is with you guys jumping to the defense of people like Milo and Gavin

      I’m not jumping to anyone’s defense, personally.

      I think one writer referring to other writers with ad-hominems like”deplorable” or “offensive” or “[insert standard morally-discrediting terminology]” is shitty journalism, and intellectually dishonest.

      If you have a beef with someone over something specific, or you disagree with them about specific ideas, cite them. Simply waving one’s hands and saying, “it is known” is no better than being a gossip-columnist, and its appealing to a pretended consensus. I’d criticize robby for the same shit regardless of who it was. and I pretty much have. I just think its bad-form.

      if there is something particularly galling about the attitude towards 2 particular characters is that they both actually write about the same exact topics Robby writes about.

      They all 3 (gavin, robby, milo) are neck-deep in writing about “political correct culture”; the only differences are that Robby poo-poos it from a distance, and Milo and Gavin actually fight it.

      The impression i think that comes off is that Robby is just a sad player-hater. That doesn’t make Milo or Gavin “good” or morally-superior; it just makes Robby’s whining about their ‘offensiveness’ seem shallow and juvenile.

      1. if there is something particularly galling about the attitude towards 2 particular characters is that they both actually write about the same exact topics Robby writes about.

        I don’t think any of it is interesting, and I have trouble comprehending why anyone thinks any of it is interesting, but apparently I am in the minority.

        1. Crusty, I want you to know that I DO MASTURBATE to women over 6’2, particularly those that are lean and leggy and love to wear high heels.

        2. I don’t think any of it is interesting, and I have trouble comprehending why anyone thinks any of it is interesting, but apparently I am in the minority.

          If none of it is interesting to you, i am not sure why you’re complaining about the criticism.

          If there was something specific i was unclear about, point to it.

          1. If there was something specific i was unclear about, point to it.

            I have no idea why you and others feel the need to corpse-fuck every Soave story to death, especially when the topics he covers are about powerless people engaging in simplistic acts. Every time he writes a story its a bitch orgy.

            But please, write another 5000 words on another post explaining how he sucks. Again and again. It seems to be working.

            1. I have no idea why you and others feel the need to corpse-fuck every Soave story to death,

              Corpse-fucking is when the thread is dead. I don’t do that. in fact, most of what i had to say was said very soon after this was posted.

              Basically, i don’t think what you’re saying is accurate.

              I do criticize the stuff he writes. That’s not “corpse fucking”, and the reasons for the criticism is explained at great length and detail for you. If you don’t “understand” the criticism, i think the problem is on you, because its not for lack of effort explaining it.

              especially when the topics he covers are about powerless people engaging in simplistic acts

              powerless people? the use of Title IX to destroy people’s lives isn’t really about “powerless people engaging in simplistic acts”. People trying to censor debate isn’t about that either. Who exactly are the powerless people?

              Every time he writes a story its a bitch orgy.

              Yes. He sucks, no one likes his shtick. He takes what should be T-ball type libertarian arguments and completely fucks them into an equivocating unrecognizable mush. Its maddening.

              If you think people are wrong to complain, that’s one thing – you could defend him if you wanted.

              instead you seem to pretend to “not understand” what everyone complains about, which simply demands people repeat themselves. I think you really mean, “shut up”

            2. I have no idea why you and others feel the need to corpse-fuck every Soave story to death

              Some of us like a touch of cold, now and then, vitalist.

              But, seriously, you can’t corpse fuck something ‘to death’. It’s gotta be dead before you can corpse fuck it at all.

              And bathing in your tasty tasty mask ripped off tears can never get dead, Crusty. Your shame provides an eternal fount of tears.

              I can’t wait to enjoy the tears you’ll shed today–rushing in– all indignant, to protect those who’ve been wronged by people laughing at their SJW sensibilities…………

  41. http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/14/co…..-violence/

    Did anyone read this article by the UC Berkeley college republicans? They have more balls than all the men on Reason’s staff put together (I know that’s not saying much).

    1. Someone linked to it above. I’m so confused as to why Trump would hire 20-somethings to smash up Berkeley and how Robert Reich knew about it ahead of time and did nothing to stop it.

      1. Robert Reich is a sick and delusional man who is better at abating fascism than actually combating it. He assumes that this is the first incident where this has occurred. Apparently, you failed to notice the violence against Trump supporters in California, Chicago, Phoenix, etc. He also failed to see the violence at Washington University when Milo went there the week before.

        Ultimately, how large is this ‘right wing’ conspiracy that they can travel to all these places and commit so much violence. I guess it’s just hard for Reich to recognize that he and his ilk are the reactionaries and not the other way around

        1. Robert Reich is a sick and delusional man

          Robert Reich is a liar and a slaver. If you’re looking for an Ayn Rand villain in the flesh, you need look no further.

          1. But you probably do need to look down to see him.

            /cheapshot

      2. For the “it is just the infiltrators” crowd, I defy you to reconcile that position with the videos from that night.

        Here’s one obtained from the comments on that article. Note the “peaceful protester’ screaming “beat his ass”, cheering on a violent assault by a black-masked protester. Here’s another.

  42. Yaaaay, it’s yet another Saul Alinsky 101 for neophytes lesson from Rico Suave.

    1. Go knit another pussy hat, Weigel.

      1. Looks like you’re getting your shit ruined by the guy who thinks “Block Yomomma” is hilarious. How does that fucking feel?!

  43. These folks don’t understand violence. They think a ninety pound girl can whip a man’s ass using kung fu.

  44. It’s just a dopey tweet, Rico.

  45. That four-foot-tall fucking Asian apparatchik junior high school teacher in Berkely puts them all to shame. Her ovens would burn hot, heavy, and long to save the world from all the genocidal maniacs weekly shat from Hitler Milo’s perky pooper.

    Collectivists are on full-tilt runaway madness and if I wasn’t so goddamn frightened by their genuine lust to decimate free speech my fucking face would stay broken from incessant laughter.

  46. Robby,
    You should talk about Shikha’s tweet now, that would be great.

    1. [golf clap]

  47. Ok Robbie. Here’s some unsolicited advice.

    You obviously think Milo espouses some reprehensible views. I get that from the repeated asides when defending him.

    Every time you do that a bunch of folks on the message board call this out and ask for specifics. I, like them, am no big Milo follower and have never heard him espousing reprehensible views. I’ve only heard him on libertarian friendly interviews talking about how he’s being repressed (yes, python reference).

    So here’s what you need to do. Write an article talking about his specifically reprehensible views. Then every time you make that little social-signalling aside you can link the article and shut everyone up.

    Easy-peasy. And as a bonus you get another easy to write article published. Or as an alternative you could find something on the interwebs that supports your position about his reprehensibleness. But better if you write it yourself.

    1. Not going to happen.

      And, sure Milo is bating and trolling the left. What the hell else are you supposed to do with them, except ignore them? They’re ridiculous.

      1. baiting them into being openly racist and homophobic is great. I hope it wakes a few people in the middle-left up.

        1. It is/will open up some people’s eyes. That’s why I support Milo and the others doing it. These totalitarians need to be exposed for what they are. Liberals my fucking arse.

          1. I must visit this Glenn Beckistanian universe you morons inhabit sometime.

            1. You know what I do when someone on the left speaks at CU? I stay home. sometimes I’ll go and listen.
              You know what the left students do when Gavin shows up to speak?

              1. “You know what the left students do when Gavin shows up to speak?”

                Behave like Tony?

            2. yes, Tony, strangely in that universe, assault on people with different views is not accepted dogma. You really are the authoritarian shitstain so many here say you are.

              1. “You really are the authoritarian shitstain so many here say you are”

                Nah, not at all. He only threatened to ask the President to kill libertarians with cruz missiles. He even posted pictures from Raytheon’s website to scare us. Would have maybe been funny if he wasn’t serious. Instead it’s just a sad portrayal of what a sad, sad, person Tony is.

              2. I don’t share an ideology with the anarchists to whom you’re referring.

            3. Tony, are you still in treatment for TDS? Do they know you’re on your mum’s computer again?

              1. There aren’t any treatments for what’s wrong with me.

              2. TDS? So what, you’re like a person who thinks that the biggest problem in the universe isn’t war, pollution, or disease, but the fact that you think you’re not allowed to say nigger in polite company anymore because of the “progs” and their mind rays, right? That’s why you love Trump, who’s manifestly not competent to act on anything else?

                1. I’m sorry for misrepresenting your position hyperion. I have a micropenis and it makes me feel very uncomfortable when people confront me on my bullshit. I’ll try to do better.

                2. Tony, you brain-dead little twat…

                  It’s not just the trumpkins who are fed up with your SJW horseshit, and nobody’s said “nigger” in polite company since the Eisenhower administration.

                  It’s you fucking leftards with your identity politics who are fixated on race, and the racist vitriol you motherfuckers pour out on black conservatives should get your mouths washed out with soap by your fellow leftards if you weren’t all a pack of shit-eating hypocrites.

                  -jcr

                3. So what, you’re like a person who thinks that the biggest problem in the universe isn’t war, pollution, or disease, but the fact that you think you’re not allowed to say nigger in polite company anymore because of the “progs” and their mind rays, right?

                  Roughly yes.

                  Next question?

    2. Milo and Gavin. They aren’t libertarians, so we will disagree on a few policies or ideas. That disagreement doesn’t make either of them awful terrible people, unless you’re the guy who keeps on calling anything aggression and keeps on talking about the monopoly of violence every flipping second.

    3. The reason Rico hates Milo with a white hot passion because he figured out how to effectively use the left’s own Alinsky Rules against them. Alinsky is Soave’s intellectual godfather, and the Rules are his holy book, and only the left is supposed to be allowed to use them.

      1. The reason Robby hates Milo with a white hot passion because Robby is wildly homophobic. Robby hates homosexuals with a flaming passion. It’s self-evident, isn’t it? There can’t be any other explanation!

    4. I’m Uh, I rate this as excellent advice. And I’m not anti robby, but the constant asides in his posts are beginning to reach meme-worthy levels, like Ron bailey’s old disclosure statements at the end of his posts. Except Ron was being tongue-in-cheek, I don’t believe robby is.

      I sometimes wonder… and I’m not being facetious… that being robby’s age and being in journalism is tough. Like you really will get massively unfriended on every platform, and lose access to every professional colleague you have if you utter something un-pc.

      I just sometimes feel that robby’s legitimately scared shitless, and that’s no way to live.

      1. Like you really will get massively unfriended on every platform, and lose access to every professional colleague you have if you utter something un-pc.
        and if that happens, please do not pretend that either you or any professional colleague is practicing journalism because you’re not. You’re either full-blown activists or social signaling to stay in the club’s good graces, but either way, you are not a journo.

  48. Mr. Monteiro,

    If I decide that it’s OK to punch fascists, I can guaran-damn-tee that you’re not going to like it.

    1. Yeah, most professors would qualify

  49. His “deplorable” attributes:

    He mocks the fat which is insensitive and ignores his thin privilege.

    And he lumps all Muslims together as mysognists and gay-haters and speech-controllers and violence-advocates when in reality there is some small percentage of right-thinking Muslims who are not like that, so he’s obviously a racist.

    Also he sometimes points out that feminists with internet presence and those ensconced in academia are uptight, can’t take a joke, and they are often unhinged man-haters. He makes this point quite effectively by making jokes that get them unhinged.

    Oh yeah and he also criticizes Black Lives Matter. NOT because he thinks black Americans have no legitimate grievances as a block but that the BLM approach (burning cars and rioting and breaking windows in their own neighborhoods) is unproductive. So of course he’s the devil.

    Lastly, he’s for Trump, especially the wall part, so of course, he’s a Nazi.

    There you have it.

    1. “there is some small percentage of right-thinking Muslims who are not like that”

      The way I see it is this. Maybe the right say that all Muslims are potential terrorists. Maybe the left says that Islam is the religion of peace and there is no potential problem with wide open Muslim immigration into the West.

      Ok, so far we have no problem, right? Everyone has opinions and what we need is open discussion. This is where your real problem starts because the left do not want a discussion and even want to shut up anyone who does.

      1. Which should make one doubt the efficacy of the positions they support.

        1. Exactly this. It’s like with climate change. If their arguments are so strong, why do they want to silence everyone with an opposing view? The answer is obvious.

          1. Nobody wants to silence anyone. You don’t have a single citation for that claim. People just believe that evidence should trump bullshit.

            1. So AGs attacking “climate deniers” isn’t silencing opponents? You mean when leftist activist groups openly support laws that make “climate denial” a crime, that isn’t an example of someone who wants to silence someone else? Those questions are rhetorical, they are perfect examples of your scumbag ilk seeking to silence others.

              1. No, calling you names isn’t silencing you. And citation needed for criminalizing climate denial. I would obviously be opposed to that, and you’re a fool for thinking that’s a thing to worry about.

                But speech has consequences (otherwise it wouldn’t need protecting), and climate denial (a propaganda effort funded by oil companies) is perhaps the single biggest contributor to inaction on the single biggest natural disaster in human history.

                So forgive me if I don’t weep for your victim status or offer you the safe space you’re asking for.

                  1. Shockingly, there is no “impact factor” reported for the Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics!

                  1. There’s some citations for you Tony, you smug piece of lying shit.

                1. And here we see Tony excusing the thing he just said he would be opposed to.

                  How are those catastrophic predictions coming along Tony? I’m sure there was no snow in the Northeast or in the Rockies this year.

            2. Nobody wants to silence anyone.

              LIAR.

              -jcr

            3. Ok, Tony, how about rioting, storming the stage, no-platforming, and shouting down any speaker on campus who the Left doesn’t like? That isn’t trying to silence anyone? How about Twitter canceling accounts of conservatives?

              1. Twitter, private company with shareholders to please, no?

                Generally I’m in favor of free speech. Darn near an absolutist on the matter. So don’t lump me in with anyone advocating something I don’t believe in.

                1. You just denied that any of your comrades are trying to silence anyone. You denied that any of them were advocating the banning of skepticism towards politically favored theories. I showed you were wrong. There were more links than I could post, and Reason’s server really made me try three or four times each time I tried to post the citations you said don’t exist.

                  So go fuck yourself Tony. You fucking lose. You always lose.

                  1. Poor Tony Don’t say that “evidence should trump bullshit” when you have no evidence and nothing but bullshit.

  50. Robert reich has to be an act right? For publicity i mean. He cant be that stupid. Sort of like krugman or espn commentators. I think they do it for show

  51. To Thwart Fascism, Leftist Students Start Self-Defense ‘Fight Club,’ Which Actually Sounds Awesome
    Republican students: stop whining.

    ~Robby “Useful Idiot” Soave

  52. Didn’t we call this a month ago?

    1. Yes we did when Robby sang the praises of “Bash the Fash” leftist antifa fight club, because he’s a fucking moron.

  53. As I wrote previously, research shows us that violent resistance is not the most effective tactic for stopping Trump, and runs the risk of making the broader public more sympathetic to the kinds of bad policies the Trump administration would like to enact.

    With that, I begin to understand what the Trumpelos mean when they call somebody a “cuck”. For fuck’s sake, these bastards are saying it’s okay to hit you (as well as many of the rest of us here), and you’re fucking worried about how effective this will be in “stopping Trump”. Maybe, just maybe, you should have a little more concern about stopping these “people” than Donald Trump.

    1. Robby is incapable of condemning any leftists without also validating their feels and premises. I and many others around here have been pointing this out about Robby from the very beginning and historically, his brigade of white knights rode into the comment section to defend him. I see none of that lately. Sure I don’t see those people admitting they were wrong about him from the get-go, but at least no one is defending him anymore.

      1. Crusty still fucking is.

      2. Maybe you should read some websites or books that don’t confirm your insane belief that liberals are responsible for all the ills in the world.

        1. Not all the ills. There are some very serious communicable diseases and chronic illnesses that are in all likelihood not a result of people like you. Though leftism is a greater detriment to civilization than cumulative effects of all the diseases in the world, easily.

          1. Ironic since leftism is basically simply about finding ways to deliver things like affordable healthcare to poor people. Er I mean Nazi camps.

            1. Keeping people poor is our job. The problem with socialism isn’t that it doesn’t work, it’s just that we need to get the whole world in on it. That way the capitalists can’t ruin it again like they always do.

              Disclosure: I own a company that makes body bags. That isn’t a conflict of interest is it?

              1. Test

            2. Ironic since leftism is basically simply about finding ways to deliver things like affordable healthcare to poor people.

              I know there’s no point in debating the efficacy of central planning with a Marxist turd. To get to the point, according to your own definition then the various leftisms have all failed so spectacularly at what you claim their purpose is; delivering low cost economic goods, that only the the king of all retards could simultaneously see that as the left’s purpose and yet still be a leftist. Long live King Tony.

            3. leftism is basically simply about finding ways to deliver things like affordable healthcare to poor people.

              BULL. SHIT.

              Leftism is all about making promises that will never be delivered, to get the proles to back your power-grabs.

              Why don’t you move to some “universal healthcare” country and die on a waiting list, you useless little propaganda parrot?

              -jcr

        2. Not the ills of the world, just the ills of Western civilization. And Eastern civilization.

          Pretty much everywhere that isn’t run as theocratic shitholes.

          1. Can I assign completely unrelated regimes to libertarianism the way you’re conflating modern liberalism with whatever the fuck? Hitler wanted breathing space. Libertarians want breathing space. Libertarians are Hitler!

            1. You already compare us to Hitler, so what would actually change?

        3. No, Tony, just the ills that the Left (“liberals is an outmoded term and you know it) causes themselves.

          1. Der Sean Hannity is a genuiouous!

        4. Maybe you should read some websites or books that don’t confirm your insane belief that liberals are responsible for all the ills in the world.

          Actual liberals are not. But Democrats are not “liberals” at all, they are progressives and socialists.

  54. Stupid leftard doesn’t know that Libertarians punch back.

    -jcr

  55. So, if this trend of violence keeps up eventually there will be instant retaliation.

    How does the media handle a person being attacked by a masked mob drawing a glock and dispersing 14-19 rounds of some yet to be determined caliber into the crowd?

    Especially in a state like FL or TX where the person would not be prone to criminal sanctions?

  56. Let’s get one thing clear. One or two anecdotes of punches being thrown at protests are being employed by fucking fascists to delegitimatize the entire anti-fascist protest movement. It’s like not even remotely original a tactic. If you buy into the hysteria, you’re sitting with the white supremacist fuckfaces and retards who run this country. Keep your eye on the fucking ball, why don’t you idiots? What’s really being silenced here?

    1. [Autistic Screeching Intensifies]

      1. I’ve got it out of my system. Of course controversial speech should be protected as any other kind doesn’t need protection, does it? I also understand that allowing violence to silence speech, even in “isolated incidents” has a chilling effect on speech and is the equivalent of not having free speech at all.

    2. How scared are you right now, Tony?

      1. Thanks for reminding me to check my pants. They were indeed covered in piss again. I’ll check back in a bit after I wash up, I have to sneak past mom to get to the washing machine.

    3. You don’t get to pretend to have any kind of moral legitimacy when you, right here on this website, have advocated for lining up your political/ideological opponents and executing them.

      Guess what, white supremacist and fascist (such as yourself) have 1st amendment rights to speak and peacefully assemble just as much as I do.

      In short, go fuck yourself.

      1. Perhaps you’re referring to the person who’s obviously speaking in my name. I don’t recall advocating for any such thing, except perhaps in some kind of jocular thought experiment.

        I’ve been an ACLU liberal since I was a teenager. You don’t need to lecture me on free speech. You need to stop constantly playing the victim of invisible liberal boogeymonsters, though, because it’s pathetic. I suppose it’s all you people have, though.

        1. Come to think of it, I do espouse a shitty ideology that has led to countless deaths in history. The ACLU has its position on free speech (which is pretty weak today) and I have mine. In my vision of it, there is such a thing as hate speech, and people should be physically attacked for saying anything I brand as hate speech. That way they won’t speak anymore and everyone wins.

  57. Now I’m almost tempted to sign up for Twitter just so I can go tell this Mike Monteiro dickfart what a disgusting cunt he is.

  58. What would you think about a mostly-libertarian news site (with better commenting functionality, lolol) taking a compromise-centrist-commonsense tack? I’ve been a libertarian for about 28 years, been a convention delegate, always voted L. But we sound irrelevant to most people when we fantasize about no taxes, no FDA, etc. The country is in real danger of being yanked in less-free directions, so if we want to have a voice in that argument we need to acquire one soon. Maybe emphasize the good that comes from free association and community and building mutual trust rather than the inviolable individual who has the right to step over you if you collapse on the sidewalk? Maybe some commonsense views that accept the messy irrationality of living together, like a melting pot generally being more stable than a centrifuge? This is a loose ramble, but just wondering if others here are ready, grudgingly, to give up a little ideological ground in exchange for influence at a time when there’s a non-zero chance of a shooting civil war. Just ignore the people who say “normalize” and the people who say “cuck” and appeal to the, what, 70% of people who probably just want Eisenhower-era-America-plus-diversity-and-Netflix. No idea if libertarians are ready to sacrifice that much, but we’re not exactly getting anything we want (other than eating popcorn and watching freakouts) and no idea if this would appeal to regular Joses.

    1. I’d be happy if most of you just stopped aping mouth-breathing talk radio junkies. “I’m a libertarian” means, to most outsiders, “I’m on the paranoid far right only less sociable than average.”

      1. Thanks, buddy, now no one will want to respond to my fucking reasonable post because they’ll be busy yelling at you some more.

        1. Or, you know, you could just do the right thing, instead of going with the flow and riding that fence.

          As for the 70% bit, you know, any time your brain starts making up a statistic, just stop right there. Just don’t do it.

          (Hope you appreciate the response to your fucking reasonable post.)

    2. Even if you could get the vast majority of libertarians to agree with that (all 100 of us), I find it hard to believe that you’d get anywhere near half of that 70% to agree with any of our even watered down ideas.

      It seems to me that most people are genuinely scared of freedom. The rest are like Tony, automatically assuming everyone would be as big an asshole as they would be, Purge style.

      1. From what I read in the news, it’s the state that’s doing the purging, and people like Tony cheered it on.

    3. I disagree with nate (maybe)

      i think you could get most americans to agree with many libertarian policy ideas IF libertarians watered down their postures on

      – open borders (instead talk about ‘immigration reform’)
      – national security (stop saying, ‘non-intervention’ and talk about minimizing conflict)
      – try to be more realistic that a lot of americans are religious; this doesn’t mean agreeing with pro-lifers or anti-gay views, but it means not demonizing them and sneering at them.

      basically, change libertarian rhetoric on those things, and you could do a far better job appealing to the ‘regular joeses’

      But i don’t think that’s ever going to happen, and i’m not even sure i’d want it to.

      1. You couldn’t be more correct but, as you point out, it’s unlikely to happen.

        1. Something bizarre i’ve never quite grasped about Reason-brand libertarianism (*aka ‘cosmotarianism’) =

          On the face of it, it is – in theory – “Libertarian-lite“;

          ‘where libertarian ideas confront daily life’, and finds interesting angles to express itself

          Its not supposed to be some purist, intellectual, academic libertarianism which rigorously adheres to NAP-based interpretations of everything, no matter where it leads.

          Its supposed to be a more-flexible, accommodating, open-to-policy-compromise libertarianism. At least as i understand it.

          Meaning – e.g. “the natural right to self defense” doesn’t mean the magazine takes an absolutist position on the second amendment (“Everyone has the right to own Nukes!!”); we accept that gun regulation is by and large ‘wrong’, but still generally look for marginal policy improvements, and encourage policy moves in that direction. It accepts that “some form of regulation” is the political reality, and doesn’t moan that “not owning machine guns” is a fundamental violation of our rights.

          this all makes sense so far.

          But then you get to other issues, like “Open Borders”…. where for whatever reason, the default position of the magazine is NOT that “the current system is broken and needs fixing” – its that the system is morally WRONG, and that illegal immigrants have natural rights, and any border-controls at all are a moral wrong, and we can’t dare suggest marginal improvements because principles!!

          1. (contd)

            …basically…. it seems like Reason-style libertarianism occasionally decides that

            sometimes we want to make a pragmatic argument which allows for a gradual incremental improvements in policy….. , but other times we want to stand on some absolute principle which declares that there’s only one possible correct position, and any deviation from this view is heresy and a moral flaw

            its a strange sort of intellectual inconsistency. And it sometimes seems that these latter postures are taken on exactly the political issues which are likely to make Libertarianism incredibly un-attractive to anyone on the margins.

            basically, we’re flexible in all sorts of areas we probably don’t necessarily *need* to be very flexible…. and LEAST-flexible in areas which are the most important to gaining political traction.

            And there’s really no practical benefit to being absolutists on certain issues.

            I mean, think of it in terms of something like Climate Change policy = even if the US and EU shut down 100% of their carbon emissions tomorrow in some draconian luddite-revolution? It would have very little effect on global climate change, because most growth is coming from China et al in the future. iow – ‘radical policy change’ would have little effect.

            Similarly = even if Trump were struck by libertarian-lightning, and decided “open the borders!!” tomorrow… the status quo would only change marginally, and slowly. Systemic change is incremental.

            1. which makes you wonder = then why bother with any absolute posture? And then you begin to think its all just for show.

              which is about where i’m at.

              1. Thanks for the comments. You make a lot of good points. And the Reason thing… I don’t get it either.

              2. A certain amount of the absolutist stuff is social signaling but there are some true believers here. Libertarians can afford to stand on principles because we have very little real world power and we’re less effective politically than even the Greens. Being practical and realistic is important in politics but good luck convincing libertarians of that.

          2. The common theme between their sometimes-flexible and sometimes-principled stances seems to involve who they are trying to persuade. Which would be great if it worked, but I think it’s ridiculous. FFS, leftists’ idea of attacking republicans is making them sound like libertarians. They are supposedly Reason’s ally in immigration? They’re only interested in open borders insofar as it benefits the left. And yet every day on this site someone is advocating some form of open borders policy that is really just government looking the other way for a politically advantageous group to break the law, as if that has any chance of snowballing. And maybe if I join a pyramid scheme at the bottom, I’ll somehow make it to the top

      2. **footnote:-

        i’ve fallen victim to my own pet peeve. I shouldn’t have said, “Anti-gay” views. I think there’s no place for *genuinely* anti-gay views, and that sort of open bigotry should be denounced.

        What i was talking about was more along the lines of the “Memories Pizza” stuff;

        (*a business run by christians which, when asked by some reporter whether they’d “-hypothetically” cater a gay wedding, said, “no”; read = these were NOT anti-gay people, they weren’t expressing anti-gay views, they were simply saying, ‘we’d choose not to participate in that sort of thing’. which is entirely consistent with libertarian views of freedom of association)

        basically, what i’m talking about is that you can’t demand a libertarianism which demands that everyone be equally affirmative of everything. There will always be a wide range of social views which have to co-exist, and some of them are inherently disinterested in the “tolerance” demanded by the other. That’s not “Anti” anything. Refusing business isn’t (in my opinion) “intolerance”.

        that’s what i meant by ‘anti-gay’. Not that libertarians all need to hug racists and fag-bashers.

        1. Oh, stop the lengthy circumlocutions. It’s really simple: government can’t interfere with free speech, individuals can’t initiate physical force against each other, and we have freedom of association. That defines exactly the limits of “pro” and “anti” views.

      3. I disagree with your possibly disagreeing with me, thus making me the most libertarian commenter.

        (Alternate joke: A libertarian disagreeing with another libertarian, shocker.)

    4. Who fantasizes about no taxes or no fda? Most of the air spent around here is fantasizing about the department of education and NASA not having a swat team. It’s fantasizing about being able to start a business that 30 years ago, no one would even comprehend regulating or banning. It’s fantasizing about an EPA that can’t fine you $30,000 a day because your land isn’t a wetland, but some pencil necked bureaucrat marked up as one on a whim, and you have no due process to fight it. We fantasize about police forces that face a smidgen of accountability if they shoot you in the back while you’re laying prostrate on the ground. We fantasize about a public sector that doesn’t earn 3 times what the private sector earns for the same job, and yet still acts as if it’s being abused and short-changed.

  59. “So how’s that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it’s okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it’s okay to punch people who aren’t Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis.”

    Where did Soave get the idea that progressives see Nazi and libertarian as separate categories?

  60. I have an idea — why don’t we all go out and defend the free speech rights of the despicables. In the process we will get punched and beaten. But if we have all of it recorded and ready for district attorneys, perhaps enough lefties will get convicted of felonies that they won’t be allowed to vote again. Consider it a small sacrifice to protect our constitution from the real fascists — the modern left.

  61. “You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there’s the slippery slope for you.”

    Slippery slopes are always fallacious.

    I suppose someone might use it descriptively, but that’s an asinine use of the term in a libertarian context. For goodness’ sake, it’s called “The Reason Foundation”.

    If you’ve established a legitimate relationship with a common factor, that is not a slippery slope. It’s a chain reaction.

    Yes, once we start deciding whose freedom of speech is legitimate based on their belief system, all apparently undesirable beliefs suddenly become open to question by various people. That isn’t a slippery slope. That’s logical.

    Calling your own argument a slippery slope and saying it’s justified is just ignorant.

    What are you gonna do for an encore–extol the virtues of your own non sequitur?

  62. but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views

    Grow the fuck up, pussy.

    1. Libertarians shouldn’t apologize for supporting free speech, that’s for sure.

  63. but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views

    Exactly what “deplorable” views does Milo Yiannapoulis hold? You may disagree with them, but “deplorable”?

    1. Or is anything you disagree with considered “deplorable”?

    2. Mocking black people, mocking trans people, actually posting a picture of a trans college student in the audience of one of his college speeches and mocking her.

      1. Mocking black people, mocking trans people, actually posting a picture of a trans college student in the audience of one of his college speeches and mocking her.

        certain classes of people are beyond criticism?

        or is that “mocking” is a deplorable form of speech, and no one should ever be mocked?

      2. actually posting a picture of a trans college student in the audience of one of his college speeches and mocking her.

        Milo showed a picture that was previously widely published by the press, and for good reason: the person in the picture looked like a man and insisted on using the women’s toilet. The picture demonstrated that women might reasonably be concerned if this person hung around the women’s bathroom.

        Milo didn’t know that the person was in the audience, nor should that have made any difference.

  64. So now based on the compelling evidence of a tweet from some guy who might be kidding , “we” have decided it’s okay to punch white male libertarians and “we” are now on a dangerous violent slippery slope towards the end of the First Amendment.

    Good lord.

  65. Come on. Why so hard on the left? They only want the same thing you want.

    To run your life.

  66. Yiannopoulos is not as extreme as Spencer?he does not identify as a white nationalist or a member of the alt-right?but nevertheless holds a number of deplorable views and is closely associated with Breitbart and Trump-ism.

    Burn the Heretic!
    BURN!

  67. Only read the headline, and I just have to say that that’s what she said.

  68. So how’s that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it’s okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it’s okay to punch people who aren’t Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn’t punch them.

    How’s that “feeding the crocodile” thing working out for you, Robby?

    I love it when pinkos are startled and outraged when they see the croc start focusing it’s eyes on them.

  69. The thing is, it’s only a matter of time before things escalate: someone who is physically intimidated by several armed (seems they use iron bars and mace) “black bloc” brownshirts will decide to defend herself with her handgun. Leftists are not known for supporting handgun rights and it follows they do not typically carry themselves. The line “bringing mace to a gunfight” comes to mind.

  70. If these assholes punched actual fascists they’d all have broken mirrors.

  71. Well, the libertarians punch back harder than the fascists.

    OTOH, the fascists are better organized (indeed, are organized at all – they’re *fascists* after all) and punch as one.

    OTGH – the fascists tend to get distracted with punching each other to demonstrate how more part of the collective each of them is.

    1. Yes. Indiana Jones is more like the Libertarian response to first blood. Physicist Louis Rindenour observed that “once it is decided that people are to be killed, the moral issue is fully settled. The instruments of that killing are not affected with any moral or humane questions or considerations.” The article was titled The Hydrogen Bomb. Observe also that the brains at Los Alamos that designed atomic bombs specifically to kill Germany’s Christian National Socialists were folks like Ed Teller, Johnny and Klara Von Neumann, Richard Feynmann, Robert Oppenheimer and Stanislaw Ulam. These men were more like libertarians than mystical conservatives any way you slice it.

      1. Germany’s Christian National Socialists

        See, as a word can come to mean anything, I can’t say that you’re “lying” to use the word Christian here. What I can say is that it’s deceptive in the first order.

        From the Wikipedia article on “Positive Christianity”:

        “The Nazis eventually gave up their attempt to co-opt Christianity, and made little pretence at concealing their contempt for Christian beliefs, ethics and morality.” – Extract from the Fontana History of Germany

        “[They] have tried to make clear to me that Christianity consists in faith in Christ as the son of God. That makes me laugh… No, Christianity is not dependent upon the Apostle’s Creed… True Christianity is represented by the party” – An actual Nazi

        So, please, quit it. It makes the rest of what you say look stupid.

      2. *Ed Teller, Johnny and Klara Von Neumann, Richard Feynmann, Robert Oppenheimer and Stanislaw Ulam. These men were more like libertarians than *

        Actually, all of these men were jewish and many were communists. Oddly, as soon as the Germans were out of the war, many of them didn’t want the bomb to be used on the Japanese.

        Hmmmm.

      3. The Catholic church deserves strong condemnation for collaborating with the Nazis and not giving a f*ck about Hitler killing millions of Jews.

        But Nazi ideology was a combination of socialism, nationalism, and progressivism. As for the physicists you mention, many of them hated liberty as well. Face it, European intellectuals like to persecute and kill each other, and they are united in their hatred for liberty.

  72. Maybe we wouldn’t talk about free speech so much if they weren’t trying so hard to prove our point.

  73. People keep on insisting that Milo, though not an actual Nazi, is nonetheless ‘awful, bad, deplorable,’ etc. But other than some edgy presentations and off-color jokes (that are often quite funny), I can’t see anything to justify the calumny. In fact, one of his more recent video – taken at Memories Pizza – was quite touching to this red-state heart.

    If you actually want to heal a political division, this is how you do it:

    Milo at Memories Pizza:

    https://youtu.be/AURKZUaeEKk

    (Starts around 4:40 minute mark)

    1. Why not just take the social justice warriors’ word for it?

  74. Maybe someone should contact some of his clients and let them know they’re paying money to a person advocating violence against those whom he disagrees.

    http://muledesign.com/
    San Francisco Opera is listed as a client.

  75. Look at Little Lying Robbie and his Little Lying Reason Magazine acting Shocked! Shocked! that after repeating every unsourced lie about Trump they could get their hands on, the climate of violence they encouraged is raining on them.

  76. In my mind the puncher has a Che shirt on, making this so ironic.

  77. An unsolicited ‘atta-boy’ – that is some quality alt-text, Robby.

  78. “Violence is the language that fascists understand best.”

    It’s the language Americans understand best. That’s why they are punching each other.

    1. Well… maybe the 96% that voted against Gary Johnson’s LP and FOR the initiation of force. I was tremendously entertained by their punching each other, and wish they’d all escalated to code duello.

  79. if that’s ok, it must also be ok to beat commies, pinkos, “anti-fascists”, SJWs, socialists, progressives, liberals and Democrats with baseball bats. ARE WE CLEAR ON THE RULES?

  80. This comes of Reason writers and cowardly objectivists sucking up to mystical bigot conservatives. Mein Kampf, the NSDAP platform and especially Hitler’s Enabling Act speech (bilingual posting on Wikipedia) make it clear to any rational being that national socialism and religious conservatism are the same thing. Pretending differently makes us targets of people out to retaliate against religious fanatic initiation of force, which they conflate with non-communism in general (this is bipartisanship). Licking the blacking off of conservative jackboots also does not speak well for one’s ability to read short, simple translations and grasp their meaning.

    1. Hitler’s Enabling Act speech (bilingual posting on Wikipedia) make it clear to any rational being that national socialism and religious conservatism are the same thing.

      See I can say looking at my past “conservative” self, that he was wrong about several things, but calling him a Nazi? No.

      “Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.” James 1:27

      So why don’t you actually try to prove what you keep on claiming?

      1. See that’s the main flaw with solipsism and anecdotal reasoning, broski. It’s not always about your past conservative self.

        1. Excepting I know a lot of “conservatives” (and I used to read a bunch of what nationally famous “conservatives” wrote) and I never think “Nazi”. I think “logically inconsistent” and “dangerous” but never “Nazi”.

    2. Do you have any dressing for this word salad?

    3. Mein Kampf, the NSDAP platform and especially Hitler’s Enabling Act speech (bilingual posting on Wikipedia) make it clear to any rational being that national socialism and religious conservatism are the same thing.

      Much of the 25 Point Program reads like the Democratic party platform (I linked to the simple version for your benefit):

      All citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
      Every citizen should have a job. Their work should not be selfish, but help everyone.
      No one should live off money from rents or other income unless they have worked for that money
      We want all big corporations to be owned by the government.
      Big industrial companies should share their profits with the workers.
      We want old age government pensions to be paid.
      We want to create a healthy middle class
      We want to split up big department stores, and let small traders rent space inside them
      We want to make State and town governments try to buy from small traders.
      We want to change the system of schools and education, so that every hard-working German can have the chance of higher education.
      Etc. You get the idea. Hitler was a nationalist, a socialist, and a progressive.

      Hitler paid lip service to Christianity because he needed the votes of the Christian conservatives, and the Catholic church is to be roundly condemned for getting into bed with Hitler, but Hitler was no Christian conservative himself.

      1. You seem to have left out a lot of parts there. I wonder why…

        Hitler lied about how big a Christian conservative he was, just to get votes? Hmmmm, sounds like a Republican to me.

        1. Republicans believe in killing babies in the womb and then go to Church??? Sounds more like Nazi Pelosi to me. Republicans believe in capitalism brah and want less regulation, exact opposite of facist or socialist ideals.

          Did you know it’s okay to punch White Libertarian Males in the face??? Get your licks in liberals while you can!

        2. You seem to have left out a lot of parts there. I wonder why…

          You erroneously claimed that ” national socialism and religious conservatism are the same thing” and cited the NSDAP party platform as evidence. When half the NSDAP party platform corresponds to Democratic policies and contradicts Republican and conservative Christian policies, they obviously cannot be the same thing”. So, your claim is bullshit.

          A better statement is that Nazis were socially conservative, nationalistic, progressive, and anti-capitalist. That means they were different from both US parties. Republicans are socially conservative but capitalist. Democrats are progressive and anti-capitalist. Both historically and ideologically, however, between the two parties, the Democrats are overall closer to fascism.

  81. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    =============== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  82. “We decide it’s okay to attack Nazis.” But, Robby Seave, you clearly don’t even understand what a Nazi is!
    Nazi is the abbreviation for NAtional soZIalistische – National Socialist. The Nazi party’s full name is NAtional soZIalistische deutsche arbeiter partei – which literally translates from German to be the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
    Socialists hate the fact that Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party was a socialist worker’s party with the same gun control agenda, the same strong social programs and the same emphasis on government jobs and worker’s rights as modern socialists. So they often lie by referring to Nazi as right-wing whereas in truth Nazi is actually liberal left-wing and socialist.
    It’s the socialists, the left-wing fanatics are the real Nazis. They are now even adopting Nazi brownshirt violence tactics against anyone with whom they disagree, except they now wear black and cover their faces.
    Why do you buy their fake news story? Reason ought to know better than to spread fake news…

    1. So they often lie by referring to Nazi as right-wing whereas in truth Nazi is actually liberal left-wing and socialist.

  83. So how’s that for goal-post shifting? First, we decide it’s okay to attack Nazis. Then we decide it’s okay to punch people who aren’t Nazis but are awful and sort of remind us of Nazis. Then it becomes okay to punch the people who say Nazis and Milo are bad but we shouldn’t punch them. ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? You know those slippery-slope arguments people are always rolling their eyes at? Well, there’s the slippery slope for you. And we’ll be normalizing a whole lot of violence as we slide.

  84. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  85. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
    ===================== http://www.moneytime10.com

  86. The first violence I remember for this presidential campaign was a trump supporter using an elbow to knock down an anti-trump supporter. It seems like the police left the person that threw the blow and continued to escort the one knocked down out. I know how easy it is to criticize someone you don’t like for doing something you don’t like while ignoring those you agree with doing something you agree with (even if both acts are illegal). I would hope ALL violence at political events would receive the same condemnation. In my opinion it is only REASONable.

  87. This post is awesome. Thanks for sharing with us.
    Jvzoo Academy Review | Jvzoo Academy

  88. I wish to read more issues about it!|
    I have been surfing online more than 3 hours
    today, yet I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours.
    It is pretty price sufficient for me. In my opinion,
    if all webmasters and bloggers made just right content as you did,
    the net might be a lot more helpful than ever before.|
    Ahaa, its good dialogue about this piece of writing here at this weblog, I have
    read all that, so now me also commenting at this place.|
    I am sure this paragraph has touched all the internet visitors, its
    really really pleasant post on building up new blog.|
    Wow, this paragraph is nice, my sister is analyzing these things, thus I am going to tell her.|
    Saved as a favorite, I really like your blog!|
    Way cool! Some extremely valid points! I appreciate you writing this article and also the
    rest of the site is also very good.|
    Sent from Jvzoo Review Site

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.