Reason Roundup

Derek Chauvin Trial Judge Thinks Maxine Waters Gave the Defense an Option for Appeal

Plus: All American adults are eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine, and Keith Olbermann briefly returns to the spotlight.

|

Derek Chauvin's legal team moved for a mistrial on Tuesday following questionable behavior by Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.), who urged protesters to "stay in the street" and become "more confrontational" if the former Minneapolis police officer is acquitted for the killing of George Floyd.

Waters had attended a protest over the weekend in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, where 20-year-old Daunte Wright was killed by police. It was not far from the location of Chauvin's trial, which led Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, to argue that Waters was prejudicing the jury in favor of conviction, given that an acquittal might lead to rioting.

Judge Peter Cahill denied the motion but granted that Waters "may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned," according to CNN.

House Republicans are attempting to censure Waters over the matter, but it is very unlikely that the Democratic-controlled legislative body will take such an action.

Closing arguments in the trial wrapped up on Tuesday, and the jury began deliberations afterward. In his summary of the trial, Reason's Jacob Sullum persuasively argued that at the very least, Chauvin should be convicted of second-degree manslaughter, which carries with it a presumptive sentence of four years in prison.

Regardless, jurors should hold Chauvin accountable for his role in Floyd's death, to the extent they believe the evidence supports a conviction. They should not feel obligated to convict because far-left rioters are holding the city hostage. Mob justice isn't justice.


FREE MINDS

RealClearEducation has released a new survey of the landscape for free speech within the college Greek system. Some findings:

A plurality of all survey respondents feel pressure for their Greek organizations to be kicked off campus. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagreed with the statement, "There is no pressure on my campus for fraternities and sororities to be kicked off campus," while 45% agreed. A majority of fraternity respondents disagreed with the statement (58% vs. 39%), while a minority of sorority respondents disagreed (43% vs. 51%).

Half of all respondents have felt the need to self-censor. Fifty percent (50%) answered "Yes" to the question: "Have you personally ever felt you could not express your opinion on a subject because of how students, a professor, or the administration would respond?"

Among all respondents, 38% say their college's administration would be more likely to "Punish the speaker for making the statement" than "Defend the speaker's right to express their views" (23%) if a controversy over offensive speech were to occur on their campus. A plurality of respondents (39%) were "not sure" how the administration would respond.

More here.


FREE MARKETS

All U.S. adults are now eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine, according to President Joe Biden.

"For months I've been telling Americans to get vaccinated when it's your turn," said Biden. "Well, it's your turn, now."

Half of all eligible Americans have now received at least one dose of a vaccine, according to The New York Times.


QUICK HITS

  • Former Vice President Walter Mondale has died. He was 93.
  • One America News Network has fired a producer who admitted that he suspects many of the channel's news stories were fake.
  • The American Humanist Association has withdrawn an award they gave to Richard Dawkins in 1996.
  • In case you missed it: Keith Olbermann (remember him?) called me a fascist and vaguely threatened me for daring to suggest that some government-mandated pandemic restrictions could possibly be relaxed.

NEXT: In Peru, Another Near Miss for Latin American Liberty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Derek Chauvin’s legal team moved for a mistrial on Tuesday following questionable behavior by Rep. Maxine Waters…

    Insurrection against the judicial branch!

    1. Not if Biden appoints Waters to be the 27th Supreme Court justice–and she keeps her seat in Congress.

      1. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular SDWEDXZZZ office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular DS SS office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. Black privilege.

    3. I disliked what Chauvin did, he should be punished for excessive use of Police Force, maybe involvement on the additional Stress on Floyd who was probably under stress of the Drugs he ingested. But there is no way he is getting a Fair Trial in that State and City with the threat being put on Jury with 27 Million paid to the Floyds, mental stress and Bodley threat on Jury people, fire and riots on the community. They let this happen and this is no different than a Black Lynching of a White Guy in the North.

      1. That scumbag was worth $27 million? FFS, that is bullshit. Shouldn’t have been more than a few million, tops.

        1. Unless you’re talking about a few million used bottle caps, I think you have vastly overstated his worth.

      2. Perfect outcome is for him to be convicted and then have it overturned on the basis of Maxine Waters, by name.

        1. There are so many basis’ for appeal, I can’t think it won’t happen. Not based on the verdict per se but on the fact that the city settled before the criminal trial, the judge never considered a venue change, the jury was not sequestered, and the derelict instructions given to the jury. Regardless of feelings, evidence or politics, it is the one and only duty of the court to ensure each defendant a fair trial and to allay personal safety concerns of trial participants.

          Chauvin may well be guilty and many see the verdict as a victory. However, the court failed its duty and as such, the process becomes the victim and faith in an unbiased and unafraid court has been lost.

    4. LIFE CHANGING OPPORTUNITY BE an Internet HOME-BASED real Earner.I am just working on BNVYUY facebook only 3 to 4 hours a Day and earning £47786 a month easily, that is handsome earning to meet my extra expenses and that is really life changing opportunity. Let me give you a little insight into what I do….. Visit Here

  2. …urged protesters to “stay in the street” and become “more confrontational” if the former Minneapolis police officer is acquitted for the killing of George Floyd.

    If being ignorant of consequences could be a defense for the former president, it certainly could be applied to this genius.

    1. Better answer: Ignorance of consequences should not be a defense for Donald Trump or Maxine Waters. They are two sides of the same coin.

      1. Lol. Take note. Wk is trying to change his appearance with tepid attacks on both sides so he can’t be called a leftist hypocrite. He only did this after being called out many times. Jeff tried to do this as well. Lasted a week.

        1. Donald Trump did not call for “confrontation” or for “staying in the streets”, so it is cowardly both sidesism.

          And, as we all know, none of his followers used any weapons or badly hurt or killed anyone

          1. Notice he said nothing about national guard members being shot at the night Maxine said to increase confrontations. Yet he pushed and lied about a fire extinguisher attack for 2 months.

          2. He said “stand down and stand by”.

            1. He said “stand down and stand by”.
              That was during the debates, when inanely asked, again, to denounce white supremacy.

      2. Except one called for violence and one did not.

        1. Can’t expect Dee to both sides AND be honest at the same time. Baby steps.

    2. There is a difference. Trump was talking to an angry crowd that later got violent.

      Waters is talking to a violent crowd that has already smashed, looted, and burned down multiple buildings.

      The damage from the riots surrounding this trial is already orders of magnitude higher than the capitol hill riot.

      1. While I sorta agree with you about the magnitude of the damage the dems are claiming that the cost of the NG for months after 6 Jan and all the new construction to turn DC into an armed camp is on Trump/protestors.

        1. So, not on Puerto Rican separatists, not on BLM members who did everything from call to burn the White House down to occupy the chambers and shout down votes confirming Kavanaugh, not even the Biden administration ramping up security in response to threats that never materialized… the Trump/protestors who weren’t armed and haven’t erected a single section of fence are responsible?

        2. Sounds a lot like the Mexican claiming the chicken you hit is worth $500 because of all the future chickens and eggs that would have come from that one chicken, and having his BIL the police chief back him up on that. Dems cost claims are either intentional fraud for the purposes of piling on or the result of extreme paranoia.

          Let’s see…. the NG was kept in place in DC for 3 months after a siege of a few hours. I wonder how long that would proportionally translate to keeping the NG in place in MN for riots lasting well over a year. Gonna bet Dems lose their claim to higher costs.

      2. To be fair, the burning of even just 1/10th of a building, like say, just the nursery of a church, is orders of magnitude more damaging and violent than, say, snapping a selfie with your feet up on someone else’s desk.

      3. There is another difference. The MAGA rioters were trying to interfere with the peaceful transition of Presidential administrations in our American democracy.

        1. <The MAGA rioters were trying to interfere with the peaceful transition of Presidential administrations in our American democracy.

          No, they weren’t. They were just venting their spleens (albeit in a stupid and counter-productive manner). Their actions had no chance at all of preventing the peaceful transition between administrations.

          1. Dee knows this, but she likes to lie.

          2. “trying” does not imply that they correctly calculated their chances of success.

            1. Damn you’re stupid.

    3. If it wasn’t for the facts that this could aquit a brutal cop and there’s most likely going to be mayhem in the streets regardless of the ruling, I’d say that we shouldn’t get in the way of Maxi Pad Maxine Waters making this colossal mistake against her fellow Wokesters.

      But instead, it’s gone from frying pan to fire to steel smelter.

      By the way, is Maxine Waters the only one to call it a “gas-o-line station?”

      1. “By the way, is Maxine Waters the only one to call it a “gas-o-line station?””

        DAS RACISS!!!!

        1. Gosh! I can’t even get away from hearing that, even on off-days, when I’m not asking for IDs on alcohol and tobacco purchases! (Yes, I kid you not!)

    4. Waters is a safe seat. She is free to spout whatever incendiary nonsense she wants and get away with it. I’m sure the Democratic leadership wishes she, along with other luminaries in the Congressional Black Caucus, would shut the hell up, but that isn’t going to happen.

  3. However, Francisco J. Diaz, the medical examiner, told The Washington Post on Monday that the autopsy found no evidence that Sicknick suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/d-c-medical-examiner-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-suffered-two-strokes-died-of-natural-causes

    Now I’m not saying someone was hardest hit…. but someone here was hardest hit.

      1. The press took the police at their word. It’s hardly the first time this has happened. It happens not only in the media but the courts too.

        1. But then you took the media at it’s word

          And once the evidence changed you all still stuck to the original narrative.

            1. Monty Python’s Flying Circusss…

              1. Gangster Luigi Vercotti: “I like the Police, I like ’em alot!”

            2. a new day,
              but the same old tune.

        2. No they didn’t. The narrativr started at cnn from a source in the hospital. The police didn’t join in until jan 20th per a daily mail report.

          1. Doctors are even worse than cops when it comes to slavish suspension of disbelief.

        3. But the LEFT HERE did so as well, even with literally zero evidence.

          I cannot think of many cases where the police’s word was enough for progressives. Just this case.

          1. Funny, isn’t it.

          2. “But the LEFT HERE did so as well, even with literally zero evidence.”

            I’m not surprised at this. People tend to believe what conforms to their prejudices. Why do you think the press ran with the story in the first place? Aside from the obvious motives of wanting to be the first to report a story of drama and political import.

        4. the press only takes the word of the police when incorrect white people are involved.

          1. No, the press not only tends to take the word of the police as a matter of course, but they report it, too.

      2. A self identified leftist is taking all the ‘free thinking libertarians’ at Reason to the woodshed.

    1. Maybe someone gave him the rona and it was a rona induced stroke.
      The rona is a powerfully virus you know.

    2. Remember how the narrative framed this discussion…

      Josh Marshall
      @joshtpm
      There’s now a Brian Sicknick “truth movement” on the right, which suggests Sicknick either died of natural causes or was murdered to tarnish ex-President Trump. Today this new conspiracy theory made its way to National Review. I trace it to its source.

    3. Remember… on Jan 8th the family ready told the media that he had died of a stroke. January 8th.

      https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol

      1. Like South River white trash would know a stroke from an allergic reaction. Who among them has a medical degree, or is a certified journalist, smart guy?

        1. Sadly there were tons of responses on Twitter to the report release just like that.

        2. You obviously had a stroke and lived, you fucking idiot.

    4. I admit when I am wrong. This is new evidence, and it shows that he died of natural causes.

      1. So you missed the Jan pro publica article you had linked to you many times between Jan 8th and now? You literally took 4 weeks to walk back the fire extinguisher after cnn retracted and then immediately jumped to bear spray as the cause. Constantly being told it was a stroke.

        You had zero evidence for either of the prior two stories but stood by both as both collapsed.

        So stop saying you waited for evidence.

        1. Yes, I did miss it.

          1. Lol. No you didn’t. And you also didn’t miss the cnn retraction for 3 weeks. Youre just lying.

          2. Yes, I did miss ignored it.

            Fixed.

          3. You wanted it to be something, so you convinced yourself it was despite evidence otherwise. Now you should ask yourself why.

      2. Horseshit. You jumped to various conclusion unsupported by any actual facts.

        Only now when you have been cornered do you claim to be open minded.

      3. The thing about your comment is, there is no actual admission of being wrong in there.

        There is a general statement “I admit when I am wrong.”

        Then there is a reference to the “new evidence.”

        But the critical language, “I was wrong in this specific instance, and I admit it” is curiously absent.

        1. I was wrong in this specific instance, and I admit it.

          1. Now explain why you were wrong for so long. See if you actually learned anything.

            My guess is you will continue to be wrong intentionally when it suits a narrative until faced with overwhelming counter evidence.

            1. Well, since you keep acting like a total asshole, technically I wasn’t wrong: I have been saying for the past several weeks that it is “highly unlikely” that Sicknick’s death was not a result of his fighting mobs all day on January 6th. What this new report actually says is that the bear spray didn’t cause his death, but it also doesn’t rule out that his fighting the mobs all day contributed to his death.

              I was trying to be gracious and admit I was wrong (which are two things you would never do), but you just had to push it.

              1. So, from murder, to likely killed, to “fighting contributed to his death.”

                Gracious, my ass.

                You haven’t learned a thing.

                Now tell us again how Ashli Babbit deserved to be shot in the neck.

              2. WK3,
                The point is that you went beyond impartially waiting for the full story to pass judgment.
                You actually denied new information which contradicted your initial inclination until it was completely impossible to do so.

                Do you think, looking back, there was some intentional ignorance (some may say confirmation bias), which allowed you to hold to the same story despite contradictory evidence?

                1. Nope, not true. In both cases where new evidence came forth (1. the retraction of the fire extinguisher story, 2. this medical examiner news), I admitted I was wrong as soon as I heard about it.

                  “Do you think, looking back, there was some intentional ignorance (some may say confirmation bias), which allowed you to hold to the same story despite contradictory evidence?”

                  If you go by JesseAz’s retelling, I held to the story. If you look at what I have actually said, I allowed for the possibility that he was not killed by the bear spray.

            2. “…intentionally when it suits a narrative until faced with overwhelming counter evidence….”

              Well, in his defense, he does routinely read the writers here at Reason.

              Small minds often falling prey to bad examples.

  4. House Republicans are attempting to censure Waters over the matter, but it is very unlikely that the Democratic-controlled legislative body will take such an action.

    High ground once again ceded nicely.

    1. Never stick your censure in crazy.

    2. Well, it’s Democrats. So, per the Reason Stylebook, that’s just the way it is.

      Why be normative when you can be descriptive?

  5. Lawyer breaks down every charge of the Floyd trial with evidence.

    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/04/chauvin-trial-verdict-prediction-of-sorts-on-legal-merits-alone-not-guilty-but-political-dynamics-drive-injustice/

    Long but good analysis. Walks through requirements of each charge and the evidence.

    Of course this is no longer a discussion of law, but one of politics.

    Letting the jury see weeks of violence on their cities by not allowing sequestration and seeing NYT/NBC both say they know the names of the juror….

    Good luck.

    1. That guy knows his stuff. Really enjoyed his coverage. Big step up from the journo analysis at reason.

      1. I’ve been reading him also. Haven’t clicked Sullum at all.

        1. How many days has it been though?

    2. Yeah, I’ve been following the trial on LI since the start. It had excellent legal analysis.

    3. That was detailed to say the least. Thanks.

      Frankly he had me at the part where Floyd was unresponsive in the car. Had the police never arrived he would be just as dead.

      In that sense the crime of Floyd and all the other cops present was failure to provide due care to a person in their custody.

      That only Chauvin is in the dock says the prosecution is selective and therefore not just.

    4. Fuck the sequestration.
      For $10 per day to sit in the voir dire rubber room, or a whopping $18 per day if on a jury (my local county) that’s a joke. Doesn’t even buy lunch at the courthouse cafeteria. Federal pay at $50 is still below federal minimum wage.

      Jury duty may be a civic duty that I have stomached on two occasions in the past, but if sequestered, I would need someone to pay for all of the things I’m denied doing when sequestered. Mow my grass your honor, please.

  6. Mob justice isn’t justice.

    Two a-holes collided. In death, one got more punishment than he deserved. The other will likely get less. Justice has got nothing to do with any of it.

    1. Only if one of the aholes is you

  7. Derek Chauvin’s legal team moved for a mistrial on Tuesday following questionable behavior by Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.),

    2nd request for mistrial. The first after Dr Tobin presented evidence during rebuttal the prosecution was explicitly told they couldn’t present in rebuttal.

    Ironically the evidence kind of undermines the entire prosecution as Dr Tobin claims Floyd’s O2 levels were 98%, belying Floyd died of being choked.

    1. Reason’s Jacob Sullum persuasively argued that at the very least

      Robby… don’t sully yourself.

      1. Yeah, you don’t seem like a dispassionate, neutral observer of this trial.

        1. You are free to refute any view I’ve taken. I posted them yesterday. I posted a lawyers view above.

          What emotion is in either?

          You’ve posted no analysis, but I’m sure you feel Chauvin is a racist murderer.

          Weird you didn’t reposnd to either analytical post.

          1. I have no evidence he is racist or a murderer. He may, though, be a sadistic manslaughterer. [Is manslaughterer a word?]

            1. Sadistic manslaughter is a contradiction in terms, you dumb dildo.

              1. Don’t agree. Manslaughter is an act. Sadistic is a personality trait.

                1. But you were inferring the manslaughter was sadistic. You would have been better off just walking away after Geiger’s post, but you just had to try and go lawyer your way out.

                  1. Go look up the definition of manslaughter, Mr. Definition Guy. It might rule out _premeditated_ sadism, but not sadism that was spur of the moment.

                    1. You just wrote, in this very thread, “Manslaughter is an act. Sadistic is a personality trait” and now you’re back to your original assertion of ‘sadistic manslaughter’.

                      Even you have trouble keeping up with your bullshit, huh.

                    2. Address my actual argument about predmeditation.

                2. “Sadistic is a personality trait.”

                  You really need to stay in the shallow end.

                  How does anyone recognize something as a personality trait if it is not expressed???

                  Or is Reading Minds and Seeing Into Hearts your MOS?

                  1. Oh, Chauvin expressed his sadistic side.

                    1. ” Manslaughter is an act.”

                      You truly are logic challenged.

            2. Evidence of sadism? This should be good.

              1. I think you got it right with “feels”.

              2. Keeping your knee on someone’s neck long after they have stopped breathing.

                1. Back, trained to do. Sadism requires an element of pleasure from it. So citation please.

                  1. Chauvin didn’t look aroused in the video, but then I’m no expert on sadism like WK.

                    1. The play acting around here is amazing.

                    2. Not really. You’re play acting actually sucks.

                      I’ve told you dozens of times how you’re not fooling anyone.

              3. The other day, after Ken destroyed Dee on her inability to use logic, we got in a discussion on Kyle Rittenhouse.

                Dee thought it completely acceptable to ask, with no evidence, what if the business owner whose property he was there to protect didn’t ask him to be there. I responded what if he did? So she insulted my intelligence. To Dee, asking a what if with no evidence is acceptable if it fits her side of the argument, but asking the inverse what if is not.

                This is who we are dealing with.

                1. WK was trying to quote parts of Trump’s January 6 speech the other day, as proof of incitement.

                  It was in response to a list of incitement to riot quotes from prominent Democrats last year, and it sounded ridiculously insipid by comparison. But for some reason it never crossed his mind to think that this wasn’t helping his case.

                  He must’ve come to believe that Trump’s quotes said something other than what they actually said. This is probably the sort of mentality that needs the concept of ‘dogwhistles’.
                  “Sure it sounds like he said ‘X’, but it was actually a secret code for ‘Y’.”

                2. Shake and Bake Operator is about the only part of his story that seems credible.

                  Because he’s clearly a rather dim bulb.

  8. “For months I’ve been telling Americans to get vaccinated when it’s your turn,” said Biden. “Well, it’s your turn, now.”

    Too late. I don’t want America’s sloppy seconds.

    1. How am I supposed to be excited about it if nothing changes?

    2. Funny when a former President said all Americans would have access to the vaccine in April MONTHS ago, many seemed to scoff.

      1. Its all about the brand.

      2. I’m sure Democrats demonizing the vaccine for months before the election has had no effect on anyone’s willingness to get it.

  9. One America News Network has fired a producer who admitted that he suspects many of the channel’s news stories were fake.

    Project Veritas strikes again.

    1. Which channel? CNN?

  10. The American Humanist Association has withdrawn an award they gave to Richard Dawkins in 1996.

    Thank God.

    1. His latest statement implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient.

      The only thing worse than giving that bag of dicks an award is the reasons they gave for taking it away.

      Here is a scientific truth for you: Humanist = Proggie.

      1. ” Humanist = Proggie.”

        I do not think that is true as a matter of necessity. But practically speaking it is exceptionally common.

        I would also posit that antitheistic humanist is an oxymoron.

        1. I’ve found most progs and humanists are passionate followers of the same god, and it’s the one that they see in the mirror. So it’s natural that there’s going to be a lot of religious syncretism.

          1. To be sure. What amazes me is that they so often cannot see any others as being remotely god-like. Which makes them something not very humanist.

          2. How can a person think of themselves as a God if the person denies belief in a God or Gods? That defies logic.

            1. I think, generally speaking, you are taking expressions such as “followers of the same god” and/or “god-like” to a literal extreme. It is quite conceivable to hold yourself in the sort of regard normally associated with supreme beings while also not believing yourself to be a literal god.

              Although I am also confidant that there are people out there capable of holding beliefs that defy such logic.

            2. Are you purposefully being obtuse?

        2. Antitheism is being morally opposed to a God or Gods, regardless of whether one believes or lacks belief in a God or Gods.

          How is Antitheism also Anti-Humanist, unless, of course, one thinks that humans are Gods? Again, it defies logic.

          1. “Antitheism is being morally opposed to a God or Gods.”

            No, it is not necessarily a moral opposition. The primary definition is opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods.

            To oppose such a belief (much less morally oppose one) held by so much of humanity is not remotely humanistic. It does not require a personally held belief in God or gods to recognize that beliefs in God or gods (ie. religion) is an essential, and often positive aspect of humanity. Blanket rejection of religion is therefor anti-humanistic, or at the very least, a mistake.

            That is the difference between antitheism and (non-militant) atheism.

            1. So to be Humanistic, a person has to be a cog or a sieve and believe in anything and everything that all other humans believe, even if those beliefs are delusional and unproven by reason and science, even if the practice of those beliefs are against human lives, human rights, and human flourishing?

              Sounds like an Argumentum Ad Populism fallacy piled on top of a Straw-Man definition of Humanism and Begging The Question about the truth and value of religion.

      2. Actually, Atheists, Secularists, and Humanists are not necessarily Progressive. Secular Humanist Paul Kurtz, who was interviewed and eulogized by Reason expressed many pro-libertarian views.

        Noted libertarian critic of psychotherapy and coercive psychiatry Thomas Szasz was also a signatory of The Secular Humanist Manifesto II. He also wrote many thoughtful pieces for Reason.

        Secular Humanist Anthony Flew was also a libertarian who wrote for Reason and railed against Socialist Economic Egalitarians in his work The Politics of Procrustes: The Contradictions of Enforced Equality..

        And although not active under the umbrella term of “Secular Humanist,” libertarian philosophers John Hospers and Tibor Machan were Atheists, as are more libertarians than I can count for the moment.

        The only thing that unites all Atheists is lack of belief in a God or Gods. The only thing that unites all Secularists is a lack of belief in anything supernatural, including a God or Gods. And the only thing that unites all Humanists is concern for the human condition and human flourishing. Politics and how to achieve goals socially differ from one Atheist, Secularist, and Humanist to another.

        1. The only thing that unites all Atheists is lack of belief in a God or Gods.

          Incorrect. This would be agnosticism. Atheism is a disbelief in a God or Gods.

          1. Actually, Agnosticism is not a position specifically on God or Gods.

            Agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge, which holds that either some aspect of reality or all of reality is not just unknown, but unknowable.

            Gnosticism, in the philosopical, non-theological sense, means that reality is knowable, even if aspects of it are presently unknown.

            Seen by the proper definition, either Atheists or Theists can be Agnostics or Gnostics.

            1. “Agnosticism is a position on the nature of knowledge”

              That is an extremely esoteric definition.

              Atheism is generally accepted to mean a positive belief in the certain absence of a divine being or beings. There is nothing agnostic about it.

              1. He’s using ideological degeneracy as a sleight of hand to make a falsehood seem like subtlety or truth/fact.

                “The only thing that unites all cars is red paint.” is a false statement. However, from a physical perspective, all paint colors reflect red light and from a philosophical perspective, red is a matter of interpretation and from a pragmatic mechanical perspective all cars have red paint on them somewhere. So, seen by the proper definition, there can be red cars that are blue or green and someone who thinks the totality of reality is unknowable can knowingly refuse to believe in the existence of God(s).

                1. And you know my motives how?

                  And you use the word “red” very strangely and equivocally. I do not think “red” means what you think it means.

                  1. And you know my motives how?

                    I never asserted motives. I don’t know nor care why you’re doing it. For all I know, you aren’t even aware that you’re doing it.

                    And you use the word “red” very strangely and equivocally. I do not think “red” means what you think it means.

                    Huh. Almost like I was using it as an analogy for your understanding of the word “atheism”. How peculiar.

                    1. Not a good analogy. “The only thing that unites all cars is red paint ” is not comparable to “The only thing that unites all Atheists is lack of belief in a God or Gods” in the way you’re comparing them.

                      Tighten up, do better, start again.

              2. Agnosticism means lacking certainty about the knowability of something or anything, derived from the prefix “A” meaning “without” and “Gnosticism” meaning “certainty about knowledge.” Nothing esoteric about that. What is esoteric is the particular Christian school of thought that called itself Gnosticism.

                “Athesim” means “lack of a belief in a God or Gods,” which can be either unconscious and by default or conscious and explicit.

                Atheism can also be negative as expressed by saying “I don’t believe in a God” or positive as expressed by saying “There is no God.” Or Atheism can be both negative and positive.

                Atheism is solely a position about belief or unbelief in the existance of a God or Gods. It takes no position as such about the nature of knowledge and can exist side-by-side in the head with either philosophical Gnosticism or Agnosticism.

            2. Seen by the proper definition,

              You just said, in the prior sentence, the definition you’re asserting is a philosophical one, not a theological one. Moreover, you stated that “The only thing that unites all Atheists is lack of belief in a God or Gods.” and then proceed to explain, from “the proper [philosophical] definition”, how gnosticism divides gnostic atheists from agnostic atheists, rendering your original statement false from both a “lack of belief” perspective and a “unifying” perspective.

    2. We now know what religion the American Humanist Association practices.

      1. Dawkins always has been a huge prick, as are most humanists, but I guess even they have their woke limits.

        1. “Prick” doesn’t always mean wrong, just not stylish or tactful.

          People who claim to know God and have a lock on what he thinks and want to run societies based on his alleged thoughts could work on a ton of points for style.

      2. Richard Dawkins and the other Four Horsemen Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchen, and Daniel Dennett all do well at arguing against Theism and for Atheism, as well as lambasting religion.

        But I am ad hoc and part ways with them on other positions, sometimes metaphysical and usually political.

        If Dawkins was referring to Rachel Dolezal in his views on “blackness,” I don’t fault him one bit.

        And as the Secularist pro-science bumper sticker says: “We Are All Africans!”

    3. I always thank the void.

      I also prefer my Atheism and Secularism to be dis-organized rather than organized. As Madalyn Murray O’Hair and kin proved, one HR slip can ruin your whole day.

    1. How sad.

      1. Yes, yes you are. Jumping when I say “Boo”. So very sad.

        1. Faggot is back. Nice.

          1. Thirteen year old is still here. Nice.

            1. Hey sarcasmic. We missed you.

              Here’s your clown nose, now go type an assertion and make us all laugh.

              1. Nah. I’ll discuss ideas with people who actually discuss ideas. I’ll leave you to talk shit about people with the rest of your small minded girlfriends.

                1. That’s why you came back and posted “Boo”. So broken.

                2. Twenty or thirty posts below your comment there is a vibrant discussion of ideas going on.
                  However, prior experience tells me that you lack the intellectual horsepower to be able to fully participate.

                  Try Huffpo sarc, I really think you’d fit in there.
                  http://www.huffpost.com ===>

                  1. Twenty or thirty posts below your comment there is a vibrant discussion of ideas going on.

                    “All 12 people in the entryway of the video of the event says you’re lying.”

                    “You’re so invested in your nonsense that you have no idea how ridiculous your defense sounds.”

                    “We all saw the tape you lying fuck.”

                    That’s children shutting down discussion by attacking people, not a vibrant discussion of ideas.

                    1. I don’t understand. You think the environment here is toxic, actively hostile to you. Then you storm off in a huff to somewhere you think your contributions will be appreciated, but now you’ve come back? Why?

                      Shrug.

                    2. BY THE GARDEN OF THE GODS!

                    3. Because he’s broken and needs attention.

        2. Nope. Sad is your obvious cry for attention in a place you supposedly left only a week or so again. Now you are back and the VERY FIRST post you come up with is an incitement to get everyone to notice you. If we were a congress we’d move to impeach you for incitement and then add a hoo, hoo to your boo to complete your thought.

    2. Poor sarc. Still broken.

    3. I have been checking out glibertatians. Is the main daily activity there mostly just a couple of posts of links and some discussion of them, or is there more activity? I saw that there are the forums, too, but they don’t seem to have much discussion.

      1. That’s basically it. At least there is discussion though, unlike this pile of shit.

        1. They booted you, didn’t they.

          I keep telling you that you’d be happier at Huffpo and 9gag.

          1. Nope. Easy enough to find out. Just go there and read the comments. Not that you’d be interested. They talk about ideas, not people.

            1. Are you sarc over there too?

              1. Not only am I sarcasmic, but I’m mostly ignored. It’s kinda nice. Unlike here where I can’t say “Boo” without you and your fellow children being compelled to throw some personal insult.

                1. “I’m mostly ignored.”

                  Explains why you have to come here once a week and cry for attention.

              2. You wouldn’t be interested though. They don’t engage in constant personal insults. They talk about stuff, not people. You’d be lost.

                1. It might horrify you to learn that a lot of us are over there.
                  The difference being the glibs don’t have paid trolls like chemjeff, SPB2 and WK starting shit.

                  1. It might horrify you to learn that a lot of us are over there.

                    I call bullshit.

                    The difference being the glibs don’t have paid trolls like chemjeff, SPB2 and WK starting shit.

                    That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You can’t discuss ideas. So you duck and dodge by calling people paid trolls so can ignore what they say and wage personal attacks.

                    1. Why are you here, hypocrite?

                    2. Serious question. Do you deny that chemjeff, SPB2 and WK are paid to comment here?
                      Just yes or no will do.

                    3. They are trolls, who knows if they actually get paid or not though.

          2. Nope, I see sarcasmic’s comments there.

      2. Seriously, what’s the point of posting here?

        “Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

        The only thing discussed here is people. It’s time to leave these small minds to themselves. Let them jerk each other off.

        1. You already said you’re leaving and there’s no point posting here. Yet here you are. Pathetic.

          1. When was the last time you discussed an idea? I’ve never seen it.

            1. Why are you talking about me? I thought you didn’t do that?

              1. Paaaaay attention tooooo meeeeeee…
                I’m so lonely and the glibs were mean and told me to fuck off.

              2. “Look, I’m with the popular crowd now!”

                LOL, fucking pathetic. The hilarious part is that the content of the comments section at Glibs isn’t all that much different from here, it’s just that sarc hasn’t gotten picked on there yet. That’s really all it boils down to.

        2. small minds discuss people.”

          The only thing discussed here is people.

          You posted a complete non-sequitur, clearly intended by its content to elicit a response from people. The utter lack of self-awareness in this subsequent post is so profound that I suspect it is deliberate.

          Your intention, as ever, is to foment dissent and draw attention to yourself, not to discuss ideas. You are a perpetual gaslighter.

      3. “Small minds have always lashed out at what they don’t understand.”

        This is why you are constantly attacked. These morons cannot comprehend libertarian ideas. All they know is TEAM. You’re on it or you’re not. So they lash out like children, attacking the person because they can’t argue ideas.

        Leave them to themselves.

        1. because they can’t argue ideas

          Idea’s like basic chemistry and the meaning of common idioms?
          Lol.

          1. If you were interested in arguing ideas, you would drop the tired HO2 insult. That was Tulpa spoofing my handle that said all that stuff in the first place.

            But you aren’t interested in truth.

            1. That wasn’t Tulpa, you lying fuck. That was you, and you defended yourself for months before suddenly deciding to claim you were spoofed.
              Fuck you, fraud.

              1. Proving my point that you have no interest in the truth.

                1. The truth is you thought you’d be smart, fucked up, and are now lying about it being Tulps instead.

                  Dishonest fuck, you’re not fooling anyone.

        2. You are right, of course. But the Reason commentariat has been _my_ territory since the website was started, and then all these Trump people invaded. What I really wish would happen is that Reason management would care about improving the comments section, but it’s clearly not a priority for them.

          1. You are right, of course.

            When you do this shit, it only convinces people you are talking to yourself. Nobody responds that way to randos on the internet. And that is not the way that you respond to anybody else. A while back I mentioned posters failing to display a unique voice as a reason for the accusations of sock-puppeting and this reeks of it.

            The same way that sarcasmic only invited you and jeffy to stomp off in solidarity last week without even inviting a person he claims to know in real life.

            This shit is pathological, dude. Get some professional help.

          2. …But the Reason commentariat has been _my_ territory since the website was started…

            BS. I’ve been here on and off since early 2000s and WK has not been here.

  11. Keith Olbermann (remember him?) called me a fascist and vaguely threatened me for daring to suggest that some government-mandated pandemic restrictions could possibly be relaxed.

    That guy had a nightly show on a major cable news network.

    1. And he was doing “BUSH STOLE OHIO!” reports for years after the fact. I bet he was consistent about questioning local vote counting efforts this past year, but I’m too lazy to check.

    2. One of the few people I really feel the urge to violate the NAP against.

      1. If Keith Olbermann is personally trying to initiate force against you, then self-defense or retaliation does not violate the libertarian idea of Non-Initiation of Force and Fraud. So sayeth a Charter and proud member of The Knights Who Say *N.I.F.F.!*

  12. In case you missed it: Keith Olbermann (remember him?) called me a fascist and vaguely threatened me for daring to suggest that some government-mandated pandemic restrictions could possibly be relaxed.

    I long for the days when journalism was about something other than journalists’ personal lives.

    Thanks again for nothing, Twitter.

    1. Olbermann? Thought that guy died several years ago…

      1. Dan patrick murdered him and fed him to chris berman.

  13. “Regardless, jurors should hold Chauvin accountable for his role in Floyd’s death, to the extent they believe the evidence supports a conviction. They should not feel obligated to convict because far-left rioters are holding the city hostage. Mob justice isn’t justice.”

    Have I mentioned that Reason would have a much better reputation if they had Robby doing the round up every day? It’s shocking the difference in quality that occurrs when someone other than ENB stands in. Hell if Reason changed to even an intern, they might be able to start convincing it’s own readers to stick with libertarianism again. I’ve certainly noticed that my own beliefs in libertarianism have been waining with continued exposure to poorly reasoned, easily disproved, and often hypocritical daily links. The last thing a magazine dedicated to convincing people to switch policy positions should want. Is for anyone who keeps up with them to get used to seeing them get debunked daily.

    1. True but the comments on ENB days are much better.

    2. Why would anyone with integrity want to do the Roundup on a regular basis. Actual libertarian news isn’t clickbait.

    3. I agree very much, ENB bugs the shit out of me. Not so much a reporter as a lady who writes like she just got out of college going over her personal interests ad nauseum. Yes, I get it, you are super interested in legalizing sex work, that’s not news!

      1. She comes off as a libertarian of convenience. Sex work is her pet issue, but Liberals don’t believe women can make the decision to have sex in exchange for cash. If prostitution were made legal in the United States ENB would probably stick with the label libertarian for about a year before she “grew out” of the label and became a bog standard authoritarian Democrat.

        1. Cruella DeBrown already self-identifies as a Democrat; she just hasn’t worked up the courage to come out of the closet about it.

        2. “Libertine, not Libertarian.”

      2. Dont forget abortion.

    4. You arent wrong

      I think ENB and the Roundup has been a boon to Republicans

    5. “The last thing a magazine dedicated to convincing people to switch policy positions should want…”

      Glimpses do ye seem to see…

  14. Nothing about the Rittenhouse crowd fund leaks? Reporters are knocking on doors and confronting supporters on film.

    1. Also nothing about Sicknick’s death being completely natural.

      1. There is nothing natural about getting mauled by the bears that the rioters brought with them.

          1. Of course you did, because the insurrection is just a big joke to you.

            1. The use of the word insurrection is the real joke.

            2. Remember how you admitted to trolling yesterday?

              1. If I’m a troll, you are, too.

                1. Heya, Tulpa.

                2. And, yes, Tulpa, you are a troll.

                3. I admit my biases, you don’t.

                  I openly attack leftists who disguise themselves as centrists and moderates because quite frankly you annoy me with your fake sanctimony. I don’t hide from that though. You do.

                  I fully admit I believe leftism is the greatest threat we’ve had in America to a disruption of liberties as it is happening internally instead of externally. You are part of that threat as a useful idiot of the left.

                  CRT, the Media, Corporatism, soft fascism… all threats to liberty.

                  You? You hate mean tweets.

                  I’ll live with who I am.

                  1. Translation: “Don’t tell me what you think! I’ll tell you what you think! Then I’ll argue against straw men, call you names, and declare victory because I’ve got the maturity of a teenage girl!”

                    1. Yeah, Jesse didn’t say any of that, but thanks for illustrating to everyone here how callow you actually are, sarc.

                    2. He did exactly that. He called WK a leftist, ignored everything he actually said, told him what he thinks, and then argued against that.

                      There is no discussion here. Just children with their fingers in their ears yelling insults at anyone who isn’t part of the clique.

                    3. He called WK a leftist, ignored everything he actually said, told him what he thinks, and then argued against that.

                      He called WK a leftist because of what he actually said and clearly identified his own biases.

                      You are lying. Did you come back today just to defend WK? Or did WK get overwhelmed downstream and switch to a sock to white knight himself? Is it overcompensating or are trying to get him to fuck you? Does it matter?

                  2. You are replying to a comment by Tulpa.

                    1. You’re squawking like a bird

            3. Well, given that the only death caused by it was a cop shooting a protestor. Sorry, an UNARMED protestor.

            4. You are a big joke to us

              1. I wear that with pride, since you, JesseAz, and a bunch of the other CACLLs are reprehensible people.

                1. LMAO.

                  Remember, it means “Leftist Morons Arguing Online,” and I coined it.

                  1. The White Knight
                    October.22.2020 at 3:18 pm

                    It means conservative and conservative-leaning libertarian, and I coined it.
                    Is there a law in Canada that ordinary people aren’t allowed to coin acronyms. Here in the godamn USA we have freedom of speech.

                    1. She’s a very clever girl.

                2. yes, I got mentioned by name. Hihn like badge of honor.

                  1. Then I must be king, being that you mention me by name on almost every roundup.

                    1. Poor sarc. He can’t quit us.

                    2. You’re certainly king of something.

            5. Gotta keep repeating that party talking point. Insurrection by the dirty white peoples. Don’t want anyone focusing on the actual coup.

    2. Did they cover the papa john psyop, either?

  15. In case you missed it: Keith Olbermann (remember him?) called me a fascist and vaguely threatened me for daring to suggest that some government-mandated pandemic restrictions could possibly be relaxed.

    What a dope. Everyone at Reason voted for Biden and wants endless pandemic restrictions. Jeez. It’s like he thinks Reason is libertarian or something. It’s all Biden, all the time!

    1. Biden their time?

    2. Go back to glibs bitch.

      1. Soon as I’m done recruiting the people who discuss ideas I’ll stop interfering in your small-minded discussions about people.

          1. When was the last time you discussed an idea?

            1. When was the last time you had one?

  16. Note to Robby: Keith Olbermann calling you a fascist should be something of which to be proud. Congratulations! A death threat is just icing on the cake.

  17. “Mob justice isn’t justice.”

    Come on, Robby, get woke.

    The right-thinking mob justice is the best kind of justice.

  18. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick suffered a stroke and died of natural causes, the medical examiner’s office in Washington, D.C., said Monday, weighing in on a question that has lingered since the officer died a day after he was assaulted during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

    The office concluded that Mr. Sicknick’s manner of death was natural, adding in an explanation: “If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-of-stroke-d-c-medical-examiner-says-11618864840?

    Many of the things people thought they know about the Capitol riot are turning out to be false, and everyone who publicly drew conclusions about the Capitol riot because of these falsehoods should be made to feel embarrassment.

    Here are some real facts.

    1) Parler referred violent threats to the FBI at least 50 (fifty) times before the Capitol riot, including specific threats that some groups were planning violence at the Capitol on January 6th.

    2) The FBI thanked Parler for being so helpful to them–even days after the Capitol riot was over.

    3) There doesn’t appear to have been more than a few hundred people that stormed the Capitol building, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them have been charged by prosecutors with sedition. The most serious charges appear to be obstruction, disorderly conduct, and trespassing.

    4) Ashli Babbitt was unarmed.

    1. Goddamn italics tags.

      1. That is a good list of things Reason does not give a damn about.

    2. It doesn’t matter. Euphemisms like deadly riots will continue to be used to justify persecuting political opponents and the base they are trying to convince will never be exposed to the fact the original story they were told was complete fantasy.

      1. It’s especially important right now, too, because organizing a massive protest in Washington D.C. may be the only the means to resist the Democrats and their authoritarian and socialist policies soon. The only reason they don’t pack the Supreme Court and end the filibuster is because they don’t want to right now, but that could change and probably will.

        Apple reinstated Parler on their app store yesterday, and so there may finally be an effective means to organize a protest. As more Americans become immunized, they should also become less wary of traveling to Washington D.C. for a protest. And the justifications for the Democrats to use the National Guard to lock down D.C. and prevent a protest are falling apart along with the narrative about the Capitol riot.

        The narrative about the Capitol riot was practically designed to prevent protests by refusing to let people organize one on social media and to make people support shutting one down if it should materialize–regardless of whether that was their actual intention. In the meantime, there are bills now pending before the Senate that should provoke a larger protest movement against them than TARP did.

        Libertarians everywhere should be taking an active stand in support of peaceful protest, which is widely recognized everywhere in the world as the best, most effective, and most libertarian form of opposition to a one-party government–anywhere in the world. If they’re reluctant to support a peaceful protest movement against the Democrats for fear that it will turn violent, they have no standing to oppose such reasoning in any other area.

        Should we oppose gun rights for their potential for violence, too?

        1. The narrative about the Capitol riot was practically designed to prevent protests by refusing to let people organize one on social media and to make people support shutting one down if it should materialize

          There are almost daily protests in D.C. they had arson and assaults just a few weeks before jan 6th. This isn’t about stopping all protests. Useful protests to the DNC will continue to be allowed. This is a means to a power for the current left. The media hides their violence through narrative.

          Do you even expect a mea culpa at even this site for a wrong narrative? I don’t.

          1. No, Emote (formerly Reason) will never issue a mea culpa.

        2. “Should we oppose gun rights for their potential for violence, too?”

          That’s slightly lower on the priority list, and “Libertarian-approved.” Just ask Robert Levy. You won’t find his 2016 comments about large-capacity magazine bans at CATO, but that’s what archive.org is for: https://web.archive.org/web/20161009111733/https://www.cato.org/policy-report/septemberoctober-2016/gun-control-grounds-compromise

        3. I’m pretty certain the DC lockdown was meant to hide the smallest inauguration crowds EVER.

          From social media to rallies, Biden was a dud. To have that even more obvious in 1/21 would have been more grist for the stolen election mill.

    3. Per the DoJ statement, federal cops can kill if they are scared or merely mistaken.

      1. Go to Youtube and watch the NYTs new presentation. Have you ever been scared Jessie? Have you ever been in a riot? How about combat? Why don’t you tell us about all the situations that you have been in? What was that MOS again? You keep leaving that out.
        The footage is convincing that the protest was violent and out of control. They are playing the actual radio calls that law enforcement was making. If you were there listening to your fellow defenders screaming into the radio for help, you would be scared too. He held a reasonable belief that the protest was violent and they were being overwhelmed. He had every reason to believe that he was in harm’s way. They were hitting the cops with bear spray, they were physically assaulting cops. Why would he wait until more of them were in the room, Tough Guy? Fuck Ashli Babbit and fuck you, REMF Cunt. You ain’t shit. Just another Cunt on the internet, running his well worn man-pleaser.

        1. Yes. I’ve been in a situation that turned into a riot. I saw a bar 30 feet away get burned down. I had concussion rounds cause my friend to go unconscious. Another friend lost an eye from a bean bag round.

          No cops shouldn’t have started using lethal munitions. Youre just completely wrong here.

          In the hallway she was shot nobody was armed except the cops. There were as many officers on both sides of the door as protesters around the door.

          You can justify murder all you want. But that’s what it was.

          No shots fired. No arson. About 100 people inside and on the steps. Vast majority not trying to enter.

          Youre just wrong.

          Based on the above you think feds in Portland should light protesters up.

          1. Hes a racist cop, of course he thinks that.

            1. I was a soldier and worked at the government. Never a cop. Never a racist. You are just one more clown using the word racist because the only thoughts in your empty head are fed to you on the internet. Your life experiences all come from the internet. You are nothing.

              1. I was a soldier and worked at the government. Never a cop.

                Have you ever been scared Talcum? Have you ever been in a riot? How about combat? Why don’t you tell us about all the situations that you have been in? What was that MOS again? You keep leaving that out.

                1. 11C, 18B, 18Z40W7S6

                  Bring it on. I served in Bosnia, Iraq(4 trips), and Afghanistan as a Contractor (3 trips). How about you?

                  1. So, “Special Forces Senior Sergeant” in ~8 tours across 3 combat zones, how many times did you, your ODA, or someone under your command open fire on unarmed civilians?

                    As for me, I never served and never indicated I did. But I’m sure your answer will be illuminating as to the brilliance of the SF and I’m sure you’ll make every last operator proud to be associated with and represented by you.

                    1. We shut down a genocide in Bosnia. We don’t kill people for fun, that is your inexperience talking. A special forces soldier is a teacher, a force multiplier. We have been training and advising military forces all over the world since the 50s. I was involved in Operation Provide Comfort where we protected the Kurdish refugees from being slaughtered by Saddam. We fed them, why do you think that they are loyal to the US?
                      After 9/11 , we were tasked to link up with forces in several different countries and train those indigenous forces to seek and destroy terrorists operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
                      The reality doesn’t make a great movie so believe it or not, Hollywood embellishes.

                    2. We don’t kill people for fun, that is your inexperience talking.

                      Misunderstanding of my implications aside, would it be fair to interpret your answer as “Never in a combat zone have myself or soldiers under my command opened fire on unarmed civilians.” ‘Sergeant’? If so, why?

          2. Just keep running with the narrative in your head. 100 people? You are mistaken, Bud. Go look at the video on Youtube. They can’t fake the video. They can’t fake the radio traffic.
            You have attended a riot, but have you ever worked at one? Big difference. Have you ever repelled one? Have you ever watched psychotic people in “mob mode” through a rifle scope from a rooftop? It is a much different experience when you can’t leave and you are forced to participate. It is your duty to participate if needed. It sucks. You want to be anywhere but there.
            We aren’t talking about Portland so stay on track, Twitter Boy. We are talking about the center of our government acting on previous threats of taking the building and harming the people that are lawfully working inside. They made direct threats on the life of the Vice President. They made direct threats to members of Congress. If you are playing insurrection, you will be treated like an insurrectionist. It really is that simple.

            1. They made direct threats on the life of the Vice President. They made direct threats to members of Congress.

              Citation needed

        2. So, uh, it is OK for cops to open fire on protesters? I mean, tear gas led to this site nearly bursting into tears.

          1. Not mere protestors. “Protestor” doesn’t convey that the person who was shot was trying to force her way past a security point with the Vice President and others being defended from a mob.

            1. All 12 people in the entryway of the video of the event says you’re lying.

              1. Did you hear that on Twitter? Why were they in that hallway, Cupcake?

                1. Protesting the certification of electoral fraud like good citizens.

              2. And an unknown number of rioters just around the corner, as far as the cops defending the door knew.

                You are using knowledge you have, afterwards, to judge the decisions of cops who didn’t have that knowledge at the time.

            2. The Vice President wasn’t even in the building at that time you lying fuck.
              And what threat was a completely unarmed woman to his security detail anyway?

              You’re so invested in your nonsense that you have no idea how ridiculous your defense sounds.

              1. And how would that cop know that? He only knows what he was ordered to do, stop anyone from entering his sector. What was Babbit going in that room for? Did the cop know her intent? No. But he did give that stupid woman a lawful order. She chose to disobey the order because she was an over-entitled Air Force cum dumpster and nobody told her to shut the fuck up when she was in the service. She thought that a lawful order did not apply to her Affirmative Action favored ass. Do what the armed man says and you will live. You can whine about it later, but at that time in that situation, the armed man with the reason to be there rules the room.

                1. She chose to disobey the order because she was an over-entitled Air Force cum dumpster and nobody told her to shut the fuck up when she was in the service.

                  My bet says you didn’t even drive a truck around the green zone. In another 20 yrs. we can probably expect to see you on the news failing to intimidate a tour group of HS kids at the Lincoln Memorial.

                  1. Then bring it on. Shipley is waiting.

                    1. Go ahead, contact Shipley.

                  2. I contacted Shipley. He sent my request to these guys. Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

                    They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

                    I’ve been to the Green Zone, Son. I got a well deserved shower, then went to the Embassy chow hall to marvel at the REMFs and tough guys before I returned to the real war.

                    1. They said they’ve never heard of ‘Talcum X’.

                    2. And when I search ‘Talcum X’ in their search function, a bunch of fake Green Berets come up: http://guardiansofthegreenberet.com/Welcome/PID/382/mcat/388/ev/1/nsw/a?EDNSearch=Talcum+X

                2. Umm. This is a libertarian board.

                  You do realize that most of us are never going to agree with cops shooting unarmed political protesters, no matter how you explain it.

                  And this; “the armed man with the reason to be there rules the room”, is anathema to me.
                  This isn’t an occupation under curfew by foreign troops. This was unarmed American citizens protesting probable electoral fraud in their own capitol. She had arguably more of a legitimate reason to be there than Johnnie Quickfinger.

                  1. If they were fully authorized to use lethal force to defend the Capitol, then one death as they were climbing in the window and pics of an unarmed civilian with his feet up on the Speaker’s desk is a monumental failure that he wouldn’t have tolerated among the SF operators he supposedly trained/commanded.

                    The most honest option is that he’s an embarassment to SF operators everywhere.

                    1. Then lets go, Son. Would you have the guts to disparage a service member in person? No, you wouldn’t. There are ways to prove a service record but you cowardly sheep just keep on bleeting. It is your comfort zone. I called out DOL and DOL delivered. It is easy to do. I have seen him call you chicks out many times, you back off, then immediatly attack him when he is absent. That is the epitome of cowardice. You are like children on a playground. You are sheep, we are sheepdogs, we don’t expect much from you. You haven’t earned your citizenship and honor is something that is foreign to you.

                    2. Would you have the guts to disparage a service member in person? No, you wouldn’t.

                      What does that have to do with you?

                  2. Oh brother. You are no more Libertarian that the “Democrats” on CNN or the “Republicans” on Fox. This is just a bunch of people trashing each other because they can.

              2. And do you know where the police guarding the door knew that, in the midst of “the fog of war.”

                1. “the fog of war.”

                  Fuck your hat, fascist apologia generator.

                  1. Any time you resort to insulting me rather than answering my point, I have won the argument.

                    1. “Any time you get mad at me for lying my ass off and trolling, I win”

                      Fair point.

            3. But forcing the President into the bunker due to the out of control mob is OK. Got it.

              1. No, it wasn’t OK. I have never said it was.

    4. You are way off on that “most serious charge claim”. There are assaults on Officers, robbery, etc.
      Those are Fed charges. Even uneducated criminals in Chicago take a break when the FED task force showed up. Even they know that FED charges will get you real time in prison with no parole. They are going to hammer these clowns, you can bet on that.
      https://www.usatoday.com/storytelling/capitol-riot-mob-arrests/

      Just one.
      Kyle James Young

      Age: 37
      Arrested or charged on: April 13, 2021
      Home state: Iowa

      Charges

      Robbery; obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting; two counts civil disorder; two counts assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct on restricted building or grounds; impeding ingress and egress in a restricted building or grounds; engaging in physical violence on restricted building or grounds; impeding passage through the Capitol grounds or buildings; and acts of physical violence in the Capitol grounds or buildings.

      Do those charges look serious enough? These clods are going to be facing Federal Prosecutors in Federal Court. If you think that the government is going to show any leniency whatsoever, you are seriously mistaken. Many of these people spent a lot of time on social media making whacko statements about their intent.

      1. The only thing they have is disorderly conduct. They tacked on all of the other charges to try and force a guilty plea. Are you in favor of looking at the tapes and arresting everyone that stormed the capitol and Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings?

        1. I am in favor of people acting sensible. Anyone that was in that building should get charged. If not, it will be a regular thing like the mayhem at the BLM riots.

          1. Are you more in favor of that, or favor of equality of treatment under the law? Until you start supporting cops opening fire on Portland protestors, you aren’t arguing for equality under the law.

            1. This blue liner is about as “far right” as they get. He definitely would love to light up the portland rioters.

              1. He’s a false flag.

              2. You don’t know Jack about me, my politics, or lack thereof.

                1. Gonna bookmark this one.

            2. We are talking about DC, Twitter Boy, stay on the subject or shut your built in Glory Hole.

              1. So asking you a question is out of order for some reason?

          2. Sensible would be actual revolt.

            1. Then get in there, Tough Guy. I can only tell you how things will be from a soldier’s perspective. Grab a weapon, go do what you think is right or just keep tapping on that computer where you are safe and sound.

              PRO TIP: There is nothing more violent and ruthless than the US government.

              1. So, you’re nothing but a mercenary?
                Because if you took an oath you damn sure aren’t living up to it.

                1. Then you don’t know the oath, do you?

                  1. Why don’t you educate us

                    1. Image result for Us military oath of enlistment.
                      I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me.

                      Foreign and Domestic, Son.

                      Get? Got it? Good.

                    2. So what’s the line then?
                      Anything Daddy Gov says is good with you?

      2. There doesn’t appear to have been more than a few hundred people that stormed the Capitol building, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them have been charged by prosecutors with sedition. The most serious charges appear to be obstruction, disorderly conduct, and trespassing.

        —-Ken Shultz

        Here’s what Reuters had to say as of a few weeks ago.

        “The department suffered another blow this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta threatened to impose a gag order on prosecutors after Michael Sherwin, its former head prosecutor on the Capitol cases, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” program that evidence pointed toward sedition charges against some defendants.

        A charge of sedition – meaning incitement of a rebellion – has not been brought against any of the more than 400 people arrested to date. The most serious charges have been assault, conspiracy and obstruction of Congress or law enforcement.”

        —-Reuters

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-arrests-justice/amid-setbacks-prosecutors-abandon-some-claims-in-u-s-capitol-riot-cases-idUSKBN2BG30C

        I believe the obstruction charge may be more serious than the assault or conspiracy charge, and some of those conspiracy cases appear to be falling apart under scrutiny.

        If you read through to the bottom of that Reuters article, you’ll read about conspiracy charges, etc. against Thomas Caldwell, Jacob Chansley, and Ethan Nordean–all of which turned out to be bogus.

        There is no question that some people did illegal things during the Capitol riot, but prosecutors haven’t alleged sedition against any of the defendants to the best of my knowledge. The claims officials have made in the media and the claims prosecutors made–during bail hearings–about defendants plotting to kill specific lawmakers, for instance, were dismissed for lack of evidence.

        As these cases continue to work through the courts, we’re likely to see that prosecutors were waaaaaaaaaaay overzealous in making those claims–just like they were in so many others. Even in a number of high profile cases, their claims turned out to be false.

        The reason they haven’t charged people with sedition is because there is insufficient evidence for it. The reason the Feds stopped claiming that they had evidence that the face-painted guy wearing horns, in his own words, planned to capture and assassinate elected officials–is because no such evidence existed.

        The prosecutors have been a clown show in this so far. The chances of them suddenly turning up real sedition at this point is remote.

        1. Well Ken, they have not brought out the main characters yet. There was more unseen action that has not come to light. They are still hunting down the rest of the crew. I recently learned that this was planned to be much worse than anyone imagined. Until Saturday, I believed that it was just a few clowns high on Trump rhetoric that got out of hand after a speech. I am now convinced, by someone involved with monitoring, that it wasn’t. There are solid cases being made of domestic terrorism. They failed because they were incompetent fools but they had planned, coordinated, and attempted to execute, actual terrorist actions.
          I had trouble believing this to be true. I wish that it was just idiots high on rhetoric, but it was not that harmless. There was real planning, real coordination, recon, and a real attempt to kill/capture members of our government. If you ever worked at the government and have held a clearance, you would know very well that the government only tells you what they want you to know. They will only tell you what you need to know. If they feel that you don’t need to know who these people are, they will just send them to a black site and they will keep them silent. Citizenship be damned, they don’t care what your status is.
          I’ve put people on the black choppers, Ken. I didn’t care what they did. I was told that they were terrorists by the people above and we went and got them. They just give you an address, show you a little “pre-mission porn” of the man carrying weapons, and then send you to get them. This isn’t about just trespassing. This is about domestic terrorism whether we like it or not.

          1. I recently learned that this was planned to be much worse than anyone imagined. Until Saturday, I believed that it was just a few clowns high on Trump rhetoric that got out of hand after a speech. I am now convinced, by someone involved with monitoring, that it wasn’t. There are solid cases being made of domestic terrorism.

            This has been discussed. Most of the planning was by near retirees in cosplay. It involved no weapons. It involved a guy with diabetes in a hotel room that could barely walk in a hotel room as armed backup.

            And aside from that, saying every protestor was part of this terrorist threat is just laughable.

            Now if you want to get into a threat such as with the pipebombs…. 99.9% of the people had no clue that those had been dropped off the night before. Not only that, you can’t even definitely say which side did it as both DNC and RNC were targeted, pointing to some sort of anarchist outfit, which the majority of the protestors did not represent.

            So you’re mixing issues here in order to justify Ashley Babbit, who was unarmed, being shot.

            1. I’ll bet that you don’t know a single person with a clearance. I’ll bet you don’t know a single FBI agent, a single special operator, or anyone but your Twitter Friends. Life is much different when you get off that computer.

              1. You obviously don’t either, or you would have gotten a briefing on how admitting to being what you are claiming you are online of all places is a horrendous violation of opsec.

                1. Yeah, Talcum is increasingly feeling like a throwback to the 90s when everyone on the internet who’s opinion mattered grew up in Compton but was, mysteriously, buttoned down enough not to get caught in the crossfire and went on to join the SEALs.

                  1. Well Son, lets go get that straightened out. BTW, I did grow up in the ghetto and joined the Army to get away. It is hardly uncommon. I was an instructor at SFUWO and ran a special forces dive team. All of it is listed on my DD214, as are my other schools, qualifications, and combat tours. Shipley can straighten this out but you little bitches prefer to maintain your position of never having to stand up, or prove anything.

                    1. Ah, left the ghetto to be a Special Forces Dive Officer in Afghanistan. My bad for thinking a simple ‘ghetto to SF’ story line was moderately absurd/implausible. I suppose you’re going to go full internet tuff guy and explain how your supermodel wife forced you to retire and you figured you were making too much money as a private contractor anyway.

                      I already told you to contact Don Shipley. If he can straighten this out and you haven’t contacted him yet, that’s on you.

                    2. He was also part of Black Hawk Down.

                  2. Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

                    They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

                2. Really? Is that so? I am a retiree and no longer hold a clearance. How, in your little brain, am I breaking OPSEC? Those clowns were on open source internet making statements. Private citizens joined those websites and infiltrated their network. They reported their findings and were asked to continue their monitoring.

                  1. The people I know, family members, who’ve signed agreements not to talk. Don’t talk about it. Retired, still serving: it doesn’t matter. They talk about other stuff.

                    You, on the other hand? Can’t seem to shut up about it.

                    1. Beginning to seem an awful lot like, one way or the other, he wants Don Shipley to fuck him.

                    2. Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

                      They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

              2. FBI agents are, by and large, useless shits and nobody should boast about knowing any of them.

            2. Whether anything was pre-planned or not is irrelevant to why Babbitt was shot. The scenario in the few minutes before her shooting fully justify her shooting.

              1. Oh, and what was that, Herr Höss.
                What did she do in the “few minutes before her shooting” that “fully” justified her execution?

                Don’t try to weasel out of it either, you sick fuck. I expect a real answer.

          2. I’ve put people on the black choppers, Ken. I didn’t care what they did.

            I don’t know which to be more concerned about, the idea that the Feds are employing secret police or the temerity of gaslighting a libertarian audience into believing that Ashli Babbitt’s murder was justified for reasons that are so super-secret that if they told us, they’d have to kill us.

            I really like the superfluous, “I didn’t care what they did.” It makes for better fan-fiction. Of course, it completely fails to account for why the poster would be confessing to outright violations of the oath to uphold the Constitution taken by law enforcement and military organizations on the website for a fading libertarian magazine, but it sounds exciting!

            1. It’s sounds like more of the same from the same old Walter Mitty.

              That he has serially attempted to “vouch” for DoL pretty much is the icing on the cake.

              1. And every time he calls you out, you bitches refuse to play in the real world. We can always contact the SEAL that lives to bust Stolen Valor cases. I will pay the fee you broke ass bitch. You bitches always refuse and go back to claiming Stolen Valor because you have nothing else. Why don’t we drag this into the real world and play DD214 poker, Pussy? Bring it on. I want you to know who I am Motherfucker. I fought for this country, you haven’t done shit but complain about it. Bring it on, lets contact Don Shipley or shut your smegma filled man-pleaser. DOL and I will make all you little REMF bitches you look silly.

                1. The spittle flecked anger is a nice touch.

                  1. Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

                    They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

              2. “That he has serially attempted to “vouch” for DoL pretty much is the icing on the cake.”

                That part gave me pause as well.

                1. DOL claimed to be a Special Forces Combat Diver. There are very few in the world. I was an Instructor for the SFUWO course. I still know people there. Very few civilians have been on the SFUWO compound in Key West. Even fewer have been in the rooms, the dive facilities, and very few have dove a Draeger LAR V, there is no civilian version. I asked him a series of questions and he not only answered, he provided names, time frames, and other information that few would know.
                  You just keep making the same bullshit claims over and over. Bring it on. Lets get Shipley involved.

                2. Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

                  They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

            2. I didn’t care what they did. I wasn’t tasked with making friends or analyzing their crimes. I’m not a lawyer, nor a Judge. You are tasked to bring them to justice or kill them, it is your job. It is totally legal.
              As the saying goes, “We could have been friends yesterday, but they gave me your address today”.
              Welcome to the real world where the consequences of your actions may garner the interest of people with guns and lawful orders to capture or eliminate you.
              Gaslight my ass. I’m trying to talk sense into you internet clods.

              1. You are tasked to bring them to justice or kill them, it is your job. It is totally legal.

                The fuck it is. You are required to read a fucking warrant before serving it you piece of shit liar. There are rules of engagement, you fucking liar. Did you forget that Randy Weaver won his case against the FBI for that exact reason?

                Go write your Trumptator fan-fiction somewhere else.

                1. Liar? What experience do you have? Read a warrant? Where? In Iraq? In Afghanistan? They didn’t even have courts, you Pud. The Iraqi version is to tie your hands behind your back, shoot you in the head, then toss you in the river. “The Iraqi Olympic Swin Team”. We changed that. We made them bring them in front of a Judge. We made them bring prisoners to Abu Ghraib. However, due to the dangerous nature of the targets, Kill or Capture orders were the law of the land. They were not soldiers serving in a recognized military, they were Islamic Terrorists. Ask anyone that was there.
                  Do you think that FBI HRT or any of their regional teams are going to read a warrant to you before they kick your door and treat you to a round of flashbangs? Why would they afford a Terrorist any chance to fight back? Wake up, Bud. They don’t need to do anything of the sort, especially after you are making threats of violence on the internet. They will read you the warrant when you are cuffed and no longer a threat.
                  You are a ignorant, but you can change that. You just don’t wish to. .

                  1. I wish nothing more than to banish ignorance.

                    Why are you conflating military operations in hostile territory to police actions towards sovereign citizens?

                    Why are you on a libertarian website arguing that an agent of the state executing a warrant while failing to know the content and cause is somehow acceptable?

                    I am not the one talking out of my ass here. “…no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Failing to perform due diligence in execution of a warrant is a violation of your oath.

                    They hung a shitload of German guys who said they were “just following orders”.

                    1. Have you seen the deck of cards? Those people were deemed war criminals for their actions against their own people and the Kurdish people. They were vicious, murdering psychopaths. You never spent a day in the military did you? The rules of land warfare differ from the rules for law enforcement. Do you actually beleieve that a soldier needs a “warrant” to hunt and kill terrorists while deployed to do so? Are you high? Doesn’t that seem even a bit moronic to you?
                      I am aware of what took place in the Hague, believe it or not, they educate the people that they send to war. We deploy with lawyers, they are part of any large briefing prior to an assault with known HVTs.
                      Why don’t you call a military JAG officer and ask?
                      And as for those Germans, they lost. In case you haven’t factored that part in, it does make a difference. In case you missed it, Trump pardoned known war criminals without a thought. He lost a lot of military support for that. US soldiers, sailors and Airmen live by the rules of land warfare and have disdain for those that do not.

                    2. Do you actually beleieve that a soldier needs a “warrant” to hunt and kill terrorists while deployed to do so? Are you high?

                      I can’t even see the goalposts wherever the fuck you dragged them to. Is that Kabul?

                      The sane people were talking about Ashli Babbitt before you hijacked the discussion with your flashback to your years in-theater, G.I. Joe.

                      Since nobody but you was ever talking about deployed soldiers, I will stand behind every single word that I said. Can I posit from the fact that you blatantly ignored all of the context I clearly laid out in my comments about constitutionality and the FBI that you have no intention of having an honest discussion about how illegal it would be for U.S. law enforcement to conduct such operations as you were describing?

                2. Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

                  They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

                  1. So, you came back to spam your bona fides, but failed to respond to actual an question about why you moved the topic from Babbitt and the Capitol to Afghani terrorists without telling anyone.

                    I didn’t think you were being honest before, thanks for confirming.

          3. “There are solid cases being made of domestic terrorism. They failed because they were incompetent fools but they had planned, coordinated, and attempted to execute, actual terrorist actions.”

            If you have reliable insider knowledge, good for you. The only knowledge I have is what is publicly available, and that shows that the cases they made against these guys for conspiracy were much like the cases Preet Bahara tried to make against commenters here at Reason.

            One commenter here at Reason made a statement that there was a hot place in hell for judges who betray the Constitution (like MLK said there was a hot place in hell for people who won’t take a stand on the issues), and Preet Bahara spun that in the media as if it were a credible and specific threat against a federal judge. For such a dangerous threat, Bahara sure abandoned it quickly when it came time to cite the evidence, didn’t he?

            If they can’t even make their high profile cases against people allegedly in the Oath Keepers and in the Proud Boys stick–well enough at arraignment? I’m certainly not about to discard publicly available information suggesting that these charges are often bogus because some anonymous guy in the comments section of a website somewhere tells me he’s got inside information.

            All the publicly available information suggests that we should be highly skeptical of the claims federal prosecutors are making on this–especially in a forum that isn’t especially rigorous like an arraignment hearing. If the judges are dismissing serious charges at arraignment for lack of evidence and threatening federal prosecutors with gag orders if they don’t stop going on television and saying things that aren’t true, then we’ve got a serious credibility issue with these claims.

            Here’s my insider knowledge–which is publicly available: judges are dismissing high profile charges in these cases for lack of evidence.

            1. Yes, because they cast a wide net. They aren’t all going to be “keepers”. But they are all useful, nonetheless.
              What do you think that those people will do, once they are in custody? Come on Ken, you are a reasonable man. You know the legal game. They talk, they sing. They will do anything to avoid a Fed rap. If you don’t believe that, ask any detective.
              99% of the murderers in jail are there because they ran their mouth. The person that they ran their mouth too either turns them in out of conscience, or they turn them in to make a deal. You don’t really think that Forensics puts them away very often, do you?

              1. Yep and without forensics corroborating snitches testimony is why so many people are wrongly imprisoned.

            2. In case you are wondering.
              Please feel free to vet me on guardiansofthegreenberet.com

              They bust out fakers. Tell them TalcumX sent you. They are awaiting your email.

    5. Ashli Babbitt was unarmed.

      It’s interesting that most news stories say that she was ‘shot dead’. That is not true.

      https://twitter.com/i/status/1347638418952638468

      Ashli Babbitt was shot in the throat and died slowly, drowning in her own blood.

      Not only was she unarmed, she was not a threat to anyone at the moment she was shot. She never even made it through the window. That anyone could watch this video and find the use of deadly force here justified is beyond understanding. There were 3 police officers standing right behind her. She was executed to show where the line was.

      1. “She never even made it through the window.”

        Well, there’s some circular reasoning. She didn’t make it through the window because a Capitol police officer _did his job_ and stopped her from getting past the door to the Speaker’s Lobby.

        1. Derek Chauvin did his job

          1. Shooting someone in the throat isn’t an escalation of force according to WK.

            1. It could be seen as an escalation, but it was justified.

              1. What did she do that “fully” justified her execution?

          2. And then some.

        2. From the person yelling about unmarked vans arresting protesters in Portland comes “that bitch deserved it.”

          There were as many cops on both sides of the door as there were protesters around the door. She could have easily been subdued by the 6 officers on the other side of the door when she went through.

          But you’re a statist.

          1. I would never call Babbitt a “bitch”. And I take no pleasure in her death.

        3. Well, there’s some circular reasoning.”

          If you think not being a threat justifies shooting an unarmed protester, then conversing with you may be a waste of time.

          1. Yup. Ken hits the nail on the head again.

        4. a Capitol police officer _did his job_

          Did you watch the video? He could have pushed her back through. She had no leverage as her feet were up underneath her. He could have communicated with the 3 police officers standing behind her. They have radios. A guy with a baton could have defended that position all day.

          This is a case of, “I already have my gun out and I can’t very well put it down, so I might as well use it.”

          Why are you continuing to defend this police homicide while condemning another? Why is this one your sacred cow?

          1. Oh, I don’t know. Because I don’t like seeing people trying to overthrow the stable democracy I have lived in all my life.

            1. If an unarmed 35-yr.-old woman is an existential threat to your democracy, you might want to reconsider your use of the word ‘stable’.

              1. That was quite disingenuous. She was not alone, and you know that. So, why do you speak of her as if she were the sole person infiltrating the Capitol building.

                1. She was alone in being killed, alone in the existential “She dies or democracy dies.” threat.

                  Even then, the fact that she wasn’t alone doesn’t refute my point. If 400 unarmed individuals is an existential threat to your democracy, you might want to reconsider your use of the word ‘stable’.

                  Defending yourself as you have, I’d even suggest you might check your premise, seems like a lot of your perception of reality that you would define as ‘stable’ somehow also rests on a single life-or-death situation, a knife’s edge.

                  1. 400 out of 350 million.

                    1. Not sure what you’re saying, but if every citizen in your democracy is an insurrectionist, you might want to reconsider your use of the word ‘stable’.

        5. did his job… stopped her from getting past the door to the Speaker’s Lobby

          Oh woah!
          Look at this, folks.
          Here’s another piece of evidence for the ‘White Knight Is an Overt Fascist’ file.
          And yet he swears he’s a libertarian.

        6. Well, there’s some circular reasoning

          Also, how was that circular reasoning?

          1. If she’s trying to grapple with logic, that’s a positive sign and should probably be encouraged.

            But, yeah, assuming that protesters shouldn’t be shot for not being a threat, as we do in this case, isn’t an excellent example of circular reasoning.

          2. We can add circular reasoning to the list of phrases that Dee doesn’t understand.

            It’s funny when lefties turn into caricatures of themselves.

            1. Part of the problem is that their understanding of others is often caricature. Lefties think of libertarians as islands ignorance and superstitions who simply do not know how to benefit from others.

              So one of them, who styles himself clever wades into the comments thinking that his cleverness and serial mendacity will let him run circles around a divided target audience.

              When nothing could be farther from the truth. We are the sorts who recognize power of the invisible hand of Adam Smith. And not just in economics, but in all aspects of life. So inevitably the bullshit, coupled with the verbal tics, and the layers upon layers of contradictions viewed through the lens of multiple individuals eventually identify him as what he is.

              A long con this is not.

              1. I think they often come here imagining that we’re either not smart enough to accept their progressive truth or that we’ve been terribly misled by Fox news, the Koch brothers, or some other entity.

                After a while, they start to realize that the reason we believe the things we do are for reasons, and then some of those reasons start to make them question their own beliefs. After all, there are so many things progressives believe that don’t really have any principles or logic behind them.

                At that point, they typically go one of two ways. Many of them fade away. They decide they’d rather go back to the familiar ways and biases they had and not trouble themselves with us any longer. Some of them become permanent trolls. They harden their craniums, subconsciously or otherwise, and devote themselves to trolling to try to stop us from making anyone else question the progressive truth.

                There are still others, who genuinely do not possess the intellectual capacity to understand what they read or formulate rational ideas of their own, and they’re just here to flail against us–for being far more knowledgeable and reasonable than they can ever be. These are people who genuinely believe that what they say is important regardless of whether it makes sense.

                But we should also note that few, if any, of us were born libertarian capitalists. At some point, we were not libertarian capitalists, but we picked up a book, we listened to an argument, we had a conversation, and little by little, we were persuaded. A bet there’s a huge population of those people out there as lurkers.

                It was easier to become a libertarian capitalist when we had the example of authoritarian socialism like the Soviet Union or East Germany standing in contrast to what we wanted to be. It’s harder to get people to abandon their support for, say, Biden or the Democratic party, when the best and most immediate example of authoritarian socialism is our own president and the one-party state he’s lording over.

                Few in the USA really bought Brezhnev as the good guy, but there are a lot of people out there today who really believe that AOC and Biden are the good guys.

                1. This site and this magazine in the early 2000s moved me from Republican to firmly Libertarian – something I don’t think this site nor this magazine is capable of today.

      2. You weren’t there. You have never been there. You are just repeating third party information as if you were there. There is plenty of video, audio, and recorded, written threats of an organized assault made prior to the attack. If you turn off your Fox News feed and do a little research, you may find out that there was more to that situation than Babbit and her merry band of clueless Larpers taking selfies inside the building. They, like the BLM “peaceful protestors”, were being used as a screen for the people that meant to do real harm. Fox news isn’t going to tell you about that part yet, it doesn’t fit their narrative.
        If Babbit didn’t want to get shot, she should have simply listened to the lawful orders being given to her by the armed man that was tasked with stopping the assault on that room. He had been listening to distress calls for a very long period of time. He had every reason to believe that his life was in danger and that his position was being compromised. If you can’t understand that, it doesn’t matter. In the real world, actions have consequences. If I tell you that I’m going to shoot you in the real world, you had damn well better back off or I will add you to my list of boot shiners in the halls of Valhalla.

        1. “If Babbit didn’t want to get shot, she should have simply listened to the lawful orders being given to her by the armed man that was tasked with stopping the assault on that room.”

          Refusing lawful orders doesn’t justify shooting unarmed protesters, and there was certainly more than enough evidence to merit a trial for the officer who shot Ashli Babbitt.

          “There is plenty of video, audio, and recorded, written threats of an organized assault made prior to the attack.”

          You seem to be citing the statements of prosecutors, in the media and in arraignment hearings, that has since proven to be factually incorrect.

          1. The case of Thomas Caldwell:

            “On Jan. 19, prosecutors said they believed Thomas Caldwell, a retired U.S. Navy officer from Virginia, had a “leadership role” within the Oath Keepers. The FBI, in a criminal complaint, described Facebook messages Caldwell allegedly sent and received “while at the Capitol,” including one urging him to turn on the gas and tear up the floorboards.

            “‘All members are in the tunnels under capital seal them in. Turn on gas,’” it read.

            A prosecutor in Florida read those words aloud in February in a bid to convince a judge to detain two of Caldwell’s co-defendants. Prosecutors now acknowledge that Caldwell was not even a dues-paying member of the Oath Keepers and that they lack evidence he ever entered the Capitol.

            There also are questions about the Facebook messages. Caldwell’s lawyer said in a March 10 court filing those messages were sent by two men who were more than 60 miles (100 km) away at the time and had no connection to the Oath Keepers. The comments were apparently satirical, albeit “tasteless,” his lawyer said, and Caldwell never responded to them.

            —-Reuters

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-arrests-justice/amid-setbacks-prosecutors-abandon-some-claims-in-u-s-capitol-riot-cases-idUSKBN2BG30C

            1. That prosecutor should be sanctioned and disbarred.

              1. What if the behavior of the feds towards Michael Flynn is SOP?

                How many times have we seen this now?

                Reason would be all over trying to force innocent people to plea out of crimes they’re not guilty of because they’re poor or for fear that they’ll draw a ridiculously harsh sentence if the prosecutors trump up charges.

                I don’t think the way prosecutors are treating the Capitol rioters here is even unusual. This is what they do! There isn’t anything unusual about the press creating a moral panic over the Capitol riot and Parler either. We’ve seen them do that over and over again–from the McMartin preschool trial and the “Satanic panic” to Backpage and from “human trafficking” to the Evil Clown panic of 2016. Everything we thought we knew about Columbine, in the immediate aftermath of that tragedy, also turned out to be false.

                “He laments that as one of the first reporters on the Columbine scene he contributed along with the rest of the media to the creation of myths that then provided fertile soil upon which further gun violence could grow.

                “We got it wrong. Absurdly wrong … What I failed to grasp that day was how we were botching the story – and the staggering ramifications of mislaid good intentions. I had no idea that I might be playing a role, and bear some responsibility for the children still dying around us two decades later.”

                In Cullen’s analysis the initial misrepresentation of the two Columbine shooters as “outcast boys” lashing out at the jocks who bullied them served to turn them into mythical figures that then inspired other distraught individuals to follow suit. He calls the repeated gun rampages “spectacle murders” that are “essentially performances – and without the media, they have no stage. No voice. We play right into their hands.”

                https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/08/gun-violence-schools-dave-cullen-columbine-parkland

                Neither the behavior of the prosecutors nor the behavior of the media is unusual. They do this all the time! Why aren’t they being called out for it yet?

                I suspect it’s because they’re genuinely afraid of middle America, and the media narrative doesn’t only confirm their fears but is the actual origin itself. They really want to believe what the prosecutors are telling them, and the prosecutors may be telling them this because the media wants to believe it. You can make yourself a political career out of this stuff. Janet Reno rode a moral panic in the media to become attorney general, and Giuliani got to where he is by riding highly public cases, too.

                We’re not alleging anything unusual here. This is the way the world usually works.

            2. We should be worried that the democrats and the feds biggest concern are soldiers who say they will not obey an illeagal/unconstitutional order

          2. The case of Ethan Nordean:

            “In another case, prosecutors said in a March 1 court filing that Ethan Nordean, a member of the right-wing Proud Boys group, “dressed all in black, wearing a tactical vest, led the Proud Boys through the use of encrypted communications.” Prosecutors subsequently acknowledged that Nordean’s cell phone battery died on Jan. 6 and was not functioning the entire day.

            A judge denied a prosecution bid to jail Nordean, citing a “dearth of evidence” that he directed others to use or carry weapons.”

            —-Reuters

            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-arrests-justice/amid-setbacks-prosecutors-abandon-some-claims-in-u-s-capitol-riot-cases-idUSKBN2BG30C

            As the evidence becomes clearer and clearer, it also becomes increasingly clear that the media narrative about the Capitol riot is falling apart.

            The Capitol riot appears to be have been more like soccer hooligans rioting after their team loses than it was like an organized insurrection. There were people who went there just to cause trouble, but that’s what soccer hooligans do, too.

            1. Here’s the Capitol riot as described by the Cockney Rejects–from a long time ago.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whi2sUugAtE

              1. Yeah, soccer hooligans fight with the police and everything!

        2. The case of Jacob Chansley:

          “In January, prosecutors in Arizona who were seeking to detain a man named Jacob Chansley, famously pictured inside the Capitol donning face paint and horns on his head, said they had “strong evidence,” including “Chansley’s own words and actions,” that the “intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials.” They reversed course the next day.”

          —-Reuters

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-arrests-justice/amid-setbacks-prosecutors-abandon-some-claims-in-u-s-capitol-riot-cases-idUSKBN2BG30C

          1. The Trump supporters rioting at the US Capitol last week chanted, “Hang Mike Pence,” according to video clips from the scene.

            The footage was among newly released images showing just how violent the riots were: a bloodied officer crushed in a doorway screaming; another tumbling over a railing into the crowd below after being body-slammed from behind; members of the media being cursed, shoved and punched. Five people died in Wednesday’s mayhem.

            The call for the US vice president’s execution followed an extraordinary 24-hour stretch in which Pence openly defied Trump, Trump unleashed his fury on the vice president, and a mob of violent supporters incensed by Trump’s rhetoric stormed the Capitol building and tried to halt the peaceful transfer of power.

            Trump supporters overwhelmed police, smashed windows, occupied the building and halted the electoral proceedings. Pence was whisked from the Senate chamber to a secure location, where he was held for hours with staff as well as his wife and daughter, who had been there to support him.

            https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-capitol-rioters-chanted-hang-mike-pence-video-footage/

            1. I don’t see how what you’re citing here contradicts anything I’ve said.

              Brian Sicknick suffered a stroke and died of natural causes despite what you wrote.

              Parler was referring violent threats to the FBI pointing to a riot at the Capitol on January 6th long before the riot, and was thanked by the FBI for the assistance to the FBI long after January 6th.

              The sedition charges, reported in the media and made by prosecutors turned out to be bogus, as well as some of the most high profile conspiracy charges.

              And there isn’t anything in your statement that somehow justifies shooting an unarmed protester.

              I don’t see anything here that contradicts what I’ve said. I’m not even sure it addresses it.

              Try to see this from a different view, and maybe you’ll understand what I’m saying.

              I oppose bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq on humanitarian grounds and because I don’t think it’s in the best interests of the United States on strategic grounds or will have the ultimate consequences that its supporters say it will.

              You come along and tell me that Saddam Hussein is a really mean man. He tortures his own people, he uses WMD on his own people, and he’s a dictator.

              But you say doesn’t really address any of my objections to bombing, invading, and occupying Iraq.

              Are you saying that it’s okay to shoot unarmed protesters? Are you saying that these men should have been convicted of crimes despite the lack of evidence against them? Are you saying that Parler should have been deplatformed for failing to police their comments section adequately?

              Nothing you’ve said here seems to address those issues. You’re just telling me you don’t like these bad people because of their misbehavior. Is this the first time you’ve heard that shooting people because you don’t like them and their behavior is wrong? Is this the first time you’ve heard that deplatforming people for not doing anything wrong is unfair? Is this the first time you’ve heard that convicting people of crimes they didn’t commit because accusations were made against them is wrong?

              Or is what you’ve said here in no way a response to what I wrote?

            2. Now do BLM, Antifa, and the Democratic Party. Gotta keep repeating that party talking point. Insurrection by the dirty white peoples. Don’t want anyone focusing on the actual coup.

            3. a bloodied officer crushed in a doorway screaming

              We all saw the tape you lying fuck. He wasn’t “bloodied” (your lie 1). He was pinned by his fellow officers behind him (your lie 2). He was yelling, not “screaming”, at his teammates who were pushing in from behind (your lie 3). Furthermore a female protester can clearly be heard asking him if he’s okay. Finally he was uninjured in the incident.

              You can’t help but lie about this because otherwise your assertions sound stupid. And the worst thing is that you know that you are lying.

              Tell me. How much are you paid to post your garbage here?

        3. If I tell you that I’m going to shoot you in the real world, you had damn well better back off or I will add you to my list of boot shiners in the halls of Valhalla.

          Lighten up, Francis.

          Shooting an unarmed civilian is murder. Babbitt clearly didn’t think the asshole would murder her in front of a dozen cameras. She was clearly wrong.

          1. roided up racist goverment sponsored coward with a gun and immunity

          2. So, now the Capitol police officer is an “asshole”.

            1. Yes. How is that even a question? He killed an unarmed protester, when she posed no threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, to either the officer or another third party. Despite what our blowhard, super-secret, “I black bagged bad guys for JSOC, and brag about it in an open forum” claims, that’s an unjustified homicide by a law enforcement officer.

              Which used to be a crime in this country. Yeah, I’m fine with calling a killer like that an asshole.

              Goddamnit, now I have to get seagull shit off my hands.

              1. I never said JSOC, Douchbag. You did because you are an ignorant tool. I was SF, as vanilla as it gets. As for open source, you are clueless. Is it a secret that people were arrested and sent to sites to be interrogated? Is that a secret? We had their faces on a deck of cards! Is it a secret that we conducted nightly raids all over Iraq, Afghanistan, for two decades? How would we keep that a secret, Cupcake? Invisible Helicopters? Go visit Amazon and tell me how many books have described it in vivid detail. Besides, most things are declassified eventually. All legal.
                Many of them came to us as soon as we invaded. Jihad. Heard of it? They are not fighting for a country or under a flag. They are not afforded the normal protections under the Geneva Convention. They were rogue. You can kill them legally all day long. When a person chooses to deceive by wearing a uniform for a military that he does not serve with, what happens? See, Malmedy, WWII. They lined them up and shot them on the spot. Totally legal and above board under the rules of land warfare.
                Hence, the black helicopters. It doesn’t matter once they are loaded up, they are no longer an “operator problem”, they are just a bag of flesh to be worked by interrogators for future targets. Trust me, they wanted to get captured by Americans rather than Iraqis or Afghans. They know that they will live.
                And, get this, if, they pose a serious threat to your forces, you can do a cordon and call out. If they don’t come out, you can LEGALLY call an overhead aircraft to drop a 1000lb bomb on the building and call it a day. Kill or Capture. It is on the order.
                Saddam’s boys decided to hole up and fight. The building was leveled with TOW rockets from te 101st ABN until it was a smoking pile. Legal, Yep! There are plenty of pictures.
                You really don’t understand the absolute lethality and utter lack of mercy afforded to US forces when hunting people deemed as terrorists, do you? We didn’t go there to negotiate, we went there to eliminate the threat.
                Hell, how many people did Obama kill with drones? Do you think that they sent a warrant or a warning over before a rocket hit the building? Welcome to the real world.

                1. Bragging on a libertarian forum about how you killed people for the government.

                  1) Read the crowd, shitstain.

                  2) My dad was recruited by the CIA. When he told me the story, he prefaced it with “when anybody tells you they worked for the CIA, they are lying.”

                  3) My dad is a very wise man.

          3. She was a member of the Air Force, right? They have areas on Air Force bases that are declared “deadly force authorized”. Planes with nukes….etc. They paint red lines on the ground and station a man with a rifle. If you cross that line, you will be shot. Everyone in the Air Force is aware of it. It is acceptable to protect equipment, why wouldn’t that be acceptable for the center of the US government and the personnel that are a part of it?
            Clearly, you have little understanding of the “use of force”.
            When Pelosi traveled to Minnesota the other night she did not go alone. She brought Capital Police with her for protection. Can normal cops work out of their district? No. But Capital Police have wide ranging powers and their use of force rules may be much different than you are accustomed to. Babbit should have educated herself before she burst into that room.

            1. “She was a member of the Air Force, right? They have areas on Air Force bases that are declared “deadly force authorized”. Planes with nukes….etc. They paint red lines on the ground and station a man with a rifle. If you cross that line, you will be shot. Everyone in the Air Force is aware of it. It is acceptable to protect equipment, why wouldn’t that be acceptable for the center of the US government and the personnel that are a part of it?”

              While lovely to know, utterly and totally irrelevant to the state assassination of Babbitt or the 1/6 mostly peaceful protests.

              1. Assassination? There you go again. Exaggerating like a Don Lemon.

                1. She was killed for no reason by the state for apparently purely political reasons.

                  Hope the officer commits suicide in regret for his actions

    6. Unarmed and surrounded by armed law enforcement.

      Reason thinks a split second decision against a visibly armed person in a dark alley late at night is an easier call to make than the slow and deliberate shooting of Babbitt.

      Sullum is such a worthless dishonest fuck.

      1. “slow and deliberate”

        Right, sure. A mob is breaking through the door, but it was “slow and deliberate”.

        1. Yeah, I’ve watched the video, those hands had that pistol raised for longer than the entire Toledo foot chase.

          1. Yes. And what did she do? Ignored it. Brilliant.

            1. It doesn’t matter if she did ignore it – we still don’t shoot unarmed people in the US because it’s almost always unjustified.

  19. Rep. Maxine Waters (D–Calif.), who urged protesters to “stay in the street” and become “more confrontational” if the former Minneapolis police officer is acquitted for the killing of George Floyd

    I dare say Maxine Waters is not going to like the results of mob justice when you recall what mob justice used to look like.

    It’s like Rashiada Tlaib and her call to abolish the police and incarceration – it is certainly past time to do a cost/benefit analysis on the whole justice system and question whether we might not be better off abolishing it, but you would do well to remember the basic premise of policing wasn’t to protect citizens from criminals but to protect criminals from citizens. If you’re going to abandon the police, pace Ron DeSantis and his “If you riot, you’re going to jail” comment, if you riot, you’re getting shot in the fucking head. Be careful what you wish for.

    1. True, if incarceration goes away. There is no disincentive for me to hire an armed guard to protect my apartment complex. You try to rob someone. You get shot and your body gets put in the dumpster. What are you going to do arrest us with the cops you don’t have anymore?

    2. If you think cops don’t act professionally, wait till you see the average Joe in action.

      1. The Wild West wasn’t as wild as it’s generally portrayed, but they did hang horse thieves and cattle rustlers. And sometimes they hanged people merely accused of being a horse thief or a cattle rustler.

        1. The culture then, was a lot different than the culture now. I don’t think the crime statistics from then would apply to now.

          You’re right about the Mob getting it wrong a lot more often than the cops do.

    3. “I dare say Maxine Waters is not going to like the results of mob justice when you recall what mob justice used to look like. ”

      It might result in fewer deaths like that of Floyd. If it takes a mob to strike fear into the hearts of police and make them think twice about killing people, then mobs away, I say. As long as police believe they can kill without consequences, these sorts of cases will continue.

      1. Except the last time this happened, it resulted in the War on Crime and prison populations skyrocketing.

      2. So, if the crowd at the scene had interfered with Chauvin and Floyd died anyway, who would be on trial for murder?

      3. No thanks, Baltimore is still hurting from the ’68 riots. And no it will lead to more deaths. Violence begets violence.

        1. “Violence begets violence.”

          Until it doesn’t.

      4. “It might result in fewer deaths like that of Floyd.”

        Vigilantes might lead to FEWER deaths?

        You’re aware that the cops are not really there for the sake or the citizenry but for the sake of the criminal. The public would be dramatically harsher than the justice system.

        1. If police feared the consequences of these extra judicial killings, there would be fewer.

          1. nine unarmed black men killed in 2019. Nationally. No, there really could not be many fewer.

            But, hey, I’m all for letting the local citizens protect their city as they see fit. But I bet you will find it a bit horrifying.

            1. The fewer the better as far as I’m concerned. It’s not the job of the police to kill anyone. They are to take suspects into custody while the courts decide on the matter.

              1. If we see the name of the officer who killed Babbitt, I’ll take your desire seriously.

                1. Feeble equivocation, damikesc, feeble equivocation. What is the relevance? Babbit was neither a man, nor black, nor killed in 2019. Face the truth: white people simply don’t care about the issue to the same extent that black people do. I mentioned before, when someone like Babbit is killed, the most white people can muster is a candle light vigil with a restrained police presence who keep a respectful distance. When the victim is black, you have demonstrations which the police are determined to break up even if they have to resort to spraying the mourners with toxic gasses. A whole different universe.

                  If you want to know the name of Babbit’s killer, grow a pair and do something about it. Learn the lesson Comrade Waters is trying to teach you if you’d only listen. Draping yourself with furs, painting your face and wearing a bison horn hat will only succeed in making yourself a laughing stock.

      5. then mobs away, I say

        That works in so many situations, too.

      6. Fewer deaths like that of Floyd, more deaths like that of Emmett Till. Glad to see which side you’re on, brother.

        1. It’s how Third Worlders solve criminal problems. We shouldn’t be surprised to see it here, now.

          Though if we shouldn’t be surprised, I guess we can still mourn.

        2. Emmett Till unarmed, wasn’t he? Those days of innocence are drawing to a close.

    4. I don’t mind abolishing the police in blue areas as long as we put walls up around them and forbid the citizens from moving elsewhere, Escape From New York-style.

      Incidentally, that whole concept came about because NYC was a crime-ridden shithole in the 1970s and doing something like that seemed like a potentially realistic government action to protect the rest of the country, even if that wasn’t Carpenter’s intent.

  20. Racist misogynist House Republicans are attempting to censure Waters over the matter

    FTFY

    1. Are you implying they are pouncing?

    2. Maxine Waters merely accused her critics of being racist, she’s too stupid to think of throwing in the misogynist canard. Lori Lightfoot was at least smart enough to take advantage of her sexuality and threw “homophobic” into the mix. When you realize that you’re dumber than the mayor of Chicago it may be time to take stock of your life choices.

  21. Keith Olbermann is an excellent analyst and a key figure in the progressive / neocon / libertarian / corporate #Resistance. I especially appreciate his fearlessness in denouncing RUSSIAN SCUM!

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

  22. “Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick Died Of Natural Causes, Medical Examiner Rules”
    […]
    “It was not immediately clear how the medical examiner’s report would affect ongoing investigations into Sicknick’s death and how it might affect the charges stemming from his alleged assault. But the official ruling of his death from natural causes will likely make homicide charges difficult to justify.”
    https://www.npr.org/2021/04/19/988876722/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-of-natural-causes-medical-examiner-ru#:~:text=Capitol%20Police%20Officer%20Brian%20Sicknick%20Died%20Of%20Natural,suffering%20strokes%2C%20Washington%2C%20D.C.%27s%20chief%20medical%20examiner%20says.

    TDS-addled shit WK still hoping to blame the protesters!

    1. So is npr. Natural causes makes proving homicide difficult, but who cares about justice

    2. Without Sicknick’s death, the whole thing becomes a big puddle of nothing for them. And when compared to the damage at the Kavanagh confirmation incident, which they lauded, it seems like rank hypocrisy.

      I don’t know how they’re going to part with the myth.

      1. No, it doesn’t change the fact that the Capitol was stormed by MAGA rioters trying to disrupt the peaceful transition of Presidential administrations, and threatening the lives of the Congresspersons, Vice President, and others in the building.

        1. How is that any worse than the fact that the the Capitol was stormed by proggy rioters trying to disrupt the peaceful confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice, and threatening the lives of the Senators, the Vice President, and others in the building?

          Also, how is that any worse than the fact that the the White House was stormed by BLM rioters trying to attack and threaten the lives of the Congresspersons, the President, and others in the building? A situation so bad that the president had to be evacuated.

          You seem very selective in your outrage.

          1. Remember when the media bragged about protesters making trump go to the bunker?

            1. That’s different because shut up Russian bot.

          2. As I suspected, it’s impossible for you to part with the myth.

        2. threatening the lives of the Congresspersons, Vice President, and others in the building.

          While unarmed taking selfies. Lol.

          You didnt bat an eye when protesters went to the private homes of politicians.

          1. When you watch the unedited video you see how innocuous the whole thing really was, compared to everything that the Democrats incited for almost a whole year prior.

            It really puts White Knights rhetoric into perspective.

        3. “No, it doesn’t change the fact that the Capitol was stormed by MAGA rioters trying to disrupt the peaceful transition of Presidential administrations,”
          Bullshit.
          “and threatening the lives of the Congresspersons, Vice President, and others in the building.”
          Bullshit.

          If there is no possibility of achieving a goal, there is no way to charge anyone with anything. I can claim I’ll nuke DC, but since I have no nukes, it’s an idle threat.
          And not one congress-scum was actually threatened.
          But, TDS-addled piece of lefty shit, you just keep peddling your lies, giving us daily reminders of what assholes are.

      2. “Without Sicknick’s death, the whole thing becomes a big puddle of nothing for them.”

        Which is sad, because if the ultimate cause of Sicknick’s death were assault by an insurrectionist, it shouldn’t have changed anyone’s position on policy one iota in any way.

        We’ve taken their fig leaf away with this, but if Sicknick had been murdered by rioters, that wouldn’t have justified shooting unarmed protesters, justified deplatforming Parler, justified impeaching Trump for it, or justified the feds leveling bogus charges at other defendants.

        If Sicknick had been murdered, would that have meant it was wrong to rally against Biden’s infrastructure bill, to rally against his stimulus bill, to rally against the Democrats’ efforts to pack the Supreme Court, against Biden’s Green New Deal, or made it wrong to rally against Biden’s plan to violate our Second Amendment rights?

        This outcome pulls the rug out from under the progressives’ stupid logic, but it was stupid logic even before the rug was pulled out from under it. There isn’t any policy or unjust and foolish action we should have supported if Sicknick had been murdered instead, and every progressive who thought it did matter that in regards to policy should have been ashamed of themselves and their stupidity–long before the cause of death became official.

    3. No, I admit I was wrong.

      1. Will you admit you never had any evidence whatsoever and were just a mouthpiece blindly asserting the leftist narrative?

        1. It’s not even a left wing narrative. Look at leftists like Greenwald and Tabbi. It’s a Democratic party narrative he’s been pushing.

      2. “No, I admit I was wrong.”

        After grasping after any straw you could possibly find.
        You think that makes you any less of a TDS-addled lefty shit? It doesn’t.
        Make the world a fare better place; fuck off and die.

    4. Wow. It took them 3.5 months to figure out death by stroke. 3.5 months full of people hypothesizing what the real cause of death was.

      That it would take 3.5 months, and the result would be so…natural. I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

      I had assumed, understandably of course, that if it took 3.5 months, the answer was going to be “Yep, his skull was crushed.”

  23. I will laugh my ass of if the guy that cleft OAN because of made up stories goes to cnn

    1. I’ll laugh my ass when he’s deposed by the Dominion lawyers.

      1. Dominion Soros’ lawyers.

        Don’t forget who’s paying for them.

  24. #BidenBoom update.

    In 2021 Democrats have raised the minimum wage by: $0.00 / hour

    In 2021 Reason.com benefactor Charles Koch’s net worth has increased by: $5.94 billion

    Even with Drumpf’s draconian anti-billionaire policies, it took an entire year (January to December 2020) for Mr. Koch to lose $5 billion. Yet Biden’s pro-billionaire policies have helped our benefactor erase that loss in just a few months.

    #LibertariansForBiden
    #GetReadyForTheKochComeback

  25. Goofus:“Reason’s Jacob Sullum persuasively argued that at the very least, Chauvin should be convicted of second-degree manslaughter, which carries with it a presumptive sentence of four years in prison”

    Sullum’s actually been pushing the retarded murder change. I still think that there’s a good case for second-degree manslaughter, but that isn’t what Sullum’s been shilling.

    Gallant:“Regardless, jurors should hold Chauvin accountable for his role in Floyd’s death, to the extent they believe the evidence supports a conviction. They should not feel obligated to convict because far-left rioters are holding the city hostage. Mob justice isn’t justice”

    Amen. Good for you Robby.

  26. Mad Max is basically Farrakhan in drag. I’m just wondering what it would take for the Democrats to decide she’s more trouble than she’s worth and throw her under the bus.

    -jcr

    1. She’s get her uses; she makes AOC look ‘respectable’.

    2. Two consecutive years of not hitting her fundraising quota, or a whole lot of gentrification in her district.

    3. Nothing.

      The views of the plebs are utterly inconsequential to the ruling class now.
      We see this in everything from business to education, where they don’t give a crap about offending their customers and instead make public political statement’s that comport with the agenda of the American elite.
      November’s fraud and the establishment’s acquiescence (and assistance) showed that they don’t have to care about the voters either, so why worry about Maxine?

  27. Keith Olbermann (remember him?)

    Was he the guy who had to pay out several million dollars to a couple of male prostitutes for mental anguish in a case where he had gone seriously overboard in a BDSM session and demanded the male prostitutes do things to him that the male prostitutes were not comfortable doing, or is that somebody else I’m thinking of?

    1. That was him. I believe he also called them niggers if I recall correctly.

  28. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1384494062594580482?s=19

    The CNN/NBC/NYT axis has trained its liberal audience to not care if they lie:

    – They lied that Hunter docs were “Russian disinfo” (dude Hunter? lol)

    – They lied about Russian bounties (so Putin is good?)

    – They lied about how Sicknick died (it was still a fascist riot)!, etc.

    “@mtracy
    Journalists and Dem politicians (very little difference between those categories) will now proceed to “gaslight” everyone that Officer Sicknick being murdered by a bloodthirsty mob was an irrelevant detail in why we were all supposed to be so terrorized by the “insurrection””

    1. I hope Greenwald hires bodyguards for himself and his family, the establishment can be vicious.

      1. they already went after Tucker once

        1. Glenn Greenwald has lost his fucking mind. The dude was robbed in a horrific home invasion and he responds it by trying to blame Covid lockdowns.

          1. Who’s paying you to post here, and how much?

            1. Pretty sure it’s a buyers’ market for imbecilic piles of lefty shit; too many of them around, so figure a penny a post.

              1. May even be a college internship/practicum sort of thing. Start insulting him in Mandarin.

      2. My understanding is that his cabana boy is a super stealth ninja assassin just like Dee.

  29. Keith Olbermann accused of making a ‘death threat’ to Reason’s Robby Soave over COVID masks
    Twitter says Olbermann’s attack on Soave doesn’t violate its rules

    Twitter’s application of their rules is as selective as ever. Someone with deep pockets needs to sue the fuck out of them for violating their own terms.

    1. Twitter’s application of their rules is as selective as ever. Someone with deep pockets needs to sue the fuck out of them for violating their own terms.

      “ITZ UH PLATFORM NOT A PUBLISHURRRR!” Lol, sure. Complainers about Reason’s lack of moderation here should keep this incident in mind.

      1. Real talk: how long do you think they keep this comments section open? I can’t imagine that—from the perspective of owners and directors—it adds value to their organization. Even brought legal sanction upon them, that one time.

        1. From a cost standpoint, I’m surprised it wasn’t shut down years ago and turned in to some libertarian version of Vox. They must have done a cost analysis and determined that shutting down the comments would mean a nose-dive on clicks, and thus revenue.

          1. Then it must be really bad, given their dive on Alexa metrics over the past couple of years. I would have guessed that Daddy Kochbucks would have made economic considerations purely academic. Guess not.

            I give them credit for maintaining a space for ordinary people who consistently tee off on their staff writers’ articles and other content. That’s quite unusual, IME.

  30. House Republicans are attempting to censure Waters over the matter, but it is very unlikely that the Democratic-controlled legislative body will take such an action.

    And when the R’s take back Congress, Kevin McCarthy won’t have the guts to kick her off her committee assignment.

    1. I’d support Taylor-Greene over McCarthy for Speaker.

      And is it wrong to LOVE seeing the left starting to go after the useless cunt Cheney?

  31. Derek Chauvin’s legal team moved for a mistrial on Tuesday following questionable behavior by Rep. Maxine Waters

    She absolutely did… oh and if her behavior was ‘questionable’, then I guess I don’t know what “incitement” looks like.

    1. ya I don’t even believe in the list of unprotected words but if they’re going to exist then she certainly crossed the line

  32. Keith Olbermann (remember him?) called me a fascist and vaguely threatened me for daring to suggest that some government-mandated pandemic restrictions could possibly be relaxed.

    I see Olbermann has finally found a media outlet so far to the left that he won’t be fired. And kick his ass, Robby.

    1. I would describe Robby as a useful tool for the fascist movement.

      1. Nobody cares Strudel.

      2. I would describe you as a tool.

      3. Funny to read an actual fascist call Robby a fascist.

      4. I would describe you as a steaming, idiotic, pile of lefty shit.

      5. Yeah he is! he’s such a Facist he looks at all of the avalible evidence before drawing a conclusion. What a horrible person robbie is for not instantly going along with the far left media narrarative like ENB! Thank you strazzle for pointing out that research is Facist, and narrative building is not.

    2. >>And kick his ass, Robby.

      the word-off should be on TBS

  33. The problem with Sullum’s analysis is that it’s solely one-sided and ignores some ugly facts. Sullum’s one-sided analysis of the defense’s contradiction or weak witnesses fails to take into account the prosecution’s contradictions and weaknesses. There is good analysis elsewhere that covers both sides.

    In addition, Sullum (and most of the media) keep forgetting this:

    MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was prepared to plead guilty to third-degree murder in George Floyd’s death before then-Attorney General William Barr personally blocked the plea deal last year, officials said.

    The problem, as it’s been explained to me from actual lawyers, is that the prosecutor rejected the plea deal and instead went with a type of murder charge that forces the jury to accept that Chauvin “intended to kill Floyd the entire time he was leaning on his neck.”

    Regardless of what you think about the level of Chauvin’s culpability, it’s credulous to believe that the entire 9 minutes Chauvin was restraining Floyd that his intention was to kill him.

    1. >>the prosecutor rejected the plea deal and instead went with a type of murder charge that forces the jury to

      acquit? prosecutor and copper *are* same-team

    2. Chauvin is charged with second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter in the death of George Floyd. Floyd died in May 2020 after Chauvin placed his knee on Floyd’s neck while he pleaded, “I can’t breathe.”

    3. The trick is to stop clicking on sullum articles

      1. Yup. Jacob is disingenuous and blinded by his own bias. Whatever value he used to provide is utterly tarnished. He’s not worth the 20 seconds I’d spend reading his stories before getting frustrated and closing the link.

        It’s much worse than, say ENB, who at least is invested enough in her own beat to get the facts right. Jacob is covering police-related stories but he’s more interested in narratives than facts so he’s no longer worth reading.

  34. >>Keith Olbermann (remember him?)

    you keep pulling me back in.

  35. https://twitter.com/amber_athey/status/1384539981977423873?s=19

    President Joe Biden insists there is a “right verdict” in the Chauvin case:

    “I’m praying the verdict is the right verdict. The evidence is overwhelming in my view.”

    This is deeply irresponsible and will certainly contribute to riots/unrest if the jury returns “not guilty”.

    Actually pretty stunned at how anti-justice system this statement is … the only thing he should be saying is that he respects the jury’s decision. Unreal.

    1. >>how anti-justice system

      1500s here we come? also, is *the president* enough for the judge where a congresswoman wasn’t?

  36. https://twitter.com/AJillSimons/status/1384251003231346700?s=19

    Derek Chauvin’s case is now with the jury for deliberations. Jurors 96 and 118 were dismissed as alternates. Here are bios for all of them: [link]

  37. Unless I’m mistaken, there are federal laws concerning crossing state lines to incite rioting and violence. Which is exactly what Mad Maxine has done.
    After Trump was elected she encouraged people to attack conservatives even in restaurants and theaters.
    This woman is a dangerous threat to the public at large.
    So why hasn’t she been arrested?
    The move now, to strip her of her congressional seat, may or may not be successful but it should damn well ruin her political career and at the very least, censor and strip her of any other seats she now occupies.
    The political fallout alone should be enough to force her to resign, however, the liberal MSM remains silent. They remained silent when rioters attacked downtown D.C and looted and destroyed businesses there.
    Hopefully the move to strip Waters of her congressional seat at least gains some traction and even if it fails, it should damage her politically enough for her to resign.

  38. https://twitter.com/Theo_TJ_Jordan/status/1384271130698018818?s=19

    How far has the US fallen? We have not only an entire media complex but also prominent elected officials openly advocating for a guilty verdict in a criminal trial regardless of what the actual evidence presented to the jury revealed.

    Just chew on that… for a damn long time!

  39. https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1384311894568095744?s=19

    They successfully milked the story for all it was worth — got their enhanced security theater, second impeachment of Trump, declaration of a new domestic War on Terror, etc. In other words, they got retribution against their perceived enemies. They don’t even care if it was true

  40. So, impeachment for Maxine Waters when?

    1. IIRC, Senators can’t be arrested in transit to and from the Congress, so it’ll have to be as soon as she gets home from the “gas-o-line station.”

      1. Impeachment isn’t an arrest. Just requires the House to vote to impeach. (Criminal charges may be appropriate, but I’ll leave that up to a district attorney).

    2. Members of congress have begun conversations of censuring her. Even some democrats have voiced support of censure.
      Difficult to say whether or not it is carried through but the damage to her politically might be enough to end her career in politics.
      Then she will scream raycism. The truth is she has no one but her self to blame for what ever happens next.

  41. Keith Olbermann: THE WORST LOONEY LEFTIE IN THE WOOOOOORRRRLD!!!

    1. Olbermann fanboy, huh?

    2. Oh good another sock account.

  42. Hahaha! Chauvin was found guilty. Take all that you racist fascists!

    Hahaha!

    Fuck all the people like coward red rocks and racist Jesse screaming “he died of an OD!”

    You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!

    Hahaha take that.

    Having Trump’s cock so far down your throat has made you really stupid from a lack of oxygen!

    Hahaha take that you racist assholes!

  43. Keith Olbermann (remember him?) called me a fascist

    Keith Olbermann calling you a fascist should be celebrated like a badge of honor. It means you were right about something.

  44. Al-Omran Company is a cleaning company in the maintenance of household appliances
    https://www.alomrancoo.com/

Please to post comments