Reason Roundup

Feds Send Outside Agitators To Escalate Conflict in Portland

Plus: How H-1B visa restrictions cost U.S. jobs, a woman sues the British health service over hormone blockers, and more...


Clampdown in the Northwest. In Oregon this past weekend, federal agents fired tear gas into a group of moms, including one pregnant woman, who were peacefully gathering to demand police reform. They also pummeled the Portland crowd with pepper bombs, according to those on the scene and a plethora of video.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents and U.S. marshals dressed in military gear and brandishing large weapons have been stationed in Portland since around the start of the month, per an executive order from President Donald Trump. The feds are allegedly there to protect national monuments and guard against potential domestic terrorism.

Instead, this deliberately intimidating gaggle of outside "law enforcement" officers has been agitating peacefully assembled people who are merely exercising their constitutional rights. This has included shooting one man directly in the head with an impact munition of some sort (sending him to the hospital and necessitating facial reconstruction surgery) and, reportedly, forcing protesters into unmarked vans.

According to an internal Homeland Security memo, "federal agents facing backlash for their militarized approach to Portland were not specifically trained in riot control or mass demonstrations," The New York Times reports.

That doesn't bode well for the idea that they were sent in with mitigation in mind.

Despite federal agent actions last week, large Portland protests continued over the weekend…

…and so did federal agents acting in unnecessarily hostile and abusive ways:

Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler told CNN on Sunday that "they're not wanted here, we haven't asked them here, in fact we want them to leave." He continued:

What I want to do is raise awareness nationally. This could happen in your city. And what we're seeing is a blatant abuse of police tactics by the federal government, by a Trump admin that's falling in the polls. This is a direct threat to our democracy.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown has suggested the feds' presence was a "deliberate effort to provoke." She told The Washington Post "that her contacts with Trump administration officials about the situation had convinced her that 'they are not interested in problem solving,' and this has 'nothing to do with public safety.'"

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) last week sought a temporary restraining order against federal agents stationed in Portland. (Read the ACLU motion here.)

And Oregon's Department of Justice is suing the DHS, the U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the Federal Protection Service. The lawsuit, filed in federal court on Saturday, alleges that "they seized and detained Oregonians without probable cause," explains Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.

Oregon Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley say they'll be introducing legislation to address the situation. "When I get back to DC next week, I will be introducing an amendment to the defense bill with @RonWyden to stop the Trump administration from sending its paramilitary squads onto America's streets," tweeted Merkley on Saturday. "We won't let these authoritarian tactics stand."

It's nice to see some lawmakers actually attempting to use their power to stop this, instead of simply trying to score Twitter points with spurious allegations that libertarians aren't freaking out enough.


A British woman who was given hormone blockers as a teenager is suing the U.K.'s National Health Service. "Keira Bell said the care she received for gender dysphoria, a condition where a person experiences distress due to a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity, steered her towards medical treatment," reports Sky News:

Ms Bell, who used to identify as a boy, was 15 when she went to the Tavistock Centre in London. She said after "roughly three sessions" she started receiving hormone blockers.

Eight years later, and after undergoing surgery, Ms Bell is de-transitioning to return to a woman.

Ms Bell wants clinicians to do more to explore the reasons a young person changes gender before they are treated. She believes that during treatment, priority needs to be given to a person's "biological sex as much as their gender identity".


Immigration restrictions kill U.S. jobs: 


• Some potentially good news on the COVID-19 front…

• …and more bad news: "A rare but serious and potentially deadly inflammatory syndrome believed to be associated with the coronavirus has now been identified in 15 children in Los Angeles County," the Los Angeles Times reports.

• "CEOs have often been ahead of cops and politicians on gay rights": Richard Morrison reviews the book The Queering of Corporate America.

NEXT: Congress Is Paying People a Lot of Money To Not Work

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reason “libertarians” for violent domestic left-wing terrorists.

    1. Andy Ngo probably has the best coverage of the events in Portland.

      1. He seems responsible for 90 percent of the on-the-street coverage of Portland. Awesome job he’s doing, wish others would step up to help him out.

        1. Super easy online work which can gave you extra $15 k every month online. Last month i have earned $14825 from this home based job just by work online for 3 hrs maximum a day. While stay at home earn money online easily. Want to make extra cash? go to this web page right now………

          FOR MORE DETAILS….⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢⇢2Usd Life.

    2. Reason “libertarians” for violent federal government intervention.

      1. It would be far better all around if the feds didn’t have to get involved in this nightmare at all, but they’re completely justified when the state and local authorities decided to abdicate their constitutional duties for such a long period of time and won’t abide by the law themselves. Kind of like when back in the days the feds had to intervene in certain places to ensure that desegregation laws were being followed.

        But you believe people should be allowed to riot, destroy property, and physically assault others with no repercussions whatsoever.

        Do you think this should be the case for everyone, or just rabid left-wingers only?

        1. But you believe people should be allowed to riot, destroy property, and physically assault others with no repercussions whatsoever.

          People, yes. Non-socialists, no.

          1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… EWf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

            Here’s what I do………………Home Profit System

        2. Just to be clear, when are you a big fan of aggressive federal intervention?

          I’m not trying to be a smart alec, just trying to see where the line is here.

          1. I thought I made it pretty clear before that it would be a lot better if the local authorities were handling this situation themselves, but they obviously refuse to, so therefore the feds come in. I even gave you a similar example with the desegregation battles from decades ago.

            Now you answer my that I already asked you.

            1. I’m sorry, but you haven’t answered my initial question. I asked for a neutral, general principle of when the feds should intervene in local matters. Can you supply an answer? Thanks.

              1. The feds intercede when the local government is either allowing or pursuing a violation of individual rights. This is happening now in Portland as the tights of business owners and those being assaulted are being violated. When the D.A. in Portland is releasing arsonists without charge there is an issue.

                This shouldnt be difficult to grasp.

                In this case the federal agents were focused on federal buildings which have been attacked almost nightly. They always have jurisdiction in that regard.

                1. “The feds intercede when the local government is either allowing or pursuing a violation of individual rights.”

                  “In this case the federal agents were focused on federal buildings which have been attacked almost nightly. ”

                  It speaks volumes that you offer these two rationales casually.

                  1. Because they are true?

                    Usually a casual assertion is one of honesty and not made up.

                    When the feds go into a police office to investigate corruption, do you cry the same amount of tears?

                    1. I asked for a neutral, general principle of when the feds should intervene in local matters. Can you supply an answer? Thanks.

                    2. They’re incapable of fathoming anything but sophistry.

                      If you support federal agents defending federal property you’re anti-libertarian. You can’t possibly hold the opinion that the government shouldn’t own property and/or that, if it does, it’s beholden to the taxpayers to preserve and/or return on the value of that property.

                      You can’t be a libertarian and conceive that if the Klan “owns” both state and local governments and is terrorizing black (and white) communities at an individual level, the FedGov might have an obligation to protect those individual’s rights (despite the BOR’s explicitness on the issue).

                      Even having those thoughts is anti-libertarian.

                    3. “If you support federal agents defending federal property you’re anti-libertarian. ”

                      So Confederate monuments and tributes should really stop, right?

                    4. I asked for a neutral, general principle of when the feds should intervene in local matters.

                      When they give you and your friends the full Kent State.

                    5. I provided a general rule dummy.

                    6. same as the last time a three-letter paramilitary arm of the Democratic Party was violating the civil rights of locals

                      Wilsonian tactics are eternal

                      lol if Tea Party protests killed dozens, injured hundreds, committed thousands of assaults, and burned/looted hundreds of businesses while local GOP officials declared themselves unwilling to respond, all these left-wingers conveniently donning their fashionable civil libertarian masques today would have been demanding tanks in the streets, mass arrests, and banning of the group from all social media — if not actual tactical nuclear strikes

                  2. I’d opine that you can’t possibly be that obtuse and/or dishonest, but your posting history proves that wrong.

                2. If the Feds are attempting to protect the rights of the local businesses, where is the federal judge’s order finding that their rights are abridged? At least in the case of desgregation, the president was enforcing a judge’s court order.

                  If the feds were protecting federal buildings, why were they shooting into crowds? How hard is it to stand on the steps and shoot someone that comes on the property?

                  1. First you apparent missed the question asked. He asked when the feds can intervene. I answered.

                    Second I listed what the feds were primarily doing at this point, which is protecting the federal buildings. If you bothered to take 5 seconds to watch the videos linked below you will see the constant violence against the federal building.

                    1. And despite the narratives, the people being targeted are overtly involved in the violence. They aren’t headed out into the burrows, back alleys and suburbs of Portland beanbagging and abducting news reporters and BLM leaders from their homes in the middle of the night. They’re picking up people that they can visibly identify as having thrown objects at cars and shooting bean bags at people yelling “We’re going to fucking kill you!” at police officers.

                  2. By the way… when you clear an area to protect a building you generally extend the radius. To stop secondary escalations. Is this not common knowledge?

                    1. knowledge is decidedly not common among the political left.

                    2. The article author lost me at “group of moms”. How the fuck does someone’s maternal status figure into this other than as an emotional squeal? From that point on, everything that is said falls under a cloud of certain bullshit. Someone’s been reading too many of the clickbait ads that start with “a mom just invented…”

              2. QA- It is you being disingenuous. WCR asked you a question first.

              3. Lady, stop being pedantic. If that was the principle you are standing on, you would be against Eisenhower sending the 101st to Little Rock. Just say you are siding with the rioting commies and the enablers in local government. Portland has become a shithole thanks to antifa and their perpetual rioting.

                1. You were, of course, all over this with the Bundy case?

                  1. Precisely how many fires were set in the Bundy case? How many people were assaulted? How many buildings damaged? How many goods stolen?

                    Go on, we’ll wait.

                    1. There was certainly alleged violation of property. Where were you?

                    2. Weak dodge.

                    3. So you’re not going to answer bs’s questions because they destroy your narrative.

                    4. So zero.

                      You’ve got nothing but trespass, which you deem completely peaceful.

                  2. That is an incredibly obtuse question but here you go:
                    The BLM suspends the roundup of trespassing cattle
                    Protesters disperse
                    Incident defused
                    Cliven Bundy and 18 others indicted for federal felonies
                    All charges against Cliven Bundy, two sons, and a co-defendant dismissed with prejudice
                    ( I have no doubt you are incredibly confused right now – BLM menas Bureau of Land Management.)

                2. Just say you are siding with the rioting commies and the enablers in local government.
                  Commie Mommies

              4. The fed law enforcement is intervening to protect federal property, a courthouse to be specific.

              5. You were given a clear answer – your inability to grasp it is your problem (and likely one of longstanding).

            2. The feds aren’t even doing that much, they’re just protecting the courthouse.

              If all the hand-wringers think this is bad, they really need to read up on the riots of the late 60s or even the LA riots, where actual Marine companies were mobilized from Pendleton to back up the cops.

          2. You’re essentially an anarchist, not a libertarian. There has been 50 days of riots at this point. Tens of millions in damage. Assaults. Murder. Robbery.

            If you dont think at that point government cant intervene you believe in no government.

            1. To be fair, an-cap is a libertarian philosophy. But they’d support private police corporations protecting the businesses and the use of lethal force to defend property.

          3. Just to be clear, when are you a big fan of aggressive federal intervention?

            The feds aren’t intervening. They’re protecting federal property.

            They let the locals burn the local police station, didn’t they?

          4. I say when you get people chanting and ugly chicks with grrrl in their Twitter handle reporting on it, just go in and bust some heads. It’s time.

            There are really no worse people in the world than these.

          5. Answer: When rioters violently interfere with normal citizens’ ability to peacefully assemble, conduct business, earn a living from their private property, etc. You know, those things which even libertarians admit are what government might be needed for, and which the local government is not providing. Portlandia citizens are also US citizens, and should be able to enjoy their rights like other US citizens. They pay federal taxes, too, y’know. Why is this not obvious? The Reason virtue signaling is getting old.

          6. I oppose federal government intervention in this case, but not on libertarian grounds. I think it’s best to let Portland become what it so desperately desires: a warning to the nation.

            Trump should not just not have gotten involved, he should have cut all federal funding, stopped federal projects, canceled federal research grants to the university, moved federal facilities and handed the bill to the city.

        3. 14A case for Federal intervention. Hmm. I’d just thought of it as justified to protect federal property, but I do think this has to work. Bit of a blank check for my comfort, but I guess it kind of always was.

          1. There is no blank check about it. If the states refuse to protect the federal rights of their citizens, the feds have a duty to intervene and do so.

            1. You were, of course, all over this with the Bundy case?

              1. You mean the case where your fellow travelers were screeching for drone strikes?

              2. How many people did the Bundys evict from the refuge in question? How many local businesses did they shut down and loot?
                How many other police stations and public buildings did they take over?
                How many crimes were committed on the reserve under the Bundy’s watch?

                1. I’m curious, how many of those crimes when armed thugs take over federal property warrants a heavy federal response? Let me know.

                  1. See you’re not curious though, you’re just straining to fabricate a false equivalency.

                    And when you loe like you did about your motives then the rest of what you say is suspect.

                  2. Are you a different sock of the same dumbass?

                    All of them. BLM is a federal organization that can/will arrest or shoot your ass just the same as the Marshals and DHS will/did in Portland. The FBI and BATF are also federal organizations and were involved in the standoff.

                    The state’s intervention in the Bundy Standoff was a legitimization of the Bundys much more than the current situation in Oregon.

                    1. IIRC, The Federal Government was the one starting fires to damage the Bundy’s property…

                  3. You ate about 3% as clever as you think you are, and really, Really bad at this.

                    1. Your estimate there might be too high.

                2. Moreover, despite all of the above differences, yes, undisclosed Federal officers were stalking the shit out of the Bundys the whole time they were there. Additionally, the Bundys et al. stood trial for their crimes.

                  1. Poor Queen just got destroyed by facts.

              3. No. Because that involved federal land. It had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or the states. And I had little sympathy for the Bundies. They basically were claiming to own land that they had leased but never owned. I didn’t want them murdered for that like you leftists did, but I was on the feds side.

                So, why don’t you try again or come back when you are smarter and can make a point that is sensible.

                1. “They basically were claiming to own land that they had leased but never owned.” — That’s not true. Cliven Bundy sent lease payment to the state of Nevada where “Nevada” land is. In Oregon; the refuge was renamed Hammond county (County owned). The Bundies has and always has been complete inline with the U.S. Constitutional Law as well as the Supreme court both of which our federal government has IGNORED in an attempt to steal ALL western states of their land especially Obama who up and decided to just start STEALING land by executive orders.

          2. It’s never ever a good thing when this becomes necessary, and it should be used very sparingly and only as a last resort.

            But putting an end to violent seditious rebellion is THE core function of the federal government. If this isn’t the case, then there may as well not even be a central authority at all. This has been the case going all the way back to when George Washington had to send his troops into western Pennsylvania to put down the “Whiskey Rebellion”.

            1. I’m still not entirely convinced that this—or the interventions to help the blacks—would have been legitimate in pre 14A America. The state sovereigns didn’t WANT them there, remember.

            2. No it’s not. The US is a voluntary union and the federal government is not a central authority.

              If Oregon wants to turn itself into a cesspool of violence, here, and destruction, the federal government should let them.

          3. No judge has said this is a 14th Amendment intervention. Has Trump even asserted this? I’m not being snarky here, I am genuinely curious. Did he issue an executive order saying that he is intervening to protect the rights of citizens?

            And no, declaring that he will “bring law and order” to a place is not the same as finding that peoples’ rights are being violated and they need to protect them. (For example, enforcing drug prohibition may be enforcing law and order, but it isn’t based on someone’s constitutional rights).

            1. “No judge has said this is a 14th Amendment intervention”

              Which of course is absolutely meaningless.

            2. He is intervening to protect the rights of human statues, bro.

      2. Oh no! We can’t have federal intervention when people have their rights violated by “riots of peace” and the state refuses to protect them! It’s not like we have a 14th amendment and constitutional supremacy or anything!

        1. It’s interesting to see conservatives be such ardent champions of the 14th Amendment suddenly. States rights was a passing fad indeed…

          1. Fine, get rid of the cops. I know a ton of people, myself included, who would be happy to go to Portland and settle this issue and would if the threat of prison were not on the table. But when we do, we will show up at the next BLM Antifa riot and will be shooting back. And when we are done there will not be a BLM or Antifa thug or human shield left alive.

            We will have a peaceful society. We can have it that way or we can have it with the cops putting a stop to this. So, my advice is that you better start sucking that cop dick hard, I mean really throat it, because that big blue dick is the only thing standing between you and your antifa buddies and a bullet in your head.

            1. “because that big blue dick”

              You seem to have big dicks heavy on your mind…Maybe you think the 14th is important in a Lawrence v. Texas way?

              1. You sound extremely upset.

            2. LMAO this is by far the most pathetic internet tough guy post I’ve ever seen holy shit

              1. 2nd most pathetic now.

              2. I think you are missing his point. If the police don’t step in, and things get bad enough, other people will take matters into their own hands. I’m not endorsing this. But it will happen if this is allowed to go far enough.

                1. Exactly the case. People will not just sit by and let the city go to complete shit.

              3. You’re a fucking moron if you think John’s post was not something that millions of Americans are thinking right now.
                We are losing patience with your idiotic tantrum

                1. Damn straight.

            3. John,
              I am with you.
              If they abolish the police, I will join you in armed attack on the tyrants of the left.

            4. This is largely a local issue, except when fed buildings are attacked or if bystanders are being assaulted without a local response. Under those circumstances a fed response is appropriate.

          2. 10th amendment. States have some rights, but they certainly don’t have the right to violate the rights of their citizens.
            It is slightly surprising to see a “libertarian” think that denial of rights is ok if it is done on the state level, rather than the federal level.

          3. “suddenly”?

            You don’t know any conservstives then.

          4. States rights was a passing fad indeed…

            ‘States rights’ was a canard of the left when they were attempting to defend slavery/Jim Crow/Poll taxes/forced sterilizations and on and on.

            It is NOT federalism.

          5. We aren’t conservatives you leftist retard.

          6. I’m not. I think Oregon made its choice and should suffer the consequences. Trump can bill them for the destruction of federal property.

      3. Now do Alabama in the 60’s.

        1. Joe Namath and Kenny Stabler

        2. “Now do Alabama in the 60’s.”

          Citizens sued the state for violation of their rights, and a federal judge ruled in their favor. When the state refused to follow the federal order, the president nationalized the Alabama guard to get them away from the governor, and then sent in the military to enforce the order.

          I don’t necessarily think a federal judge needs to issue an order saying that rights are being violated- I think that it is also the president’s duty to protect rights. I am just curious to know if the President has issued any finding similar to that.

          1. I think sending people in is your de facto answer.

        3. Randy Owen and Ted Gentry?

      4. Downtown Portland has been a war zone for over a year. The protesters are some sort of Antifa groupies, spray painting, rock throwing, arsonist thugs. If you truly believe they are peaceful, then go to the ‘protest’ with a MAGA hat and await the people’s justice.

        1. Excellent point

        2. Do you live in Portland?

    3. Hello.

      I’ve written and erased my comment a few times now but I can’t quite find ‘les mots justes’ after watching those mothers. It explains a lot though.

      2020. Something happened and I can’t quite process it.

      1. try Commie Mommies

    4. Here is what ENB and the other ignorant here are ignoring. The violence. There is lots of it. Millions and millions of damage alone.

      But having watched a bunch of streams from independent journalists this weekend, what seems to be happening is this.

      Police give these marches wide birth until violence, arson, or assaults tick up. They then use loud speakers to announce the police need to march to an area to clamp down on the violence. These groups such as the mothers above often end up willingly mock the police who are en route to break up the rioting areas. They ignore police asks to clear the area so they may get to the area that needs attention. The leftists then post these shortened clips so the useful idiots think that the police are simply randomly attacking people. Ignoring the violence and buildup as well as requests by police to clear so they can intercede in the areas of violence.

      You can see this with Ngo, Pool and his friends, and many others constantly posting videos of the actual violence.

      1. 40+ days of violent riots. The local authorities refuse to do anything about it. And all ENB can do is cheer on the rioters and tell everyone how peaceful having your city burned to the ground is.

        1. 50 days now.

        2. If the government cannot protect my rights or my property….why do I really need them? That is the question I think the state and fed governments should ultimately fear.

      2. Just like how politicians ignored the enormous ramifications of their lockdowns, they’re ignoring the potential negative harmful effects of mass mask wearing.

        Malice intent at this point.

      3. “The leftists then post these shortened clips so the useful idiots think that the police are simply randomly attacking people.”

        They’ve been doing that little dance since the first “black bloc” rioters appeared at the WTO protests a little over two decades ago. This is nothing new. QA and her ilk are either ignorant (perhaps willfully) or disingenuous.

    5. The protesters are getting desperate if they have to bring in pregnant women and the disabled to serve as human shields. It’s not sincere, or they would have already been there weeks ago.

      If you’re pregnant, going to a riot where you know rioters have been routinely getting tear-gassed and trying to burn buildings down is exceptional. You’re deliberately putting your baby’s health at significant risk, just for internet ass-pats (it worked, look at ENB’s whinging).

      These protesters cry for mercy out of one side of their mouth and spit at you with the other.

      1. I said it at the time that the media was too stupid to understand the significance of designating BLM as a terrorist organization. That order meant the FBI counter terrorism task forces could investigate Antifa. And Antifa is guilty of a long list of federal crimes that carry long mandatory prison sentences. The feds showing up in Portland means Antifa and most importantly it’s leadership is going to face real prison time. But what are they going to do? If they stop, they are revealed to be cowards and laughing stocks. So, they just keep doing stupid shit and it isn’t going to turn out well for them. Yeah, desperate is a good word for it.

        1. Well said.

        2. They’re facing real federal prison time — until Joe Biden’s second day in office, when he issues blanket pardons for every rioter, er, peaceful protestor, in federal custody.

          Then they’ll go right back to their rioting, completely secure in the understanding that they’re totally untouchable.

          You think the last few months have been bad? Hooo boy just wait until these people start operating with total impunity at every level of government. That’s when you’re gonna see the real fireworks. Not even the red states are going to be safe once Biden’s AG hamstrings state and local law enforcement with ‘civil rights investigations’ for any attempt at restraining the chaos.

          Lock and load boys, because it’s either 1776 or 1984.

      2. It is literally a Palestinian tactic. Launch rockets from a school, mosque, hospital. Get Israel to retaliate. Pull put the aggressors. Show footage of only the damaged school, mosque, or hospital.

        Useful idiots abound.

      3. “The protesters are getting desperate if they have to bring in pregnant women and the disabled to serve as human shields.”

        These people, of course, have no agency. It’s all part of the master plot bwha ha ha!

        1. Stupid enough to risk your baby for Antifa?

          No agency is the best case scenario.

          1. So, the ‘they deserve it’ *libertarian* argument, eh?

            1. Do the business owners?

              1. Evidence the moms hurt business owners?

                1. Shutting commerce down and ruining tourism doesnt hurt them?

            2. You’re saying you’re illiterate?

        2. They’re certainly showing a distinct lack of judgement. Can’t wait to see how fucked up their kids end up being.

          1. “Know your role!” Brought to you by the Libertarians (ostensibly!).

            1. It’s strange how you think your posts aren’t unresponsive gibberish.

              1. It’s strange how you think your posts aren’t unresponsive gibberish.

                1. Rubber/glue next?

            2. “Fetuses now have rights!” Brought to you by the Left (ostensibly!).

        3. These people, of course, have no agency. It’s all part of the master plot bwha ha ha!

          You know what?

          If you’re stupid enough to walk onto a battlefield while pregnant for the purpose of deliberately acting as a human shield because you know the people you’re calling evil nazis are actually too good and moral to shoot at a pregnant woman, you DO deserve to get shot.

    6. they’re completely justified when the state and local authorities decided to abdicate their constitutional duties for such a long period of time and won’t abide by the law themselves. Kind of like when back in the days the feds had to intervene in certain places to ensure that desegregation laws were being followed. Hindi-Shayari

  2. CEOs have often been ahead of cops and politicians on gay rights

    And yet we need CEO quotas because there are too many white male ones.

    1. Well, true diversity is all on the outside.

  3. A British woman who was given hormone blockers as a teenager is suing the U.K.’s National Health Service.

    And now she’s officially a TERF.

    1. Can she be a dolphin next?

      1. I believe Dr. Lilly was working on that exact treatment.

        1. LOL

          Dr. Lilly was a head of his time.

      2. If you had a friend who had plastic surgery, say rhinoplasty, would you insist on showing her pictures of her pre-surgery days and telling her that her current look is a biological lie? Would you say ‘what’s next, you’re a dolphin?’

        1. Someone didn’t read the story about the woman de transitioning and asking for courts to simply not let clinics push life altering drugs after 3 visits to teenagers.

          1. Someone isn’t following this conversation.

            1. That would explain why you keep posting gibberish

        2. If you had a friend who had plastic surgery, say rhinoplasty, would you insist on showing her pictures of her pre-surgery days and telling her that her current look is a biological lie?

          Does this apply to Koreans who lighten their skin?

          1. Stores in the Philippines have aisles dedicated to skin whitening … and corned beef.

        3. This isn’t a good case for either sides notions, perhaps.

          Note this is a person who has an actual mental illness coming out and saying maybe the ‘cure’ for a mental sickness they actually have isn’t a ton of hormone blockers. Is that so controversial? This individual is also ‘going back’ to their biological sex, which sort of implies their mental illness is either treated or in remission? Is that the hormone blockers that did that, or was it perhaps therapy or some mix of other treatments?

          Is the claim here that hormone blockers are the equivalent of lithium for certain mental illnesses? Or perhaps that gender dysphoria isn’t real? I can’t really tell.

        4. If she insisted that her pronoun is “her majestic natural nose” every day…

    2. Hopefully she just becomes a normal, well adjusted woman instead of joining one of those two rival clown schools.

      1. Unfortunately, women who pump themselves full of male hormones at an early age seldom get their feminine voices back after they detransition.

  4. “She believes that during treatment, priority needs to be given to a person’s “biological sex as much as their gender identity”.”

    Biology is destiny?

    1. Wait, so now we’re not supposed to respect her decisions and beliefs? Why is that other than she’s now stepping on your leftist orthodoxy?

      You’re fucking insane, and intentionally so.

      1. “Wait, so now we’re not supposed to respect her decisions and beliefs?”

        Uh, yeah, as much as they are about other people’s situations.

        I love your instant hyperbolic move to ‘you’re insane!’ though. I feel for anyone who gets in a Domino’s vs. Papa John’s argument with you…

        1. She was given the altering drugs while a teenager based on very little actual determination of her underlying issues.

          The horror of her asking for something a bit more in depth so future children dont alter their lives over bad diagnosis.

        2. Forcing children to take hormones and pretend to be a different sex than they actually are is kinda like picking a pizza joint. Or at least when you’re an alcoholic piece of shit.

          1. coming to someone and they prescribing you something = forcing?

            1. Children bro. Try to keep up.

        3. Right, so no response other than it violates your leftist orthodoxy. Everything must be recreated from the ground up every single time by you collectivist asshats who suddenly (when convenient) find individualism when you need to use it to discredit somebody else’s lived experiences.

          The insane bit is having read your incoherent logic and intentional obtuseness (or maybe you are just that stupid or brainwashed, who knows).

        4. When it comes to domino’s v’s papa John’s there are no winners

          1. Arguing otherwise would be insane.

          2. When a troll account makes this much sense, there’s something deeply wrong in the world.

            1. It’s 2020.

          3. not sure i’ve had a domino’s pizza but i have to say – although i’m not crazy about Pepsi, i find pizza hut is better than papa john’s

    2. Yes, it’s called DNA.

    3. Biology is science.

      1. But not Science.

    4. Well, to be factual about it, Yes = Biology is destiny

      1. You mean tadpoles can’t grow up to be ponies?

        1. Racist!

    5. The radical feminists who were adamant that gender is nothing but a social construct are now fodder for this new generation of transfeminists pushing for the idea of an individualized gender “essence” divorced both from chromosomes and from social norms. Men trying to become women was seen as a thinly veiled attempt at male infiltration and patriarchal subterfuge. Those days are now behind us.

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the next social injustice we’re supposed to get woke and outraged about is referring to trans individuals as “transmen” and “transwomen” rather than simply men and women, since it suggests there’s something less authentic about them.

  5. Instead, this deliberately intimidating gaggle of outside “law enforcement” officers has been agitating peacefully assembled people who are merely exercising their constitutional rights.

    I don’t trust either side is acting in good faith at this point.

    1. Yeah, looks like both sides suck here.

      1. The right has really doubled down with righteousness on their cop bootlicking. Very sad. Libertarianism as much the subject of ridicule as establishment conservatives. Not entirely without justification, unfortunately.

        1. Fine, get rid of the cops. I know a ton of people, myself included, who would be happy to go to Portland and settle this issue and would if the threat of prison were not on the table. But when we do, we will show up at the next BLM Antifa riot and will be shooting back. And when we are done there will not be a BLM or Antifa thug or human shield left alive.

          We will have a peaceful society. We can have it that way or we can have it with the cops putting a stop to this. So, my advice is that you better start sucking that cop dick hard, I mean really throat it, because that big blue dick is the only thing standing between you and your antifa buddies and a bullet in your head.

          Those cops are there to protect dumb asses like you. You are just too retarded to understand that.

          1. Is this Tango or Cash? You’re amazing toughness is apparent, of course, so it makes further distinctions difficult.

            1. There are millions of people in this country who are armed and would love nothing better than to be able to finally put a stop to this. There is a tremendous amount of garbage in this country that needs to be emptied. Pray the cops do it and not the public.

              1. I’m going with Tango, he’s cooler, like you, right?

                God, save us Tango!

                1. Yeah, vigilante justice will never happen. Keep telling yourself that retard. I am sure you and your other 100 pound weaklings in your mom’s basement are going to be real tough. Has there ever been a time when Antifa didn’t get it’s ass kicked when anyone decided to fight back? Never. The old communists and Nazis were legitimately scary people. You people are about as scary as a star trek convention. I am sure federal prison will love you.

                  1. Tango, right? My God you’re tough! Strut it, Tango, strut, for the good of us all, of course though!

                    1. John’s identity is public. You could always sack up and have a face to face with him.

          2. When did I say I wanted to get rid of the cops or had an ounce of sympathy for the “protesters”? Did you reply to the wrong comment?

            1. You don’t seem to want to cops to do anything to stop it. So, what difference does it make that you don’t want to get rid of the police department if you refuse to allow them to do what is necessary to keep the peace?

              1. Again, where did you get this? I mildly entertained some subsidiarity consternation about the presence of Federal agents in a state whose authorities do not want them there. I explicitly rejected this twice over–first, because I had justified their presence to defend Federal property from square one, and second because I do think the 14A argument works. What this has to do with the issue of what law enforcement in general, qua law enforcement, i.e. is allowed to do versus unruly and criminal citizenry (as opposed to state’s sphere of authority versus Federal) is beyond me. But you explicitly talk about what I do or do not want to permit the “police department” to do.

                I was explicit about the fact that any consternation about Trump’s intervention should apply to the Civil Rights Era interventions, no matter where you ultimately come down on. Frankly, I was expecting in these parts to get called a yokeltarian or paleo, which is what I kind of am. Instead I’m being accused of being “Antifa buddies.” I never thought I’d be taken to be something like Nick Sarwark guesting on C4SS, for exhibiting a watered down version of Tom Wood’s perspective.

                1. Suck more antifa dick.

        2. If your city had another 9/11, no one except the coasts would give a shit now.

          1. Probably false, but it would almost certainly have been better for America and the world if they hadn’t given a shit the first time around. Perhaps even, better for NYC itself too. (Especially given how much of our own and America’s money we wasted taking nearly a decade and a half to rebuild the WTC alone. No entity that inefficient deserves any help.)

        3. Does that mean you’re pro cop assaults and murder?

          1. No, Cathy Newman, I am not. Where the hell is everyone getting this stuff.

            1. Perhaps the fact that you are only critical of one side of this? Just spit balling here.

            2. You’re only condemning them. Cant find one post of yours condemning the violence they are responding to.

              Feel free to link to it. Difficulty, include your time stamp.

              1. I’ve made about five posts total. Not fifty where all I do is criticize the cops. And zero where I defend the rioters and looters. In fact in my first here I explicitly endorsed the presence of Federal LE in Portland, and only committed the sin of briefly entertaining objections to the contrary.

                Is that really what this place is? I suppose if I had started off by happening to post my opinions on abortion, illegal immigration, the death penalty, Soros, Black Lives Matter, or indeed the legitimacy (and, for law enforcement, the duty) of defending property and innocent life from looters and thugs with violent force, I would have been dismissed by the other side as some sort of alt-righter. I will perhaps be sure to make sure that my “Nazi” and “Antifa” sounding comments are posted in a strictly alternating manner from here on in, to make sure everything is fair and balanced.

                1. You’ve got antifa in your hair.

                2. So you created an account to just bash cops and when called pit on it asking your views you defended said action.

                  Totally making a point.

                  1. I created an account to comment here. I commented earlier this very day, before the Roundup even posted, on the Kanye story, where my comments were against some claims about the “libertarian” position about abortion. So, false. Try again.

                    I fail to see how “bashing cops” is some sort of horrifying sin. What are they, some sort of sacred cow of yokeltarianism to prove we aren’t Reasonoid Antifa dicksuckers? They’re state agents, they abuse their power frequently, I find both mainstream conservatives’ and populist-statist rightists’ praise of them excessive and unsettling. (In this I’m no different from any paleolibertarian you’d ever encounter.) I happen to take their side, as I have said repeatedly, against the rioters, thugs, and looters currently terrorizing America. (BLM and Antifa, and yes pretty much all of them, in case I’m suspected once again of not wanting to name them specifically.) They have been insufficiently aggressive far more often then excessively so in the past months. Protecting the lives and property of the vulnerable is a core duty of the state–pretty much the core duty of the state as a matter of fact.

                    The reaction to my first few posts on this page has been nothing short of ridiculous.

                    1. …Plus as I just pointed out, I posted a total of one comment where I mildly entertained–and ultimately rejected twice over–a subsidiarity objection to the presence of Federal LE in states where (whether out of sympathy for Antifa or Jim Crow or whatever) the governor doesn’t want them there. And one where I bemoaned the fact that there is getting to be too much “cop bootlicking” on the right as a whole. (Not among libertarians.) Yes I stand by this. I prefer to see a perspective with more skepticism and balance toward the power of state agents be the rising, dynamic force on the Right. And so forth.

                      Somehow this was excessive. Because I had yet to mention how much I hate Antifa or something.

                    2. Good luck. Unless you carry water for DT, they will give you no quarter. If you want to have a thoughtful discussion about Libertarian issues or anything else, I’d advise you to go elsewhere. This place is a total sewer. I’m not even sure why Reason still has a comment section.

                    3. I find mindlessly parroting the NYT latest conspiracy theory to be the most libertarian thing a publication can aspire to, don’t you?

                    4. King of NYC
                      July.20.2020 at 9:53 am
                      The right has really doubled down with righteousness on their cop bootlicking. Very sad. Libertarianism as much the subject of ridicule as establishment conservatives. Not entirely without justification, unfortunately.

                      “Mildly” offered, of course. And none of that nasty collectivizing that makes Jeffy so sad. Of course there’s no skepticism required of the narrative that these are only peaceful protesters. It’s not like there’s any evidence at all that maybe they aren’t so peaceful all the time. No, pointing that out must be “cop bootlicking.”

                    5. When the fuck did I call them “peaceful protestors”? For that matter, when the fuck did I call them “protestors,” as opposed to “looters,” “rioters,” and “thugs,” which I did repeatedly (adding that the police need to crack down on them harder than they have been)?

                      And when the fuck did I say that anything anyone said here, let alone something I explicitly agree with myself, was “cop bootlicking”? I said that it is becoming too popular for my tastes of late “on the Right”? I don’t know where you got that impression. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here with you fucking people.

            3. “…Where the hell is everyone getting this stuff…”

              Maybe, if “everyone” is getting it, it’s coming from you.

              1. If you don’t know who the rube is at the poker table, it’s you.

        4. Cop bootlicking? Where?

          If Portland wants to get rid of its police, the voters can do so. Rioters don’t get to decide that.

          As for federal buildings, I think Trump should just send Portland the bill for the destruction and relocation.

    2. I don’t trust either side is acting in good faith at this point.

      Yeah, there really aren’t any “good guys” in Portland right now.

  6. Feds Send Outside Agitators To Escalate Conflict in Portland

    It’s about time! If they’d been doing this in 1968, we wouldn’t have to put up with this kind of shit today.

    1. I believe the Chicago PD did do this in 1968, so your hypothesis needs work.

      1. The problem is they backed down. They should have kept going.

        1. OMG! The Donkey 1968 convention riots did very little damage to property, but the cops clubbed dozens of protesters. It has been accurately portrayed as a police riot.

  7. Portland panic: they wanted a totalitarian state, just not this totalitarian state.

  8. Ahhh government.

    “We know that, when you do it properly, you bring down those cases. We have done it. We have done it in New York. New York got hit worse than any place in the world. And they did it correctly by doing the things that you’re talking about,” Fauci said.

    The state with the most deaths. The state that put covid patients in nursing homes. The state that started lock downs the latest. The state that didnr clean subway cars.

    Yet this is the person we have been told to listen to.

    The same people who say to keep schools closed. Yet the flu is worse for children.

    1. The same media that had Mayor Gallagos from arizona on CNN claiming there was triage when there wasnt. The media lies constantly.

      Arizona cases are already reducing from the peak which never got higher than 40% ICU usage.

      1. Is the Washington Examiner media?

        1. Is anything media?

          1. I’ll do you one better, why is media?

            1. I love being correct.

        2. I said same media, ie the leftist media who celebrates Cuomo.

          Cute argument though.

          1. Ah, so some media=good, some bad. I’m glad you’re making distinctions now!

            1. All media is biased. The majority of media is heavily biased.

              Is this news to you?

              1. So the Washington Examiner is biased and I should ignore your comment? Thanks!

                1. Any media the breathlessly pushed the #RUSSIA narrative is thoroughly discredited. Does that include the Washington Examiner or the NYT? Which is the go to source for ENB?

                2. Yeah you should probably ignore it, everyone already knows you’re a moron anyway.

                3. You dont click links anyways. You’ve admitted to that. You’re willfully ignorance.

                  The trick is to find what facts competing sides to agree to or to find the actual underlying primary sources. Which Washington examiner provided of you had clicked.

            2. Sure, anything leftist is bad, anything not leftist is good.

              We’re the Anti-Bad Guy Squad. Anything we do is justified because of our name.

    2. Cases are already dropping in texas too.

      Buy wait…

    3. That new South Korea study showing kids are carriers the NYT is pushing???

      Oh yeah…

      That is crumbling too (thread inside)

    4. In fact…

      Pediatricians are saying to open the schools, which one shocked MSNBC journalist wasnt prepared for.

      Also that surge of infants with covid in Texas? More media lies. Number is infants over the whole covid period, not a surge. Only a handful has even a single complication.

      1. Thanks, Jesse. Please stay on it!

    5. Remember, the main reason the 1918 flu had such a massive second spike was because soldiers in Europe brought back a mutated strain from the front that was much stronger than the one that caused the initial bump.

      If cases are already on a downward trajectory, the third bump will probably be this fall when kids start vectoring it into their own homes. After that, it will likely burn out and be just another in the cocktail of annual flu bugs.

  9. See, it’s hard for me to believe that the “moms” were “peaceful” when they show up wearing helmets. Why would they need armor if they’re only peacefully protesting? It’s especially hard for me to believe when I get to see videos of these people attacking the feds and trying to burn down the courthouse. If you’re part of a violent riot, you don’t get to act the victim when the feds respond accordingly

    1. “Why would they need armor if they’re only peacefully protesting?”

      Because peaceful protesters are routinely attacked by cops?

      Oh, wait. There are no peaceful protesters. They’re all terrorists who should be exterminated like vermin. Right JesseAz and Nardz?

      1. There are precious few peaceful ones and if the moms didn’t suck at being moms, this would’ve already ended.

        1. “I realized some time ago that I’m not separate from nature just because I have a primate brain – an upper brain – because underneath the primate brain, there’s a mammalian brain, and beneath the mammalian brain, there’s a reptilian brain; and it’s those two lower brains that made the upper brain possible in the first place. Here’s the way it works: The primate brain says, “Give peace a chance.” The mammalian brain says, “Give peace a chance, but first let’s kill this motherfucker.” And the reptilian brain says, “Let’s just kill the motherfucker, go to the peace rally and get laid.””
          George Carlin

          1. Hey look, the alcoholic boomer Marxist posted a non-sequitur he copped from another alcoholic boomer Marxist.

            1. Pertinent, accurate, and humorous. Unlike you.

            2. So, now George Carlin was a Marxist. Got it.

      2. The 99% of protestors who are violent savage psychopaths committing murder, assault, vandalism, and battery give that other 1% a really bad name. Kinda like the cops. Except that you don’t suck the cops’ dick like a pathetic little faggot.

        1. My, but you’re edgy!

          1. Socking already faggot? LMFAO. If it offends you feel free to go fuck yourself with a rusty chainsaw.

            1. Faggot? LMFAO, you’re mom certainly would dispute that.

              1. Ignore it.

                1. Or else sarcasmic will sock too.

                  1. Fuck you Jesse.

                    1. “The White Faggot has entered the chat”

                    2. Hi, Tulpa!

                    3. Nice, Dariush, let’s get homophobic!

                    4. The White Knight
                      July.20.2020 at 2:55 pm
                      Nice, Dariush, let’s get homophobic!

                      Strange, Buttplug did it below and you didn’t seem to have a problem with it.

                    5. There are over 600 comments as I type this in. I have not seen whatever comment you are referring to.

              2. Hahahahahahahahahaha

                Really, that’s all you could come up with? “I know you are but what am I”? Again?

                Good move replying to your sock btw. Keep it on the qt. You’re doing great bro, nobody can tell!

                1. It’s hardly I know you are but what am I, unless you too are thoroughly and somewhat violently (with full consent of course) boning your mom.

                  1. It’s OK buddy, I know it’s hard to keep track when you’re drunk and handle hopping at 9 in the morning.

                    1. Your mother helps me keep track. She’s very grateful it seems.

                    2. His mom is your parole officer?

        2. Considering the historical Oscar Wilde’s sexual proclivities, your rhetoric is more than a little weird.

        3. Even if your 99% vs. 1% numbers were accurate, yes, it would be unfair to brand the 1% as violent using guilt by association.

          1. If you’re part of a protest, you are responsible for the protest and its objectives

      3. I mean, you can see the evidence yourself if you care to look. Utah and Georgia didn’t declare states of emergency over peaceful protesters, and peaceful protestors didn’t cause over $500 million in damage in Minnesota. At some point sheep like you have to admit that the media’s lying to you.

        1. “peaceful protestors didn’t cause over $500 million in damage”

          Duh. My point, which flew over your head, is that not every protester is a rioter.

          1. Nobody suggested they were, of course. But thanks for clearing that up. Now let’s explore the implications of your “point” – that it’s inappropriate to disperse the riotous crowds numbering in the hundreds and thousands while they steal, maim, vandalize, murder, rape and assault because not every single person there has committed a crime, just an overwhelming majority. Well golly gee, that’s almost like you’re defending Marxist violence for the 10,000th time. What a coincidence. Go have another drink and jack off to CNNPC you stupid fucking cunt.

            1. Woah, woah, woah, are we still talking about the moms in Portland? Where is the stealing, maiming, murder, raping? Vandalism definitely vandalism. Maybe assault (I haven’t followed every single news story out of Portland, so I may have missed a story about assault.)

          2. Portland has had violent riots for over 50 days straight, at this point if you’re joining them then you know what they’re about.

            1. Or you’re unemployed and bored. Or maybe a naive idealist.

              1. Mostly peacefully burning and destroying. Typical idealism.

                1. Because all protester are rioters. Yep. Sure.

                  1. By day 50?

                    After rioting constantly?

                    The fuck man, sober up.

                    1. Is everyone in the crowd violent? How many are there just for the show?

                    2. Seriously. If they were rioting around here, which they are not, I might show up just to say I was there.

                    3. If you go to a protest you know will turn into a rlot and stay while the riot goes off, your consequences are on you. Is everyone a ripter and violent? Irrelevant. Crowd control doesnt have the capability of being discreet enough to remove 9nly rioters in the middle of a violent outbreak.

                      This isn’t difficult but you keep trying tangential crap to avoid admitting it.

                    4. “Crowd control doesnt have the capability of being discreet enough to remove 9nly rioters in the middle of a violent outbreak.”

                      I’m not going to argue with that. But talking like everyone there is a terrorist or antifa is fucking stupid.

                    5. Acting like people are “talking like everyone there is a terrorist or antifa” is even more ” fucking stupid.”

                    6. Acting like people are “talking like everyone there is a terrorist or antifa” is even more ” fucking stupid.”

                      I’d agree with you if I didn’t see people making that exact argument on a routine basis.

                    7. So post a link to that exact argument. Because the majority here are directly criticizing the riots and the so called peaceful protestors interceding against the police trying to deal with it.

                    8. So quote some.

                    9. JesseAz
                      July.20.2020 at 12:39 pm
                      So post a link to that exact argument.

                      I’m wondering why he didn’t post any links too.

                    10. I’m not going to argue with that. But talking like everyone there is a terrorist or antifa is fucking stupid.

                      Talking like none of them are is even more fucking stupid.

                    11. “I’m wondering why he didn’t post any links too.”

                      That’s easy. It’s not important enough for me to put out the effort.

                      “Talking like none of them are is even more fucking stupid.”

                      I never said that either.

                    12. So you don’t have any and were lying, got it.

                    13. Then I’m forced to conclude you were making things up.

                    14. If you smell a wafting turd, that’s me giving a shit about what you conclude.

                  2. Because no protesters are rioters. Yep. Sure.

                    1. No you see some aren’t so you can’t treat any like they are.

                    2. I see you are logically challenged, like JesseAz.

                      “Not all X are Y” is not the same as “no X are Y.”

                    3. It can be. You logic bad.

                    4. I see you are logically challenged, like JesseAz.

                      “Not all X are Y” is not the same as “no X are Y.”

                      Funny how you have such a difficult time admitting that.

                      Now what did you actually post?

                      July.20.2020 at 11:41 am
                      Because all protester are rioters. Yep. Sure.

                      Seems like you’re the one having the syllogism problems. You can, of course, point to where I claimed that all protesters are rioters. No? Oh dear. Perhaps you’re the one who can’t appreciate the nuance, nor hold anyone accountable for their actions.

          3. Now do Charlottsville

      4. Hey white knight, your arguments are still terrible. Try watching some of the actual live streams from independent journalists so you dont look stupid next time.

        1. I know you don’t believe me, so this comment isn’t for you, but I’ve never used any handle other than this one. Mostly I post as a diversion while at work. So the impostor who ruined my reputation in the evenings and weekends was, well, an impostor. Again, I don’t expect you to believe that because it would shatter your belief that everyone who disagrees with you is the same person using multiple names, so whatever. Have a great day.

            1. Why would I intentionally tarnish multiple screen names including my own? Seriously. Ask yourself that. It doesn’t make sense.

              Or keep believing I’ve got multiple personalities because it’s easy to be intellectually lazy.

              1. I think you have a fundamental lack of self-consistent principles (which is why you find the new and improved Reason so appealing) and a very malleable set of progressatarian ethics, but I don’t think you play the sock game.

                1. I don’t play the sock game, but the impostor(s) using my name have made me look like a progressive. I’ve as consistently libertarian as it gets.

                  1. I’m also good at typos.

                  2. You’re not consistent.

                    1. You still can’t get it through your brain that I am consistent and appear otherwise because an impostor was making it seem otherwise. I’m starting to think you’d be law enforcement material, being that you couldn’t score more than 108 on an IQ test.

                    2. Someone has been spoofing you for ten years?

                    3. If you’ve been reading my posts for ten years and you think I’m inconsistent and a leftist, then you’ve got drain bramage.

                    4. Or has read your posts.

                    5. 108 IQ is well above average, and only someone with a sub108 IQ wouldn’t know that

                    6. “108 IQ is well above average, and only someone with a sub108 IQ wouldn’t know that”

                      I was being generous.

                    7. Remember that time I catfished you into admitting you weren’t as smart as I am?

                      Yeah. Forever.

                  3. ” I’ve as consistently libertarian as it gets.”

                    Uh huh. Except when it comes to actual property rights.

                    1. Alright, wise guy, when did I say anything about property rights?

                    2. You can’t seem to find a single rioter, nor can you acknowledge the massive damage they’ve done. All you can do is parrot the ENB position which is little more than the teen version of the NYT.

                      This is the point where you offer some weak defense that you said rioters should be locked up and then proceed apace to ignore them. As a supposed “libertarian” capable of seeing nuance, answer me a simple question: on which do you think there’s a lack of media attention, “stormtroopers” or “peaceful” rioters. Yours is the same ostrich-like viewpoint that excused away the SA because after all, they weren’t the government! Which of the mainstream outlets that Reason just parrots (so much for those free minds) hasn’t downplayed the destruction with the “mostly peaceful” euphemism?


          1. “the impostor who ruined my reputation in the evenings and weekends was”

            You’ve had an imposter for months or years… and you’re only now just mentioning it?

            1. I don’t know how long it was going on. Like I said I rarely post on evenings or weekends. At least you don’t have to worry about impostors. You’re a violent asshole without a reputation to ruin.

              1. From what I saw the “impostor’ posted coherently and sober, so your rep improved.

              2. Are you sure you arent just blacking out at night and on weekends?

                1. Oh damn!

              3. Nah, I’m a peaceful poster.

                If you’re posting during the day, based on the 30 or so months I’ve been visiting here, your reputation is entirely deserved and of your own making

                1. Peaceful? You’re the first to advocate for violence and murder.

                2. Oh I get it. You’re saying that because you have no problems with killing people to get your way, and you’re peaceful, that the “peaceful” protesters are amoral pricks like yourself! Funny!

                  1. You appear to have no problems with rioters burning, looting, raping, assaulting, and killing as long as they’re mixed in with “peaceful” protesters. You seem incapable of finding even a single one among a sea of little angels.

                    Some morality.

        2. OK. You made that comment in reply to a comment by sarcasmic, not me, where he didn’t make an argument, but OK.

      5. They’re all peaceful protesters, even the ones that burn buildings, shoot people, assault people, and steal.

        War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Reason is libertarian.

        1. “They’re all peaceful protesters, even the ones that burn buildings, shoot people, assault people, and steal”, said nobody.

          1. Stop defending them, then.

            1. I never started.

              1. You’ve been doing it up and down the thread. Stop lying.

        2. That was very good. Bravo

      6. Testing…

        Handle spoofing still not fixed. 🙁

        1. Tell Support.

    2. Those are bicycle helmets. It is likely they have bicycle helmets on because they rode their bicycles to the protest.

      1. And those pallets of bricks and trunks full of baseball bats were just construction materials and sporting enthusiasts. What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?

        1. The moms had pallets of bricks and trunks full of baseball bats?

      2. now explain away these animals attacking people in Denver you commie fuck.

        1. The moms in Portland attacked people in Denver?

      3. Oh looks like he already got his sock.

    3. They’re “moms”, so they’re used to being fucked.

      1. Based on the photo, there must have been a lot of beer involved.

        1. or lots of surprise adoptions.

      2. Nice. Very nice.

  10. New york times is owned by ex slave holders who widely supported the confederacy.

    1. TEAR IT DOWN!!!

      1. No need. It is already a trash heap.

      2. Just rename it: The NWA Times.

    2. Interesting to see if their logo is trashed or their windows broken.

    1. Those tweets read like David Attenborough describing an animal learning to use tools for the first time.

  11. New Zealand is claiming the right to quarantine people indefinitely. The US is claiming the right to quarantine people if they test positive. People are getting notified of positive tests when they didn’t get tested.

    But yea, lets worry if rioters get arrested. Orange man bad.

    1. So protester equals rioter? False equivalence much?

      1. There is no difference. Shoot them all and then torch their bodies. Then find their parents and slap them.

        1. The NAP at work, folks!

          1. Conservatives have no use for the NAP. Conform or get a club upside the head. The only difference between them and progressives is what incites them to initiating violence.

            1. “Allow all of the public and private property to burn to the ground because it’s a hell of a lot better than using tear gas to disperse a crowd” is… an interesting version of the NAP. Perhaps you could explain the intricacies of your philosophy to your sockpuppet, since you keep replying to it.

              1. They are too stupid to even realize this is the argument they are making.

                1. I don’t know what argument “they” are making. I’m not “they.”

                  But I’m sure you will tell me.

                  1. Help! Help! I’m being repressed! He’s using my own words against me!

                  2. Explain in detail your argument.

                    Is it okay for protestors to block police agencies in response to rioting?

                    1. Is it okay for cops to punch women in the face and knock their teeth out when the woman was no threat to the officers?


                      My simple point is that not all protesters are rioters. Just like not all fruits are kumquats, and not all motor vehicles are Fords.

                      Why is that so difficult? Oh yeah, because it’s intellectually easy to just lump them all together, just like you lump everyone who disagrees with you into the ‘sarcasmic sock’ category.

                      Fuck off. Seriously. Or grow some brains.

                    2. “My simple point is that not all protesters are rioters”

                      A point which everyone seemingly grasps but which you can’t stop belaboring. Because you think disagreeing with you is the same as not understanding you.

                    3. Your thoughts are simple, we agree on that.

                      Now answer the simple question I asked.

                    4. I thought the question was rhetorical.

                    5. The question is underlying on whether your argument is one of honesty or sophistry.

                      So answer.

                    6. Dude, you don’t argue honestly. So no matter what I say I will be attacked. I could say the sky is blue and you’ll attack me saying that there are clouds. That and you constantly accuse me of being multiple people. So no, I will not answer.

                      If I thought you were arguing in good faith I might. But you aren’t.

                    7. You can’t admit that there are violent protesters present. Why is that? Why can’t you admit that they are assaulting people? Why can’t you admit that they are destroying property?

                      You have a pathological need to hide that. Why?

                    8. sarcasmic
                      July.20.2020 at 12:54 pm
                      Dude, you don’t argue honestly. So no matter what I say I will be attacked. I could say the sky is blue and you’ll attack me saying that there are clouds. That and you constantly accuse me of being multiple people. So no, I will not answer.

                      If I thought you were arguing in good faith I might

                      No you just can’t and need an excuse.

            2. And liberals have no use for NAP, as long as the government is the one doing the A–except when its the wrong government.

            3. Comnservatives aren’t the ones running hog wild in these cities.

              But it is time for that to change and for conservatives to bust heads in retaliation.

              Fuck Portland with a steel spiked dildo.

          2. Wait… now you support the NAP? Not when rioters burned down buildings left and right?

            1. No fan of rioters or of police who beat peaceful protesters.

              You should check out this thing called ‘principles.’ It’s different than ‘partisanship.’ You might like it!

                1. Sanctimonious is a bad color on you.

                  1. Nobody’s perfect.

                    1. Or consistent.

              1. Do your principles include property rights?

              2. If a protestor is stopping a cop from responding to violence located in the middle of a protest, are they violating the NAP? Please answer.

                Let’s see your co sistency.

                1. They probably are violating the NAP.

                  Also, you moved the goal posts on what we have been debating about.

      2. No, rioter = rioter. Let me help you, set fire to a federal courthouse and you are a rioter.

        1. Is everyone who showed up a rioter when some asshole torches something? I see a lot of ‘guilt by association’ going on here.

          1. “No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible” – George Carlin, or somebody

          2. So let rioters riot, because not everybody there is violent?

            1. I didn’t say that either. Assholes need to be arrested. But don’t treat everyone like an asshole.

              1. Any proposal on how to arrest the rioters in the middle of a riot when they’re in a crowd of thousands of “peaceful protestors”, or is that above your paygrade when you’re on your 16th natty lite at 9 in the morning?

                1. “Arrest them all when in doubt!”

                  Such a libertarian sentiment!

                  1. I know you’re already heavily sloshed and having a really hard time keeping your handles straight, but dispersing a crowd is not the same as arresting them. Try and remember what you were defending 13 seconds ago on your other handle. If you focus you can do it.

                    1. Pepper spraying and flash banging innocent people is really a small, not intrusive government action! I’m a libertarian y’all!

                    2. “Mostly peacefully” assaulting, looting, burning. This Newspeak libertarianism is positively liberating!

              2. Yet those assholes you want to be arrested are getting away because those “peaceful protestors” refuse to disperse to allow the cops to get those assholes. Weird.

                Can you try consistency of argument?

              3. I didn’t say that either. Assholes need to be arrested. But don’t treat everyone like an asshole.

                I’m shocked at how many ‘libertarians’ don’t understand this simple concept.

                1. Everybody there is an asshole, because they know that their presence, their association, is what the other assholes need to be violent assholes.
                  I’m amazed at how many libertarians are complete subservient pussies.

                2. On the one hand, peaceful protesters interfering with police attempting to arrest the assholes really are part of the problem. (Peaceful protesters who disperse when asked so police can do this aren’t a problem).

                  On the other hand, not everyone posting here is a libertarian. Don’t mistake the loudest voices for libertarians, they’re mostly liberal and conservative trolls who come here to yell at each other.

          3. Like systematic racism?

          4. So those peaceful protestors not clearing streets to allow police to respond to the rioters arent helping the rioters?

          5. Maybe, maybe not but once the rioters started you either go home or risk being associated with them. Its the problem with large crowds and why you only have a right to peaceful assembly. The longer this goes on my fear is any of the proposed legislation will be sunk because of the rioters.

            1. I’d oppose all police reforms SOLELY because of the rioting shit bricks.

              1. sounds like you’ve been pulled too deep into team thinking.

                If you have a libertarian bone in your body you should actively support changes to our current police-state.

                as a respecter of property and individual rights you should deplore violent rioters/nihilists who are laying waste to businesses and public property. That’s not too hard to hold those two ideas in your head at the same time.

                1. If changes to our current police state leads to the shitstorm that is Portland, Seattle, and NYC…I’ll take the police state, thanks just the same.

                  At least police CAN be held accountable. These riotous monkeys cannot.

                2. It appears to be impossible for ENB. Please identify anywhere in the above piece that she acknowledges that there were rioters present.

                  We’ll wait.

                  Meanwhile Andy Ngo has a “plethora” of video showing the rioting. This is pure gaslighting to fit a narrative.

          6. You mean like faulting every police department for the actions of one man? How quickly the notion of individual agency flies out the door when it interferes with your progressive desires.

      3. False equivalence much

        Of course, but then we’re used to it coming from you since you’re a drunken piece of subhuman shit Marxist.

        1. “since you’re a drunken piece of subhuman shit Marxist.”

          Every accusation is a confession with some folks…

          1. “I know you are but what am I” is precisely the level of discourse expected from drunken subhuman piece of shit Marxists. Thanks for playing. Good sock btw. Nobody can tell!

            1. What’s wrong with you?

              1. It’s Tulpa or Mary or something waging personal attacks to get a reaction. Ever heard the expression “Don’t wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig like it.”?

                Oscar Mayer here is the pig. Don’t wrestle with it.

                1. LMFAO, and yet here you are compulsively replying to every single post I’ve made on this page with your main and your sock. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Holy fucking shit bro.

                  1. I’m not sarcasmic. You’ve got to have enough self-awareness to know more than one person can see you’re awful, right?

                    1. There is a group of people here who think I run multiple screen names because some asshole who ran multiple screen names used mine before Reason made an effort to restrict impostors. I’m pretty sure Oscar Mayer here was that person. So now anyone who is remotely libertarian is accused of being a sarcasmic, chemjeff, or SQRLY sock.

                    2. Not true, I’ve never been accused of being any of those socks.

                    3. Odd that you only show up at the same time as sarcasmic and compulsively reply to all of the same posts as sarcasmic for the exclusive purpose of defending sarcasmic. Ya’ll should definitely fuck. But then you have, I guess. Since you’re the same fucking stupid peckerneck bloated alcoholic Marxist.

                2. You’ve been in the shit the whole time.

                  But like the others, please continue to act sanctimonious.

      4. At this point, after two months of consistent rioting and the complete lack of reality to the issues that are supposedly being protested, yes.
        Shut the fuck up and go home you miserable, ugly little pieces of trash and let the rest of the country live their lives free of your misery.

    2. I mean, worry about both? the unidentified law enforcement in military (looking) gear is a real visual attention grabber, so don’t be surprised it dominates headlines. Iron fists tend to.

      1. Every officer in the videos I have seen have been identified with both police badges front and back and agency badges on the arms.

        What does unidentified mean?

        1. Then there are videos you haven’t seen.

    3. “ People are getting notified of positive tests when they didn’t get tested.”

      Can you link to more information on that?

        1. That’s different from getting positive tests when you didn’t get tested at all.

        1. So, something that might have happened in Pennsylvania. The state of Pennsylvania should get on checking that out.

          Meanwhile, Ra’s just passes it off as true.

      1. By the way, took 5 seconds to find.

        Do you enjoy being intentionally ignorant?

        1. It’s my job to back up Ra’s assertions?

    4. “But yea, lets worry if rioters get arrested. Orange man bad.”

      All protesters are rioters, ’cause Orange Man said so! And He NEVER lies!!!

      Orange Man Bad? Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

      We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

      See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
      “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

      He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

      All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

      Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

      Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

      We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

      These voters simply cannot or will not recognize the central illusion of politics… You can pussy-grab all of the people some of the time, and you can pussy-grab some of the people all of the time, but you cannot pussy-grab all of the people all of the time! Sooner or later, karma catches up, and the others will pussy-grab you right back!

      1. Then Sqrls pushed back from the keyboard, satisfied that its copied and pasted walloftext was prescient and applicable and not at all insane.

        For those interested I found the video on how Sqrlsy became Sqrlsy:

  12. At least the peaceful protestors in Portland got that Confederate General Elk statue torn down.

    1. The elk raised their families on Native American land!

      1. And elk are very patriarchal.

        1. They tend to vote Republican.

    2. I don’t know about elks but a moose once bit my sister

  13. I think it is unfortunate that federal agents have even gotten involved in Portlandia. Much better to just stand down and let the events unfold and be on the heads of the inept city leaders. Otherwise every opportunity will be taken to escalate the feds and do exactly what MSM is doing here.

    1. Makes one wonder if this isn’t exactly what the BLM group wanted to happen. They were looking pretty bad with the rioting, but of course the ineptitude of the Feds has been quite effective in making themselves look bad (potentially worse).

      Could it be that you can out-troll a troll?

    2. I guess everyone who’s rights are being violated by the violent mob can just go fuck themselves in the meantime, right?

    3. They tried so hard in Seattle to get this happen. Looks like it’s working in Portland. This is a very un-shrewd move on Trump’s part me thinks.

    1. Hey, did you know that nobody gives a single tiny little daunt of a fuck about your inane boomer shit you alcoholic Marxist apologist?

      1. Tulpa is drunk again….

        1. Did you forget that you’re using your Queen Amalthea sock to defend yourself this morning you alcoholic fucking piece of shit?

          1. Go take your Droxy, Trump Trash. Be a good little Trumptard.

            1. Tell us more about your child pornography habit? You posted links to child pornography. You are biggest piece of garbage on earth and everyone knows it. So, stop pretending you even qualify as a human being.

              1. This.

            2. The irony of course being all of the recent studies showing HCQ being a positive prophylactic while you refer still to the retracted Lancet study.

        2. Jealous? Miss the old days?

        3. And fucking your ex. And rasiing your kid.

          I have the life you want, but threw away.

  14. Judge Esther Salas Assigned to Epstein Deutsche Bank Case 4 Days Before Husband, Son Shot

    1. Hmm, although the case has Epstein’s name in it, it sounds like a boring civil case that isn’t likely to cause embarrassment to any powerful people.

      The article mentions that she has gotten death threats before, so maybe there’s another case where she pissed someone off, and the timing just happens to be a coincidence.

      1. unless the bank has deposit boxes with information it them.

        1. Turns out she sent a cartel big wig to prison in 2018 probably a stooge inmate released recently for Covid 19 looking for some fame

      2. Part of it is a ‘know your customer’ case, so whatever due diligence (if any at all) that DB did before taking on Epstein and other alleged money launderers on as clients, is going to be part of the case. Which will get into just what Epstein offered DB’s employees.

        This shooting could easily be something affiliated with the husband’s work instead. Ringing the door bell, blasting the first two people they see, not making sure they’re dead, and running away: all sounds rather amateurish to me.

        1. My first thought was what case was involved. You can bet the Feds will go apeshit here.

          1. They had better go apeshit over someone trying to assassinate a Federal judge.

      3. It is already known who did it. A lawyer who had a grudge against her. The guy committed suicide shortly after the shooting.

  15. ‘Hamilton’ Loses Its Snob Appeal
    Political correctness is a barrier to keep the working class from becoming upwardly mobile.

    TL;dr, it is available to the poors on streaming and thus no longer hip.

    1. Fascinating though paywalled! Much more exciting than debates about whether making him a PR makes it OK to make a flattering portrayal of Michael Malice’s favorite Founding Father.

  16. “Incredible scene in Portland right now. A group of Moms are chanting, “Feds stay clear! Moms are here!” at the federal courthouse.”

    Omg I hate these idiots

    1. The fact that these imbeciles supposedly reproduced should frighten us all.

      1. Some men will go too far in the name of getting laid.

        We have ourselves to blame, really.

    2. women want equal right well guess what batons don’t know the difference between mens or womens skulls

      1. ‘Equal rights, and equal lefts.’

    3. Literally a Karen convention.

  17. I think the Fed’s using unmarked fans on protestors and teargassing a group of moms is a bad move and truly warrants criticism and condemnation. However, just as bad are roving bands of anarchists causing property damage, setting fires, attacking people, and frightening citizens and businesses. Not all of the protestors are comprised of these violent individuals but they do exist and they are not insignificant.

    That Elizabeth Nolan Brown fails to spare even a few sentences for the ongoing violence and destruction caused by some of the protestors is telling and depressing.

    One of the critiques about libertarians is that we’re all a bunch of anarchists when, in fact, what we stand for is limited government. The joke goes that lawless countries like Somalia are, indeed, libertarian paradises. When you have libertarians like Brown sparing little to no space to the lawless and destructive behavior of some of the protestors, it shows that, perhaps, this argument has some merit.

    1. That Elizabeth Nolan Brown fails to spare even a few sentences for the ongoing violence and destruction caused by some of the protestors is telling and depressing.

      It’s probably best that she didn’t spare those few sentences, since she would have ended up advocating for racial violence yet again.

    2. ENB is a marxist cheerleader since the leftist Journolisters she so wants to be all support and defend the violent rioters.

    3. I think the Fed’s using unmarked fans on protestors and teargassing a group of moms is a bad move and truly warrants criticism and condemnation.

      The vans weren’t unmarked. One edited video shows the van from the front. Other videos of the same van show it licensed out of the state of Florida. It’s as marked as civilians are required to mark it.

      The bigger and more outright offense is that Merkley and Wyden know exactly why the Federal troops are there and are going with the pro-rioter narrative *and Reason is on their side*. Reason, an auspiciously libertarian publication, is effectively siding with the brown shirts and the Nazi party members who are backing them.

      As much as we heard that Trump was Hitler in ’16. It appears that somebody like Biden, Harris, Klobuchar, Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, or whomever (Clinton?) is going to wind up more exactlingly cloning Hitler’s playbook.

      1. Just because Elizabeth Warren argued for more nationalism and more socialism, that does not make her a nazi!

      2. Reason, an auspiciously libertarian publication, is effectively siding with the brown shirts and the Nazi party members who are backing them.

        This surprises you?

        Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.What’s point except baiting n inciting in Trump’s America?

  18. Meanwhile China is sending people to reeducation camps to probably die, as evidenced by the ambassador’s inability to provide a coherent rationale for the footage of people being literally filed into trains. But Reason is busy covering the important stuff, like idiot moms using themselves as human shield to protest….the fact that they are human shields? Or something. So brave

    1. Stunning, too.

    2. Koch Industries loves them some Chinese communism.

  19. Ms Bell wants clinicians to do more to explore the reasons a young person changes gender before they are treated. She believes that during treatment, priority needs to be given to a person’s “biological sex as much as their gender identity”.

    HaTe SPeEcH! /woketards

  20. Did all those protesting “moms” get babysitters for the night? Must be a boom time for babysitters in Portlandia.

    1. To be a bit more accurate:
      – Malkin claims some of her colleagues were beaten.
      – Malkin herself was shot with silly string.
      – The counter protest was organized by two groups, The Party for Socialism and Liberation and the Afro-Liberation Front.

      1. I just watched the video.

        Why are you lying? The video makes it clear your actually definitively lying about what happened.

        1. He admitted a few days ago he doesnt actually click links here. He just makes shit up.

          1. Sorry to disappoint you, but I checked out the Malkin tweets, and also read some other coverage from other sources.

          2. More truth bending. I said that I didn’t click on videos about BLM founders being Marxists.

            I also said I’ve never thought, more claimed, that the founders of BLM are not Marxists. I have consistently argued that too many people are being labeled as “BLM” and as supporters of Marxism with weak or non-existent evidence. The guilt by association works both ways, too: BLM has been accused of promoting promoting particular incidents of violence with weak or non-existent evidence.

            1. Such a curious selective criteria for “evidence.” It’s pretty amazing how accepting you are of one particular narrative.

        2. Can you be more specific?

          1. What happens at 28:45 in the video? And at 29:53. This is where you play your little Sgt. Schulz game and suddenly become blind.

            Who approached whom?

            1. Here is her own tweet where she says she was shot with silly string and other people with her were assaulted:


              The info about who organized the counter protest came from other news sources.



        Why are we typing in ALL CAPS?

        1. Funny how hard it is for you to acknowledge the rioting. You seem to have no trouble with the simple narrative of “muh stormtroopers” coming from the left.

          1. I acknowledge there is rioting.

            1. So it’s not as simple as police gunning down poor, peaceful protesters? Perhaps there are more than a few bad actors on the left including your precious BLM that have been violent against life and property? Do you admit that government actually should hold those people accountable? Do you admit that there is an amazing dearth of any discussion of what those rioters have done around the country?

              Come on. You can do it. Join reality. The food is better here.

              1. I agree with much of what you said. Never didn’t.

                Go back and *carefully* read comments I’ve written here, trying not to read anything extra into them.

        2. Stop lying.

          1. LOL. Translation: Stop disagreeing with me! I don’t like it!

            1. Speaking from experience?


          These things are mutually exclusive. You have been schooled for over a week now, lost every argument, and are just sticking with ‘I know you are but what am I’ as a response.

          Fuck you with flaming flagpole, you commie shitstain.

          1. Lost every argument.

            LOL, you end a claim that I lost every argument with a personal insult to me. The same thing most of the arguments have ended with.

            I have news for you. If you end the argument with an insult and no actual argument, I won the debate.

            1. The Pigeon proudly struts after winning his latest round of hooverball.

        4. Yet you are for the peaceful side blocking access to cops responding to the violent side. Weird.

          1. I am?


          That’s why.

    2. Antifa Rioters Break Into Portland Police Union and Set It on Fire as Mayor Hamstrings Federal Troops

      Now THIS I can get behind. Burn down the police stations, but leave my business alone.

  21. This degree of economic inequality is simply not sustainable.

    Jeff Bezos has accumulated more wealth this year ($61.4 billion) than Charles Koch has in his entire life ($52.7 billion).

    Koch / Reason libertarians aren’t satisfied with an economy in which only some billionaires prosper. We demand an economy in which all billionaires prosper.

    Just because Bezos (like Gates, and Zuckerberg, and Ballmer, and Page, and Brin, and Musk, and Ellison, and the Waltons) has found a way to make money in the #DrumpfDepression, it’s not fair to expect Mr. Koch to do the same. Our benefactor cannot thrive if he’s forced to hire people born in the US.


  22. including one pregnant woman

    If you’ve ever wondered whether ENB’s stance on abortion and women’s agency had any principles whatsoever, you can rest knowing the answer is “No. No principles whatsoever.” ENB would toss a fetus under a bus to “save a woman” and then toss the woman under the bus to make a point.

    1. You have to explain the logic of what you just wrote. How is ENB throwing a fetus under the bus by mentioning that a pregnant woman was in a crowd of protestors?

      1. If a fetus is just an inanimate clump of cells to be disposed without ceremony or consequence up to and including the moments after being shat out of a woman’s slippery love tunnel then it doesn’t really bear mentioning that a woman involved in a riot was pregnant, now does it?

        1. So, your core complaint about ENB isn’t what she wrote about the pregnant woman at the protest. If she were anti-abortion and mentioned the pregnant woman, that would be OK.

          So, your core complaint is that ENB is not anti-abortion. Not getting into a discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong, you must have that complaint about a lot of people, since roughly half of the people in this country are not anti-abortion.

          1. So, your core complaint about ENB isn’t what she wrote about the pregnant woman at the protest. If she were anti-abortion and mentioned the pregnant woman, that would be OK.

            Not to speak for him, but it’s his interpretation of my implication.

            Seriously, take the time, maybe attach a pair of jumper cables to your ears, I don’t know, whatever it takes to come back with even a modestly functioning brain.

          2. So, your core complaint about ENB isn’t what she wrote about the pregnant woman at the protest.

            I was explaining to you what mad.casual meant since it was incredibly clear and simple, yet somehow eluded you. Invoking the sanctity of a pregnant mother in order to clutch your pearls when you are on record not giving a flying fuck about unborn children makes you look like a histrionic retard trying to use cheap emotional tricks to support your narrative.

            Not getting into a discussion of whether abortion is right or wrong, you must have that complaint about a lot of people

            Not really, because most people do not write histrionic bullshit on the internet that contravenes their stated principles making themselves into public hypocrites. If you’re cool with post-birth infanticide I don’t want to hear you making emotional appeals because the big bad cops were mean to a pregnant lady. The worst case scenario in your ethical framework is that an inhuman tumor with no value and no rights is destroyed through negligence.

            1. Can you link to a citation where ENB said she doesn’t give a flying fuck about unborn children?

              1. Can you link to a citation where she opposes any form of abortion at any age or, in fact, legalized infanticide such as in NY or VA? Because she has actively supported every single effort. In fact she even argued on this very site that we should have federal funding of abortions because they were cheaper than Medicaid.

                But you know that and are just pretending to avoid the difficult reality.

      2. Aborto-Freaks want Womb Cops! It’s the new libertarian fad!

        1. Aborto-Freaks want Womb Cops! It’s the new libertarian fad!

          Nope. Ideological and intellectual consistency from a magazine called ‘Reason’ *drink* is what I’m implicitly requesting. I’m fine if the lady in question got pregnant a week ago and is willing to abort the oocyte to spite Trump as long as I don’t have to hear about her using her ovaries as a political tool.

          1. So, is your complaint about ENB or about the woman choosing to go to a protest while pregnant?

            I’d actually consider an argument that it was an irresponsible act on the pregnant woman’s part (although, it is totally her First Amendment right to do so).

            1. So, is your complaint about ENB or about the woman choosing to go to a protest while pregnant?

              Holy Fuck are you stupid. Read what I wrote and who I wrote it about. Then read it again, aloud this time. Then go do a few other things for 45-60 min. Then come back and read it aloud again. Don’t post again until you’ve done that.

              1. With cytotoxic you get a twofer. He’s willfully obtuse for the purposes of misrepresenting his opponents, but also too stupid to comprehend the actual arguments.

          2. using her ovaries as a political tool

            Are we gonna get reports of every man who knocked up a woman in the previous 9 mos. now too? Or in the riot for equality do we only care about one pair of genitals some of the time?

        2. Nuttplug wants babies sacrificed to Moloch! It’s the new prog fad!

      3. Couldn’t find the two loose neurons you spark to get the rest of your brain to turn over this morning, huh?

        Her stance on abortion throws fetuses under a bus dumbass. The fact that, when it’s politically expedient, she’ll highlight a fetus as some sort of special ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card that voids the mother’s agency is where she then throws the mother under the bus and loses the rest of the credibility she never really had.

        A woman showed up at a riot pregnant? Setting aside that women can and do get pregnant out of spite all the time, as far as ENB’s concerned it’s just a lump of cells and she should be sifting through all the mammograms to make sure none of the other women showed up with potentially malignant lumps.

        1. Don’t blow a gasket. The rhetoric claims a fetus is sacred when useful, and meaningless when not. Tactics. Alinsky, or something.

          1. and meaningless when not

            Oh really? Who here implied that, Jeff?
            You’re such a dishonest sack of shit.

            1. Er, read it again. That’s not Jeff and doesn’t say what you think.

              Hint: sarcasm

              1. Yup. My bad.

  23. Violent crime is out of control in our major cities. The primary impetus behind that is economic, but a lot of it is also because the police are reluctant to interact with criminal suspects in the wake of George Floyd.

    “For the five investigations [of police brutality] that were preceded by a viral incident of deadly force, there was a stark increase in crime—893 more homicides and 33,472 more felonies than would have been expected with no investigation. The increases in crime coincide with an abrupt change in the quantity of policing activity. In Chicago alone after the killing of Laquan McDonald, the number of police-civilian interactions decreased by 90% in the month the investigation was announced.

    Importantly, in the eight cities that had a viral incident but no investigation, there was no subsequent increase in crime. Investigations are crucial, but we need to find ways of holding police accountable without sacrificing more black lives.

    —-Roland G. Fryer Jr., Harvard University

    Meanwhile, liberal, young, white professionals are fleeing the cities for the suburbs, applications for background checks are twice as high as they normally are and 40% of them are first time gun buyers. The media continues to behave as if the police are the cause of the crime problem, and that’s practically become the official position of the Democratic party.

    How do you think this plays in Peoria?

    1. All of this has happened before. Here’s what happened last time:

      The Democrats went all out on the root causes of crime, rehabilitation, and forgiveness. When crime spiked, she shit the Democrats did and said was so embarrassing, it started to look like no one from the reform minded generation could be elected to the White House again. It sure made Michael Dukakis easy pickings for George H.W. Bush’s Willie Horton ad.

      The only way the Democrats were able to beat the wrap that they were soft on crime was for them no nominate a southern Democrat from Arkansas, who went out of his way to execute a man who was basically retarded–just to prove that, unlike Dukakis, he was “tough on crime”. I’ll go to my grave criticizing Bill Clinton for that, but the truth of the matter is, he might not have won if he hadn’t done it. After he executed that functionally retarded man–and was criticized for it in public–no one accused him of being soft on crime again.

      There were two other large scale reactions to “liberals” back then.

      1) The militarization of the police.

      It accelerated with 9/11, but that wasn’t where it started. The militarization of the police really started when Daryl Gates started up the first SWAT teams in Los Angeles. No, what he did wasn’t the solution to anything, but the public’s support for it was a reaction to the policies of liberals at the time.

      2) Broken Windows policing.

      Support for arresting people for minor infractions became an openly discussed and celebrated policy. And we’re not talking about Arizona or Texas. Even in a liberal stronghold like New York City, people like Dinkins were kicked out of office for being soft on crime and blaming the racism of the police, etc. for riots and crime getting out of control. People like Giuliani were cheered on and celebrated in a liberal stronghold for being tough on crime, too.

      To get a sense of the public mood at the time, think of the first Mad Max movie, being all about crime spiraling out of control with its catch and release justice system. Think of Robocop, robots and cyborgs are hardly enough to deal with the crime. Best of all, think of Escape from New York, the central premise of which is that if trends continued, the best thing to do with New York City might be to wall it off to keep the out of control criminal population there from affecting the rest of the country.

      We are early in this cycle. We’re maybe in the Jimmy Carter getting elected phase. IF IF IF Biden wins office, it’ll be in spite of the things the Democrats and their cheerleaders in the media are saying–not because of them. And if the progressives gain power, 1) getting rid of them will become the most important cause for libertarian freedom and 2) the right-wing backlash when the American public swings away from the progressives will present a bigger threat to our liberty than anything Trump is doing now.

      The best thing we can do now is to speak the truth wherever we find it–to both sides of these arguments. The press, in the meantime, is the enemy of liberty. Feeding into this pro-crime narrative unnecessarily with their horseshit is indefensible. Watch for the polls of the American people’s confidence in the news media. I bet we’ll be hitting new lows–lower than in 2016.

      1. Not ti distract from your larger point but that guy wasn’t retarded. About to be apprehended for his monstrous crimes, he tried to blow his brains out like a coward but only succeeded in blowing out half. Assuming he was still appropriate to be punished (because fit to stand trial) AT ALL, I see no particular reason he should not receive that one. Even under the arbitrary retarded execution ban Justice Kennedy would later pull out of his ass that guy can still get the needle.

        1. As I recall, when they asked him why he didn’t finish his last meal (with his favorite food), he supposedly replied that he was saving it for after the execution.

          And the larger point was that this is an example of the kinds of things Trump gets away with as free advertising. Clinton wanted to be criticized for being so tough on crime–because voters associated the Democrats with the soft on crime approach.

          The Democrats are falling into the same trap now, but no one like Clinton has emerged to be a touch on crime Democrat. The only reason the liberals could bring themselves to back Clinton was because they’d suffered eight years under Reagan and four more under Bush Sr., in no small part because they were considered soft on crime. If they lose again to Trump, they might turn to a tough on crime Democrat like Kamala Harris.

          Violent criminals will never be popular with swing voters, no matter what lies the progressives tell themselves and each other on the news.

          1. Just for the record:

            “Rector’s appeal for clemency took place during Clinton’s presidential campaign—specifically during the New Hampshire primary . . . . Clinton not only denied Rector’s appeal for clemency but flew home to Arkansas in order to oversee the execution personally.

            Rector’s last meal consisted of fried chicken, steak, and pecan pie. According to Marshall Frady, writing for the New Yorker, when Rector had finished eating, he set aside a piece of the pie and told the guards that he would like to save it for later.


            Regardless of whether he was actually retarded or why, the fact is that Bill Clinton wanted to appear to be especially tough on crime by showing no mercy to a man who was obviously not right in the head. If the man had actually been born with Down syndrome, that only would have made it better from the perspective of Bill Clinton’s reelection campaign.

            Oh, and Clinton’s willingness to execute someone for political gain should have been telling of a large truth: There wasn’t anything the Clinton’s wouldn’t have done to further their political goals. Executed someone who was “basically retarded” was just the beginning.

            1. Oh, your larger (and much more important point than mine) still stands. I just wanted to correct a somewhat common misunderstanding about Ricky Ray Rector’s situation, pushed not by you but by other critics of Clinton (who certainly cannot have enough bad said about him already). And about the Kennedy decision.

              No one who is not brain damaged before the age of 18 can be technically speaking retarded. And it’s actually only those people who are affected by the Kennedy ban, which is just one of the silly and arbitrary things about it. It’s also important to note that it does not affect the Lennys of the world, but only the very mildest retarded, those who have already have been determined to be adults fully responsible and capable of understanding, planning, and committing first-degree murder (or similar crimes) and of participating in their own defense against the accusation that they did. Absent such determination they would not be facing the needle. And I really don’t see what is so particularly compelling about this particular condition, mild cognitive slowness acquired before 18, being exempted from this particular punishment.

              Still less is it clear that a man who failed a suicide attempt as the cops were closing in should be exempt from that particular punishment provided he was fit to defend himself at trial and therefore receive any punishment whatsoever. Which was indeed decided, and I believe not contested in appeal. Questioning whether a man who thinks he will finish his pecan pie posthumously is capable of adequate defense of his own interests and justice, even while represented by counsel, seems legitimate. Saying he is, but that he should be ineligible for the most severe sentence for his able-minded crimes simply because he later crippled himself out of cowardice, seems another thing. The best argument against putting him down was probably the absurdity of doing so to a suicide attempt!

              1. No one who is not brain damaged before the age of 18 can be technically speaking retarded

                Completely and irrefutably wrong.

                1. It’s the fucking medical definition of the term. Consult Professor Google. Here; this one from fringe alternative-medicine quackhouse Emory University School of Medicine is the top result.

                  Even the name, “mental retardation,” betrays its definition. It means one’s development is “retarded.” You’re not retarded if you cognitively developed into adulthood normally but later became mentally disabled.

                  I don’t know where you got such impressive confidence on this point, but boy is it misplaced.

          2. let us not forget that there’s a 99% chance Clinton won because Ross Perot was in the race.

    2. How do you think this plays in Peoria?

      I haven’t checked in the last couple days/week but, ammo shortages at Bass Pro in E. Peoria.

      1. Watching the news these days is like watching interdimensional cable on Rick and Morty. It’s like the news is covering a different universe.

  24. A Christian Blog I follow summarized White Fragility.
    I’ll look forward to him responding to its arguments.

  25. Trump, Meadows, McConnell, Mnuchin et al working on Trump Welfare and Handout Virus Bill of 2020 version 4.

    1. From the link:

      “The meeting comes as the Trump administration balks at $25 billion in new funding favored by Republican lawmakers to help states with coronavirus testing and contact tracing, according to a person familiar.

      Trump’s team also opposes a plan to allocate billions for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and extra funding for the Pentagon and State Department to address the pandemic around the world, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.

      Were you trying to make President Trump look good?

      1. He is trying to hide the 3.5 trillion bill Nancy wants.

      2. Trump doesn’t want testing because the daily new peaks of infection make him look bad.

        He doesn’t have a libertarian bone in his body. He just wants to look good for the election and he just looks like a clueless douchebag.

        1. You mean like Pelosi’s UBI? But at least democrats pay for the welfare or something, right?

        2. “Trump doesn’t want testing because the daily new peaks of infection make him look bad.”

          Turd is too coked-up to know what *he’s* doing, but proposes to tell us why someone else is doing something.
          Got fuck your nephew, turd.

        3. Trump doesn’t want testing because the daily new peaks of infection make him look bad.

          He doesn’t have a libertarian bone in his body. He just wants to look good for the election and he just looks like a clueless douchebag.


  26. The Noble Protestor reminds me a lot of the Noble Savage.

    1. First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      1. Does this apply to the rest of us, currently prohibited from, oh, going to a restaurant?

        1. There is a loophole where you could claim that you are dining out in protest. Or a restaurant could claim it’s service on any particular night is an organized protest.

          I’m not even half joking. I wonder if any restaurant has tried that.

          1. Funny, my wife and I were talking about organizing a block party last night (Portland suburb). De4cided the only way we would get away with it was if we put up a buncha BLM signs and called it a protest.

            1. Think about that

            2. You could found an organization called Block Lives Matter. Same initials.

              1. PERFECT

            3. One benefit, assuming you are a libertarian, is that anyone has a block party after your founding of Block Lives Matter would be supporting libertarianism. Unless you issue an official Block Lives Matter press statement saying you denounce their activity.

              I’ve been told this is how the rules of association work. 🙂

              1. is that anyone has a block party after your founding of Block Lives Matter would be supporting libertarianism.

                If there was a website up that said “abolish the FDA, eliminate all taxes and Affirmative Action”, then yes, that would be correct. Otherwise it would be full of people shaking their fist who don’t know what the fuck they were doing.

                I don’t have any problem with people who admit they don’t know what the fuck they were doing. And as I said previously, I suspect a whole lot of people don’t. But as time goes on, yeah, I suspect more and more people will have their Kmele Foster moment and say, “Hang on, the destruction of the nuclear family?!!”

                But sure, you gave money to Storm Front thinking they were an All Lives Matter movement. I’ll give you a pass on that.

                1. Does no one else find it troubling that when contemplating getting people together, there is (un)Official State Propaganda that comes to mind, as required promotion?

          2. There was a car race recently that was a ‘race for unity’ and the governor was pissed off as hell. You can google it.

          3. A California school registered a graduation ceramony as a protest and held it… ~300 people got covid from it

        2. You didn’t see the “virus exception” clause in the constitution?

      2. Does peaceably mean something different to you?

      3. You are going to blow right by the ‘peaceably’ part…..

  27. The article about the girl who is de-transitioning mentions research done by an activist group that says only 1% of people come to regret doing so. Leaving aside that an activist group has every reason to use dodgy methodology to get the results they want.

    I’d be interested to see research on how many people are convinced to walk away from transitioning. The girl says within three meetings she was on the drug. Surely someone could check if this is a standard experience. If NHS was doing due diligence on their patients, you’d expect some percentage of people to be turned down because they don’t actually have gender dysphoria and instead some other underlying issue that needs to be fixed.

    1. J.K. Rowling wrote an essay centering on exactly those questions, and is currently being threatened with cancellation.

      1. she probably peaked anyway.

        1. Her having more money than Gringotts makes it hard to cancel her. Her livelihood can’t be threatened.

      2. Exactly my thought. According to her, the process in the UK used to take much longer. The current trans rights activists are just pushing to make it go faster and faster.
        She argues caution in making such massive changes before gender reassignment.

    2. The article about the girl who is de-transitioning mentions research done by an activist group that says only 1% of people come to regret doing so. Leaving aside that an activist group has every reason to use dodgy methodology to get the results they want.

      Only 1% regret doing so. Otherwise, people were generally so satisfied with their new gender that all the suicides are autoerotic.

    3. You should look into an organization called “mermaids”. The shit they’re doing will turn you pale.

  28. The Moms are the new The Nurses.

    1. But much, much, much uglier

      Fn leftist cows

  29. >H-1B visa restrictions cause more offshoring of jobs
    So better to have the foreigners working the jobs here because reasons. Before COVID, the numbers spoke differently.

    1. Some of the reasons would be paying taxes here, consuming goods in the economy here, helping businesses here succeed and therefore be able to hire other people.

      1. So we get to iron their shirts? We get to have welfare checks funded by them? Yay!

        Seriously, have you worked among H1B’s? They are notoriously frugal and what they do spend is spent on their own ethnic enclave and the state run airline of their home country on which they travel from time to time. Not much else.

        1. Not just worked among them. Hired them.

          They rented apartments and houses, went out to restaurants, bought cars, went on vacations because they were excited to be in America. Started applying for citizenship because they love being here and wanted to become Americans.

          1. Oh. So this is the DoL sock.

            Shouldnt have responded with your fake business.

            Apologies sarcasmic.

        2. There are absolutely problems with the way the visas are structured that sometimes makes it possible for employers to exploit foreign workers, but the thing to do is fix the laws so they allow the workers to be out there on in a free labor market, not to shut out immigration and guest workers.

        3. Wait so we’re against all immigrants now, not just illegal ones? It’s hard to keep up.

      2. Hey listen pal, it’s either a zero-sum game or they don’t want to play it.

        On a serious note though, did you have to list taxes as a positive (and first on the list)?

        1. I get that listing paying taxes as a positive is a negative to many libertarians, but it’s a pretty standard argument when someone asks about what some person taking up space in our country is contributing: “they are paying taxes”.

          And it’s pretty common to use the opposite argument: those illegal aliens aren’t paying any taxes!

        2. How strange that those same jobs can’t be created here without those people. Seems like the only ones arguing zero sum here are the open borders crowd.

          1. This isn’t just an abstract claim. I’ve been though it as a hiring manager: it can be very hard to find people with the skills you need for a specific job. That’s why you go to all the hassle of hiring someone on an H-1B.

            1. Right it’s not the slave labor conditions or pay.

              Sure pal.

            2. Name one.

              You mean a set of skills at a reduced price.

            3. it can be very hard to find people with the skills you need for a specific job

              Especially when you are removing the native employee doing the job after requiring them to train their H1b replacement.

              1. ^^^^^^This 100%

            4. So have I. I’ve seen plenty of H1-B’s that didn’t live up to the hype.

              1. Yea, but HR drones like white knight are doing the hiring, so you definitely can’t expect competence

                1. First thing I did with an opening was get HR out of the way.

      3. That’s generally true of immigration; however H-1B is a massive perversion in the labor market.

        H-1B visa holders cannot easily switch employers without risking their visa. Their employer knows this. This means that H-1B holders get forced into longer hours for less money because they don’t want to get sent home. That distorts the rest of the market, because as long as the employer can get more relatively cheap H-1B workers they have no reason to hire natively.

        I’m all for more skilled workers immigrating here, but H-1B is not the way to do it. Get rid of the sponsorship concept altogether so that once the workers arrive they have all the options in the labor market that native workers do.

        1. ^This

          This is absolutely true. All the H1B workers Ive known experience suppressed wages and live in fear of making any mistakes because the employer knows they have to leave the country if they quit/get fired.

        2. I don’t disagree with this at all. You are correct.

      4. Some of the reasons would be paying taxes here

        Nice of you to acknowledge that you only view those precious brown bodies as a means to keeping your welfare state going. Let’s not talk about the fact that H1Bs displace American workers for lower pay and hence contribute less overall to the tax coffers. Let’s also not talk about the fact that OPT1 and other visa programs allow workers to stay for up to 3 years and work at any employer without either the immigrant or the employer having to pay one thin dime in payroll tax.

    2. Didn’t mean to flag myself. Reason seriously needs an edit function on the comments.

  30. China Is Using Uighur Labor to Produce Face Masks
    A Times video investigation identified Chinese companies using a contentious labor program for Uighurs to satisfy demand for P.P.E., some of which ended up in the United States and other countries.

  31. “It’s nice to see some lawmakers actually attempting to use their power to stop this, instead of simply trying to score Twitter points with spurious allegations that libertarians aren’t freaking out enough.

    —-Elizabeth Nolan Brown

    How dare they say such a thing!

    I can personally attest to the fact that ENB has been crying wolf almost daily for more than three and a half years now.

    I’m trying to remember when it was that I first stopped running to find out what was going on every time ENB cried wolf. I think it was that time she covered one of Gloria Allred’s clients, a porn star who (as I recall) did bukkake and gang bang videos, on the one hand, but was also suing candidate Trump for traumatizing her by greeting her with a kiss on the cheek without asking for permission first.

    It’s easy to forget the kind of bullshit they threw at Trump trying to make anything stick in 2016, but try to remember that one of the reasons Trump wining was so hilarious was because the win was so unexpected given how hard they tried and all the stuff they pulled. The Russia investigation was just a continuation of that.

    1. Oh, and Michelle Fields!

      Remember when they were accusing candidate Trump of running Nuremberg like rallies, complete with exhortations to violence and neo-Brownshirts, all culminating in the assault of Michelle Fields?

      I take the threat of the economy making people crazy in the wake of the virus to President Trump’s reelection more seriously than I do the threat posed by the accusation that President Trump is paying it back to anti-fa with interest, but it’s also important to remember that the allegations against Trump were much more serious in 2016 than they are now.

      When they released that “pussy grabbing” tape just ahead of his debate with Hillary Clinton, I thought he was doomed. It takes an arrogant SOB to walk in front of the cameras after having that set against him and clean Hillary Clinton’s clock on national television. It was like watching Evel Knievel, everybody was tuned to watch the crash. Instead, they saw the greatest come from behind victory in Superbowl history. The economy is a big hill to climb, but I wouldn’t count him out yet, especially not when the Democrats keep repeatedly stabbing themselves in the feet with Green New Deals amid a recession and chants of “defund the police” amid a huge spike in violent crime.

    2. If you lost all respect for ENB why come here and read her blog post every morning?

      1. I usually don’t bother.

        I here to read the comments in the morning thread anyway.

        When’s the last time you saw someone here say, “RTFA”?

        That’s generally not necessary.

        1. When’s the last time you saw someone here say, “RTFA”?

          IMO, the way it stopped is more pointed/hilarious. RTFA became the problem. People would read the article *and the citations* and the ‘don’t believe your lying eyes, wet roads cause rain’ narrative was too obvious. And not out of any parroting false narrative/naivete either. Not an example specific to ENB but Ted Cruz would say, “I hate Donald Trump’s liberal values.” and Reason would, entirely of its own accord, pen an article “Ted Cruz hates liberty.”

      2. Because the comments set a new record every time?

      3. Are you fucking her? Mind your fucking business.

  32. Trump wants “larger stimulus checks” than Democrats want.

    Trump said on Fox Business Wednesday that he not only supports second stimulus checks, but also that he supports a “larger” second stimulus check than the Democrats. “I do. I support it, but it has to be done properly,” Trump said. “I support actually larger numbers than the Democrats.”


    1. Extend those +$600 unemployment bennies forever. How could paying people more to not work go wrong? Get yer Pelosi Plunder here!

      1. “I support actually larger numbers than the Democrats.” Trump

        Proud of him yet?

        Fuck Pelosi. She can’t do shit without the Con Man’s signature.

        1. From your link, turd:
          “Return to work bonus instead of unemployment
          Trump also said he prefers a “return-to-work” bonus over extending supplemental unemployment benefits…”

          You remain one of, if not the, most pathetic pieces of lefty shit to post here, and given the field of low-watt bulbs, that’s saying a lot.

          1. “given the field of low-watt bulbs…”

            They’re just trying to stop global warming.

          2. He wants $2 trillion worth of handouts, you moronic old fag.

            This is your “libertarian” hero?


            1. Pelosi wants 3.5.

            2. “He wants $2 trillion worth of handouts, you moronic old fag.”

              So you admit you can’t read? Oh, and your erotic fantasies are irrelevant.

            3. This is your “libertarian” hero?

              No one said he was. Ever.

              1. Yeah, it’s just that the “lesser of two evils” was the incompetent mentally deformed proto-fascist, because he didn’t remind white boys of their shrill math teachers.

                1. The only fascists I see are the American SA rioting and destroying along with your party’s “Green New Deal” which is, literally, fascism.

                  But keep up the Goebbels Big Lie. You learned it well.

                  1. So normal citizens protesting for their interests is fascism, but the unmarked vans sent by the head of government to round them up isn’t. Also I’m the one who has a problem understanding what words mean. Got it.

                    1. “Normal citizens” burning, killing, raping, and looting you mean. Yes, the SA was fascist and your pals in ANTIFA and BLM not to mention your preferred political party is fascist. They and you literally want the government to control industry held in “private” hands and you will invent as many death cult religions as needed to get that power.

                    2. Why are federal goons needed to handle these crimes? The local and state authorities–who you trust to do everything else under the sun–are asking them to get out. Stop and think about what you’re mindlessly supporting because it has an (R) after it, once in a while.

                    3. So normal citizens protesting for their interests is fascism, but the unmarked vans sent by the head of government to round them up isn’t.

                      It’s communism.

            4. How odd that every single bailout has come under Nancy. And yet all you can do is think of ways to sniff her grannypants.

              And she’s your great “liberrtarian” hero.

              you moronic old fag.

              Careful, you’re not Joy Reid. You’re not allowed to use those slurs.

    2. Single check. Versus the UBI and increased weekly unemployment check Democrats want which ends up being much more.

      But you knew that you dishonest piece of shit.

    3. But this is the kind of thing you would normally support so what’s your criticism exactly?

  33. federal agents fired tear gas into a group of moms, including one pregnant woman, who were peacefully gathering to demand police reform.

    This is hardly the first time that lefties have used their kids as human shields.

    1. Well, in all fairness, it would now be unconstitutional for the police NOT to fire tear gas at women if they would fire tear gas at men under the same circumstances.

      1. The police have finally embraced feminism and we’re still finding stuff to complain about.

    2. A woman using her pregnancy manipulatively? Somebody get my fainting couch!

      With extra pillows for my lower back.

      And some pickles and ice cream.

      Also, get rid of whatever that smell is.

    3. I assumed it was lefty moms acting as human shields for their lefty kids. That seems to be the pattern, media filming the designated non-violent group as the others sneak around the back to light shit on fire. They finally realized that nobody has any sympathy for the bitchy millennial girls that have been getting the baton, so they sent in the Karens.

      1. They’re all the Karen’s.

        Seriously- can you think of anything more Karen than the peaceful aspect of these protests?

      2. There’s that, but no. There are many cases where adult protesters have placed children between them and police.

        Here’s an oldie but a goodie

    4. Janet Reno actually killed kids, American kids that is, those who escaped the living hell of Cuba were sent back to hell by her. the left does not care if your a woman or a child so why should we

      1. Well, Reno had to make up for all those false child sex abuse convictions she had as Florida AG.

  34. So, longer story short both sides sent outside agitators? Seems fair to me.

    1. You’ll never read that from the Uterus.

  35. “That doesn’t bode well for the idea that they were sent in with mitigation in mind.”

    Any chance at all for a link to who said they were there for mitigation?
    Last I heard they were there to protect federal buildings, a perfectly valid use of federal employees.

    1. They were sent there to protect federal buildings and are in the process of rolling Antifa and BLM up like a rug. That is why ENB and her ilk are so unhappy.

    2. One wonders what there is to “mitigate” at a peaceful protest as well.

      If you accept that “mitigation” is valid, you’re tacitly admitting that there is behavior that needs to be mitigated.

      1. Yes, and the point? What I, and others, have argued is that there is a mix of peaceful and violent, not that it is all peaceful.

        1. Yet somehow you seem incapable of finding any of the violence. It’s just something that happened somewhere, sometime, done by somebody instead of being ubiquitous. Your blind spot is most revealing.

          1. There have been specific acts of violence. For example, some protestors tried to set the Federal building on fire.

            I have never said otherwise.

        2. I’m sorry, peaceful protests don’t have body counts.
          Peaceful protests don’t have businesses burned to the ground.
          If any part of a protest gets so out of hand that lives are endangered, it all has to stop.

  36. is a filthy rag staffed with government whores.

    1. If you believe that, why are you here?

      1. You could ask the same of the protesters. Why don’t you?

  37. LOL

    Ok Rachel Maddow, you keep being you.

    1. I don’t doubt her account of what happened, but the videos she posted with her claims are nearly useless. She needs to learn to hold her phone more still while taking videos.

  38. The mental gymnastics Reason is using to defend these commie scum are amazing. Useful idiots. These commies will put you up against the wall, too.

    1. Yeah! I’m sure all those moms are commies! Every one of them!

      1. Nah they just attend commie outings for fun.

      2. If the movement you support was founded by self proclaimed Marxists, and on it’s own website describes itself as anti-capitalist, you shouldn’t be surprised when lining up with them gets you called a commie.

        1. You are absolutely correct. You shouldn’t be surprised.

          Simultaneously true that the person calling you a commie is engaging in collectivist thought by lumping you in with commies. Which means the person calling you a commie is engaging in a way of thinking that is foundational to communism.

          1. Also you’re allowed to be a communist without the government hitting you with a stick in this country.

            1. You’re allowed to own property without those communists burning it or stealing it aided by said government.

              1. Do you realize that the typical American conservative has only really ever had one political belief in like 400 years?: “Keep the scary black people away!” Keep up the good work.

                1. Do you realize that the typical American progressive invented eugenics to kill all the scary black people? Invented Jim Crow laws to keep them from voting? Was born and will die embracing slavery?

                  Like all good fascists (and unlike you I use the word knowingly and correctly), all you can do is project your own evil on those who oppose you.

                  1. Nope. You’re not telling the truth.

              2. That is true. What relevance does that have to a protest in front of a government building?

                1. Explain why those “mostly peaceful” protests have destroyed property.

                  This isn’t hard unless you’re trying to avoid the truth.

                  1. “Mostly peaceful” are not my words, and I cannot defend them.

                    All *I* have ever said is that there is a mix of peaceful and violent, and I don’t know the proportions.

                    All *I* have ever said is that the peaceful protestors have a Constitutional right to protest, and it is wrong to use guilt by association to paint a peaceful protestor as a violent protestor.

                    1. When you join with a mob you become part of the mob and what ever transpires. If you do it once and walk away when it becomes violent or illegal you are not guilty by association. If you stick with them and return day after day you are guilty by association.
                      What you are saying is if you drive a person or more to a bank and they go in and rob it you are not guilty by association. If you don’t know they are robbing it I agree. If you continue to go back and drive them a second or more times you are guilty of bank robbery.
                      All of the participants in these protests that always turn into riots know what they are getting into and are not innocent.

          2. Now do your collectivizing of the police. Go on. We’ll wait.

          3. Ah yes, I’m the REAL communist. Not the ones out there marching for the end of capitalism.

            1. Most recent protests have been for police reform, not ending capitalism. Maybe all.

          4. Yes, acknowledging the groupings that people voluntary place themselves in is exactly the same as communism.

            Log the fuck off you fucking smoothbrained retard, holy fucking shit.

            “Oh so just because I believe that Jesus Christ is my lord and savior and I go to church every Sunday you’re just going to COLLECTIVE me and call me a CHRISTIAN?!”

      3. That’s COS play by antifa. One “mom” literally scrawled “Mommy” on her Goodwill t-shirt. This staged act is straight out of Hamas’ playbook.

        1. ^

          A good reporter might look into the contacts between Islamist militias and leftist activists in the west, though it’s only a partnership that’s existed for 60 years…

          Then, maybe look at the Arab Spring and recognize who was behind it and how they’re pulling the exact same shit here.

          You want to know why Obama/HRC/all our intel agencies went from taking Russian bribes to painting Putin as the world’s #1 bad guy?
          Because he won’t play by their rules, and intervened in the Soros/deep state attempted seizures of Ukraine and Syria.
          If you just study the events that have happened and ignore the characterization (aka spin) of those events, a clear picture emerges

  39. God, I can’t wait to see what Reason “libertarian” commenters are going to be saying when Joe Biden sends in federal troops to make sure people have the right to vote in Oklahickastan. Probably something different than they are now. Principals over principles.

    1. are you there God? it’s me, amsoc.

    2. We’ve already seen what you think when team socialism uses the power of the federal government to harass people on the right exercising their constitutional rights.

      The train fetish on the left never changed from 1940.

      1. Now with pictures from paragon of liberty China!

    3. He’s going to use federal troops to stop poll workers from asking for ID?

    4. Did I miss something? Is Joe Biden president?

  40. ENB is reporting at home using Twitter. Classic. Great sources no bias there.

    Reason should maybe get on the ground there and find out what’s really happening.

    1. Well, it’s the age of covid. You can’t be too careful.

    2. It is the daily Reason Roundup blog post. The idea is to post some links to a few current news stories, and promote some links to other Reason posts, that people can read and discuss with their morning coffee. In that context, linking to tweets is appropriate, and original reporting is not expected.

      Having said that, I don’t think ENB is the best writer at Reason, nor always balanced, nor looking too hard for contradictions to her narrative.

      1. nor always balanced, nor looking too hard for contradictions to her narrative.

        Seems like that should make her your favorite. Selective nuance seems to be your thing.

  41. Someone brought up a great point that I hadn’t even thought of: Joe Biden’s mental state is apparently declining so rapidly that he can’t even record a short video tribute to the deceased civil rights icon John Lewis from his Delaware basement.

    1. One of Biden’s lackeys did do a Twitter post with an embedded minute long video montage of John Lewis clips and quotes, however Sleepy Joe himself appears nowhere in the video, not even for a few seconds simply as a voice-over.

      1. Do you have any idea how pathetic it is to normal people when grown-ass adults call politicians childish names, and they can’t even come up with something original?

        Does Trump do your shitting for you in addition to your thinking?

        1. Honestly, I’m beginning to wonder if Basement Boy is ever going to be seen outside of his basement alive again. He spends more time hiding out down there than a lazy, unmotivated college post-grad.

          Best as I can tell, nobody outside of his own immediate family and closest inner circle has seen or talked to him in about a week!

          1. Best as I can tell, nobody outside of his own immediate family and closest inner circle has seen or talked to him in about a week!

            You can see why he has Tony’s vote.

          2. You’re going to have to do a lot better. He’s up 15 points. Hurry along and figure out if he sent work emails on a private account. You know, a real scandal.

            1. But #RUSSIA.

              1. Yeah, the president of the United States got elected with the help of Russian election interference. This is not a controversial fact except among mindless zombie Trumpbots who believes everything that comes out of his weird little mouth.

                Trump? The biggest liar known to man. You believe the self-serving things he says as a government official because… you’re a libertarian? A dumbass? Whatever.

                1. At least he didn’t ask for and pay Russian intelligence for misinformation in an attempt to influence the election or use the DOJ and intelligence agencies against his opponent. If you voted for who the Russians preferred in this election that is on you. They always prefer one of the candidates over the other as many countries do but no one has ever said the election was influenced by a foreign country. Maybe it is because of the failing education of our young the Democrats have taken control of that you have no confidence in the reasoning and thinking of Americans. Like you they are now being indoctrinated instead of educated and the IQ level has dropped significantly. Anyone that attempts to talk to or reason with a lefty soon realizes they have the IQ of a rock but unlike a rock that at least remains silent they remove all doubt quickly by talking.

        2. You mean like “Drumpf” or “Orange?”

        3. @Tony Don’t even need to read your fucking stupid “comment” its all a bunch of drivel as usual, parroting left wing horse shit and being a fucking moron. “Hurdy dur da Orange man is bully.” You haven’t done everybody a favor and drank Draino yet, stupid?

  42. I come here just to read the comments.
    As far as I am concerned, Reason could just have headlines and comments

  43. “not specifically trained in riot control or mass demonstrations”

    Why is it relevant that they lack riot-control training? Is there some kind of riot going on?

  44. Portland officials may not want the Federal police there but what about its citizens? The officials have sided with the mob from the start but I am sure there are more people who want the rioting and looting to stop than want to see it expand. The Fed is doing what state and local officials refuse to do – THEIR JOBS. If its your home or business they are destroying, you’ll beg for the police – local, state or Federal – to stop them.

  45. Low intensity law enforcement perpetuates conflicts. Tolerating mob lawbreaking is provocative. That notion is unpopular with shortsighted democratic politicians, but not tolerating it is the only practical approach, otherwise more intense lawbreaking tends to follow.

  46. Never in my worst nightmares could I have imagined that Reason would advocate capitulation to a Marxo-anarchist revolutionary front. Federal agents were sent to Portland for one reason: to protect federal facilities from being overrun and destroyed by violent mobs so that they can continue to serve the public, most importantly by keeping the federal courts open and functioning. They are not there to do anything else and they haven’t.
    There is one and only one reason why this action was necessary. The city government of Portland categorically REFUSES to protect federal facilities within their jurisdiction.
    SHAME ON THE REASON FOUNDATION for this spineless and immoral surrender to the forces of leftist tyranny! Shame on you for hastening the destruction of the one nation on earth that prevents tyranny from overwhelming the entire planet!
    A pox upon your house and all who live in it!
    For many years I have described myself as a libertarian constitutional conservative, but that ends now. I am done with libertarianism for good. Libertarianism is the Flat Earth Society of political philosophy.
    Scott McClelland
    San Jose, CA

    1. You are mistaking Reason for libertarianism. KMW has trashed the brand.

  47. What this article implies is they need more federal police in these cities. The “moms” involved also is further proof that children raised by women in single parent homes are more likely to be less educated and more prone to violence and crime.
    As a parent I always taught my children to not become one of the crowd and to be an individual. If my children made the mistake of acting like these mobs and they were under 18 they would have been restricted from leaving the house and required to talk to me about their thinking. If they were over 20 I would reason with them but let them know how stupid they were acting and made them think about it. As a father I found most of the time I could cure stupid even if sometimes it hurt. These mothers joining with the children are no doubt low IQ products of liberal schools that are uninformed and easily influenced.
    What we are seeing today is not a result of George Floyd or any recent occurrence. This was planned from almost a hundred years ago by extreme radical leftist and the world wealthy elite and is the culmination of what they planned. With a little research you can read the alarming steps that have been taken over the last century slowly and patiently to the point we are at today. Americans have felt safe and secure and have disregarded the warnings that have been called conspiracy theories and failed to act and now we have arrived at the tipping point. This is not going to go away unless Americans wake up and unite if enough are left to stop it.

  48. “their militarized approach”
    As opposed to standing by doing nothing as rioters ravage the city.

  49. I have been working from home for 4 years now and I love it. I don’t have a boss standing over my shoulder and I make my own hours. The tips below are very informative and anyone currently working from home or planning to in the future could use these.Make 5000 bucks every month… Start doing online computer-based work through our website……………………<Click For Full Details.

  50. “The feds want to tear-gas protesters.” Oh so that is what you fucking call them “Reason” not what they really are, rioters, looters, assaulters etc. that the police will do nothing about. I thought you people are “Reason” were for private property? Or are you still trying to make the left love you which they will never do? A misleading title to a misleading article. The government if it has to exist has one job and that is to protect people and property.

  51. Holy shit! Reason has gone to shit these last few years.

    1. Reason authors probably have always been like this, it’s just that the last few years have revealed what kinds of reprehensible authoritarians and propagandists they actually are.

  52. The author seems to have forgotten to mention the fact that these “peaceful protesters” have repeatedly attempted to firebomb inhabited Federal Buildings.

    I kinda think the Fed’s have legitimate cause to try to prevent people from burning down Federal buildings and the people inside them.

  53. I’m sorry, but I’m going to trust local news on this one. Two weeks Ago. KOIN News. Headline “Terribly Upsetting, Portland Takes In Riot Damage”, which has pictures and detailed accounts of the damage these riots were causing, including using fireworks (which, remember, are actual bombs) to damage statues, buildings, and harm people. There is even a picture of a federal building so heavily graffitied and scorched that I can’t say for certain which one it is.There are dozens or hundreds of stories about the damage that was caused.

    Peaceful Protests don’t have body counts and don’t torch buildings to the ground. The idea that these were peaceful, harmless protests until the Federal Police arrived is a transparent and rather absurd lie. These riots have been going on for nearly two months essentially unopposed. Of course, things will get heated when someone actually fights back.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.