Political Identification

Two Minutes of Listening Beats a Two-Minute Hate

Reflexive "outgroup" outrage and retaliation just leads into tit-for-tat wars.

|

Samantha Bee
DANNY MOLOSHOK/REUTERS/Newscom

Back in September of 2017, Trump supporters held a giant rally—the Mother of All Rallies, as they called it—in Washington. Some folks from Black Lives Matter also showed up. The two groups usually get along like oil and water. And that's about how well they were getting along on this particular day.

But then something happened. The organizer of the Trump rally, Tommy Hodges, invited the leader of the BLM group, Hawk Newsome, onto the stage to speak. "We're gonna give you two minutes of our platform to put your message out," Hodges said.

Newsome gave it to them straight. "I don't think my Bible is any different from yours when it says 'love thy neighbor,'" he told the crowd. The BLM movement was not anti-cop, he said; "we are anti-bad-cop. If a cop is bad he needs to be fired like a bad plumber, like a bad lawyer, like a bad politician."

"I am an American, and the beauty of America is that when you see something broke in your country you can mobilize to fix it," Newsome said. "If we really want to make America great," he concluded, "we do it together." Then he shook hands with the Trump supporters, took an American flag that was handed to him, and raised it high.

There had been some heckling while Newsome spoke, but the crowd applauded when he finished. Again, Newsome: "A man who controls a 4,000-member militia shook my hand and said, 'I always knew I identified with you, but today solidified it.' Wow. One of the heads of Bikers for Trump came up and shook my hand, asked me to take a picture with his son. … Here I went from being their enemy to someone they want to take pictures with their children, and that's the power of communication."

That moment came to mind Thursday, when social media was swarming with its usual angry-hornet mobs, who were fighting over what Samantha Bee had said. Her remark can't be repeated here; suffice it to say that she told Ivanka Trump, on national TV, "Do something about your dad's immigration policies, you feckless"—and then used one of the two most vile words in the English language. Liberal media outlets ate it up.

What happened next was predictable. Conservatives compared the situation to Roseanne Barr's racist tweet and railed against liberal double standards. Liberals shot back that the two situations were completely different. More conservatives dredged up horrible things liberals had said in the past, and more liberals dredged up horrible things conservatives had said in the past, and so it went.

Did Bee have a point about the Trump administration's policy of separating undocumented immigrant children from their parents? Absolutely. But the point was utterly lost in the resulting furor. Maybe, to Bee, that didn't matter; she's in the entertainment business, not the saving-the-world business, and the resulting controversy earned her plenty of free media, whether it had any effect on immigration policy or not.

But you could hardly ask for a starker contrast than the one between Newsome's speech and Bee's remarks. Self-righteous rage and poisonous invective are surely great fun, judging by how much of them erupt on a daily basis. But they achieve nothing except retaliation in kind. How many people at the Mother of All Rallies would have heard a word Newsome said if he had called them a bunch of backward, stupid, racist mother-….?

The Newsome moment at the Trump rally seemed promising. But in the months since, how much time have Americans spent giving respectful audience to their political opponents? How often do we stop to ask ourselves: Is it possible that I might be wrong? "The spirit of liberty," judge Learned Hand wrote, "is the spirit that is not too sure it is right." A little doubt now and then fosters humility—and moderation of tone, and tolerance of other views.

Tolerance is a word that get used a great deal these days, but the exercise of it seems in short supply. Scott Alexander, who blogs at Slate Star Codex, has a superb meditation on this titled, "I Can Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup." Tolerance as it is spoken of today is often not real tolerance at all, he notes. If you are, for example, a liberal Democrat who abhors homophobia, then you get no tolerance points for approving of gay marriage; the fact that you approve of it means it requires no putting-up-with in the first place. But what about Christian fundamentalists?

Alexander defines real tolerance as "respect and kindness toward members of an outgroup." And the outgroup often is not people very different from us, but people quite like us. Alexander notes that in WWII, the Germans were not trying to exterminate the Japanese—who were very different from them—but rather European Jews, who were so very much like them. For many Americans today, the hated outgroup frequently is … their fellow Americans: "the Liberal Elite," or evangelical Christians, or Trump voters, or Black Lives Matter—and the preferred posture is to hunker down with one's fellow ingroup members and hurl insults at the outgroup. Which gets us nowhere.

So, a proposal: Find yourself a few members of your chosen outgroup. Then give them a couple of minutes, and listen. Because, as a wise fellow said not long ago: If we really want to make America great, we do it together.

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.

305 responses to “Two Minutes of Listening Beats a Two-Minute Hate

  1. “So, a proposal: Find yourself a few members of your chosen outgroup. Then give them a couple of minutes, and listen. Because, as a wise fellow said not long ago: If we really want to make America great, we do it together.”

    Tony’s here every day, and two minutes is what it takes for him to clear his throat. Ditto that annoying rev.
    They both suck and adding more time just adds to the stinking pile.
    So maybe it does work, sometimes. But when your ‘chosen outgroup’ is one which proposes to take your stuff at gunpoint, no amount of ‘nicey’ is gonna change that message or my response to it.

    1. Counterpoint: chemjeff, Escher. They often make reasoned arguments, and they’re willing to deal with disagreement. They’re definitely the outgroup, but they can make decent points, and it’s fine to talk with them. As for Kirkland, he’s doing Samantha Bee’s schtick, only rapier.

      1. Chemjeff is just a dopey 20 something. Juice is probably the most reasonable left leaning comenter here.

        1. When I was a 20-something, I was much more insufferable.

          1. Weren’t we all.

            1. My Whole month’s on-line financial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link……… http://easyjob.club

          2. It’s nice to see nothing has changed.

          3. Chemjeff, you are one of my favorite commenters on here. A real individualist. Individualism is the foundation of libertarianism. Keep it up, brother.

            1. He’s a good dude.

              Also, Stormy seems to have disappeared, and I hope he is doing okay.

              1. I’m fine.

                1. Glad to see you’re still around.

                  1. Thanks! I like you guys too.

        2. Juice is probably the most reasonable left leaning comenter here.

          Um, thanks? What makes you think I’m left leaning? I’m in no way a social conservative, but that doesn’t mean I “lean left”.

          1. You own your own thoughts. Maybe you don’t. Perhaps that is why you seem so reasonable.

      2. As far as libertarianism is concerned, I’m as much the “outgroup” as Nick Gillespie is.

        But if you want to describe commenters here, then yes I suppose I’m in the “outgroup”, since most commenters here seem to be Republicans who don’t like cops.

        1. “…since most commenters here seem to be Republicans who don’t like cops.”

          I’ll assume I’m in that group; please explain what makes me a ‘republican’.

          1. Well, you’re not a progressive. That naturally leaves only one other option, you awful Republican you.

            1. I also support some of the things Trump has done, so not only am I a GOPer, I’m a Trumpista (or whatever is the current cleverness)

              1. >>I also support some of the things Trump has done

                I still love the New Jersey Generals

            2. Most Republicans are progressives too, brah. Progressivism isn’t a party in itself, but it’s an underlying justification for all flavors of government interference with the activities of peaceful people.

              1. Yup. They’re called RINOs.

          2. You’re too consistently anti-war to be a Republican.

        2. Most commenters here definitely lean right wing culturally. The main differences between them and regular GOPers seems to be their dislike of cops, as you said, but also a desire to end the drug war and a general dislike of an interventionist foreign policy, to different degrees. As for classical libertarians, there don’t seem to be that many. Classical libertarians are pro-choice and pro-immigration, for example. Classical libertarians distrust both sides of the left-right tribes equally and do not feel more allegiance to one side more than the other.

          1. “Most commenters here definitely lean right wing culturally”

            Nk, they don’t, or rather, you cannot possibly know that from your very limited daily interaction with them.

            If you meant “the people who make the most comments ” you might be closer, but your judgement on these matters has never been given enough information to be accurate no matter how much you insist otherwise.

          2. Most of those you call out as GOPers are simy libertarians who see modern day democrats as a bigger threat to actual liberal, classical, values. Their whole platforms are based on control.

            1. see modern day democrats as a bigger threat to actual liberal, classical, values

              Which is insane considering Bush The Lesser and Trump love Big Government while government growth slowed significantly under Clinton and Obama.

              The problem with the GOP is they only restrain growth when a Dem is POTUS.

              Where is the Tea Party now? They have their Aborto-Freaks in Congress/White House so all is well.

              1. Keep picking those cherries and lying, turd; it’s all you ever do.

                1. Well, well. Turd caught lying again!
                  How……
                  normal.

              2. It’s not all that insane when you notice which party has a militant wing that actually brags about going around and physically attacking people who disagree with them.

                “Antifa”; The name is positively Orwellian, given that fascist is exactly what they are.

                1. Antifa is no more Democratic than the hundreds of violent right wing terrorists of the last few decades are Republican.

                  And Trump is a White Nationalist (fascist) for real.

                  1. “Hundreds of violent right wing terrorists”

                    Oh bullshit.

                    Antifa is being increasingly propped up by your master Soros, and his pals. they numbers in the tens of thousands and are actively causing problems around the country on a regular basis. There is no equivalence. You and your friends are evil pieces of shit. The other side may be sorely lacking, but are not outright evil. With some notable exceptions. Just like that there are actually a few non evil democrats left that you trash haven’t forced out yet.

                    1. Antifa is being increasingly propped up by your master Soros

                      Look who’s been reading too much Breitbart!

            2. I don’t know how you can look at the modern-day Republican Party and say with a straight face that they aren’t also predominantly based on control. They’ve given up on free markets. They offer tax cuts and regulatory reform on the one hand, but with they other, they demand tariffs (tax increases) and huge regulatory burdens in the form of immigration control. They have taken a cue from the Politically Correct Left and now insist on their own version of Patriotic Correctness where it is verboten to say anything bad about cops, the military, or anyone flying a flag.

              If we lived in Left-Wing-Topia, we’d be thrown in jail for making a racist joke, but if we lived in Right-Wing-Topia, we’d be thrown in jail for not removing a hat for the Pledge of Allegiance.

              Plus, Republicans control most of the levers of power in this country.

              So I agree that the Left generally is hostile to business and hostile to truly free expression. But they are only *slightly* worse than the Right at this point in time.

              1. Plus, Republicans control most of the levers of power in this country.

                The Barr/Bee situation puts the lie to this fairly obviously.

                1. The Barr/Bee situation puts the lie to this fairly obviously.

                  So which offices were Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee elected to again?

                  1. Who said anything about elected power?

                    1. Is your worldview really so small and compressed that elected power is the only power you recognize?

                      Or were you speaking inartfully and imprecisely when you said “controls most of the levers of power in this country?”

                      I find it exceptionally unlikely that anyone would argue that K-12 education, for example, is dominated by leftist thinking. When the children have been deployed as a weapon, how useful is temporary electoral power?

                    2. I assume you meant that K-12 education is dominated by leftist thinking. If not, then I’m definitely gonna disagree with you there.

                    3. “I find it exceptionally unlikely that anyone would argue that K-12 education, for example, is dominated by leftist thinking”

                      Genuinely asking, I am missing the disconnect that makes you think that is not what I meant. Is my phrasing poor? It seems clear, if somewhat verbose.

                      Yes, that is what I was saying.

                    4. I see it now. I missed a “not”. How embarassing.

                    5. It’s so strange how every time I read it, the “not” was there, until I put it down and came back later. Then it was so obvious. My writing professors always told me putting it down and editing it later was a good idea, but hubris, you know?

                    6. So what power does Samantha Bee hold over you?

                    7. What does any of that have to do with anything?

                      What the hell are you talking about?

                    8. Oh never mind, I recognize your schtick now. Complain about one sentence in a much longer comment in order to purposefully misdirect the conversation and avoid the real discussion.

                    9. Let e clarify, since you seem to be missing the point.

                      Sam Bee has seen essentially no consequences for her behavior in insulting the daughter of the most powerful member of the party you say has control of most of the levers of power in this country.

                      Why you don’t see how that makes your statement inaccurate is another question.

                      Trump wanted her fired. In the scheme of things, it’s a small ask. And he didn’t have the stroke to make it happen.

                    10. Take care of yourself Jeff, and good luck to you.

                    11. And you focus on this one sentence and avoid the entire rest of the point:

                      I don’t know how you can look at the modern-day Republican Party and say with a straight face that they aren’t also predominantly based on control. They’ve given up on free markets. They offer tax cuts and regulatory reform on the one hand, but with they other, they demand tariffs (tax increases) and huge regulatory burdens in the form of immigration control. They have taken a cue from the Politically Correct Left and now insist on their own version of Patriotic Correctness where it is verboten to say anything bad about cops, the military, or anyone flying a flag.

                      If we lived in Left-Wing-Topia, we’d be thrown in jail for making a racist joke, but if we lived in Right-Wing-Topia, we’d be thrown in jail for not removing a hat for the Pledge of Allegiance.

                      Plus, Republicans control most of the levers of POLITICAL power in this country. POLITICAL power. Happy now?

                      So I agree that the Left generally is hostile to business and hostile to truly free expression. But they are only *slightly* worse than the Right at this point in time.

                  2. The Barr/Bee situation puts the lie to this fairly obviously.
                    “So which offices were Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee elected to again?”

                    Willfully missing the point doesn’t make a good argument, but lefties are not really interested in that, right?

              2. chemjeff radical individualist|6.4.18 @ 1:49PM|#
                “I don’t know how you can look at the modern-day Republican Party and say with a straight face that they aren’t also predominantly based on control.”

                How about addressing those of us who are not Repubs?

              3. Who is “the left”?

                Are you talking Ultra Progressive Bernie Sanders who hates free trade like Trump and free markets?

                Or recent free trader TPP-loving 18,000 US tariffs cut, darling of Silicon Valley high tech Barack Obama?

                1. The Obama DOJ “accusations are proof” Title IX left.

                2. “Or recent free trader TPP-loving 18,000 US tariffs cut, darling of Silicon Valley high tech Barack Obama?”
                  Cite missing.

                3. Oh, and:
                  “…darling of Silicon Valley high tech Barack Obama?…”

                  Yep, darling of every crony cap in the Valley.
                  Tell us how government price-fixing increases out liberty again, turd. That’s always good for a laugh.

                  1. We need to rid ourselves of this idea that Silicon Valley as an entity is particularly free market-centric.

                    Tech as a whole is only so, because it’s a field where individuals quite frequently can contribute huge disruptive changes. But Silicon Valley at large is aware of it, but doesn’t seem particularly fond of it, as we see with the major players being as cronyistic as anyone ends up.

                    1. Hell, once a company gets large enough, they become one of the most intractable opponents of capitalism and free markets available.

                    2. Silicon Valley is the bastion of the US Free Market and entreprenuership.

                      The GOP is mostly associated with oil/gas/coal which depend heavily on federal leases and racket protection as they shove their external costs onto taxpayers.

                    3. Silicon Valley is the bastion of the US Free Market and entreprenuership

                      Perhaps once. Now this seems like an idealization of reality rather than actual reality.

                    4. No it is reality.

                      Biotech, semis, software, routers, etc – that is what the great capitalists are doing.

                      Buffett earned $60 billion from Omaha during a full lifetime. Google by itself shames that.

                    5. I don’t really see how sort of pointing at it and asserting “free market” removes any memory of crony capitalism in their recent behavior.

                      As to Buffet/Google, what point do you think you are making? Buffet is and always has been a crony capitalist, and making money isn’t proof of a free market, so what do you think you are saying that I am missing?

                    6. Silicon Valley is the bastion of the US Free Market and entreprenuership.

                      Silicon Valley ceased being both YEARS ago.

                    7. Palin’s Buttplug|6.4.18 @ 2:31PM|#
                      “Silicon Valley is the bastion of the US Free Market and entreprenuership.”

                      You’re a laugh riot, turd!

              4. Jeff, while most of the congressional GOP and other party leaders are big government assholes, that does not represent the views of their constituency. Who are frequently stuck with people like Mitch McConnell because the democrat alternative is so often an individual who is either pure evil, or who worships pure evil (only largely a shitbag, but who will caucus with Schumer/Pelosi obediently).

                Which is a big problem. For example, once again I will be forced to not e For Cathy McMorriss/Rodgers to prevent the evil communist Lisa Brown from taking the local congressional seat. It will be another election cycle minimum before CMR can be primaries out.

                1. Jeff, while most of the congressional GOP and other party leaders are big government assholes, that does not represent the views of their constituency.

                  That is bull-fucking-shit. Did you see who won the GOP primary out of a field of 17? Your fellow Republicans WANT big government if it is in the form of Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and gigantic military expenditures and a Great Wall of Trump and socialized health care for the VA and heavens only knows what else they want. Trump explicitly promised not to touch entitlements, and he won on that platform.

                  Do you want to know why Paul Ryan stopped pushing for entitlement reform? It is because, when he did propose his big plan in 2011, not only did Democrats savage him for it (of course), but neither did his fellow Republicans come to his defense. He stopped pushing it because he realized not even most Republicans favor entitlement reform.

                  1. and he won on that platform.

                    ???

                    He won on not touching entitlements?

                    Seriously? This is you considered analysis?

                    1. Trump explicitly said he wouldn’t touch entitlements, unique among all the candidates. That was part of his platform. He won on it. How hard is that to understand?

                    2. That’s not what “he won on that platform” means is my problem.

                      Take care Jeff.

          3. There are dozens of use who comment here perhaps a few times a week. It would be hard to draw the conclusions you have from that limited dataset.

            1. Randos don’t count.

              1. So say the majority of college co-eds…

            2. Exactly, and I’m a good example of that. I’m probably most consistent about commenting on the Brickbats, but I’m sporadic even with those. Definitely am in the classical libertarian camp, however.

          4. “As for classical libertarians, there don’t seem to be that many. Classical libertarians are pro-choice and pro-immigration, for example.”
            I am both, but I’ve just gotten tired of the same arguments which go nowhere.
            Maybe I should just do a (insert standard counter argument) when the subjects come up so objections are noted.

            1. I thought your generic argument as “FUCK OFF SLAVER”?

              You doing that at literally every single person during Net Neutrality debates is why I’m so fond of you, Sevo.

          5. Classic libertarians are also anti-welfare state.

            I’m largely OK with broader immigration provided the welfare state is eliminated. A country cannot survive broad immigration and generous welfare state.

            Beyond that, I’d also be in favor of much more rigid enforcement of laws regarding violence, intimidation of neighbors, etc.
            Label me Islamophobic all you want, but broader immigration would see a large number of people from Muslim countries and the observed experience of numerous European countries taking in large numbers of Muslim migrants has been bad – lots of things that cannot be tolerated – rape gangs, assault and intimidation of non-arab and non-muslim people merely for being present in “muslim” areas (no-go areas, etc.), regular rioting, truck of peace attacks, etc.

            If open immigration means we have tolerate and abide this sort of behavior, then I’ll join the Non-libertarian closed-borders camp.

            1. But both major parties are in love with the welfare state. The GOP has actually expanded it more in the last 30 years after the Dems ran it up mid 20th century.

              I am still waiting on the GOP Senate/House/POTUS to cut spending. But they have increased it a lot instead.

              I just get so tired of liars like Last of the Shitlords telling me the GOP is small government.

            2. A country cannot survive broad immigration and generous welfare state.

              Which is more important – liberty for individuals, or the health of the state?

              1. Either way, the only way to ensure it is through strict federal intervention.

              2. False choice. It’s not like a collapsing overtaxed welfare state will lead to more freedom. Not are we importing liberty loving peoples.

              3. A country cannot survive broad immigration and generous welfare state.

                Which is more important – liberty for individuals, or the health of the state?

                Only the liberty of individuals is important. The state’s only purpose is protecting that liberty.

                A state cannot protect anyone’s liberty if it is expressly refusing to do so.

                So, NO ONE has the liberty to just move into the territory of another. It’s not a liberty, it’s an act of aggression.

                1. Only the liberty of individuals is important. The state’s only purpose is protecting that liberty.

                  I agree!

                  A state cannot protect anyone’s liberty if it is expressly refusing to do so.

                  I also agree!

                  (If I agree with you, and if I am a “Leftist”, does that make you a “Leftist” too?)

                  So, NO ONE has the liberty to just move into the territory of another. It’s not a liberty, it’s an act of aggression.

                  If by “territory” you mean “private property owned by another individual”, then I agree with you.

                2. If my neighbor wants to hire someone from another country, and I’m a landlord who wants to rent out an apartment to that same person and his family, whose liberty is being infringed when the 3 of us form those mutually beneficial arrangements?

                  Whose liberty is protected by the state forbidding someone from living in my apartment building and working at a local business.

              4. No one has a right to become a citizen of another country.

                If you want anarchy, just say so.

                We can’t be free if we are taxed (in what would have to be an ever increasing fashion) to provide welfare and other benefits to anyone who wants to come in. We’re also not free if we are forced to stand down in the face of people excluding us from various public places.

                What’s going on in Britain, Sweden, France, etc. would be a much smaller problem if the average citizen could defend themselves against direct violent attacks by so-called “refugees” AND were free to speak about the problems without being arrested for hate speech.
                It’s very telling that “Islamophobic” jokes are pursued by the police with more zeal than eliminating areas where various groups exercise de fact control and use force against outsiders.

                1. No one has a right to become a citizen of another country.

                  I agree! No one here is arguing this position.

                  We can’t be free if we are taxed (in what would have to be an ever increasing fashion) to provide welfare and other benefits to anyone who wants to come in.

                  No one here is arguing for giving welfare to immigrants just for being here.

                  As for “other benefits”, you will have to be specific in what you mean.

          6. As a frequent reader of the articles and casual observer of the comments, if there were such a thing as a nationalist libertarian I would use it to describe you people

        3. “As far as libertarianism is concerned, I’m as much the “outgroup” as Nick Gillespie is.”

          Point proven. Have a nice day all.

        4. since most commenters here seem to be Republicans who don’t like cops.

          Most are just that.

          Which is why they hate classic liberals.

          When you have to defend secularism on H&R you know the Peanut Gallery has gone full GOP.

          1. ‘Most are just that.’

            Gee, turd, I guess you couldn’t read just up-thread, so I’ll ask a known liar:
            I’ll assume I’m in that group; please explain what makes me a ‘republican’.

          2. Oh, and a classical liberal who supports socialized medicine?
            How about a lying sack of shit?

            1. I don’t support Medicare or Medicaid. My remarks on the ACA was that it market-based via a shitty overpriced federal web site thus not as bad as Medicare.

              “Not as bad” is not the same as “support”.

              I am opposed to Bush’s Medicare Prescription Welfare too. You Obama haters forget about that all the time.

              1. “I don’t support Medicare or Medicaid. My remarks on the ACA was that it market-based via a shitty overpriced federal web site thus not as bad as Medicare.”
                Keep picking those cherries and lying, turd. It’s all you ever do.

                1. Keep picking those cherries and lying, turd. It’s all you ever do.

                  Translated – I see the complexity in issues where you just hate everything Obama did and give Bush/GOP a free pass.

                  Obama signed the largest federal spending cuts in history, idiot.

                  1. “Translated – I see the complexity in issues where you just hate everything Obama did and give Bush/GOP a free pass.”

                    Translated:
                    ‘If I kick up enough dust, maybe no one will see me pull the card from my sleeve.
                    It’s simple enough: You support O-care, which is socialized medicine. The fact that you didn’t support Bush’s equally obnoxious shit shows you are not only a supporter of socialized medicine but a slimy partisan about it, besides.

                    1. Bullshit, liar.

                      The ACA is better than Medicare Part D only because it is paid for rather than deficit financed. Other than that both are burdens on taxpayers.

                    2. Palin’s Buttplug|6.4.18 @ 2:17PM|#

                      turd:
                      ‘Obo’s pile of shit is better than Bush’s pile of shit, ’cause Obo!’
                      Got it, you lying pile of shit.

                  2. Obama did not sign the largest federal spending cut in history.

                    WWII had federal spending 48% of GDP which was cut to 15% by the late 1940s.

        5. A fair cop.

          My first political allegiance was to the LP, I joined as a teen, helped found a college chapter in the late 70’s.

          But the growth of campaign censorship laws and other barriers to free campaigns and elections rendered the LP no longer a viable way to bring libertarian ideas into government. So I had to chose a major party to work within, or just drop out of politics.

          In some respects, Democratic rhetoric seemed more libertarian than Republican. But I noticed that the rhetoric didn’t match the actions, that Democratic concern for liberty was a bit too selective, deployed only in favor of groups that were allied with them. I also noticed that the Democratic party was growing increasingly hostile to economic liberty, and to explicit civil liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, the RKBA. They were drifting in a ‘socialist’, or to put it more bluntly, communist, direction.

          So I went with the Republican party, figuring that without economic liberty you were screwed, and that if we had guns, we could at least eventually have a revolution, but poor and disarmed was a bad place to be.

          I haven’t really regretted that choice, either party would have put me in the company of a lot of people I disagreed with, but the Democratic party has only gotten worse in all the respects that had me worried.

          1. It’s the religion, hero worship and budget hypocrisy that kill me with the Republicans. Sadly, those things are nearly as bad as the Democrat’s constant crony authoritarianism, blatant take over of our education system and identity politics.

          2. But I noticed that the rhetoric didn’t match the actions, that Democratic concern for liberty was a bit too selective, deployed only in favor of groups that were allied with them.

            And you don’t notice the same thing about Republicans?

            Republicans talk a lot about cutting spending but they never get around to doing it. When Republicans *do* cut taxes, they do so in a way that only entrenches the progressive income tax system even more. Republicans will shout about religious liberty for Christians, but aren’t all that enthusiastic about religious liberty for Muslims. Republicans talk about regulatory reform, but then they want to impose massive regulations on businesses in the form of immigration control.

            but the Democratic party has only gotten worse in all the respects that had me worried.

            So in all the ways that the Republican party has gotten worse – abandoning free trade, abandoning entitlement reform, abandoning spending cuts – those don’t worry you?

            1. This is why progressives of all labels must be destroyed. Just as one would track a vampire to it’s coffin shortly before sunrise. Do we really care about the vampire’s affiliations? OR do we just drive a stake through it’s heart?

            2. What I was concerned about primarily was censorship, and gun control. Want to claim that the Republicans have gotten worse on those two issues, or the Democrats better?

              1. What I was concerned about primarily was censorship, and gun control.

                You mean campaign censorship laws, right?

                1. Primarily, but not exclusively. The Democrats started with campaign censorship, but they’ve been branching out.

        6. I tend to lean Republican, but I do not want ANYBODY to have the power to micromanage my life.

          I can find abortion morally abhorrent (you’d have to be an epic sociopathic whackjob to not) but I still oppose making it illegal due to the power the government must have to do so. I oppose the Death Penalty not for moral reasons but basic competency…the government is notoriously terrible at doing anything.

          I do not see Republicans demanding wholesale changes to the Constitution for their desires. I DO see Democrats doing so.

          Ergo, Democrats are infinitely more of a threat.

          1. I know well educated progressives who think that a baby at 40 weeks should be legally abortable at the mother’s whim as long as a doctor is willing to do the procedure. People like that are truly evil.

        7. Or Libertarians who kind of like some of the Libertarian-ish things Trump is doing.

        8. As far as libertarianism is concerned, I’m as much the “outgroup” as Nick Gillespie is

          Exactly. You’re not a libertarian at all. You’re a leftist. That’s why all the libertarians here appear to you to be republicans who don’t like cops.

          It’s so refreshing to have you just come out and say it.

          1. You think both Gillespie and I are “leftists”?

            So what exactly does “Leftism” mean to you, then?

            Oh wait I know – you are just using it as an all-purpose smear, kind of like “doody-head”!

            1. I support vast cuts to government spending, privatizing education, privatizing all entitlements, gun rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, *real* enforcement of the Fourth Amendment, anti-death-penalty, and anti-drug-war.

              I also support open borders…
              Azathoth: YOU LEFTIST!!!!!!!!!!

              1. I also support open borders…

                Yes, it’s the mantra of the internationale. Open borders, private property is theft, blah blah blah

                I use ‘leftist’ to describe those whose stated policy preferences would tend towards a collectivist, authoritarian, or totalitarian outcome. You have, despite claims otherwise, shown support for things on at least two of those lines of thought.

                And Nick? please. Nick is a sad old man, endlessly chasing the approval of idiot youth, to the detriment of his dignity and his sanity. He, like you professes libertarianism while manning the barricades, red flag streaming.

                There is no path to liberty through any policy favored by leftists. None. They may want to work for a ‘greater good’, but it is a greater good that no one wants. That’s why every socialist country fails.

                1. private property is theft

                  Where exactly did I advocate this again?

                  And just as I though, to you “leftist” is just a smear that means “people who disagree with me on any issue whatsoever”. It is the same as when people on the left use the term “Nazi”: they don’t really mean “follower of Hitler”, they just mean “bad person that I disagree with”.

                  Did you ever think that if you used the term “Leftist” as it actually applies, that you might foster more intelligent discussion?

            2. chemjeff radical individualist|6.4.18 @ 3:56PM|#
              “So what exactly does “Leftism” mean to you, then?”

              Anyone politically to the left of centrist Libertarians.

              1. Anyone politically to the left of centrist Libertarians.

                So, as measured by economic liberty, you would consider all Democrats and most Republicans to be “leftists”?

                1. So, as measured by economic liberty, you would consider all Democrats and most Republicans to be “leftists”?

                  Yes. The ‘center’ has been pulled steadily leftwards for quite some time now. There are statist elements to all democrats and far too many republicans.

                  When did you advocate that private property was theft? When you advocated for open borders. When you advocated for the right of people to simply claim territory that was not theirs. When you suggest that it is wrong to want to maintain a strong border.

                  The whole ‘borderless’ idiocy is an outgrowth of rampant leftism. It is designed to chip away at ownership by preying on peoples empathy for those who purportedly want better lives, to make people feel guilty because their country isn’t a third world mess.

                  Strong border. Wide gates. Concerted assimilation programs. If someone wants to move to a country, they should be more than happy to want to adopt the customs and laws of that country.

                  “Leftist” is not a smear. It is a label applied to people whose hearts may be good, but who are too stupid to understand that humans are not collectivist animals and never can be while remaining human.

                  Fortunately, everyone can learn.

                  1. When did you advocate that private property was theft? When you advocated for open borders. When you advocated for the right of people to simply claim territory that was not theirs. When you suggest that it is wrong to want to maintain a strong border.

                    Assuming you mean just immigrating, since when was “claiming territory” defined as synonymous with “buying a house or renting an apartment.” Immigrants aren’t exactly beating up landowners and stealing the deeds to their property. They’re just moving to a new country to live and work in. You want the state deciding who is and isn’t free to live and work where they want?

                    1. I want ME to decide who lives in my country via the mechanism of the people I vote for to maintain my border.

                      There are people who are patiently trying to abide by our draconian immigration laws who deserve to get in before ANYONE who decided that they could just break in.

                      People who want to be Americans.

                      I do not believe in a ‘right’ of free migration. It exists nowhere in nature. Migration through the territory of others is always met with resistance.

                    2. I want ME to decide who lives in my country via the mechanism of the people I vote for to maintain my border.

                      But you don’t own the country. You only own whatever parcel of property that you bought and paid for. How dare you arrogate unto yourself the right to decide what I may do on **my** property! If I want to invite anyone I choose onto my property, it is of no concern of yours, regardless if they have the ‘correct’ papers or not.

                      You’re just another collectivist c*nt, trying to take away my rights for the good of some collectivist bullshit.

                      I do not believe in a ‘right’ of free migration. It exists nowhere in nature.

                      Except for the original migrants, of course…

                      Migration through the territory of others is always met with resistance.

                      If by “territory of others” you mean “private property of individuals that they themselves own”, then yes. But, if by “territory of others”, you mean “private property of individuals that they own, yet because you and they are on the same side of an imaginary border line, you arrogate until yourself the power to dictate to them how they may use their property”, then no.

                    3. But you don’t own the country. You only own whatever parcel of property that you bought and paid for. How dare you arrogate unto yourself the right to decide what I may do on **my** property!

                      He didn’t arrogate unto himself the right to decide what you do on *your* property. He referred explicitly to voting rights, of which you also have a share.

                      The idea that the citizens of a nation have the right to admit or exclude whomever they wish hardly strikes me as a radical proposition.

                    4. He wants to limit whom I may legally invite onto my property unless these guests have the state’s permission. That is limiting how I choose to utilize my property.

                      The idea that the citizens of a nation have the right to admit or exclude whomever they wish hardly strikes me as a radical proposition.

                      You’re right it’s not radical. The radical position is the one that supports individual liberty.

                    5. There are people who are patiently trying to abide by our draconian immigration laws who deserve to get in before ANYONE who decided that they could just break in.

                      Wait, you consider meekly submitting to absurdly draconian laws a virtue somehow, and disobeying them a vice?

                      Do you hold the same scorn for people cutting hair without a license?

                  2. When did you advocate that private property was theft? When you advocated for open borders.

                    open borders =/= stealing private property

                    When you advocated for the right of people to simply claim territory that was not theirs.

                    I have never advocated this position.

                    When you suggest that it is wrong to want to maintain a strong border.

                    In my opinion:
                    It is not wrong to want to maintain a strong border for purposes of defending against military invasion.
                    It is not wrong to want to maintain a strong border for purposes of stopping known international criminals, or stopping people with horrible communicable diseases.
                    It is wrong to want to maintain a strong border for purposes of stopping ordinary people who are not criminals, who are not sick, and who have done nothing wrong except lack correct papers from a coercive central state.

                    Get it?

                    1. Open borders = collectivism.

      3. “They often make reasoned arguments”

        You’ve been watching something different than I have.

        Chemjeff inevitably, without question, descends into self congratulatory gibberish upon resistance.

        Escher is something else entirely and not at all what you seem to think you are describing.

      4. Name one decent point that Tony has made. He has at various points endorsed slavery (so long as it was legal).

    2. I think the failing of Tony isn’t so much his ideas (though his ideas are not too developed it seems) but his argumentative style. There’s not genuine discussion from him. It’s all attack.

    3. Trolls don’t count.

      I would suggest someone that you actually trust and respect enough to listen to. Maybe a cousin on Facebook. Maybe join the comment section of your local newspaper. Someplace where you are brought together for a reason other than shared political views that is calm enough to actually listen to another side.

  2. Frankly, I tend to ignore my opposition.

  3. The Newsome moment at the Trump rally seemed promising.

    It happened at a Trump rally and people politely listened to the guy and agreed with him when he made reasonable points. Now, name when the equivalent has ever happened at a Progressive rally. When you can’t name one, you may have found the problem here.

    1. Not only can you not name a progressive rally where opposing view points were not allowed you can also look at conservative rallies or speechs that were interrupted and not allowed to continue by progressives. An earlier article this morning on Reason about a rally in Portland is an example of that

      1. Progressives have no concept of opposing viewpoints.

        1. To lefties, opposing views and dissent are considered actions of an enemy.

          I really only consider most lefties the enemy because they want to kill me or put my in concentration camps. If they didn’t want to kill me or lock me up, I could really care less about their opposing views.

          The left attacks and so I am on the defensive….(with guns).

    2. There’s even more examples of the “right” willing to debate. Bernie speaking at Liberty for one.

    3. I believe Liberty University invited Bernie Sanders to speak and nobody tried to shout him down.

      This does not seem to happen to anybody from “The right” (including lifelong Democrats like Rubin) speaking on non-conservative universities.

      John Stossel has said, for years, Republicans were way more open to debating his ideas than the Left was.

  4. “one of the two most vile words in the English language”

    You mean the word that isn’t “n*****”?

    1. I hate those naggers. Always telling me to do stuff. Fuck you naggers!

      1. Nagger, please.

    2. “Most” and “vile”.

  5. Good article.

    1. Yes, this is a beautiful article. I really like A. Barton Hinkle. He is one of my favorite writers here.

    2. +1 Great article

      And I fully expect the comments section to break into it’s normal “John vs Tony” name calling, just furthering the point.

      1. If it is a great article, then there must be examples of what happened on the Trump rally on the left, right? Otherwise, the two sides are not equivalent. No one, including the author, can seem to think of one. Can you?

        It is almost as if you refer to any fact you don’t like or argument you don’t like but can’t refute as name calling or something.

        1. “If it is a great article, then there must be examples of what happened on the Trump rally on the left, right? ”

          Why would the existence or lack of examples on the left affect the quality of the article? The claim that Hinkle is making isn’t that one side is better than the other.

          His claim is that both sides are better off if they respect the position of the other side. I can’t say that this is a likely scenario in any “John vs Tony” interaction that I’ve ever encountered.

          1. Why would the existence or lack of examples on the left affect the quality of the article?

            Because the point of the article is that neither side will listen to each other. No, it appears one side won’t listen to the other. That is different.

            1. No credit is given to the BLM speaker who apparently felt that he connected with the Trump supporters on this issue as well?

              It seems that both sides were able to come together that day.

              1. The BLM speaker was surrounded by pro cop people. would a pro cop speaker be able to speak at a BLM gathering?

          2. One side has decided that the other side are comprised of “nazis” whose ideas have no merit and with whom there can be no dialog.

            I don’t read/hear right wingers decrying their opponents as people beyond the pale whose ideas cannot be heard or aired in anyway. There is no deplatforming of left leaning speakers by the right, no fire alarms pulled at assemblies, riots when they speak, etc.

            Even when righties call their opponents communist, socialist, regressive, actual fascists, etc. they will try to talk to them and do not have a pattern of assault, battery, arson, etc. against them at their rallies, protests, meetings, etc.

            The worst that will happen to a left wing protest is that people on the right will show up and counterprotest; some will try to argue with them, and some will mock them. The same simply isn’t true for any sort of gathering by the right or those labelled as “the right”

          3. Please enlighten as to how or why one should respect the position of the other side, when the other side’s position is that we be enslaved to their totalitarian regime? In Germany in the 30’s, were the Jews and Gypsies supposed to respect the position of the Nazi regime that wanted to take everything from them, and ultimately exterminate them? Is Israel seriously supposed to respect the position of Hamas, who actually has specific language i their charter that they exterminate the the Israelis, along with all other Jews?

            Sometimes there is no equivalence.

            1. “…In Germany in the 30’s, were the Jews and Gypsies supposed to respect the position of the Nazi regime that wanted to take everything from them, and ultimately exterminate them?…”

              Well, if the Nazis did so with a smile, why were those Jooze so nasty?

        2. I’m sure if there were numerous assaults on Hillary supporters merely for wearing hats and shirts with her campaign slogans, we’d still be seeing them dredged up as examples of “alt-right Trump supporter violence”.

          They’ll never admit it, but the Trump and/or anti-Hillary groups were nowhere near as lawless or violent as the Hillary and/or Anti-Trump groups.

          The post-election reactions were nearly polar opposites. I must have missed all the violence and arson after the two Obama wins. I also don’t remember much hubbub when Clinton won twice. I do remember all the egg throwing and modestly violent (in comparison to today) reactions to the 1st GWB win. Aside from a bunch of condescending and predictable finger waving and “astonishment” from US and international newspapers, I don’t remember much of anything with the GWB’s 2004 win.

          There’s a pattern here that I just can’t put my finger on it,

  6. Whatever happened to heads on pikes? Why bore yourself?

    1. AlmightyJB wants Vlad for President.

      1. Who else would you back? Radu? The dude was a total cuck.

      2. Vlad Tepes didn’t always limit himself to heads, sometimes he’d stake someone through the whole body. Whatever seemed good to him at the time.

        1. Impaled bodies around an outdoor table for a feast to “impress” important people.

          To his credit, Vlad the Impaler kept the Turkish hordes from wiping his culture off the map.

      3. Vlad seems to me like a common sense compromise.

      4. Vlad Tepes was a hero.

  7. I’m going to be that guy and just state it bluntly:
    There is no compromise with progressivism, and no need to listen to progressives (unless you’re still unclear that their position is totalitarianism and that their psychology is psychosis to defend themselves from self-loathing).
    Progressivism will not compromise, and sees attempts at such merely as capitulation to be pressed further.

    1. Yes.
      I do not voluntarily compromise with those attempting to steal my stuff. Even if they say nice things while pointing the gun.

    2. Fine, then don’t compromise. But do listen.

      Because when you don’t listen, you wind up unknowingly arguing against caricatures and strawmen. Because then, you truly believe the caricatures are the real thing.

      When I see someone pushing a line like PROGRESSIVES HATE YOU AND WANT TO KILL YOU then I just tune it out because I know it’s just a narrative not the real truth.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist|6.4.18 @ 1:42PM|#
        “When I see someone pushing a line like PROGRESSIVES HATE YOU AND WANT TO KILL YOU then I just tune it out because I know it’s just a narrative not the real truth.”

        No, most probably don’t want to kill me; makes it harder to steal my stuff in the future.
        Now, you claim to have something worth listening to? Let’s hear it.

      2. “When I see someone pushing a line like PROGRESSIVES HATE YOU AND WANT TO KILL YOU then I just tune it out because I know it’s just a narrative not the real truth.”

        When I see a progressive pushing a line like ‘We hate you, and want to kill you”, then I pay careful attention. As this is a threat to me and mine. Though maybe you just refuse to believe it when you hear it from them directly.

        1. Look, people like you and Kurt Schlichter get lots of money and clicks and views for inciting rage against the other tribe, promoting-but-not-really-promoting civil war and insurrection in order to rid ourselves of those troublesome Progressives. It is all just an act, to generate outrage and anger.

          I do not believe for one second that you really think a President Bernie Sanders would start implementing gulags or death camps. You take that pose only to drive voters to Team Red out of fear.

    3. Progressivism will not compromise, and sees attempts at such merely as capitulation to be pressed further.

      Jerry Rubin made the strategy quite clear–never stop making demands; even when one is met, you need to have 12 more ready to go.

      The heart of post-WW2 progressive thought is nihilism and hatred of the society that you were raised in in favor of hyper-individualistic decadence and narcissism. At least the Roosevelt-era progressives pursued their reforms with the goal of building the country up rather than tear it down.

    4. It gets harder every day to think the Left is making good-faith arguments and there’s no sense arguing with a troll. Exhibit A would be the “reasonable, common-sense” gun laws they say they support. We’ve given them reasonable common-sense gun laws and all that gave us was more of the ratchet effect, what’s ours is ours and what’s yours is negotiable. The NRA isn’t the extremists the gun-grabbers say they are, the opposite extreme of calling for more gun laws would be calling for the repeal of the existing gun laws, but if the Left sets the terms of the debate they can get away with claiming a 10-0 win by the Left and a 0-0 tie between the Left and the Right are polar opposites.

      1. “what’s ours is ours and what’s yours is negotiable”

        We call that ‘incrementalism’. This is why there should be no debate or negotiation with a progressive. Just destroy them.

        1. Plus rollback all things we have given them: “reasonable gun control”, etc. Just roll it all back and never give those socialists an inch again.

    5. I fear this is the truth. And all their auto-back-patting about tolerance and rationality barely conceals it anymore.

  8. I know if you go straight to Hitler you’ve “Godwinned” the thread, what’s the equivalent of going straight to Trump in any argument?

    Not that that has anything to do with anything, but one of the big differences between what Roseanne said and what Bee said was that Roseanne was just talking off the top of her head in the middle of the night, what Bee said was scripted and approved by any number of writers and editors and network executives as an approved message to go out over the corporate airwaves. Roseanne’s bosses fired her almost immediately for her message, Bee’s bosses actually pre-approved her message. Not much equivalence there.

    1. True.

      But Disney/ABC said they made an ethical decision against racism. Did TBS need to respond?

      1. Bee’s scripted screed was irrefutably misogynistic.

        Roseanne’s tweet was not irrefutably racist.

      2. It was on their network and broadcast with their approval. So, yes they did. Why did ABC need to respond? They don’t own Twitter and Rosanne was speaking in her own capacity?

      3. If you assume they actually give a shit about slurring women…yes. But they do not.

        But the problem is — go ahead, scream “WHATABOUTISM!!” — but if ANYBODY on the Right who has a show anywhere called any progressive woman a cunt, their jobs would’v been gone. Quickly.

        1. Absolutely. Consequences never apply to progressives. Theirs is a sociopathic philosophy. They’re like terminators ultimately. They don’t really negotiate, and they will never ever stop. So they have to be stopped. There are also now millions of them that arte totally devoted to this philosophy. Winning elections isn’t enough to stop them.

    2. Rosanne Barr’s message was largely one of superficial appearance and even that’s with a bit of unboxing of what she actually said. Bee issues a pretty direct, unequivocal personal and professional insult to Ivanka. Who’s not legally capable of doing squat.

      “You look like a monkey.” vs. “You should personally feel ashamed of your father’s injustices, you fuckup.”

  9. When Grand Mufti Fat Rush (Praise Be Unto Him) Limbaugh says something loathsome he trots out the “But I am just an entertainer” defense.

    Why can’t Sam Bee do the same?

    1. Yeah, that was Jon Stewart’s defense of all of his terrible ideas for over a decade.

      1. Clown nose on, clown nose off.

    2. I’ve never watched (or listened?) to him, but I have a feeling if he’d have called one of Obo’s daughters a (something) cunt, I’d have heard about it.
      Did I miss it, or are you just being a disingenuous asshole again?

      1. If someone did call one of the Obama girls a cunt, Rush would probably be among the first to condemn the person who did.

      2. Unless I’m missing something, the closest thing Rush has said to that was when he called Sandra Fluke a “slut.” In context, she was testifying before congress and pushing for the federal government to provide birth control and contraceptives to college students for free. His take was that if she couldn’t afford the $10/mo for the pill or the price of condoms then she must be having a lot of sex and is being slutty. It wasn’t a polite insult. It also wasn’t exactly a take that is against libertarian principles (go out and fuck on your own dime)

    3. When Grand Mufti Fat Rush (Praise Be Unto Him) Limbaugh”

      PB said something funny, theres a first for everyone

      1. Not that funny.

        1. It is if you’re grading on a curve.

        2. I thought it was funny and I used to listen to Rush all the time until he became unneeded thanks to Drudge. Plus Rush will ramble on for a week about a single subject, he gets tiresome

  10. Has anyone on the Right simply pointed out that Bee is also a cunt? I feel like that’s the best response and they will look like (bigger) idiots when they inevitably try to explain why it’s fine for Bee to use the word bit totally not cool when a conservative doors.

  11. Who’s Samantha Bee?

    1. An extremely-unpleasant woman, both to look at and listen to.

      1. But less so than Michelle Wolfe

    2. Some feckless cunt with a tv show

    3. En evil communist bitch, who is not even a real bee.

  12. How do the Left consider what Bee said completely different from Roseanne’s tweet in a way that does not make what Bee did look worse?

    Barr’s tweet was done on her own time, in her own forum, late at night, possibly under the influence.

    Bee’s statement was done on her show with malice afore thought that must have had at least the tacit approval of the showrunners.

    If you consider the tone of public debate a problem, Bee is a significant contributor to that problem. I do not understand why her coarse grandstanding must be protected.

    1. I’ve been told it’s the racism.

      1. So racism os back on top of victim value shaming, got it. Or is it below trans rights still?

  13. There was a guest on Chris Hayes’ show the other night who distinguished Roseanne’s tweet and Samantha’s scripted screed thusly:

    One was vicious racism whereas the other was spoken in defense of misogyny by a woman taking control and ownership of a word that has been historically wielded by the white racist patriarchy against women of all colors.

    1. That actually is pretty accurate.

      1. Refer to the comment below.

      2. Not really. She’s wielding the word against another victim of said patriarchy if one accept such characterizations.

        1. So what? It has no venom coming from another woman. Just like a black guy calling another “nigger”.

          1. I have watched first fights occur over exactly the situation you are assuring us is not a problem.

            I don’t see how anyone other than the target of said epithet can be the judge of the venom level.

            1. fist-fights God dammit

      3. I am taking “porch monkey” back too.

        While I’m at it: Kike, slant, nip, zip, slope, jap, nigger, whitey, honkey, sand nigger, towel head, bitch, cunt, dick, dickhead, son-of-a-bitch….

    2. That’s a pretty biased view if you ask me from the guest on Chris Hayes’s show. It’s almost as bad as someone saying “Bee’s scripted screed was irrefutably misogynistic. Roseanne’s tweet was not irrefutably racist.”

      It’s amazing how one can only see the world distorted towards their personal/tribal biases.

      1. It is amazing how someone can manage to not have an opinion or a thought beyond “pox on both houses”. If you think they are the same, explain why. If you think one is worse, explain that. Mike at least tries to arrive at a conclusion. Even if his conclusion is a wrong one, he still shows more sophistication and understanding of what is going on than you do.

        1. Ironically Mike offers no insight into why he thinks the commenter on Chris Hayes’s show was wrong, just what he/she said. Similarly he offered no response beyond the quote above in his post upthread.

          But, ok, I’ll play along. Both Bee and Roseanne used terms that have a historical significance as being racially or mysogenistically used against their intended targets. It’s nearly impossible to defend or condemn the statements applied because they were both tongue-in-cheek ad hominem attacks at someone that they politically don’t agree with. Both can be seen as offensive by their targets (I’m sure that was the point in both cases), and thus really don’t advance public discourse. Both comments tend to cheapen whatever message they purport to have been used to advance. In other words, I really don’t see any difference in them in terms of content nor use.

          Based on that I would argue that to the outside observer (commenter on Hayes’s show or libertymike as the case may be) that the only real difference is the partisan lens through which they’ve viewed the comment. Thus my point is that libertymike is hypocritically implying that the Hayes show commenter was being partisan in his/her interpretation, while making a seemingly-similarly partisan observation just upthread.

          1. So the fact that one was made at work as part of their show and one was not has no bearing on whether either employer is right to fire them?

            It is your opinion an employer is just as correct to fire someone for a statement they make away from work that has nothing to do with their job as they are to fire someone who says something offensive away from work?

            For example, Bee comes to work and calls the secretary a cunt. Rosanne goes home from work gets drunk at a bar and calls the black bartender a monkey. I your opinion, the employer there is just as much justification to fire both?

            Remember, I am not talking about can, I am asking you if you think one or the other is more justified.

          2. Is there any situation that you feel is not a “pox on both houses” and that the left is unequivocally wrong? Please give an example or two. I would be curious to hear them.

            1. The left is wrong on: gun control, redistribution of wealth, government as the provider of welfare/healthcare/etc, regulation of industry in general, political correctness… I’m sure there are many more that I am forgetting.

              I’d be curious to hear an example or two where you think the right is unequivocally wrong, specifically in relation to the Trump agenda of the last 2 years. Don’t cop out by saying GW Bush was wrong to bail out banks, for example… that’s too easy.

              1. The Right is wrong in its belief in internationalism and collective security. The Right is wrong in their support for the drug war. The right completely fails to understand that once it buys into the idea that the government’s job is to save someone from themselves, they have lost the debate with Progressivies. The right doesn’t like hookers and drugs well that is nice the left doesn’t like fatty foods and guns. Who is to say they are wrong and the Right correct?

                The right, libertarians included, don’t understand their own arguments about international trade. They worship the market as some kind of magical machine that always gives the right outcome rather than what it is; a set of laws describing mass human behavior that tells you what the result of a given policy will be but says nothing about value question of what is the right policy.

                I could go on well past the reason character limit to give you my problems with the Right. The fact that you think that is some kind of gotcha question doesn’t surprise me. You think anyone who disagrees with you must be a partisan. You can occasionally make a decent point, but you are close minded, dogmatic and can’t seem to ever admit someone who disagrees with you might have a decent point. Instead you just scream partisan. And that is a shame because it makes you a lot dumber than you could be.

                1. “but you are close minded, dogmatic and can’t seem to ever admit someone who disagrees with you might have a decent point”

                  That could be true. But I can’t seem to explain how either side could rush to defend their own and condemn the other side almost instinctively as is the case of the majority on either side of this current debate without partisanship playing a role.

                  I can’t even believe that either side is defending either party at all, quite frankly. Both were just dumb comments that add no actual value to the dialog. Honestly both Roseanne’s and Bee’s comments seem to just be cases of extreme personal attacks with no real value behind their messages. What point was Roseanne even trying to make? Does anybody know?

                  1. I will defend Rosanne for one simple reason; I do not like the principle that someone’s speech away from work should be used as a justification to immediately fire them. As long as her show isn’t racist, who gives a shit what Rosane says or thinks in her own time?

                    Beyond that, ABC never waited to see if the show’s ratings went down. If it is the case that Rosanne offended so many people that people stopped watching her show, then ABC is under no obligation to keep it on the air. But, if it didn’t affect the ratings, then I think ABC firing her is not the right thing to do. They at least should have waited and seen if it did. The fact that they didn’t show that she was fired for wrong think. And I don’t like that. What starts with firing the racist ends with anyone who says anything unpopular no longer having a job.

              2. Trump is wrong on many aspects of jurisprudence, trade, and free speech.

                These are all big deals.

        2. Me It is amazing how someone can manage to not have an opinion or a thought beyond “pox on both houses”.

          Leo But, ok, I’ll play along. Both Bee and Roseanne used terms that have a historical significance as being racially or mysogenistically used against their intended targets. It’s nearly impossible to defend or condemn the statements applied because they were both tongue-in-cheek ad hominem attacks at someone that they politically don’t agree with. Both can be seen as offensive by their targets (I’m sure that was the point in both cases), and thus really don’t advance public discourse. Both comments tend to cheapen whatever message they purport to have been used to advance. In other words, I really don’t see any difference in them in terms of content nor use.

          Do you not see how you just proved my point?

          1. I was responding to why I found it hypocritical of someone to defend Bee and condemn Roseanne (or vice versa).

            Do you refute my analysis of the situation?

            1. I did above. Your analysis ignores the factors I listed in the questions I asked. You just didn’t respond because that is what you do when someone makes an argument that you don’t like. Now call me Red Tony and move on to the next thread. It is your move, you might as well use it.

              1. “It is your opinion an employer is just as correct to fire someone for a statement they make away from work that has nothing to do with their job as they are to fire someone who says something offensive away from work?”

                I’d love to live in a world where nobody was offended to the point that they wouldn’t watch something that they otherwise thought was entertaining for fear that they might be offended. But that’s not the world we live in.

                The issue ABC had with Roseanne is apparently that the producers of her show were walking away from her. Either out of personal disagreement with her statement, or because they don’t want their image to be tarnished. Whether Roseanne likes it or not, she is a representative of ABC in all aspects of her public life. Whether she is a racist or not, after her tweet especially, there is a large majority of people that think she is. That certainly affects not only her show, but ABC’s reputation in general with a good number of people that think Roseanne is racist.

                1. That explains why ABC fired her. That does not answer the question of which statement was more worthy of losing your career. You are just telling me that her producers thought it was. I don’t agree. The left seems to end anyone’s career and ruins the life of anyone who says something they don’t like at any time. I think that is a lot worse than the Right saying that when you call someone a cunt at work, you ought to lose your job.

                  1. Bee is actually being paid to be left-wing and edgy on her show. As far as we know she may have just been delivering the message of her writers, or she may have been off-script. Should she necessarily be fired for being the face of an offensive show? Can you pay someone to be edgy and offensive and then fire them for crossing some line that you didn’t define contractually?

                    I wish neither was fired, especially Roseanne because I personally liked her show. I’ve never watched Bee beyond her commercials which are almost exclusively left-wing hyperbole and attacks, so I assume that her show is the same.

                    1. Dave Chappelle gets paid to do “edgy” content. He blasts every race and gender and some might consider what he says “racist”. He’s black so he gets a pass from lefties for that reason not because lefties give a pass to all comedians.

                      Netflix pays him millions.

                    2. I wonder what the FCC charge for a C-bomb these days.

      2. Leo, break down the language.

        In order to ascribe racism to Roseanne’s tweet, one has to accept the proposition that when one individual employs a simian reference to describe another individual who has some negro ancestry, the simian reference is racist and there is no other explanation. In other words, a simian reference is, per se, racist, but only when directed at a black person. Let us not forget, that we do not know what Roseanne knew of Valery Jarrett’s racial background before making the tweet.

        Therefore, it is irrational to conclude that Roseanne’s tweet was irrefutably racist.

        1. Rosanne apparently didn’t know Jerrett was black. But don’t bother Leo with facts and arguments. It gets in the way of his “pox on both houses” thing. Facts arguments and thinking are just a drag man.

          1. “Rosanne apparently didn’t know Jerrett was black.”

            First off, she’s not black. Black is a color not a race/ethnicity.

            Secondly, does anybody really believe that? Has Roseanne ever called someone not of African descent an ape? It’s doubtful. Next you’ll tell me that Roseanne didn’t know VJ was born in Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood comment is just a typical personal slam that she likes to use against non-Muslims?

            1. Black is a color not a race/ethnicity.

              It’s both.

            2. Secondly, does anybody really believe that?

              Believe what? That it wasn’t racist?

              Which definition of racist? And not the meaningless, protean academic version.

              I think that any level of cultural awareness would reach the conclusion that it would be seen as racist. I am not as convinced she has such awareness, or that it was conceived by her as a racial insult.

              Has Roseanne ever called someone not of African descent an ape? It’s doubtful

              This is where you start to go off the rails a bit. She’s a vulgarian, I would be far more inclined to think that she has done so than to think she has not. And blindly guessing is useless.

              Next you’ll tell me that Roseanne didn’t know VJ was born in Iran

              You find THAT difficult to beleive? I am flabbergasted. I find her to be shockingly ignorant of such things.

              1. “You find THAT difficult to beleive? I am flabbergasted. I find her to be shockingly ignorant of such things.”

                In light of her using the term “Muslim Brotherhood”? You think she just happened to use that term NOT knowing that Jarrett was born in Iran?

                1. Probably, the term is the current scare terminology du jour for “Militant Muslim in the Middle East” in use on news broadcasts.

        2. Moreover, as others have observed, Roseanne’s tweet was made in the wee hours of the morning and was not presented as part of a network telecast.

          Bee’s statement was scripted for her program and ostensibly approved by the show’s management.

          Another issue: Roseanne has not been engaged in prolonged passion play denouncing racism whereas Bee has been engaged in a prolonged “#me too progressive passion play.

          1. Another thing Leo:

            The argument that black people can justifiably use the word nigger because its a form of empowerment whereas white people are not allowed to use the word is just collectivist garbage.

            The female guest on Chris Hayes’ show made the same collectivist argument. Women can employ the word cunt because it is a form of empowerment whereas men are not allowed to use the word cuz um, patriarchy.

            1. And I said that both are wrong. Women have no more right to that word than men do. Whites have no more right to language than blacks do.

        3. I’d point out that Jarrett is hardly the darkest-skinned person out there, which means not even knowing she is black (I assumed her ancestry was Middle Eastern, not African) and white folks have been called chimps for years, there can be an argument made of no intentional racism at all. Just that she’s a fucking idiot.

          Bee’s comment went through producers and TBS legal.

        4. One only has to look as far as the historical use of the word. I can’t claim to know what was in Roseanne’s mind when she made that comment, but it’s been historically a racial slur against black people.

          The other part of her comment was almost as bad. I don’t hear anybody being called “Muslim Brotherhood” outside of being either Muslim in faith or from the Middle East. I don’t know VJ’s religion (nor do I care) but almost immediately in looking at any profile of her is the mention of her being born in Iran.

          “Irrefutable” is a cop out. Almost anything in life is irrefutable.

          1. *almost nothing in life is irrefutable

            English is hard

          2. No, the word irrefutable is not a cop out and you supply no argument to the contrary.

            I am attempting to be precise. Do you have a problem with language precision? I deliberately chose the word irrefutable because a simian reference does not mean it is a racial slur against black people whereas the use of the word cunt by one who claims to be a champion of woman and who is a self-professed # me too cheerleader is, per se, misogyny when directed at another woman who happens to be much more physically attractive.

            1. It’s irrefutable that Samantha Bee’s screed was not misogynistic. Prove it otherwise.

              It’s highly likely in both cases that they were trying to be offensive (racially in Roseanne’s case and sexist in Bee’s).

    3. As an Irishman I can use the word “Mick” without social consequence.

      1. No longer, I’m afraid.

        But if you disagree, put your name to it and find out.

    4. the other was spoken in defense of misogyny by a woman taking control and ownership of a word that has been historically wielded by the white racist patriarchy against women of all colors.

      Which is funny because the only two groups of people I’ve known to use it with any frequency are American women (of all colors) and British men and women (where it has a more gender-neutral connotation).

      1. I’m pretty sure it’s mostly used as a term of endearment in England.

  14. scary words! this is watching lord of the flies in real time…

  15. I will say this about that, I was watching FOX News earlier on the gay cake issue and heard somebody say that libertarians were in favor of the decision because they support freedom of association. I about fell over, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody mention libertarians without mischaracterizing their position. I would have thought FOX would be claiming libertarians were appalled by the decision because libertarians are all about cramming the gay agenda down our throats. While smoking dope.

    1. would have thought FOX would be claiming libertarians were appalled by the decision because libertarians are all about cramming the gay agenda down our throats.

      I guess they know of libertarians not named Gary Johnson.

    2. Granted, that IS a mischaracterization of what the opinion says…

  16. But the point was utterly lost in the resulting furor.

    And don’t think that fact hasn’t been noted. The twitter mob can be easily manipulated into focusing on what doesn’t matter.

  17. http://www.vanityfair.com/holl…..-the-break

    Jon Stewart is apparently still alive. Wow.

  18. “and then used one of the two most vile words in the English language”

    Which one was it – socialist or communist?

    1. Is cunt really THAT extreme to most people? I guess if it helps me gain people to my side in the war against British and Australian “people” then so be it.

      1. >>>Is cunt really THAT extreme to most people?

        exactly.

      2. It is pretty extreme. It should be reserved for only the worst women, like Hillary

      3. Yes it is. If I told my wife, female friend, or colleague that a mutual acquaintance was being a real bitch the other day, their reaction would be very different than if I said cunt. It’s practically as taboo as using certain racial slurs if you are not a rapper.

        1. I think that is as much an affectation as anything else.

  19. I noticed a lot of headlines after the Roseanne thing, “ABC widely praised for cancelling Roseanne’s show”

    I just don’t get that. Even if the show is blatantly racist, which I doubt, why does it matter to people that someone who said something racist-ish is employed somewhere. How fucking vindictive can you be? Also, get a damn life and stop fretting over the thought of someone you don’t like on a show you never watch.

    I mean, I hate Samantha Bee and she appears to be an unfunny shrew. But I don’t worry about the fact that she has a show. I just don’t watch it.

    1. I just don’t get that. Even if the show is blatantly racist, which I doubt, why does it matter to people that someone who said something racist-ish is employed somewhere. How fucking vindictive can you be?

      Not just vindictive, but vindictive by proxy. I don’t know the exact demographic that makes up Roseanne’s show, but I’m certain that more than a few of them aren’t regularly a target for racial epithets. Culturally appropriating or white knighting as it were.

      1. who determines how wide the praise went?

        1. Every Twitter that the author follows was praising it.

    2. I mean, I hate Samantha Bee and she appears to be an unfunny shrew. But I don’t worry about the fact that she has a show. I just don’t watch it.

      I agree and I don’t watch her either. And judging from her ratings, we are in the large majority doing that.

      1. It’s always a dick contest with you people isn’t it.

        1. Tony would like government to force you to watch lefty entertainers.

          How else are the lefties gonna get billions donated to the Democratic Party so they can lose presidential elections?

          1. Seems only fair considering I have to watch a freakshow every day coming from the White House.

            1. Tony calls historical employment, standing up for America, rolling back government regulations, and not forcing Americans to bake cakes…a freakshow.

              Its why Tony is the troll under the Reason bridge.

              1. ‘Historical employment’ doesn’t occur in or directly derive from the White House, Trump doesn’t decide the outcome of a cakes case, and so-called “standing up” has involved taking a hard line on immigration and protectionist tariffs.

                1. commentator|6.4.18 @ 7:22PM|#
                  “‘Historical employment’ doesn’t occur in or directly derive from the White House, Trump doesn’t decide the outcome of a cakes case, and so-called “standing up” has involved taking a hard line on immigration and protectionist tariffs.”

                  All that is true enough, but do I need to remind you we have a 24-7 reminder that ‘Trump is a big poopy-head and if he isn’t impeached, we’re all gonna die!’ from nearly every legacy news outlet, print or electronic?
                  And, in spite of his ‘horrible’ policies and ‘despicable’ tweets, his (not shown) canoodling with the Russkis, his (not shown) pussy-grabbing, his so on and so on……
                  We now have the strongest economic growth since 1973 (look it up ), the lowest UE numbers since about 1970 ( look it up).
                  We have a SCOTUS justice who is not what that miserable fucking hag would have appointed, we have a FCC leader who is pretty certain that gov’t price fixing is not the way to get better web service, we have an Ed leader who thinks that rotten teachers should be fired.
                  There is no doubt Trump is not the direct cause of all those things, but they happened even as he has been accused of all sorts of stuff with zero evidence.
                  I’ll take it!

                  1. Sounds like some pathetic grasping excuses to me. Might as well jump ship before you embarrass yourself forever.

                  2. *high fives Sevo*

                    I mean, he’s not the president I want, but the reality is a lot more positive than the 24/7 TDS would have you believe. Everything some things are coming up Milhouse.

    3. Everything I like should be compulsory. Everything I don’t like should be banned.

  20. “Look, I paid for an argument, this is a respectful mutual exploration of our respective positions.”

    “Argument is down the hall, Room 5.”

    “Actually, I wanted something more in the nature of a screaming match.”

    “Ah, you’ll want our Cable TV package.”

    1. the Monty Python show would be so limited in todays world unless they follow the path of SNL and only hate on one side of life

      1. The bright side?

  21. …and then used one of the two most vile words in the English language.

    +++

    “Oh we got both kinds. We got country and western.”

  22. Her remark can’t be repeated here; suffice it to say

    It absolutely can, this isn’t some stuffy publication like the New York Times. Reason has already printed the word plenty of times before.

    There’s no “can’t” here, there’s just, as the kids say, “you being a pussy.”

    1. I may be mistaken but I think Hinkle wrote this for RTD and republished it here

      1. Seems he forgot to add the usual line at the end saying “This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.” Absence of evidence looks like evidence of absence, whoops.

  23. I’m here specifically because I get bored talking to people I agree with all the time. It just becomes a snark competition.

    Believe it or not I’ve moderated some of my political beliefs because of my encounters with libertarian thought at this place. I used to dismiss the virtues of capitalism too much, I think.

    1. Tony|6.4.18 @ 3:28PM|#
      “Believe it or not I’ve moderated some of my political beliefs because of my encounters with libertarian thought at this place. I used to dismiss the virtues of capitalism too much, I think.”

      So now you will smile when you have your thugs pull a gun to take my stuff? Imagine my relief!

      1. The only thing you people think government should do is hire thugs to push people around for not doing what you want. How are those thugs compensated? The old “Taxation isn’t theft for shit I want” exception.

        1. Tony|6.4.18 @ 4:03PM|#
          “The only thing you people think government should do is hire thugs to push people around for not doing what you want.”

          If you didn’t lie every time you posted here, you might not be the laughing stock you are.

        2. Ohhh :o( after the first comment I though you may have finally understood something significant.
          Nope.

          Whats that saying about fools and mouths?

          1. @tony
            obviously.

        3. Sometimes I find Tony amusing, but then I read something like this and I flat out do not understand what in blazes he is talking about.

    2. We’re bored with you.

      At least admit you want to enslave or murder most of us Libertarians and lets discuss your strategies on doing that and we will discuss our strategies on preventing it.

      1. Who is we? Do the other people here agree that they are part of some collective with you, perhaps the redneckiest of rightwingers here?

        At least you have a studied and comprehensively correct interpretation of my political beliefs. Well done. Not a conversation stopper at all.

        1. You will never admit that you are a socialist, yet you espouse socialist ideals on a daily basis.

          1. He certainly looks like a duck.

            1. Auto correct?

  24. BLM Racist Communist Chanelle Helm Demands These Ten Things Of White People..
    1 – White people, if you don’t have any descendants, will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably one that lives in generational poverty.
    2 – White people, if you’re inheriting property you intend to sell upon acceptance, give it to a black or brown family. You’re bound to make that money in some other white privileged way.

    3 – If you are a developer or realty owner of multi-family housing, build a sustainable complex in a black or brown blighted neighborhood and let black and brown people live in it for free.
    4 – White people, if you can afford to downsize, give up the home you own to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
    5 – White people, if any of the people you intend to leave your property to are racists a**h****, change the will, and will your property to a black or brown family. Preferably a family from generational poverty.
    6 – White people, re-budget your monthly so you can donate to black funds for land purchasing.

    1. 7 – White people, especially white women (because this is yaw specialty ? Nosey Jenny and Meddling Kathy), get a racist fired. Yaw know what the **** they be saying. You are complicit when you ignore them. Get your boss fired cause they racist too.
      8 – Backing up No. 7, this should be easy but all those sheetless Klan, Nazi’s and Other lil’ dick-white men will all be returning to work. Get they *** fired. Call the police even: they look suspicious.
      Flame on if you find this as “racist.”
      But, think of this. No individual is entitled to the fruits of another’s labors. No individual is required to provide charity nor should government force or mandate individuals provide charity.
      http://freedomoutpost.com/blm-…..te-people/

      1. Some questionable advice there. I mean, all of them boil down to doing extreme acts of charity. Which is fine by me (though the author sure does request it in a rude way).

        But his emphasis on generational poverty seems questionable, as that is the set of people least likely to be aided by direct influx of money.

        1. It is also, simply, racist begging, and ‘black or brown people’ should be embarrassed by the assumption that ‘white people’ have to save them from poverty.
          Pathetic.

  25. Dallas Mass cop murderer’s Arabic name was Fahed Hassen – racist domestic terrorists ‘Black Lives Matter’ and their Comrades

    “During the search of the suspect’s home, detectives found bomb making materials, ballistic vests, rifles, ammunition, and a personal journal of combat tactics.”
    ? Dallas Mass cop murderer’s Arabic name was Fahed Hassen
    ? Dallas Mass Cop Murderer was Follower of Nation of Islam

    ? Chaos in St. Paul – Police injured after #BlackLivesMatter Attacks Cops With Rocks, * Rebar, Bottles, Fireworks,

    Molotov Cocktails, July 10, 2016

    ? Gunfire hits San Antonio police headquarters, July 10, 2016
    ? Violence at another Black Lives matter event in Chicago, July 9, 2016
    ? New Black Panther Leader: Cop Killer Micah Johnson ‘Just Got Five Of The Bastards’

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd730.htm

  26. Black Lives Matter protestors wanted to see dead cops

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQvt8KRj0Yc

  27. What a bunch of feckless cunts

  28. Except the separating kids from their families thing ISN’T a Trump policy. It dates back to 2014 I believe. Its just the left using emotive narratives to demonize Trump. I can’t stand Drumpf, but I can see when he is being unfairly saddled with a policy he didn’t create. Its the same thing with The Fast and Furious ATF debacle. That was a Bush era program, yet the right labeled Obama as being responsible for its existence.

    1. “I can’t stand Drumpf,…”
      “…labeled Obama…”
      You mean Obastard?
      Just wondering why you chose certain ‘clever’ names.

      1. Barry O’Bastard, famed Irish folk singer.

  29. OK, so I got this from the more than two minutes spent reading replies from representatives of the “outgroups”:
    1) Turd continues to lie about being a lefty, cherry-picks data, misrepresents what might be honest; in general, is not capable of honest engagement.
    Conclusion: More than two minutes spent confirming that turd is a lying sack of shit. Nothing turd posts is worth honest consideration.
    2) what’s-his-name the individualist is really pissed that the GOP is held up as some sort of wondrous alternative to the Ds, and points out that it is not. Other than that, he seems incapable of providing any sort of answer regarding how much theft he proposes, what it might be used for, and whether it is done by smiling thugs.
    Conclusion: Jeff seems intent on avoiding answers.
    3) Tony claims to have learned something from visiting here, but is incapable of posting without lying.
    Conclusion: Fucking lefty liar, very low-watt, due all the derision he gets and as much more as anyone can heap
    upon him.

    1. (cont’d)
      Maybe we have an unrepresentative sample, and including that annoying twit ‘Rev’ and the demented Hihn isn’t going to help.
      Perhaps we’ve chased responsible representative of the “outgroups” off, but if so, could someone please suggest who they were? From memory, the ones who showed up and had their hats handed to them fell under two categories:
      1) A: ‘You guys havn’t thought of this and it demolishes libertarianism!’ Followed promptly by posts point out that X is a simple minded twit who hasn’t bothered to read B and C; his argument has been considered many times; is dead and buried.
      2) X: ‘You guys hate……….’
      Fuck off, slaver.

      1. So the article is ……… OK: Assuming you have two groups who do not presume to use coercion to force the activities of the other, there is common ground and reason to listen and give consideration.
        That does not include what is known as ‘progressives’, and I’d include whats-his-name, turd and Tony and the others mentioned above; they all *know* what is good for mankind and how money taken from the population at the point of a gun *should* be used.
        That’s what I got reading the comments; if I’m wrong, cite your claims.

    2. Conclusion: Jeff seems intent on avoiding answers.

      Uh… was there some point on this page at which you asked him a specific question?

      1. “Uh… was there some point on this page at which you asked him a specific question?”
        Oh, yes. More than once. WAY more than once.
        You get to go looking, not my job.
        But why do you ask?

        1. Oh, yes, there you are! I thought I recognized a lefty twit:

          commentator|6.4.18 @ 7:22PM|#
          “Historical employment’ doesn’t occur in or directly derive from the White House, Trump doesn’t decide the outcome of a cakes case, and so-called “standing up” has involved taking a hard line on immigration and protectionist tariffs.”

          Wherein you were handed your hat.

          1. Oh, commentator, please make claims where I was mistaken! I love stuffing lefty assholes full of facts!

          2. Handed a hat for stating things that you said were “true.”

            Man you sure call people lefties and slavers for the most nonexistent of reasons a lot.

            1. “Handed a hat for stating things that you said were “true.””
              Handed a hat = being called on bullshit

              1. Your definition of ‘bullshit’ apparently includes ‘facts.’

                1. commentator|6.5.18 @ 12:22PM|#
                  “Your definition of ‘bullshit’ apparently includes ‘facts.'”

                  Your stupidity is noted, AFTER you were clearly called on bullshit. Your ‘facts’ were shown to BE bullshit.
                  I don’t know whose sock you are; please tell us whose stupidity you’re trying to hide with the new handle.
                  Oh, and fuck off, imbecile.

  30. I am a little disappointed that Reason seems to believe that open borders combined with a welfare state is a good thing. It is economic suicide and the Libertarians at reason don’t seem to get it. I am not an avid Trump supporter but have no problem with our Border team giving the boot to those who have no respect for our borders and even less respect for the rule of law. Immigration is a good thing if it leads to productive citizenry. It is not if you encourage generational poverty in order to secure a voting block. I don’t really care about the sentimental mush of anecdotal sob stories. Samanthee Bee is a coarse and untalented twit who I guess appeals to the masses of mediocre, non thinking millennials, dull witted leftists and I guess now pretentious Libertarians who don’t see the value of sovereignty. Rather are extremely anxious for Global governance.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.