stadiums

Will Trump's NFL Spat Spur More Conservative Opposition to Terrible Stadium Subsidies?

Conservatives upset about the NFL's refusal to bend the knee to Trump on the anthem issue might redirect that fury to the NFL's raiding of their wallets.

|

Image of Sport/Newscom

If there is a silver lining to President Donald Trump's foolish attempt at bullying National Football League players and team owners via Twitter, it is this: Republicans and conservatives suddenly seem ever so slightly more interested in ending the stream of taxpayer subsidies for billion-dollar football stadiums.

The shift was apparent during a segment of Monday's Fox and Friends, in which Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney offered his thoughts on the president's weekend war of words with the NFL over the question of whether players should stand or kneel (or remain off the field entirely) during the playing of the national anthem at the start of games.

Trump's tweets on the matter inflated a handful of players kneeling during the anthem to protest police violence against African Americans into a league-wide show of solidarity against the president.

Varney is against players taking a knee and he somewhat sloppily connected the protests to the fact that almost all NFL stadiums have been heavily subsidized by taxpayers. "Taxpayer subsidies go towards the building of stadiums," Varney said. "There have been 20 new NFL stadiums [built] since 1997. All of them have received a degree of taxpayer subsidies."

A few seconds later, Varney's answer veered into incoherence. He said the NFL should not "bite the hand that helps to feed you," in reference to those same subsidies, and he suggested the league should not "insult taxpayers—whose symbol is the flag, and who you are disrespecting by your actions."

Watch the whole clip here.

Varney is very wrong about what should be considered an insult to taxpayers, of course. The idea that billionaire owners of professional football teams that rake in hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue every year need assistance from taxpayers is what's insulting. And it's even more insulting when team owners and government officials team up to shovel a bunch of debunked nonsense about "economic development" in front of taxpayers, as if that justifies those subsidies.

Varney obviously needs to work on his argument, but cut him the smallest bit of slack for raising the issue of stadium subsidies on a platform like Fox and Friends, where Trump fans are already upset about what they perceive are the NFL's slights against the president. It's fair to assume most viewers don't know the details of stadium deals—an assumption host Steve Doocey made when he asked, "what do you mean by a subsidy?"—and maybe some will seek out additional information.

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., joined the subsidy outrage when he spoke on the House floor this week to denounce the NFL's response to Trump's tweets. "The public pays 70 percent of the cost of NFL stadiums," Gaetz said. "In America, if you want to play sports you're free to do so. If you want to protest, you're free to do so, but you should do so on your own time and on your own dime."

Louisiana state Rep. Kenny Havard, R-East Baton Rouge, has called for putting an end to the estimated $165 million in tax breaks that flow annually to the New Orleans Saints, The Washington Post reports.

Libertarians have long been opposed to stadium subsidies. But until recently there was little mainstream criticism from either the right or the left. That's starting to change. On the left, populist, progressive movements have become a larger part of the Democratic coalition, particularly in cities. That helps to explain why city councils in places like St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland have stood up to pro football teams threatening to leave town if they don't get shiny, expensive new stadiums.

On the right—where, you know, caring about fiscal matters is supposed to be more important—there's been some grassroots opposition to stadium deals. Conservative groups recently killed a minor league stadium deal in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., for example.

But you also have big dollar Republican donor Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate, playing an instrumental role in the largest such subsidy ever given to an American sports franchise, a $750 million taxpayer contribution for the Oakland Raiders to move into a new stadium in Las Vegas.

Conservatives upset about the NFL's refusal to bend the knee to Trump on the anthem issue might redirect some of that fury at the NFL's raiding of their wallets.

Taxpayer subsidies for stadiums is increasing at a staggering pace. An ESPN analysis earlier this year found that five teams built new stadiums between 1997 and 1999 with combined public contributions of $873 million, or about $120 million more than the Las Vegas stadium. The analysis determined taxpayers had spent $5 billion on 16 new NFL stadiums built (or to-be-built) between 2000 and 2020.

Trump's Twitter spat with the NFL might mean more conservatives eye the league with skepticism. They might be doing it for reasons with which libertarians don't necessarily agree—stand, kneel, or do whatever you want during the anthem! But any more attention on wasteful, unnecessary stadium subsidies is a victory, if unintentional.

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.

134 responses to “Will Trump's NFL Spat Spur More Conservative Opposition to Terrible Stadium Subsidies?

  1. …he suggested the league should not “insult taxpayers?whose symbol is the flag, and who you are disrespecting by your actions.”

    Well, at least someone’s drifting away from the incorrect idea that the Old Glory represents the government and closer to understanding it represents the country.

    And those subsidies will never be ended.

    1. They may end if a sufficient amount of the NFL’s audience walks away. What political gain is there in subsidizing a game nobody’s interested in?

      1. My god, what a beautiful dream. Football killed by the players stupidly.

        1. Football is already on a death curve.

          Major League is feed by College, College is fed by HIgh School, and High School is feed by Pee Wee Football.

          Enrollment in Pee Wee football is WAY down, in some places to low to maintain the programs. One of the main factors is the increasing awareness of repeated shock brain injury. Parents are keeping kids out of football out of fear of brain injury.

          As the player shortage ages up, first High School, then College, and finally Professional will be impacted. Even the fan base is going to dwindle as those kids take up soccer, or something else instead.

          I say good riddance.

      2. As if they wouldn’t subsidize baseball stadiums? Or for soccer, or anything else seen as representing the town?

        1. Yep, from a subsidy standpoint, this is the problem.

    2. That’s why you don’t see high government officials wearing the flag pin on their lapels. The flag represents the IRS as much as it represents the people.

      1. actually, you see them wearing flag pins all the time. You just need to pay attention.

    3. “…and to the republic for which it stands…”

  2. or don’t hand the feed that bites you.

    1. Feeding hand jobs? Immigrants are stealing them.

  3. It’s our patriotic duty to funnel tax dollars into sportsball because otherwise the terrorists win.

  4. Independence movement in a major country being violently suppressed by the government with hundreds of people injured? Still of no interest whatsoever to the ersatz libertarians of Reason because it has nothing to do with Trump!

    1. MIkey, you’ve been called on this lie already.
      Here, you stupid piece of shit:
      “Spain’s Crackdown in Catalonia Won’t Stop the Push for Self-Determination”
      https://reason.co m/blog/2017/09/21/spains-cra ckdown-on-catalonian-referendu

      1. Domestic Dissident is absolutely correct. We hear constantly about “freedom and self determination”. Hell, half the posters here really don’t believe in nation-states at all as evidenced by universal opposition to border controls of any sort.

        But when it is not Hungary, or Slovenia, but rather Catalonia, suddenly all those high minded ideas get swept away.

        Catalonia, has every right to vote themselves out of Spain, and if the EU doesn’t support them, the US should start telling the Catalonians arms to restore their own rights with. Spain and the EU won’t like it and so far as I am concerned that just confirms it the right thing to do.

        And if Reason had half the libertarian principles they claim to have this would be the top story.

    2. Not really an independence movement. Similar to Scotland, they want to be freed from their current country so they can be more thoroughly ruled by the EU.

      1. Unlike Mikey, if you wish to know what is going on, you should have read the link I posted on the EU direct payments to ‘regions’ so the German welfare money can bypass the national government and go directly to the region.
        Oh, well, here’s another picked at random, Mikey, you idiot, page 10:

        “4.2 Catalan representation in Brussels
        The Secretary coordinates activities in Catalonia and in Brussels, and also coordinates
        the delegation of the
        Generalitat
        in Brussels, which is now the same entity as that of
        the
        Patronat Catal?
        (incorporating the former Regional Office of Catalonia in Brussels).
        The Catalan government set up an office in Brussels in order to have direct
        representation at the heart of the European institutions, Catalonia’s office in Brussels
        was opened in 1986 (by 2004, there were 230 regional offices in Brussels).”
        http://www.aecpa.es/uploads/fi…..ASILDA.pdf

        A fucking idiot like you assumes the Catalonians set up that office because they were hoping the EU bureaucrats would man the barricades to fight for independence, right? Not because they might be hoping for handouts from the DE purse, right, Mikey?
        You and SIV lower the collective IQ around here by easily 20 points. Go away and take your idiocy with you.

        1. NONE of this shit Sevo, makes any difference. The fact is that the Catalonians should get to choose. They may be choosing unwisely, but should not be up to Spain to decide whether they will let Catalonia go free.

  5. Will Trump’s NFL Spat Spur More Conservative Opposition to Terrible Stadium Subsidies?

    It will do so in exactly the same amounts that ostentatious-kneeling will spur popular support for criminal justice reform

    1. It is not proper to mention the drug war in polite company, as I have learned.

      It is too bad that BLM continues to focus on race. The drug war violates all races. Perhaps not equally, but all nonetheless.

      The drug war funds the prison industrial complex, enriches murderous cartels, and wastes hundreds of billions of dollars. It gives small, mean men like AG Sessions an extra Bible to thump. Because getting high is bad. All highs, everywhere, for everyone, forever, amen.

      I don’t even like to get high. I even quit drinking. But holy shit, does BLM miss the mark.

      1. It is too bad that BLM continues to focus on race. The drug war violates all races.

        You are suffering from a common libertarian blind spot. The drug war is not an excuse to establish a permanent police-state; its how White Supremacy is maintained

        1. If that blind spot consists of me not giving a shit what ethnic tribe you come from, guilty as charged.

          1. I don’t suppose it ever occurs to the newly-enwokened? libertarians who write for the WaPo that the reason lefties always try to pretend the Drug War is about “Racism”
            (a uniquely right-wing phenomenon, as everyone knows)…

            …is because it helps people forget that it was actually a bi-partisan effort?

            I mean, its not like anyone wants America to forget about the whole “Superpredators” thing, right? Democrats have *always* been the friend of the black man, and Republicanish people are their natural enemy….

            ….and there’s totally not a very-conscious, constant effort to pump this narrative, because Democrats are completely fucking terrified about the fact that Hillary failed to turn out black voters in November.

            1. Yeah, I’ve heard that from more than one person. My reply is that even if the obscene drug war,was enacted by the most racist white people in the word, with its sole objective being to incarcerate black people out of existence, it still does those things I mentioned. It also ensures the state and its goons can always, always, always ask for more money and power.

              “Drug use and violent crime are up! We need more money and power!”

              “Drug use and violent crime are down! It’s working! Give us more money and power to finish the job!”

              It’s gonna take the several States telling DC to fuck off to get rid of it. Maybe in a hundred years.

              1. There’s no reason to think the states to be better than DC on this matter overall. It started in the states, and it’s still mostly the states.

                1. Yes. And it will need to end with the states.

                  1. SIV|10.1.17 @ 8:57PM|#
                    “It’s not that simple:”
                    Maybe not, but did you have a point?
                    Hint for the retarded: Links that might have some relevance to the discussion should be explained by those linking them.
                    Assuming the idiot doing the linking has any idea what that relevance might be.

            2. I didn’t know Palpatine had met Jabba. Jesus Christ, Lucas, can there be two characters in your universe who haven’t met at some point? And I thought C-3PO being built by Vader was ridiculous.

            3. In Congress, the drug czar testified that “coloreds with big lips lure white women with jazz and marijuana”.

              This is popularly known as “science”.

              1. And this happened .. when?

                I don’t doubt that some shithead said this, I just wonder what the point of discussing it today is? I am also sure that shithead was a Democrat in good standing too. And the fact that Racism is, and always has been, a Democrat specialty, does not let the Republicans off the hook for their behavior either.

        2. Oh, dude. GILMORE. G-dog. I really CAN’T drink, but the world makes it so hard.

          I don’t know when merely not being racist stopped being good. Social media and SJWtards seem to want to bring back scarlet letters and dunking stools.

      2. It is not proper to mention the drug war in polite company, as I have learned.

        What happened? Looks like an interesting story.

        1. I occasionally (due to my job) have to socialize with people who have lots of money and status. Many of those people are dumber than shit, so if you try to explain the concepts of illicit markets, militarized police, institutionalized intergenerational government dependence, etc., you will get some embarrassed coughs and some puzzled looks.

          “It’s just the way they ARE, Mr. Warning. Nobody makes anybody be a criminal!”

          Having been to parts of the world where I saw filthy, starving children digging through garbage for something to eat, I tended to drink a lot on these occasions. Back when I could drink.

          Sometimes, the circumstances of one’s birth are obstacles to be overcome, and not enabling multipliers. These people understand that, of course, but they pretend they don’t.

          So yeah. I don’t disregard BLM’s point entirely. But I do disagree with their locus of effort. Real racists are NEVER going to change their minds. It’s wasted work to try. Instead, end the drug war. Cripple the cartels. Take away the lure of money and power that drug crime has. Take back power from cops and alphabet soup agencies. Take away their toys.

          1. I was expecting something more to “not proper” than simply “useless”.

      3. They would never have got off the ground if it had been just about the drug war.

        The point of BLM was to move police powers from being controlled at the state and local level to the federal executive branch, which Dems are set to dominate long-term (despite the current hiccup).

        1. Unfortunately, it would have gotten off the ground, just like prohibition did. And once that police state apparatus for alcohol was rendered unnecessary due to the repeal of prohibition, it was necessary for the state to find a new use for that apparatus. And the drug war started in earnest.

          Government never shrinks, it just gets redirected.

        2. the federal executive branch, which Dems are set to dominate long-term (despite the current hiccup).

          if your argument is “demography=(electoral) destiny”, you’re wrong

  6. So at the beginning of the Steelers Ravens game, Ravens announcer invited everyone to pray with the team before the anthem. That didn’t work out. As the team knelt (ostensibly to pray), the Hitlers in the crowd booed. The team then stood for the anthem.

    Not only has attention been turned away from the initial issue – uncheck police brutality on minorities – but they can’t even walk things back gracefully. Trump may not have won this battle, but the players definitely lost it. So far, anyway.

    1. Ravens announcer invited everyone to pray with the team

      i will enjoy watching as the religious right co-opts BLM wokeness-displays and the world explodes in “its different when we do it”-rationalizations.

    2. “That didn’t work out. As the team knelt (ostensibly to pray), the Hitlers in the crowd booed. The team then stood for the anthem.”

      Trump is Trump, but WIH did Goodell hope to accomplish? Did he imagine *all* of the fans were united behind a couple of virture-signalling millionaires?
      Do these folks imagine that since all of their neighbors voted for the Hag, Trump must have been elected by three folks in Podunk, Tennessee?
      If I were a stockholder in the NFL, I’d start a movement to fire that idiot.

      1. No, it’s just the NFL, like Hollywood, like most of the Media, think that if they scold people enough then they will change their minds.

        Or they will at least change some and the people opposed won’t stop watching. Which they won’t. Not in enough numbers to matter.

        1. In the short run it’s the networks that take the hit in any drop in viewership. The league has contracts for the games to be shown for at least the next couple years.

          1. Fist of Etiquette|10.1.17 @ 6:24PM|#
            “In the short run it’s the networks that take the hit in any drop in viewership. The league has contracts for the games to be shown for at least the next couple years.”

            No doubt, and given the average career of a player (and the average POV of same), the short run is all that matters.
            You’d think the owners and Goodell would have a bit of a longer view.

        2. I dunno bout that. Today had the fewest number of kneelers this year and all the teams came out of the locker rooms. The message is getting across.

          They are realizing just how fragile their money-making machine really is. They are dependent on the habituation of relatively few people for nearly all the money. Enough people get out of the habit of watching games on TV, buying tickets to games, buying jerseys and special TV packages, and the merry go round stops.

    3. The players (and in particular their union) seem to think this will help them against the owners in their continuous fight against the owners.

  7. The attempt is not foolish. It is working.

    And teams are starting to back down.

    But it may be too late.

    1. I know right?

      The MSM has now shifted into blaming Trump for not letting this issue die. Despite last weekend running 24/7 coverage of the latest developments, thinking that it would be a great issue to beat up Trump on.

      The Winston Smiths of the MSM have some major cleanup to do “correcting” the news from last weekend.

  8. That’s a nice thought, but, well, you know.

  9. Common interest will prevail and it will be BAU sooner rather than later.

  10. Call me a hopeless optimist, but I’m hoping taxpayers give stadium funding a middle finger no matter what Trump says.

    1. You’re a hopeless optimist.

  11. Ha. You knew this day is coming. Accept taxpayer money in any form, and it requires you to pledge undying fealty to the state!

  12. Calling it now, Oscar-winning movie.
    http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2…..w-orig.cnn

    1. What pronouns do suspects Isis and Briana use?

  13. “Conservatives upset about the NFL’s refusal to bend the knee to Trump on the anthem issue might redirect that fury to the NFL’s raiding of their wallets.”

    Please, conservatives can walk and chew gum at the same time – they can be mad at the NFL’s thieving behavior *and* their insults to patriotic Americans.

  14. And it’s even more insulting when team owners and government officials team up to shovel a bunch of debunked nonsense about “economic development” in front of taxpayers, as if that justifies those subsidies.

    The local fakes news daily and the fake news network-affiliates are the shovels.

  15. A few seconds later, Varney’s answer veered into incoherence.

    Varney is a fucking idiot conservative – of course he was incoherent.

  16. The “Trump Tax RE-FORM” plan is dead on arrival, I am happy to say. Just like that Orange Shit-Head’s other plans.

    Anything that adds $2.4 trillion (over 10 years) to the debt should be.

    1. At this point, anything that adds only $2.4 trillion to the debt over ten years is considered fiscally responsible by comparison.

  17. “Conservatives upset about the NFL’s refusal to bend the knee to Trump…”

    “a platform like Fox and Friends, where Trump fans are already upset about what they perceive are the NFL’s slights against the president….”

    Yeah, conservatives didn’t care about disrespect to the country’s symbols, they’re simply fixated on protecting Trump from insult. /sarc

    1. To a conservative social hierarchy is of utmost importance.

      1. I won’t spend time trying to figure out what silly point you’re making.

        1. …anyway, it’s a good thing the progs who turn purple-faced with rage at people who fail to do their duty and anoint Hillary as President, don’t have a sense of social hierarchy.

          1. “The goal [of my opponents] is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust towards exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves,” – Hillary Clinton

            At least she put “ourselves” on the list, but on the bottom of the social hierarchy where we belong.

        2. “Conservatism” is based on preserving existing social hierarchy. Islam is the most conservative belief system extant – followed by American Protestants. They both believe they have the “true belief system” and are ordained by Gawd himself.

          Anyway, who are you? You popped up a few days ago.

          I am an Ayn Rand – Hayek fan who despises all religion.

          1. You realize that Hillary is a Protestant, and openly speculated about maybe being a Protestant minister?

            http://insider.foxnews.com/201…..t-preacher

            (autoplay)

            1. “Anyway, who are you? You popped up a few days ago.”

              Meaning, I suppose, that I have an unfair advantage because I haven’t had enough time to become as unpopular as you?

              1. I haven’t had enough time to become as unpopular as you?

                I am only unpopular among the Bible-beating GOP rednecks here.

                Jeez – this is too easy.

                Can you reply more often?

                1. Sevo is a Bible-beating redneck?

                  1. Sevo is a Bible-beating redneck?

                    You purposely left out the “GOP” part of my quote!

                    YES, SEVO IS!

                    1. Oh, that makes it more accurate, he not only believes in the Bible, he’s a Republican.

            2. Hillary would not have tried to impose her religious beliefs on others.

              And in case you don’t know – I am referring to the Aborto-Police Goons of the GOP. The GOP has no place policing the uterus although the Islamo/Christo authoritarians want just that.

              There is no liberty when a GOP thug polices your private parts.

              1. “Hillary would not have tried to impose her religious beliefs on others.”

                Oh, really?

                “I’ll always cherish the Methodist Church because it gave us the great gift of personal salvation, but the great obligation of social gospel, and for me, having faith, hope, and love in action was exactly what we were called to do,”

                1. Personally “cherish”? Personal Salvation?

                  Are you serious?

                  Hillary is no authoritarian GOP Judge Moore/ Clarence Thomas Freedom hater! She is merely guilty of religious pandering like all other politicians!

                  1. “the great obligation of social gospel”

            3. Yet you avoid this critique :

              “Conservatism” is based on preserving existing social hierarchy. Islam is the most conservative belief system extant – followed by American Protestants.

              All conservatives do that. They hate their own kind.

              1. I responded, you moved the goalposts.

                1. And you end up assuring us that she won’t impose her religious beliefs on others despite what she herself said.

                  So you ended up defending her by saying she’s a liar.

                2. I responded, you moved the goalposts.

                  No. Conservatism is all about SOCIAL HIERARCHY. You cannot deny that.

                  GOTTA KEEP THEM NIGGERS DOWN!

                  1. So you think Clarence Thomas (whom you referenced above) wants to keep black people down?

                    1. So you think Clarence Thomas (whom you referenced above) wants to keep black people down?

                      Thomas is a police violence-friendly conservative who makes it clear from the bench that the police have no 4th Amendment privacy restrictions.

                    2. Maybe you didn’t understand my question, I asked if Clarence Thomas wants to keep black people down?

                    3. Also, I’ll need a citation for your claim that he believes the police have no 4th amendment privacy restrictions.

                    4. Also, I’ll need a citation for your claim that he believes the police have no 4th amendment privacy restrictions.

                      See his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

                    5. Here it is.

                      It’s short, so I can quote it in its entirety. Note the lack of any reference to the 4th Amendment:

                      “Justice Thomas, dissenting.

                      “I join Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today “is ? uncommonly silly.” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.

                      “Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to “decide cases ‘agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.’ ” Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I “can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy,” ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,” ante, at 1.”

                    6. “Justice Thomas, dissenting

                      Yes, Thomas claims us free persons have no “right to privacy” from an obtrusive, meddling and overpowering government.

                      Thomas is a government leech. He is no friend of liberty.

                    7. A typical argument with Palin’s Buttplug, summarized:

                      PB: [assertion]

                      Opponent: [contradicts the assertion]

                      PB: [new assertion, forgetting about the prior assertion]

                      Opponent: [contradicts the assertion]

                      PB: [yet another assertion, again forgetting about his prior assertions]

                      And so forth, until PB puts his back out from lugging those goalposts all over the field.

                    8. The fact is that a quick Google search can produce lots of people criticizing Justice Thomas’s Fourth Amendment decisions. The critics claim that those decisions interpret the Fourth Amendment too narrowly – of course, Thomas never said that “the police have no 4th Amendment privacy restrictions.”

                      Lawrence v. Texas was about the broader “right of privacy” (usually sexual “privacy”) which isn’t based on the 4th Amendment but on the penumbras and emanations of the bill of rights and “liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”

                      Who knows, maybe there *is* such a right, and maybe Thomas was wrong to deny it, but this isn’t a Fourth Amendment debate.

                    9. Who knows, maybe there *is* such a right, and maybe Thomas was wrong to deny it, but this isn’t a Fourth Amendment debate.

                      Thomas is dead wrong in many ways. The police entered the wrong house with a warrant in Lawrence v. Texas yet Thomas saw nothing wrong with their overreach. They had no right to enter the house they did.

                      Thomas is a Big Government Goon.

                    10. Just to be clear, Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the right to (sexual) privacy, not the 4th Amendment.

                      Maybe there’s an open-ended right to (usually sexual) privacy which supersedes various laws previously believed to be constitutional. I mean, if the constitution doesn’t evolve under judicial supervision, where’s the fun in it?

                      So maybe Thomas just isn’t woke enough on that particular issue.

                      But there’s another side to Justice Thomas. Here is Thomas eloquently protesting his colleagues’ decision that the federal government can stop people from growing their own marijuana based on extreme theories of “interstate commerce.”

                    11. As a staunch atheist, I would like to add my name to the list of “Non-Christian Non-GOP Non-Nationalist Commenters Who Would Downvote Everything On PB’s YouTube Channel If It Existed And We Ever Bothered To Visit It”.

                      Geet’im Lilz!

                    12. Who Would Downvote Everything On PB’s YouTube Channel

                      You no doubt hate liberty then. And I mean the secular capitalist kind I support – not the GOP theocracy Judge Roy Moore “conservative” type that restricts freedom.

                    13. No, I would just repost any decent libertarian videos you happened to post on my own, non-Buttplug-y channel. And then all the other Reason commenters would come and upvote them and compliment me on my taste and discernment, after having indiscriminately downvoted everything on yours for posterity’s sake.

                      As to the Right Honorable Judge Moore, he can go make himself a weather vane on a church spire, if you take my meaning. I believe Ms. Bulero can attest to my hatred of Christianity-inspired statism.

                    14. Do you dislike PB? If so, you are a redneck Bible-thumping Republican. It’s that simple.

                      No use denying it!

                    15. List of things Telcontar has been called in the H’n’R comment section:

                      -Trumptard
                      -Obama Momma
                      -Cousin-fucking racist (implied) (3 guesses as to who by)
                      -Apologist for the Lost Cause of the Confederacy
                      -Apologist for the “war criminal” Lincoln (same day as previous!)
                      -SJW
                      -Neocon
                      -Godless Cuck
                      -Redneck Bible-thumping Republican (implied) who “no doubt hates liberty”

                      I think I’m doing something right.

                    16. My point with Moore is that if he’s theocratic, so are the social-gospellers, who actually want a more intrusive government even than Moore has suggested.

                    17. My point with Moore is that if he’s theocratic

                      Your point is that you support him because he is a fellow conservative freedom hater.

                    18. I believe Ms. Bulero can attest to my hatred of Christianity-inspired statism.

                      So why do you detest me then?

                      I also hate theocratic socialist statism – just like Ayn Rand did.

                      I admire Ayn Rand for her hatred of conservatism. Don’t you?

                    19. I don’t detest you for your opposition to “theocratic socialist statism”.

                      I detest you for being a cut-rate, Chinese sweat-shop copy of Bill Maher who always takes every opportunity to first assume, then rudely and usually uninventively insult the religious beliefs of any vaguely-right-leaning commenter, on the assumption that everyone to the Right must be devoutly religious, and that anyone who evinces a Christian or Muslim belief is an intellectually inferior and/or willfully predatory cretin who just can’t wait for the next election to get their “Handmaid’s Tale” LARP up and running.

                      And, who doesn’t seem to understand that “conservative” is a positional term whose meaning shifts from one nation to another, thus rendering it in the US a term that refers to those who wish to defend the Second Amendment and low taxes as much as they want to restrict abortion or gay marriage, just as “progressive” means wanting to defend abortion and gay marriage as much as wanting to restrict gun ownership and private wealth. Thus rendering both ideologies balanced under the NAP, and as unworthy of the reflexive vitriol you express towards the former as they are unworthy of the reflexive love they each receive from their respective adherents.

                      {slams gavel}

                    20. Palin’s Buttplug|10.1.17 @ 9:19PM|#
                      “You purposely left out the “GOP” part of my quote!
                      YES, SEVO IS!”

                      You slimy turd, I have charged you with finding ONE post where I defended the GHOP as opposed to pointing out that the you and the Ds are lying pieces of shit.
                      You have NEVER found one. Not one!
                      Go fuck your daddy, turd.

                    21. What does the “H” stand for?

                    22. Palin’s Buttplug|10.1.17 @ 11:14PM|#
                      “So why do you detest me then?”

                      Are you really asking that?!
                      Are you so un-self-aware that you don’t know why you are universally detested here?
                      How stooooopid do you have to be to question that?

                    23. …PB’s YouTube Channel…

                      shrike with a yootoob channel?

                      Make. This. Happen.

                    24. Telcontar the Wanderer|10.1.17 @ 9:53PM|#
                      “As a staunch atheist, I would like to add my name to the list of “Non-Christian Non-GOP Non-Nationalist Commenters Who Would Downvote Everything On PB’s YouTube Channel If It Existed And We Ever Bothered To Visit It”.
                      Geet’im Lilz!”

                      How many can pile on here without drawing a flag?
                      I am TIRED of turd’s continuing mendacity, not to mention his inability to pay off his bets.
                      Again, turd: ONE cite of me defending the GOP? I thought not, you slimy piece of shit.

                    25. I think Ms. Bulero had already volunteered you for the pile.

    2. Conservatives are not upset about the NFL’s refusal to bend the knee to Trump, they are upset at what the perceive to be the NFL flipping them the bird. And since they provide the bulk of the money the NFL gets, directly or indirectly, they are in a position to give the NFL a butt hurt.

      Trump just has enough sense to recognize what the folks who voted for him think and articulate it via the bully pulpit.

  18. Dream on, Reason scribblers.

  19. To link up conservative concerns with anti-subsidy sentiment, how about this: Instead of mocking conservatives as Trump-worshippers, why not say that the behavior of these teams is the kind of ingratitude and sense of entitlement that you get when you shovel money at undeserving persons and entities.

    Pithy, and builds on preexisting conservative doctrine instead of mocking and straw-manning it.

  20. Hidden symmetries crawl alongside thick atoms and massive swirlies, boys where the punches and recoils collect around the unexpected and if time is heavy then why shouldn’t the little spinners grow light when sweet Asian smashing a trillion atoms into our skulls understand perfect self collection and then beyond – the ultra collection of lost and wasted hidden but revealed in the skirts of reflections.?

    Future sentences for the real motherfuckers, it isn’t as if my skin was real and if I look into your mirror with my eyes yours isn’t… Life is far less real than you can imagine but we play along until we die because death is the next door till downtown and… we die but atoms take forever to decay but we take an inch of moments to die?

    Yea… we live on parallel bosons I promise you… Dirac and Salam are likely dancing shit long after their autos… and some of your cheer coke dead and gone mommies and daddies are flitting about the place….

    we’ll see, peace out visions

  21. lots of time washes into the pebbles of keyboards
    and jerky neck tall glass building anxiety is a lost boy or girl
    used by a vast massive unit of technology whereupon these lost boys and girls
    crawl from the shit castles unto the their further hells built
    by lucky boys who have been gifted millions by
    fucking mathematical lousies

    1. You are correct, sir.

  22. You all should be ashamed of yourselves
    this isn’t goddamn free market jack shit
    or anything else and Reason, Slate, Salon, and even Greenwald
    and Lew
    they don’t truly understand
    how awful this nasty evil is….
    It is deep and shitty…
    perhaps, one of you nasty fucks will read
    this note…
    Agile gets it…
    Its fucking shit.
    Fuck you….

  23. All the free market?
    Dead.
    All the free?
    Dead.
    Pure crypto?
    Dead.
    Pure gold?
    Depends on Old-time bank daily jerk-off

  24. You don’t recruit older men into military
    NOT because they are less than physically
    capable than young men… which is false…
    many more than most realize are, in fact,
    more powerful, fast, and kick ass than their
    younger counterpart…
    The military does not recruit older men
    NOT because of the commonly held and
    wrong view that they are somehow less than
    physically capable than their youngers
    Older men are awoke
    Older men will awake their shit brain
    youngsters the Pentagon types love
    that Call of Duty was designed to create
    Older men aren’t recruited because
    after a couple of months if they weren’t
    aware before they are now…
    The military is very FUCKING powerful
    and they use our trillions and flag to
    get their way

  25. The NFL kneel?
    Who cares?
    Except if your white or black ass makes
    a fuckton of money bilking all those
    shitty stampedes of dummies from
    all their dollars.
    WHY THE GODDAMN FUCK would
    you fuck with that?
    Jesus FUCKING ISLAM in the ass with
    pears and soft plastic grow-uppings and shit…
    Only the most shitty fucking assholes would
    fuck with their million dollar checks-
    UNLESS they are Hollywood Marxist Maoists in which
    case….
    old rusty cars and stop by Agile’s house in the woods
    for a vegan burger and beer and, perhaps, a mushroom that
    is magical or two….

  26. Literally the only place online where one
    can post the rivers of brains and knees
    Respect, Reason

  27. I shall give moneys soon

  28. Gillespie is likely concerned
    and the oil stack manager in the
    Gulf who runs this place probably doesn’t understand shit
    because he is rich and stupid as fuck
    Why should Gillespie give a fuck?
    Why should the motherfucker who
    runs a billion dollar earth cock creating
    all the oil for your branded gas stations
    give a fuck?

    They don’t….
    This media property is a tax write-off with
    wings of opp….
    opp in such a fashion that perhaps they
    can wrangle some social manipulation
    on the cheap

  29. All the writers here
    pose fingertips only
    after blueprints
    like NBC, CBS, and COMEDY ASSFUCK

    Reason is fullhouse like Fox, and MsNbc
    bros…..
    Reason, however, is distinct like Naked Asian Wings

  30. Fuck PJmedia- what an awful horrid trashy Baptist site

  31. Palin’s Buttplug|10.1.17 @ 9:19PM|#
    “You purposely left out the “GOP” part of my quote!
    YES, SEVO IS!”

    You slimy turd, I have charged you with finding ONE post where I defended the GHOP as opposed to pointing out that the you and the Ds are lying pieces of shit.
    You have NEVER found one. Not one!
    Go fuck your daddy, turd.

    1. Sorry to interrupt, AC; carry on…

  32. Reddit Libertarian is likely
    the purest shit where they
    get by publishing cheap shit
    and voat plays it even knee high
    Disqus tries to handle us…
    Most online posts like AP or fucking
    Fox or NYT should be considered
    playbook times for clever government
    or deep state poser writers….
    Ultimately, either pose lines
    in the deep moons or
    grasp Reason’s pure line
    love and peace signs

  33. Whitehouses don’t make sexy people
    Whitehouses, if fact, seem to strive to reSIST human sexuality that
    lovely delightful spirit so many bright, sexy, slithering, space-ship-breaking haunted futures
    where the daughters, sons, and wives and husbands of earth leader are bound to be found

  34. As I’ve mentioned, we in St. Louis actually tried to build the Rams a new stadium to keep them (they wanted a more elaborate one).

    Losing them hasn’t exactly resulted in an economic boost for the city.

  35. People get insulted when athletes or public figures slight their national anthem of symbol. There would be minor riots in the world if soccer players took a knee during the world cup. It would be a predictable and HUMAN response, given how many people defined themselves by their nationality. Many countries criminalize “desecration” of their flags.

    Some people are utterly mystified or baffled that fans are insulted by kneeling players. I can only assume these people are either ignorant or being intentionally obtuse. People get upset by expression that’s constitutionally allowed or is tangentially activist. Bunch of people might get offended if I tell them Kwanzaa is a fake holiday.

    Conservatives were never big fans of sports subsidies. There was no disagreement between Hannity and Stossel on that issue when the latter was working for FOX. Fiscal conservatives don’t run big cities that deal with NFL owners. St Louis and SD resisted tax payer funded sweetheart deals, to their credit.

    1. I can only assume these people are either ignorant or being intentionally obtuse.

      They’re definitely being deliberately obtuse assholes. Imagine the balls it would take to put a middle finger in someone’s face and then say “Oh, I’m not trying to insult or offend you”.

    2. Yep, the irony of all this has been that the hard core liberals are not big football fans, they are far to politically correct for that and sent their kids (if they have any) to play soccer.

      But, big city Democratic governments just LOVE stadium projects and will spend what it takes to lock up that loser NFL team. While the people who actually buy tickets, jerseys, and NFL Ticket from Direct TV tend to be conservatives.

      The NFL forgot who the customer is.

  36. Will Trump’s NFL Spat Spur More Conservative Opposition to Terrible Stadium Subsidies? – Hit & Run : Reason.comis the best post by imo for pc Please visit imo app imo app snaptube for pc snaptube app

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.