At Independent Spirit Awards, Casey Affleck Vindicates Reason TV, Karl Marx With Victory Speech

Forget about history repeating itself first as tragedy, then as farce. Manchester By The Sea star goes directly to farce.

What was it that Marx once said about history? Something about it repeating itself, "the first [time] as tragedy, then as farce." When it comes to this season of Hollywood award shows, the stars are skipping right ahead to farce. Here's Casey Affleck at the weekend's pre-Oscar Independent Spirit Awards, accepting the best lead actor prize and predictably attacking President Donald Trump as only a celebrity can:

Around the 2:00 minute mark, Affleck notes that the "policies of this administration are abhorrent and they won't last," sentiments I don't disagree with. "I know this sounds preachy and boring," he continues, "and I'm preaching to the choir, but I'm just lending my little voice to chorus here…"

If that sounds familiar even hours before tonight's Oscars, it' because Reason TV's Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and Andrew Heaton practically prophesied the exact sentiments the day before Affleck took to the stage. Watch "Best Political Speech by an Entertainment Celebrity: Who Will Win?":

More details here.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
Like us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Comments

[lysergicmonk]

There are no comments l Leave a comment

[White Tennis Balls, Jr.]

Affleck notes that the "policies of this administration are abhorrent and they won't last," sentiments I don't disagree with.

Gee, big surprise, Nick G. doesn't disagree with hyperventilating celebrities. Then, in a classic case of having-it-both-ways, proceeds to mock his ideological allies. Well, at least Reason is different from other media outlets in that way: the others don't disagree with Affleck either, but they wouldn't dream of ridiculing our cultural betters in this way. How transgressive!

[Sam Haysom]

I'm not even sure what they are mocking as far as celebrity screeds go this one was prett self-aware and effacing- far less officious and self-important than just about anything published here.

[David Nolan]

Gee, big surprise, Nick G. doesn't disagree with hyperventilating celebrities.

Gee, big surprise, you do support the policies of the Trump administration.

Then, in a classic case of having-it-both-ways, proceeds to mock his ideological allies.

I'll mock you for your confusion on what "ideological allies" are.

[White Tennis Balls, Jr.]

Asshole, I didn't vote for Trump, I won't be voting for Trump, I 'm not a supporter at all. Better learn to read closer.

I'll mock you for your confusion on what "ideological allies" are.

Please do. So you don't believe Nick when he says he doesn't disagree with Casey Affleck about Trump? Are they not ideological allies in that regard? Remember: alliances don't mean that the parties involved agree on everything, or even a lot of things.

So, are you still mocking me now that I've demonstrated that I know what an alliance is and you clearly do not?

The problem with shit-stains like you is you really believe you are non-partisan, above the fray and what-not. I say something critical of the new Sky-Is-Falling-Because-Trump mentality and you interpret that as though I'm some kind of moron wearing a MAGA hat. In reality, Trump is an egomaniacal dipshit who, while clearly better than his Democrat opponent, will run the country largely as his immediate predecessors have. And because you read so very poorly and these things have to explained very carefully to you, that is not an endorsement.

Sorry I'm not going along with the OMG RUSSIA OMG WAR ON WOMEN OMG NUCLEAR WINTER OMG ALT-RIGHT bullshit that you and Nick and Shikha and Robby, to name a few, are.

In short: eat a dick.

[David Nolan]

Asshole, I didn't vote for Trump,

(snicker) I never said you, chump.

Better learn to read closer.

It's more about THINKING.
Pay attention.

Gee, big surprise, Nick G. doesn't disagree with hyperventilating celebrities.

1) Nick agrees with the criticism of ONE celebrity.
2) You say the celebrity was "hyperventilating" by attacking Trump.
3) So THAT says you defend Trump (and again at the end!)
4) If you don't support Trump, then why attack me for your shitty phrasing?

I'll mock you for your confusion on what "ideological allies" are.

Please do. So you don't believe Nick when he says he doesn't disagree with Casey Affleck about Trump?

I believe him. Now you go ape-shit

Are they not ideological allies in that regard?

Note the revision. (lol)

Remember: alliances don't mean that the parties involved agree on everything, or even a lot of things.

(laughing) They agree on ... IDEOLOGY, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL!

I'm calling you out .... WHAT ideology do the two men share? And WHAT evidence can you cite. (You've just been mocked again.)

In short: eat a dick.

You'll need to fund someone else to suck your short dick.

[White Tennis Balls, Jr.]

Oh, it's Michael Hihn again. Suddenly everything you wrote makes perfect sense from a certain point of view.

I guess that's why you change your name from Hihn to John Galt II to David Nolan...no one will play with you if they know it's you.

[ace_m82]

Yep, that's Hihn. Leopard can't change his spots and Hihn can't change his ways even by his 4th handle.

His earlier 3 handles:

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12.....nt_6652623

[David Nolan]

LOL -- more aggression by cyber-bullies

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small Minds discuss people.

And bullies launch personal attacks, while traveling in a pack like wild dogs.

[David Nolan]

His earlier 3 handles:

Why would you link to yourself being publicly humiliated -- also for a purely personal attack. The Hihn guy has a conversation with the Galt dude -- so you assume it's just one person? Because they're both humiliating you? What if they both saw how stupid you'd been? I can see it too!

Does being publicly thrashed like that explain your stalking and bullying?
Plus, which is the third handle? Or did you fuck up yet again?

What if you stuck with content and the topic, instead of launching aggression against anyone you disagree with?

[ace_m82]

Hi Hihn, how have you been doing?

Actually, I didn't attack you at all. In fact, I didn't even respond to you in any way. I was just looking through the comments like I do most days and I saw an interesting conversation. Then I saw the familiar (snicker), (lol), (laughing), and the propensity to overdo it on the capitalization, italics, and bold. I realized it must be you.

I then saw someone else noticed it and I confirmed it, that you, "Nolan" (you've been a fan of Nolan in our previous conversations), are actually Michael Hihn. But for anyone who isn't convinced by the earlier link to your previous 3 handles (you had Hihn, Galt Jr. and Galt II), here is another one:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....nt_6730841

See, in that one, you respond twice in precisely the same words using 2 different handles, Michael Hihn and John Galt Jr. And, as you had previously denied being Hihn (as Galt Jr.), this is proof that you have a history of doing this.

So carry on attempting your new deceit and I'll keep posting truth. I mean, if you've thoroughly ruined your reputation and credibility of your "Hihn" handle, perhaps when you make a new one you should at least attempt to change your tactics?

God Bless you and keep you, Hihn. He loves you regardless of how you act and will forgive you for all you've done, all you have to do is ask.

[ace_m82]

An addendum, actually, you replied using the same words as Hihn and Galt II. The 2 identical comments begin with a quote of mine "If the child is a living human".

[David Nolan]

Does being publicly thrashed like that explain your stalking and bullying?
Plus, which is the third handle? Or did you fuck up yet again?

What if you stuck with content and the topic, instead of launching aggression against anyone you disagree with?

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small Minds discuss people.

[ace_m82]

Does being publicly thrashed like that explain your stalking and bullying?

"Publicly thrashed", "stalking", "bullying", you're not disproving my point, Michael.

Plus, which is the third handle? Or did you fuck up yet again?

Quoting myself: "you had Hihn, Galt Jr. and Galt II". If you read more slowly, reading comprehension will come, Michael.

What if you stuck with content and the topic

I purposely didn't mention the topic, as I don't care. I simply replied to someone else and acknowledged the fact that you are Michael Hihn, and gave evidence of that fact.

instead of launching aggression against anyone you disagree with?

How is correctly identifying a fact "aggression", especially to someone else (not you)?

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small Minds discuss people.

Fascinatingly enough, that's precisely what Michael Hihn said here:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....nt_6730841

[David Nolan]

Leopard can't change his spots and Hihn can't change his ways

Actually, I didn't attack you at all. In fact, I didn't even respond to you in any way.

[David Nolan]

An addendum, actually, you replied using the same words as Hihn and Galt II. The 2 identical comments begin with a quote of mine "If the child is a living human"

1) Dumbfuck says it's a conspiracy if somebody responds by citing his words. (gasp)
2) Lied about three handles at the link.
3) Linked to himself being publicly humiliated.
(snicker)

[ace_m82]

"Dumbfuck says it's a conspiracy if somebody responds by citing his words. (gasp)"

All right: go to

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....o-the-supr

and ctrl-f "Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason."

That's your quote, given by two of your different handles, and about 1/8 of your 2 identical posts.

You got caught red-handed, Hihn. It's not even that bad of a thing to do, but your continual dishonesty about it really hurts whatever point you happen to be attempting to make.

Heck, I just re-read your first post here and I think I agree with you more than the other person. But continually deceiving about using multiple handles makes it really difficult to take anything you say seriously.

[David Nolan]

Ever the dumbass ... he now ADMITS an ad hominem attack!!!!

Heck, I just re-read your first post here and I think I agree with you more than the other person.

(laughing hysterically) And earlier, he even BRAGGED of the ad hominem!!

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02.....nt_6775388

He says NOTHING about the topic, Only who posted it and how it was done
That's a personal attack -- known as an ad hominem.

So I've just humiliated him again .... which will cause,more rage and stalking. (sneer)

[ace_m82]

Ever the dumbass ... he now ADMITS an ad hominem attack!!!!

Didn't attack you. Didn't even respond to you.

And earlier, he even BRAGGED of the ad hominem!!

Not sure where your "logic" is going there...

He says NOTHING about the topic, Only who posted it and how it was done

I correctly identified you.

So I've just humiliated him again

Yes, your words do cause "humiliation", that much is sure.

[ace_m82]

That's not an attack. It's an observation. Believe me, I can actually attack, if it makes you happy.

[David Nolan]

Ever the dumbass. Part Two

That's not an attack. It's an observation.

(snort) On the TOPIC or on the PERSON?

You've now posted six comments ... not a single word on the topic .... those are all ad hominems, chump. But you're not a stalker and bully??????

(Posted in response to six aggressions by one who has stalked me for months ... because I keep humiliating him. Like this. )

Haters gotta hate. And blowhards gotta bellow.

(Also still full of shit on three handles at your link!!)

[ace_m82]

You've now posted six comments ... not a single word on the topic .... those are all ad hominems, chump.

In order to be an ad hominem, it would have to be an attack. I simply stated, to someone else, that you are Hihn. You don't like truth (apparently) and don't like it that you're so bad at hiding who you really are. A leopard can't change their spots, and you can't change your ways, Hihn.

But please, carry on with what you're doing. You are doing quite well at disproving everything you say by your continued deceit and paranoid fantasies.

God Bless you, Hihn. I sincerely mean it.

[ace_m82]

Oh, and ctrl-f

http://reason.com/blog/2016/12.....nt_6652623

for Hihn, Galt II, and Galt Jr

Three, count them three handles.

[David Nolan]

Still a lie.
Still an ad hominem (now 8)
Thus aggression, by definition -- and multiple repeats make it bullying., also by definition

For any other retards and//or suffering severe denial

ad ho?mi?nem
[?ad ?h?m?n?m]
ADVERB
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

(smirk)

self-right?eous
[?self ?r?CH?s]
ADJECTIVE
having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior:

Haters must hate. Belligerant Blowhards must bellow.

[Otis B. Driftwood]

Hihn, you fucking suck. You got caught and need to own it. Quit being a little bitch and take some ownership.

[David Nolan]

Hihn, you fucking suck.

How does that address the topic?

[ace_m82]

Still a lie.

That you are Hihn? Carry on, Hihn, make yourself less believable.

Still an ad hominem

Me telling someone else that you are you isn't an attack, nor is it "to the man" (what the Latin means) because it isn't to you. But, if you admit that my accusing someone of being Hihn is an "attack" (because you have so thoroughly ruined your own name), then I suppose you'd have a point, if indeed I were wrong.

Thus aggression, by definition

Find me one, just ONE definition of "aggression" that in any way fits what I did and I'll admit to it. Good luck with that.

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

It's not an argument. You are Hihn. You hide your deceit very poorly. It's not even a reaction directed against a person. It's just me stating a fact to another person.

self-right?eous: having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior:

Haters must hate. Belligerant Blowhards must bellow.

You have no self-awareness, at all.

You have used 4 handles, you have written the precise thing using two of them. You use the same rhetoric, the same grammar, and the same paragraph construction with all of them. You accuse people in the same manner with all of them. You are Hihn, and yet you lie about it.

[David Nolan]

For any other retards and//or suffering severe denial

ad ho?mi?nem>
[?ad ?h?m?n?m]
ADVERB
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining:

Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small Minds discuss people.

Haters gotta hate.

[David Nolan]

Still a lie.

That you are Hihn?

(snicker)

"See, in that one, you respond twice in precisely the same words using 2 different handles, Michael Hihn and John Galt Jr. "

Fucking liar The entire Hihn post

Bingo, John! (Or whoever you are) He's exactly like Trump. Stalking me for months because I publicly humiliated him. The authoritarian mind is ENRAGED by "backtalk."

You were polite way too long. Now he's stalking you. Just ignore him like everyone else does! He's not confused; he's an asshole.

Did you see Trump just praised Putin again? The two dictators have a budding bromance. In Trump's mind, authoritarianism is "manly." It goes with his tiny hands! He REALLY believes that's the proper leadership role. Tyrants can succeed in business, where they employ wusses and lackeys. And real estate investment is not a "business."

Obama ignored Putin. Trump sucks up to him. Two Presidents in a row humiliate America on the world stage.

Psycho claims Galt used "Precisely the same words." (smirk)
The psycho will deny it,. evade again, and repeat a proven lie again.

Haters gotta hate. Stalkers gotta stalk.
He was stalking me at his own link, also beginning with an ad hominem, then also many more/

[ace_m82]

"See, in that one, you respond twice in precisely the same words using 2 different handles, Michael Hihn and John Galt Jr. "

Fucking liar

If you'll note (which you won't), I amended that as it wasn't Galt Jr, it was your Galt II and Hihn handles you responded in precisely the same way, here:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....o-the-supr

Anyone can ctrl-f it and find that "The woman has the" yields 2 exact same posts, one by Hihn, and one by Galt II. Caught. Red. Handed.

"Psycho claims Galt used "Precisely the same words."

You did. Twice. Two different handles. It's right there for all of us to see.

Keep trying Hihn, keep failing to keep up your lie. The more you talk, the less people will believe you, until, I suppose, you have to change handles so people won't know who you are. Again.

[ace_m82]

Link to the deceit:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....o-the-supr

John Galt II|2.1.17 @ 8:00PM

If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon

The woman has the same rights.
Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

Michael Hihn|2.1.17 @ 8:03PM

If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon

The woman has the same rights.
Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

Keep denying it, Hihn. Keep denying...

[ace_m82]

Not a reply. You're now at the point where you're stuck on repeat?

[David Nolan]

IF YOU CAME FROM THE LINK ON MY BLOG to see MORE psycho.

See the liar again (ace_m82) -- with your own eyes..

Same asshole as the first five links I posted -- same m.o. -- sill nonstop ad hominems, like all prior stalking - but even more psycho.

1) The last comment with any topic is 27 comments ago. Count them.
2) Followed by a lengthy string of 15 ad hominem attacks, 12 by my stalker. Count them.
3) He denies an attack.
4) I post the definition of ad hominem.
5) He repeats the attack - cites the LATIN MEANING of ad hominem. (GO SEE IT!)
6) I document his "proof" as bullshit. He lied about his link and I quote the proof ... .

So ... (snicker) ... he posts a DIFFERENT LINK ... TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASON PAGE! Hence, a TOTAL and pathetic psycho.

SEE FOR YOURSELF! HIS LIE IS AT THIS LINK T0 "A DREXEL PROFESSOR ...."
http://reason.com/blog/2016/12.....nt_6652623

OUTED AS LIAR, HE LINKS TO ..... A DIFFERENT PAGE!!! (The Gorsuch Nomination) PROOF:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/02.....nt_6779224

He's exposed AGAIN as a total ass ... but it's all about attacks ... in the Bible Thumper's New Inquisition. Any moral atrocity is justified "for the cause" -- as in the original (un)Holy Inquisition. So the drooling psycho will continue ... with NO personal shame

HATERS GOTTA HATE - BLOWHARDS GOTTA BELLOW - PSYCHOS GOTTA STALK.

[ace_m82]

Didn't attack. I IDed you as you.

Then you confuse one link with another, because that's the best you can do (obfuscate) when caught in your lie.

As the Late, Great Tim Russert once said, "Why can't you just tell the truth?"

Link to the deceit:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....o-the-supr

John Galt II|2.1.17 @ 8:00PM

"If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon"

The woman has the same rights.
Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

Michael Hihn|2.1.17 @ 8:03PM

"If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon"

The woman has the same rights.
Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

Keep denying it, Hihn. Keep denying...

[David Nolan]

Again for those following the link from my blog ....

Didn't attack. I IDed you as you.

That IS an attack, Slick. Again for the morally afflicted.

ad ho?mi?nem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining)

Now 13 attacks, NONE on my position here

So the drooling psycho will continue ... with NO personal shame

Then you confuse one link with another,

Linked to HIS comments! Denying proof three times now justifies another definition. Psychopath.

Psychology Today:
In the early 1800s, doctors who worked with mental patients began to notice that some of their patients who appeared outwardly normal had what they termed a "moral depravity" or "moral insanity," in that they seemed to possess no sense of ethics or of the rights of other people.

Four months of stalking and personal attacks. Even denying his own comments. And bullshit:

Link to the deceit:

Another massive fuckup! NOTHING to do with me!

Keep denying..

Where, Slick? (lol)

HATERS GOTTA HATE. PSYCHOS GOTTA STALK

[ace_m82]

That IS an attack

I calling someone "Hihn" is an attack, perhaps you should rethink your behavior.

Literally no-one believes you, Hihn. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Link to the deceit:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....o-the-supr

John Galt II|2.1.17 @ 8:00PM

"If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon"

The woman has the same rights.
Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

Michael Hihn|2.1.17 @ 8:03PM

"If the child is a living human, it has the rights of a living human, which include the right to not be aggressed upon"

The woman has the same rights.
Note to readers. Don't get sucked into a lengthy screech fest by this troll. He denies the most fundamental of our founding principles, that unalienable rights cannot be denied or disparaged for ANY reason. Period.

As we learned in high school -- we HONEST ones -- unalienable rights include Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness ... and all the others.

Keep denying it, Hihn. Keep denying...

[LarryA]

Nick G. doesn't disagree with hyperventilating celebrities. Then, in a classic case of having-it-both-ways, proceeds to mock his ideological allies.

It's quite reasonable to agree with celebrities that Trump has lousy policies, and mock the celebs when they say Clinton's would have been better.

[Gilbert Martin]

"It's quite reasonable to agree with celebrities that Trump has lousy policies"

Except only some of Trumps policies are lousy - others are not.

Cutting taxes is an excellent policy - not a lousy one.

Cutting federal regulations and reigning in out of control federal agencies such as the EPA is an excellent policy - not a lousy one.

Reversing the Obama administration's holdup of the Keystone and Dakota access pipeline projects was an excellent policy - not a lousy one.

[MoreFreedom]

I agree with you Gilbert. I've yet to see an "abhorrent policy" implemented by Trump (cancelling TPP was a missed opportunity, but cancelling it doesn't make things worse) but I won't be surprised if some come, mostly pushed by Congress. And I'm pretty happy with most of his appointees. Especially considering Clinton who IMHO was worse (full disclosure - I voted for Johnson).

I find most of the Reason staff's opposition to him to be somewhat premature. And I've been a libertarian for over 35 years, and subscriber for that time as well. Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but Trump may be somewhat of a closet libertarian who lied to get elected. After all, lying to get elected has been working for politicians. And I'm pretty sure (based on a psychiatrist's opinion) that Trump really wants to make America great, and isn't in it for the money.

The other good Trump policy IMHO, is his calling out the fake news media. The Russian narrative was made up by Clinton and Obama, to distract from the Wikileaks revelations. And I think Putin did get Hillary's emails and blackmailed her and Obama (explains Syria, Crimea, Iran, and US uranium sales to Russia, plus the coverup of Hillary's email crimes). Frankly I think CNN should be out of business for passing debate questions to Clinton.

[David Nolan]

Except only some of Trumps policies are lousy - others are not.

How does any of that come even close to shitting on the Constitution and being a psycho liar?

[Get To Da Chippah]

How am I supposed to know what to think if no celebrity tells me?

[David Nolan]

Yeah! Let TRUMP control our minds!
It's not like he's a psycho liar!!!

[Sevo]

So who announces the nominees for the best "Trump is a Big Poopyhead!" speech?

[Fist of Etiquette]

I've seen worse.

[Jimbo]

Come on, FoE, can't you keep the mom jokes out of at least ONE thread?

[Cyto]

I thought that was a Princess Bride joke.

[jonnysage]

Stop giving them attention and maybe they'll shut up. Hmm, maybe if I stop commenting on posts about celebrities Reason will stop posting them....

[Cyto]

So I guess we have gotten past that "criticising the President is racist" discussion.

Phew! That's a relief!

[MarkLastname]

Yeah, isn't it racist to call him Drumpf, so as to suggest his German heritage is a bad thing? Or is that good racism because punching up?

[wareagle]

it is really quite something to watch a once-major political party, and some might say once-great political party, engage in a slow, ritual suicide. The left has gone way beyond caricature and self-parody, and seems to crave Green Party levels of relevance. Yesterday's choice of Tom Perez as DNC Chair is many things, but self-awareness of the Dems' current national standing is not one of them.

[Wasteland Wanderer]

The left has gone way beyond caricature and self-parody, and seems to crave Green Party levels of relevance. Yesterday's choice of Tom Perez as DNC Chair is many things, but self-awareness of the Dems' current national standing is not one of them.

To be fair, if they had really wanted to commit seppuku, they'd have gone with Keith Ellison.

[MarkLastname]

Perez was the moderate choice, which says a lot.

[call your mom]

I've got to believe reason's editorial staff, realizing the libertarian gig is pretty much up, are publishing these kinds of articles to pad their resumes for future consideration by Vox, Salon, Huffpo, etc.

[David Nolan]

If that sounds familiar even hours before tonight's Oscars, it' because Reason TV's Austin Bragg, Meredith Bragg, and Andrew Heaton practically prophesied the exact sentiments the day before Affleck took to the stage. Watch "Best Political Speech by an Entertainment Celebrity: Who Will Win?":

So ... Gillespie says he cannot disagree with Affleck.

Now play that video, listen closely, and consider that Gillespie claims "the exact sentiments."
Now listen a third time. Nick cannot disagree with THAT speech either!
Or is he pandering again?

[zifohusiya]

I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that...my... father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to websit========= http://www.net.pro70.com

[Rebel Scum]

When did lower taxes, less burdensome regulation, and enforcement of existing immigration law become "un-American"?