Reason Roundup

Joe Biden Wants To Close the 'Boyfriend Loophole.' Here's What That Means.

Plus: Ghost guns, the unintended consequences of criminalizing sex work, and more...

|

During last night's national address, President Joe Biden spoke of his desire to end the "boyfriend loophole." What does this mean?

At its core, it involves one of Biden's long-running specialties: pushing tough-on-crime policies—ones that ramp up federal law enforcement involvement in people's lives and threaten a host of negative and disproportionate consequences for the same groups that always get shafted by them—in the name of being a feminist ally.

Closing the Biden "boyfriend loophole" would involve expanding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was written by then-Sen. Biden and passed as part of the now-disgraced 1994 Crime Bill.

Every several years, the VAWA gets expanded. Democrats call this "reauthorization," even though the main provisions of VAWA never expire and each new version has done much more than simply add more money for VAWA grant programs. (Biden admitted this in 2019, tweeting that "VAWA's power is that it gets stronger with each reauthorization.") Republicans have recently been voting against these expansions, which Democrats have been having a public relations field day with.

This is how so much bad legislation gets passed—slapping a noble-sounding name on something with questionable results and then demonizing anyone who dares question it. (Hello, Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, aka FOSTA). It's been very effective for the VAWA—as Democrats say, who could be against stopping violence against women?

All of these tricks were on display during Biden's address last night. "Let's reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which has been law in this country for 27 years since I first wrote it," Biden said. "It will close the so-called 'boyfriend' loophole to keep guns out of the hands of abusers.…Pass it and save lives."

VAWA History

Some evidence suggests that VAWA provisions actually increased violence against women, all while steering domestic violence resources away from peer-to-peer networks, local women's shelters, and other forms of material assistance for victims of abuse and toward police, prosecutors, and courts.

"Anti-violence feminists from the left, especially women of color, were adamantly opposed to outsourcing vengeance to the state," note Judith Levine and Erica R. Meiners in The Feminist and the Sex Offender: Confronting Sexual Harm, Ending State Violence. These groups "learned from experience that prisons do not end violence, but instead perpetrate and perpetuate it, while destroying individual lives, families, and communities."

But Biden and a bipartisan gaggle of Tough on Crime politicians—backed by radical feminist lawyers and politically connected groups like the National Organization for Women—dismissed their concerns in favor of creating new federal crimes and centering solutions on courts and police.

The VAWA was part of a carceral feminist agenda that said "that battered women had a right to state action. But it was one kind of state action—arrest," as Aya Gruber writes in The Feminist War on Crime. "Within short order, this right became compulsory, and a battered woman could not waive the 'right' to her husband's arrest."

Some VAWA grants were conditioned on recipients encouraging an arrest during all domestic violence calls—no matter what the alleged victim's wishes are—and helped spur dual arrest of both partners if the abused party fights back.

A major part of the VAWA (involving civil lawsuits) was declared unconstitutional. But Biden promised on his campaign website to bring it back anyway, declaring that "the Supreme Court got it wrong."

The New VAWA

The latest VAWA "reauthorization" —which passed the House in March—is full of new expansions, including what Democrats keep referring to as "closing the boyfriend loophole."

Under current federal law, it's illegal to possess a gun if you've been subject to a restraining order against an intimate partner or have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

A misdemeanor crime of domestic violence includes threats, force, or attempted force, under which force doesn't necessarily mean violence and can include "offensive touching." Domestic violence "is not merely a type of 'violence'; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as 'violent' in a nondomestic context," wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the Court's 2014 opinion on the matter.

As it stands, the domestic violence/intimate partner provisions only apply to acts involving spouses, domestic partners, and people who have a child together. Democrats want to expand them to cover people in all sorts of sexual or romantic relationships.

The new bill would expand the term intimate partner to cover "a dating partner or former dating partner." It defines dating partner as "a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the person."

This would massively expand the reach of the law, and the federal government's prerogative to get involved. It would allow the feds to punish girlfriends and boyfriends convicted of everything from serious violence to mere "offensive touching." And it doesn't just stop there, as Reason's Jacob Sullum explained back in 2019 (when similar provisions were up for consideration):

Under current law, people subject to [protective] orders may not possess guns, but only when they have had an opportunity to contest claims that they pose a threat.

The House bill would expand the disqualification to ex parte orders, which are issued without a hearing, can last a few weeks, and may be renewable after that. That change should trouble anyone who cares about due process, since it takes away people's constitutional rights based on allegations they have had no chance to rebut.

Another provision of the House bill is even more far-reaching. It would permanently deprive someone of his Second Amendment rights if he has been convicted of misdemeanor stalking, a crime that need not involve violence, threats, or even a victim the offender knows.

Protecting Women?

Proponents of these new rules say they're about protecting women. But will men who aim to commit violence against women really stop just because they can't legally purchase a new firearm? There are other ways to commit violence—and other ways to get guns. People intent on murder aren't generally put off by having to illegally obtain the murder weapon.

Even some proponents of the law when it comes to domestic partners don't seem so sure about its expansion. "Everyone agrees that a firearm in a household with domestic violence poses a clear increased danger to the abused partner," University of Wyoming law professor George Mocsary told PolitiFact. But no reliable evidence shows "that there is a similar increased danger" in non-cohabitation scenarios.

Meanwhile, there is some evidence that provisions of VAWA and other tough-on-domestic-violence policies—like mandatory arrest and/or prosecution in domestic violence cases—have led to a spike in girls and women being arrested and prosecuted. Some of this may be warranted, but some of it is targeted at women merely trying to protect themselves; it's not uncommon for abusers to accuse their victims of abusing them for fighting back or for reacting in minor physical ways to intimidation and similar non-physical slights. And in a world where "offensive touching" qualifies as domestic violence, they may technically be right.

Which means a lot of women and abuse victims would have their right to own a firearm for protection taken away. And unlike people intent on threats and violence, they're probably a lot less likely to go through illegal channels to get one—which means laws like these could make it more difficult for women to protect themselves.

These laws would also give law enforcement another reason to harass and discriminate against people of color, people in poor communities, and others who tend to wind up disproportionately targeted by the police. Not only are already marginalized groups liable to bear the brunt of enforcement for "dating violence," and to thus be unevenly excluded from legally owning a gun, they'll also have new opportunities to be guilty of a federal firearms offense (and the feds will have a new excuse to monitor these people and communities).

This isn't the only new gun prohibition Biden wants—he's also proposing a ban on "ghost guns." And there's another new prohibition in the works; allegedly, the administration is considering a crackdown on menthol cigarettes.

The Biden administration sometimes talks a good game about criminal justice reform. But at the same time, the administration just keeps pushing the same old triggers for mass incarceration and police abuse, disguised in different packages. It suggests neither Biden nor Vice President Kamala Harris has actually learned anything since their ardent crime warrior days except which messages it's most popular to pay lip service to these days.


FREE MINDS 

Criminalizing prostitution harms sex workers, their children, and public health. Check out the Cato Institute's new brief on the unintended consequences of criminalizing sex work. Researchers Lisa Cameron, Jennifer Seager, and Manisha Shah find that "criminalizing sex work increases STI rates among sex workers (measured using biological test results) by 27.3 percentage points, or 58 percent, from baseline," that "the health consequences of criminalization are not restricted to sex workers," and that "children of women from criminalized work sites are adversely affected."


FREE MARKETS

California already tried Biden's ghost gun ban and it didn't work, as Reason's Brian Doherty points out:

California is ahead of Biden's game in banning ghost guns, having since 2018, as the Center for American Progress summed up, "require[d] all self-assembled firearms to contain a unique serial number from the California Department of Justice. Furthermore, owners of newly serialized firearms must provide identification information to the California Department of Justice. Under California law, self-assembled firearms cannot be sold or transferred."

At the same time, California has remained a place media calls on to scare you about the still growing threat of ghost guns, such as the claim made to ABC News last year by Carlos A. Canino, the special agent in charge of the A.T.F. Los Angeles field division, that "Forty-one percent, so almost half our cases we're coming across, are these 'ghost guns." Last year was two years after California banned them in just the way Biden plans to. Not a promising sign for the efficacy of his bold initiative.

More here.


QUICK HITS

• The FBI searched Rudy Giuliani's home and office and seized his electronics yesterday.

• Biden said his new spending plans will be paid for in part by targeting corporate tax scofflaws—firms that paid $0 in corporate taxes. But "tax experts are not sure whether Biden's plan would in fact substantially reduce the number of large corporations paying zero dollars in federal income taxes," says The Washington Post.

• "As part of a $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, President Joe Biden is pushing Congress to spend $100 billion fixing a problem that mostly doesn't exist: widespread lack of access to broadband internet," writes Reason's Eric Boehm.

• Are politicians finally starting to come around about civil asset forfeiture? In Arizona, at least, the answer appears to be yes:

• A new law in Colorado called the Ranch to Plate Act "deregulates meat sales that are made directly to consumers," explains Food Safety News.

NEXT: Gov. Andrew Cuomo Clings to His Pedestal

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. Joe Biden Wants To Close the ‘Boyfriend Loophole.’ Here’s What That Means

    Oh boy.

    1. Fat women, black women, and trans women deserve love and companionship too.

      1. Prepare for the new federally imposed, equity-based dating app.

        1. “Question 1) Do you have a ‘type’? Choose wisely.”

      2. I just don’t feel good enough for them so for now will stick to the slim pretty feminine ones and suffer the loss.

    2. Which begs the question: a former girlfriend of mine, currently my wife of sixteen years, once threw a potato at me — not a nice, soft potato, but large, hard, raw. Russet. Should I report her and have her “disarmed.” (Or am I just jealous because she can shoot better than me?)

      1. What happened to the potato?

        1. It was unharmed. Until we baked it, and one of its family members, stuffed them with butter, sour cream, chives, and baco-bits, and ate them. The second potato was convicted of conspiring with the first, so it shared the same fate.

          1. Guess what I’m about to make for lunch!?

            1. Fully-loaded potato? Just don’t be throwing that thing, ya hear?

              1. Just a couple redskins with some butter, and chives from the yard.

                1. They’re called “Washington Football Team” now.

                  1. I hope they faced their fate “bravely.”

    3. Must.close.the.freedom.loophole…..muuuuussssstttttttt!

    4. It means ENB is getting exactly what she wants. No more mean tweets and plenty of anti-libertarian policies.

    5. Some VAWA grants were conditioned on recipients encouraging an arrest during all domestic violence calls—no matter what the alleged victim’s wishes are—and helped spur dual arrest of both partners if the abused party fights back

      If an alleged victim calls the police on a partner, then refuses to press charges when the police arrive, couldn’t police bust the alleged victim anyway for “misuse of 911 service” or “filing false arrest charges” anyway, with or without the VAWA?

  2. Sleepy Joe Biden was is normal form except no hair sniffing that we saw.

    1. Just fist-bumping, back-patting, and face-touching, since “the lion’s share of those present have been vaccinated”.

      1. And it’s hilarious watching him take all the credit for a vaccine that he had absolutely nothing to do with.

        1. Well, Trump took credit too.

          1. Trump actually had a role in getting the vaccine approved. It was called Operation Warp Speed. You should look it up.

      2. Domestic violence?

    2. Did SleepyJoe take the blame for the over 170,000 China virus deaths during the 100 days of his regime?

      1. No. But he did take credit for creating more jobs in 100 days than any other President.

        1. Building a HUGE executive branch?

        2. Which in actuality was them saying “unemployment claims dropped by 2 million, that means we created 2 million jobs right!”

          Not that seasonal employees just went back to work like they always do in spring or anything.

          1. Lifting lockdown restrictions might have had something to do with it too.

  3. And here I thought the “boyfriend loophole” was a single mom getting free government money while living with the boyfriend, and father of the kid(s), without any financial obligation by the boyfriend for his own kids. Guess he can continue to wake up at noon and play Xbox all afternoon.

    1. You racist! Work is oppressive!

    2. That’s what I thought too.

    3. What is your solution to this problem? Not much can be done. Welfare agencies do their best. Should we have a new special police force that makes pop-up visits to welfare families on a regular basis to see if a man is living there and then do paternity test on the man and kids? Peoples’ morality and/or lifestyle can’t be legislated.

      1. Once you start pooling other peoples money to redistribute regulating morality seems to be a logical progression

      2. How about rethink welfare? It provides perverse incentives and perpetuates the problems it was supposed to solve.

      3. Get the federal government out of charity.

      4. Expect the recipients to do the same as the folks currently funding it.

      5. Well, if you’re gonna take the money shouldn’t there be some conditions? They do their best. Yeah, that’s the nature of the government Beast. Their best ain’t much.

      6. The Democrat welfare state was designed to keep fathers from being part of the home and supporting the family. As long as the man contributes nothing to the home or family it should be ok to live there. Keeping the woman dependent on welfare is all that is important.

    4. I thought it was “don’t sniff my hair, Mr. President, my boyfriend gets jealous and has martial arts training”

  4. Closing the Biden “boyfriend loophole” would involve expanding the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which was written by then-Sen. Biden and passed as part of the now-disgraced 1994 Crime Bill.

    Ha, one of the few parts of his law-and-order shitshow he can shore up and make palatable under the guise of #metoo? Glory days.

  5. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1387754950466363393?s=19

    The depressing imagery continually being sent by fully vaccinated elites about the ongoing lack of normalcy in a post-vaccinated world can’t be helpful for convincing people around the globe who are ambivalent about the vaccine.

    If there’s a valid scientific or rational explanation as to why fully vaccinated people have to keep acting as if it’s April, 2020, then they should find a way to clearly communicate that rationale because, thus far, they haven’t and can’t:

    [Link]

    1. There is no rationale .

      1. Oh, there probably is. The likes of you just don’t have a need to know.

        1. Oh, we all know. It is because they have no method of telling the difference between someone who is fully vaccinated or who has previously had covid 19 and someone who hasn’t.

          It is all about maintaining conformity. Remember, this is an equity society. Everyone is equal. Equally miserable. It is not fair that some must wear masks and others must not. So everyone must wear masks. Everywhere. Always.

          That is why they cannot understand what you are talking about when you raise this issue. For them it is like the second grade teacher asking if you brought enough gum for everyone. It is a nonsensical proposition, that if you cannot give free stuff to everyone then you cannot have it for yourself. Yet it is treated as serious policy.

          Same goes for these masks. If I have to wear it, you have to wear it. Circumstances don’t matter. All that matters is that you have to be as miserable as I am.

          Plus, if everyone has to wear a mask then the police know exactly who to arrest.

          1. Science!

          2. If I have to wear it, you have to wear it.

            “Hernia trusses for everyone!” 😉

      2. Obedience uber alles

      3. Face masks are the new hijab.

      4. I think democrats would be happier if they were buried in landfills. I know i would be happier if they were buried in landfills.

    2. Same rationale as wanting to stop MEAN TWEETS.

  6. This is how so much bad legislation gets passed—slapping a noble-sounding name on something with questionable results and then demonizing anyone who dares question it. (Hello, Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, aka FOSTA).

    Affordable Care Act, PATRIOT Act, …. The list goes on and on.

    *Read the actual legislation.*

    1. AOC prefers to review the Spark’s Notes equivalent provided by Pelosi et al.

      1. Is there a teen version of the Congressional Record?

        1. Yeah, they publish the Congressional Record annually in a graphic novel format.

    2. Have to pass it to see what’s in it.

      1. In the sense that much of it gives unelected bureaucrats the authority to make shit up. 8-(

  7. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1387745169617920006?s=19

    That this racist term trended during Sen. Tim Scott’s speech is as revealing as it is repugnant, as is the large-scale liberal silence that Twitter promoted a racist attack.

    A world in which people of color are forced by racist insults to subscribe to one ideology is grotesque.

    One major reason this term trended is because white liberals now believe they’ve earned the right to smear political adversaries with racism and bigotry. Bigoted attacks on ideological heretics from marginalized groups is 100% acceptable in US liberalism.

    [Link]

    1. The white liberals part of your comment is extremely relevant. I clicked through to some of the sub threads. There were a ton of white faces using terms like Uncle Tom. Really unbelievable. That was unacceptable when I was 10 years old back in the ’70s. I cannot imagine how we’ve gotten to a point where it’s okay now.

    2. It’s always interesting to me when the media likes to label Senator Scott as ‘The Republicans’ only black senator’. They must think that they are making a point, because everyone says it with almost the exact same phrasing.

      The Democrats have two, unless I’ve missed somebody:

      Senator Warnock, D-GA
      Senator Booker, D-NJ

  8. A misdemeanor crime of domestic violence includes threats, force, or attempted force, under which force doesn’t necessarily mean violence and can include “offensive touching.”

    Oh, sure. He has Secret Service protection for life. He can afford to have his guns taken away for his gropings.

  9. Criminalizing prostitution harms sex workers, their children, and public health.

    They don’t care.

  10. “The Boyfriend Loophole” sounds like some kinky paracord knotwork involving Cock and Ball Torture! Yikes!

  11. Biden says “banning so called ‘ghost guns,'” is one way to end the “epidemic” of gun violence.

    Oh, that’s right. Trump wasn’t unique after all. THEY ALL LIE TRANSPARENTLY.

  12. “A misdemeanor crime of domestic violence includes threats, force, or attempted force, under which force doesn’t necessarily mean violence and can include “offensive touching.””

    Cool! Now we can arrest nearly everyone in any kind of relationship that says or does anything that makes the other person sad.

    1. I dated a girl who threw a phone charger at her ex. He was mad and called the police. She got a CDV conviction for it which took seven years and endless paperwork to get pardoned.

    1. Multiple sources told the Star Tribune federal prosecutors were ready to move in and charge the white ex-cop on federal counts moments after a not guilty verdict on charges of second and third-degree murder, as well as manslaughter, or in the event of a mistrial.

      “Gotcha!”

    2. How the fuck is this not double jeopardy. The very fact that he was not tried because he was found guilty shows that they were intending to charge him for the same crime.

      1. It’s cute you think laws still matter.

      2. Different sovereigns. It’s always been that way; it’s just that the Feds got involved in very few dual sovereign criminal cases until the…80’s? Earlier? It rarely came up. As opposed to crimes, like murder on a federal reservation, where they were the only sovereign that could prosecute.

        In the Arbery ‘jogging’ case, the Feds aren’t even waiting for the Georgia court to acquit those idiots. They filed a hate crime indictment the other day.

  13. The FBI searched Rudy Giuliani’s home and office and seized his electronics yesterday.

    Whose credibility takes the greater hit in this transaction?

    1. With an old guy like Rudy, electronics means a couple of blinking VCRs and a CRT television.

    2. Do the Famous But Incompetent crew have any credibility left to hit at this point?

    3. What she left off was that they were looking for his communications with John Solomon.

      You know, the reporter who outed Mueller and his team?

      1. He learned it from watching Obama. The warrant said FARA. Not sure how a reporter can violate FARA.

  14. Domestic violence “is not merely a type of ‘violence’; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as ‘violent’ in a nondomestic context,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    “Term of *art*”?! I thought we were following The Science!!

    1. Its all Voodoo.

  15. Commies

    Pete Buttigieg: U.S. Shouldn’t Be ‘Too Proud’ to Learn from Communist China on Infrastructure
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/04/28/pete-buttigieg-u-s-shouldnt-proud-learn-communist-china-infrastructure/

    Buttigieg said the U.S. shouldn’t fall behind its competitors or its allies, pointing to Japan, Spain and China as countries with impressive high-speed train systems, which he said “can’t come soon enough” to the U.S.

    1. We we alm get a 3 car security detail to drive us to the train station?

      1. Will we all

    2. Obviously the dumb bastard never rode a train in China.

    3. And will we run the trains on electricity produced by coal burning power plants like they do in China?

      1. No, they can be run using the new technology that we should be investing in.

        1. Hope is not a plan. And the only new technology that could power the wholesale electrification of the transportation infrastructure that you are advocating for, is nuclear power.

          Which I am assuming is a non-starter from you.

        2. You’re already allowed to invest in companies involved in different forms of energy. Have at it.

          1. Haha. No. She said “we”. You know what that means.

  16. “Biden says he won’t impose taxes on anyone making under $400k while saying he wants to raise corporate taxes in the same breath.”

    *Yawn*

    Now that we Koch / Reason libertarians got the President we wanted, it’s time to stop pretending we care about people making less than a few hundred thousand per year. The primary objective of our philosophy is to improve the lives of people whose net worths fluctuate by hundreds of millions in a typical day.

    Our benefactor Charles Koch, for instance, earned $292,000,000 yesterday — putting him over $6 billion this year. This is the economy we knew we’d be getting when we overwhelmingly backed Biden. We should embrace it.

    #GetReadyForTheKochComeback
    #InDefenseOfBillionaires

  17. “These laws would also give law enforcement another reason to harass and discriminate against people of color, people in poor communities, and others who tend to wind up disproportionately targeted by the police. Not only are already marginalized groups liable to bear the brunt of enforcement for “dating violence,” and to thus be unevenly excluded from legally owning a gun, they’ll also have new opportunities to be guilty of a federal firearms offense (and the feds will have a new excuse to monitor these people and communities).”

    FFS, Lizzie, can you talk about how ideas and policies are good or bad, especially from a libertarian or classical liberal perspective, without piling on progressive BS?

    1. Wait isn’t this directly opposite of last week where progressives were saying that black people knifeing each other was a normal occurance and doesn’t need intervention?

      1. That was performance art.

        1. A form of dance.

    2. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair! ™

  18. We could put a compleate end to violence against wemon. Iran already figured it out. We just don’t procecuters anyone commiting violence against wemon.

  19. As part of a $2.3 trillion infrastructure proposal, President Joe Biden is pushing Congress to spend $100 billion fixing a problem that mostly doesn’t exist: widespread lack of access to broadband internet…

    Isn’t it flyover Dumbfuckistan hicks most likely to not have broadband? He’s not helping red states so I guess Hunter must need a job on the board of some telecom.

    1. Starlink is years ahead of SleepyJoe. And for less money.

    2. Think it through.
      Those without “high speed access” cannot get the massive amount of fascist propaganda spewed by the democrats and media.
      Until everyone has the big brother screen, we cannot be fully free.

      1. Not to mention online voting.

      2. LOL! The FBI agents trying to set up militia members in the boonies get tired of waiting for all the swastika images in their correspondence to upload.

  20. If signed into law, law enforcement in AZ will be prohibited from forfeiting your property without a corresponding criminal conviction in most circumstances.

    Or else what?

    1. Or else they go and get a dual jurisdiction deal with the feds and take it anyway.

  21. https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1387738247439298563?s=19

    America is NOT a racist country, but the political left is currently doing everything it possibly can to turn it into one.

    What do you think happens when you force everyone to hyperfocus on race and make skin color the central point of identity and worth? What happens next?

    1. Eye color. You know, to tighten it up a bit.

    2. Sorry for making you racist. It’s not your fault.

      1. Sorry for noticing you’re a fucking ignoramus. It *is* your fault.

      2. Sorry you’re a genetic dead end. It’s not your fault.

      3. We’re not. Racism is the province of the left. Your kind created the Klan, among other horrid things.

        Progs should be cut out of this country like a cancerous tumor.

    3. Are we saying this because we think they don’t know that? I mean, I really think they know that. In fact, I’m pretty sure that was entirely the point.

  22. I think my favorite part of last night’s address is being assured that every American will be fully covered from COVID and that seniors are being fully protected. Get ready to PARTY!

  23. “The Hamburglar? How a Story About Meat Limits Fell Apart”
    […]
    “President Joe Biden spent only a weekend as the “Hamburglar” in the conservative media world, but the incident illustrated the speed at which a false and damaging story can spread.”
    https://www.usnews.com/news/entertainment/articles/2021-04-28/the-hamburglar-how-a-story-about-meat-limits-fell-apart

    First, it didn’t “fall apart”. If CNN calls it fake news, that doesn’t mean it fell apart, it means CNN is lying again.
    And then it’s not “false”; if the authors of that study had their way, there would be drastic limits on how much meat you could legally consume.
    Nor “damaging”; judging by droolin’ Joe’s efforts last night, there’s no reason to assume he wouldn’t make this a legal requirement.

    1. So, no need to censor anything, because false stories self destruct.

      1. Like Russiagate?

    2. False stories Biden isn’t going for your guns… oh wait never mind

  24. https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1387703960564379651?s=19

    A Christian pastor in the UK was arrested by police after a member of the public reported him for the “homophobic” comment of saying that marriage was between a man and a woman.

    [Link]

  25. Time to look elsewhere for liberty. The apathy of our own people has destroyed the ideas of freedom, autonomy and liberty in this country.

    1. I’ve been told that no matter how awful or oppressive it gets, it’s still better than mean tweets.

      1. And remember the TDS-addled assholes who told us that, outside of the mean tweets, there’s really no difference between Trump and Biden?
        Remember those fucking ignoramuses? I do.

        1. Apparently now it’s your turn to be all bitchy and hyperbolic. BDS much?

          1. Sorta like this parasitic piece of stinking lefty shit? Remember this asshole?

          2. Not necessary. Biden is doing it for us. You and your kind are that bad. It will be better when you’re gone.

      2. YUP! That’s what the “libertarian” elites say!

    2. A human freedom index to peruse.

      Unfortunately, New Zealand doesn’t like guns and probably wouldn’t let you in anyway.

      1. There is always Israel, I suppose.

        1. Israel is on many issues, less free than here. Take a look at gun rights there, for instance.

          1. What do you mean? Israel has a nearly universally armed citizenry. They had armed air marshals on planes years before 9/11, they had armed teachers years before Columbine, and they have hawt chicks with guns and camo walking the streets all over.

            Like the song said: “If it’s good for the Hebrew people…”

            1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation isn’t a bad place to start.

              “May issue”, registration, and requiring adequate cause before being allowed to own firearms doesn’t strike me as looser than here, but you do you.

              Air Marshals are cops. Those guys in settlements, walking around with Uzis, are also quasi-law enforcement officials. It’s not the norm, though AIUI, it has loosened up considerably in the last few years. (Continued…)

            2. Israel produced Gal Gadot, a real life Wonder Woman.

      2. Hong Kong? In the top 10?

      3. Been there.

        While it has improved somewhat since Heinlein wrote about his visit in the 1950s, it was still like being paroled when I was able to board the flight out.

        The whole society seems to have been founded on the principle that inefficiency is king.

        If was proof of the saying that “you are what you eat” — they have a lot of mutton there . . .

    3. Worse than apathy, we have too many Americans begging for at least a nanny state, if not outright socialist authoritarianism. Most of these people are actually scared of freedom, for others and even themselves.

      1. For themselves because they have been raised to fear…
        and for others because they are afraid some may use their freedom to ‘get ahead’ of them

      2. Hell! Earlier Americans let the government take their alcohol away. They let FDR take their gold. They elected LBJ in a landslide. Most Americans are quite amenable to giving up their freedoms.

    4. Where else were you planning on looking, XY? This is it.

      1. Unobtrusive, out of the way places. Ecuador is getting a long look.

  26. Speaking of the same breath:

    ‘Biden says he won’t impose taxes on anyone making under $400k while saying he wants to raise corporate taxes in the same breath. The CBO says workers pay 70%+ of corporate taxes. #SOTU

    But “tax experts are not sure whether Biden’s plan would in fact substantially reduce the number of large corporations paying zero dollars in federal income taxes,” says The Washington Post.’

    1. I’m sure you ‘thought’ there was a point buried in there.
      Yes, taxes on businesses are not paid by the business; they are paid by the employees or customers.
      WIH that has to do with the number of businesses which pay no taxes in a given year is beyond anyone with a room-temp IQ, unless you assume droolin’ Joe is going to make it nearly impossible to make a profit.

      1. Businesses hire and pay employers, theoretically, because those employees add value to the enterprise. If the biz is smart it’ll cut fat from somewhere else. Raising prices or firing/turning away valuable employees is a recipe for losing out.

        1. Econ-ignoramuses like you assume all businesses have ‘fat’; very few do, except as required by some government regulation or other. Cuts into the profit, in case that’s a mystery to you.
          So, yes, taxes on businesses are really stupid.

          1. If the business isn’t making a substantial profit then they have nothing to worry about because Biden isn’t raising taxes new taxes people making 400k or less.

            1. OK, folks, here’s a real example of lefty asshole’s:
              1) Inability to read that which was addressed to him.
              2) Confusion between an individual and a business.
              3) Love of the politics of envy.
              4) Gullibility.
              Uneducated, stupid, greedy and gullible; should be neatly wrapped in toilet paper and flushed.

            2. The personal income tax is different from the corporate one. Jfc are you really this dumb? Biden intends a 33% increase in corporate taxes on all businesses, from 21% to 28%.

        2. You can always tell who has never run a business .

          1. Yeah, but you can’t tell ’em much.

        3. You ignorant slut! You sound like the soda taxers that were shocked, SHOCKED that retailers passed the added cost onto the buyers. They were equally shocked when the buyers bought their beverages outside the taxing district.

          1. reply to the Lard of Streusel.

    2. Are you actually this economically ignorant, or do you work at it?

    3. “But “tax experts are not sure whether Biden’s plan would in fact substantially reduce the number of large corporations paying zero dollars in federal income taxes,” says The Washington Post.’

      The idea that corporations should pay taxes on profits they didn’t make is stupid.

      The idea that corporations should pay taxes on profits once, and then that the same profits should be taxed a second time as income when they’re distributed as dividends is also stupid.

      The idea that corporate profits should be taxed again, indirectly, as a capital gains tax, when profits rise over time and the stock’s price increases as a result of that, is also stupid.

      But the idea that corporations that don’t make profits, don’t distribute them as a dividends should pay taxes on them–even when no one sells their stock? That’s the stupidest idea of the bunch.

      Nobody owes you anything but respect for your rights. If you don’t respect the rights of others, they may not even owe you that. The first step in not being a parasite is to stop thinking like a parasite–that you somehow deserve to suck the blood out other people’s backs. Your desire to be a parasite doesn’t justify you behavior. It doesn’t justify anything.

      1. Ken, for some people a “corporation” is a mean, scary thing. And for those same people, tax policy should be based on rewarding or punishing perceived social behavior. Thus “tax corporations!” is not an economic decision, but feelings-based policy.

        1. Yes, it has become a strange synonym for villain in some people’s minds–and it often seems to be so in the minds of parasites. A corporation is a group of individuals exercising their association rights.

          1. Or a single person, whose vendors require bureaucratic permission to sell product to him.

  27. “This would massively expand the reach of the law, and the federal government’s prerogative to get involved. It would allow the feds to punish girlfriends and boyfriends convicted of everything from serious violence to mere “offensive touching.”

    —-ENB

    Couldn’t help but think of Jeane Kirkpatrick’s famous observations about the differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, when I read this.

    “[Authoritarians] do not disturb the habitual rhythms of work and leisure, habitual places of residence, habitual patterns of family and personal relations. Because the miseries of traditional life are familiar, they are bearable to ordinary people who, growing up in the society, learn to cope . . . . [Totalitarians] claim jurisdiction over the whole life of the society and make demands for change that so violate internalized values and habits that inhabitants flee by the tens of thousands.”

    —-“Dictatorships and Double Standards” (bold added)

    Progressives are totalitarian in nature. They are not satisfied with controlling what we do. They want to control what we think, how we feel, and even our relationships, and they want to use the coercive power of government to do so.

    This is why progressives are America’s most horrible people.

    1. Now do abortion, Ken.

      1. Time to call parasitic piles of lefty shit parasitic piles of lefty shit.

      2. Abortion is something you do rather than what you think or how you feel.

        1. Boy, there’s always some rationalization for the activities of government apparatchiks, Ken,

          1. Stinking pile of lefty shit is confused.

          2. I haven’t said anything about my position on abortion. Only that restricting it is about trying to control what people do rather than how they feel. If you still can’t see the difference after having it explained to you, why should anyone bother to explain anything more?

            My position on abortion is that although elective abortion is unethical, using the coercive power of government to force women to carry a baby to term against their will is authoritarian. Like all libertarians, I understand that there’s a difference between what is unethical and what should be illegal. Using the coercive power of government to force other people to behave a certain way is the practical definition of authoritarian.

            But, you see, there are major differences between being authoritarian and being totalitarian, some of which I’ve highlighted above. And regardless of whether the Republican stance on abolition is authoritarian, progressives share the characteristics of totalitarians anyway. That is why progressives are America’s most horrible people–because they’re totalitarian.

            You keep trying to suggest that the Republicans are authoritarian in some way, but you don’t appear to be trying to claim that progressives don’t really want the government to control what we think, how we feel, and our intimate relations. Claiming that Republicans are authoritarian does nothing to the claim that the Democrats are totalitarian in this context. Why aren’t you addressing the argument? Is it because you don’t understand it or is it because you can’t?

            1. Totalitarians insist that anti-abortionists pay for, accept without restriction, and never speak out loud against abortion.

              1. Totalitarians say that opposing abortion is misogynistic, opposing gay marriage is homophobic, supporting a wall on our southern border is xenophobic, and opposing affirmative action is racist They don’t want people to be free to say these things on line because they don’t want people to believe it’s alright to think those thoughts and feel that way.

                There isn’t anything libertarian about encouraging people to think stupid thoughts and misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and racism, properly defined, really are stupid. However, people should be free to feel what they want and think whatever stupid thoughts. It is not the place of government to police what we think and how we feel–not to a libertarian.

                Policing thought-crime is a big part of totalitarianism.

      3. Now do mortgage payments, AS.

    2. Time to call fascists fascists.
      There is nothing progressive in the democratic party platform.

    3. Glad to have you finally aboard, Ken.

    4. Delusional. You rightwingers have never been marginalized historically in this country. It’s the opposite and now that we’re unwinding some it for first time ever you guys are freaking out because you’re losing control.

      1. Because the totalitarian progressives haven’t completely taken over the country yet, doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do all the same things as the other totalitarians if they could.

        1. Nixon’s drug war is totalitarianism and you rightwingers loved it and supported with every ounce of your being for 50 years. Nothing compares to that. It destroyed, terrorized, murdered and stole from millions of people. You mfers loved every minute of it. Go fuck yourself.

          1. SleepyJoe loves the drug war.

            1. dude’s out in front atop his elephant about it.

          2. I’ve opposed the drug war every day for ten years, which means you’re not only stupid but wrong.

            I’m right wing in the sense that I’m a capitalist–and capitalism relative to socialism has been the difference between the right and left since the French parliament started seating themselves that way.

            Regardless, the Republicans of the drug war years were obsessed with controlling what people did–not what they think or how they feel. And they were no different from the progressives in that regard–during the Nixon administration or under Mayor Bloomberg. For goodness’ sake, the progressives didn’t even want us to be free to buy sugary soft drinks–no wonder the Democrat controlled government of New York couldn’t legalize marijuana for so very long.

            1. I won’t argue with that. Democrats were complicit in alot of that rightwing fascist shit.

              1. If Democrats were complicit in it, that means it wasn’t right-wing, you moron.

                1. He’s so fucking stupid. It would be a mercy to beat him to death.

          3. Lord of Strazele
            April.29.2021 at 10:41 am
            “Nixon’s drug war is totalitarianism and you rightwingers loved it and supported with every ounce of your being for 50 years.”

            Stinking piles of lefty shit have no ability to recognize ‘facts’; that simple cognitive ability is beyond their limited mental capabilities. So instead, we get flat out lies like this, giving assholes like this scum something to argue against.
            OK, shit-pile, give us one cite that anyone here ever supported the drug war, you lying pile of lefty shit.

            1. Well, you guys are decent on that issue which I guess explains why you’re here on a libertarian website.

              1. Then why did you bring it up, you dishonest piece of shit?

              2. We favor freedom and individual rights. You favor slavery, and collectivism.

            2. >>anyone here ever supported the drug war

              or Nixon … although he’s spectacular on Futurama

          4. Who here has ever expressed support for the drug war? Cuz I’ve never seen it.

            Oh wait, you’re both dumb and dishonest.

          5. Did you know that Kamala Harris put more black men in prison for pot than any other prosecutor in cali history?

          6. That’s exactly the wrong argument here. We’ve been against the drug war a lot longer than Democrats have, as illustrated by THE CURRENT PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT.

            1. Facts don’t matter when you’re a fifty center.

          7. You’re seriously trying to lecture libertarians about the War on Drugs?

        2. Paraphrasing Menchen – The job of politicians in a two-party system is to convince voters that the other side is evil, and both sides are right.

          You see the left as the second coming of Stalin, while the left sees anyone you’d vote for as the second coming of Hitler.

          Ever stop to consider that perhaps you’re both right?

          1. “You see the left as the second coming of Stalin”

            Progressives have the basic qualities of totalitarians regardless of whether I think so and regardless of how I see things.

            1. Talk about missing the point.

              Yes, you’re convinced that everything the left does, all the way down to which brand of toilet paper they buy, is evil. We get it.

              Yet they are convinced that you and those you support are evil.

              Ever consider the possibility that you’re all correct?

              1. “Yes, you’re convinced that everything the left does, all the way down to which brand of toilet paper they buy, is evil. We get it.”

                No, you don’t get it. That’s projection!

                The progressives are ideologically totalitarian because the share the distinctive characteristics of totalitarianism–particularly in their penchant for using the government to control what people think, how they feel, and their intimate relations.

                And that remains so regardless of whether I believe it personally. Incidentally, the earth orbits the sun (or not) regardless of whether I believe it, too.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

                1. The progressives are ideologically totalitarian because the share the distinctive characteristics of totalitarianism–particularly in their penchant for using the government to control what people think, how they feel, and their intimate relations.

                  And they could list off a dozen characteristics of those you support to define them as evil.

                  Both sides are evil. Just depends on your point of view.

                  1. “Both sides are evil. Just depends on your point of view.”

                    White Knight doesn’t even persist in the ad hominem fallacy to this extent.

                    The Democrats are evil because they share the characteristics of totalitarianism.

                    The Republicans are authoritarian in certain ways, but they are not totalitarian.

                    Because neither side is perfect, doesn’t mean one side isn’t vastly superior to the other, and that observation doesn’t depend on how you look at it.

                    “The perfect solution fallacy is a false dichotomy that occurs when an argument assumes . . . that a course of action should be rejected because it is not perfect, even though it is the best option available.

                    https://yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/perfect-solution-fallacy/

                    The Democrats are far worse than Republicans–from a libertarian perspective–because the Democrats are totalitarian. Totalitarianism is about the government having total control over every aspect of life. Libertarianism is a total repudiation of totalitarianism and vice versa. They couldn’t be any more diametrically opposed.

                    Meanwhile, the Democrats are totalitarian because they share the characteristics of totalitarianism, and that is true regardless of how I look at it or you look at it. There may be people out there who find totalitarianism desirable, but if they claim that the Democrats don’t share the characteristics of totalitarianism, they’re wrong. The Democrats really do share the characteristics of totalitarianism.

                    The Democrats really are trying to control what we think, how we feel, and our intimate relations–using the coercive power of government.

                    1. Do you even know what an ad hominem is? That’s when I say you’re wrong because of you, not because what you said is wrong.

                      The Republicans are authoritarian in certain ways, but they are not totalitarian.

                      So you’re saying it’s a choice between totalitarians and authoritarians?

                      Libertarianism is a total repudiation of totalitarianism and vice versa. They couldn’t be any more diametrically opposed.

                      But libertarianism is not diametrically opposed to authoritarianism?

                      Choosing between totalitarianism and authoritarianism like having a debate over putting arsenic or cyanide in the drinking water.

                      This is why I choose not to vote.

                    2. Which goes right back to my original point, paraphrasing Mencken, that in a two party system each party convinces voters that the other party is evil. And they’re both right.

                    3. “Do you even know what an ad hominem is? That’s when I say you’re wrong because of you, not because what you said is wrong.”

                      Ken, our self-appointed rhetorical cop, and JesseAz, or resident dishonest historian of past discussions, do not understand what an ad hominem is. They think that evaluating a person’s, or political organization’s, or business firm’s worthiness or character is an ad hominem.

                      They don’t get that, to commit an ad hominem fallacy, casting aspersions on a person’s character must be being used to avoid responding to an argument that that person has advanced. Well, they do get it — but they conveniently fudge it because they want to “win” debates on this forum, and “own” anyone who isn’t a Trump toady.

                    4. They don’t get that, to commit an ad hominem fallacy, casting aspersions on a person’s character must be being used to avoid responding to an argument that that person has advanced.

                      Basically every post by Sevo.

                    5. Hey, sarc. I seem to be spending more time on glibertarians than you. Please take your own advice and spend more time there.

                    6. By the time I take a look there’s already several hundred posts, and what I would have said has already been said.

                    7. “Do you even know what an ad hominem is? That’s when I say you’re wrong because of you, not because what you said is wrong.”

                      Do you or do you not continue to persist in the assertion that things are true (or not) depending on how I look at them?

                      “You see the left as the second coming of Stalin”

                      —-Sarcasmic

                      “Yes, you’re convinced that everything the left does, all the way down to which brand of toilet paper they buy, is evil. We get it.

                      —-Sarcasmic

                      “Both sides are evil. Just depends on your point of view.”

                      —-Sarcasmic

                      No. The progressives are not totalitarian because of how I see them.

                      No. The progressives are not evil because of what I’m convinced of.

                      No. The progressives are not totalitarian depending on my point of view.

                      Go read “Dictators and Double Standards: ” if you want to see how Kirkpatrick delineates the differences between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and when you consider whether she’s right about that, look through the lens of historical facts and logic. Regardless, that is the standard I’m using to define totalitarianism in relation to authoritarianism, and neither the logic nor the historical facts change depending on how anyone looks at them.

                      https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/jeane-kirkpatrick/dictatorships-double-standards/

                      If you want to make the claim that the Democrats aren’t totalitarian in nature, you need to explain that idea is wrong–regardless of my personal perspective. There isn’t anything about me or my perspective that makes the Democrats any more or less totalitarian. Whether they’re totalitarian depends on whether they share the characteristics of totalitarianism. And you haven’t even addressed that. You just keep talking about me and my perspective as if that were somehow relevant. It isn’t!

                    8. Do you or do you not continue to persist in the assertion that things are true (or not) depending on how I look at them?

                      Dude, that’s how the world works. Different people have different views. Some are right and some are wrong, just depends which side you’re on.

                      If you want to make the claim that the Democrats aren’t totalitarian in nature…

                      I never made that claim, nor have I said your observations are wrong.

                      Do you understand that those who you call totalitarians would call you a fascist, right? I’m not saying that you are one, but that’s what they believe.

                      The point which keeps whooshing over your head is that in this two party system of ours, each party doesn’t need to convince voters that their party is better. They convince voters that the other party is worse.

                      I’m just saying that both sides are correct.

                    9. “I’m just saying that both sides are correct.”

                      You’ve been busted for bullshit, so you repeat it.
                      The definition of stupidity…

                    10. “Dude, that’s how the world works.”

                      No, it isn’t.

                      The earth orbited the sun long before anyone looked at it that way. If the whole world imagined that the sun orbited the earth, it still wouldn’t. They’d just be wrong–not looking at it from another perspective.

                      And the facts used to explain why the sun orbits the earth, rather than vice versa, can be verified by anyone from any perspective on earth. The facts exist independent of the people who observe them.

                      There are people who let their perspective get in the way of verifying the facts. They’re called the Flat Earth Society. They’re ridiculous, but the “logic” you’re engaging in with totalitarianism suggests you might make a solid member. Maybe you should send them an email and join the club!

                    11. “It really wasn’t. I was clearly sarcasm, made by a guy whose handle is “sarcasmic”.”

                      No, it wasn’t clearly anything of the sort, and given the guy’s propensity for lying and general bullshit, his handle ought to be “brain-damaged”.

                    12. And the typical leftist response to that elaborate straw man would be to call you a science-denier because you oppose the Green New Deal. In their mind you’re evil because you deny science and you oppose government intervention, while in your mind they’re evil because their “solutions” involve more government control over our lives.

                      What you don’t get is that you’re both right. In your mind you’re right, and in their minds they’re right. I’d say you’re both right.

                    13. “No, it wasn’t clearly anything of the sort, and given the guy’s propensity for lying and general bullshit, his handle ought to be ‘brain-damaged’.”

                      I can’t help you if your sarcasm detector is broken. It’s probably from the same lack of socialization that has led to your generally angry personality.

                  2. No, you’re just a pompous moron. There is no equivalence. One side is totalitarian and collectivist. The other just wants to be left alone and live their lives.

                2. No, you don’t get it. That’s projection!

                  It was an exaggeration. If you think people are dead serious when they make statements about toilet paper then you’ve got some serious social problems.

                  1. Ah, the good old “Mott and Bailey” argument.

                    1. It really wasn’t. I was clearly sarcasm, made by a guy whose handle is “sarcasmic”.

                  2. “It really wasn’t. I was clearly sarcasm, made by a guy whose handle is “sarcasmic”.”

                    No, it wasn’t clearly anything of the sort, and given the guy’s propensity for lying and general bullshit, his handle ought to be “brain-damaged”.
                    (missed one indent)

                  3. The left will never tell you what toilet paper to buy. They will like Sheryl Crow (caw caw) tell you to limit yourself to one sheet. However whenever the left gets full control, like the recent pandemic pandemonium, toilet paper is the first thing to disappear.

              2. No, it is not possible that those who favor freedom are as evil as totalitarians, and that claim is among the several reasons people here laugh at you.

              3. Ken has a calculus for determining which major party is the lesser of two evils.

                He cannot respect the fact that other people might assign different weights to factors than he does. For example, like a lot of other commenters here who joined the pro-Trump camp, he cannot respect that other people do not value a grifting, incompetent, stupid, mean-spirited, attention-hogging, buffoonish President. They dismiss other’s judgement as caring too much about “mean Tweets”.

                1. From what I’ve seen I don’t think he buys into the idea of the lesser of two evils, because that would mean his side is also evil. Just less evil. Nope. The other team is pure evil and his team represents freedom. Even though he admits that his team is authoritarian. So now authoritarianism is freedom because it’s less-bad than totalitarianism. Or something.

                  1. It is so clear that all Ken’s “reasoning”, which he takes great pride in, is carefully orchestrated to come to the conclusion he wanted to come to in the first place.

                    1. Ken has been posting for a long time. It’s only relatively recently that he downed the Republican Kool-Aid and started reading like a summary of Hannity’s last show or something. I want the old Ken back.

                    2. Why don’t you two leftist faggots go fuck each other?

                2. “grifting, incompetent, stupid, mean-spirited, attention-hogging, buffoonish President.”

                  But not just mean tweets!

                  1. I literally just listed several problems with Trump that went beyond “mean tweets”.

                    1. You literally repeated your opinion of his personality, which is the reason you are properly perceived as a TDS-addled asshole.

                    2. “… grifting, incompetent, stupid, mean-spirited, attention-hogging, buffoonish President.”

                      grifting – Not a personality trait.
                      incompetent – Arguably a mix of personality and non-personality issues.
                      stupid – Arguably a mix of personality and non-personality issues.
                      mean-spirtied – OK, that’s personality.
                      buffoonish – OK, and that’s personality.

                      So, let’s talk about the grifting, incompetence, and stupidity, because none of those things is purely personality.
                      attention-hogging – That’s personality, too.

                    3. “…grifting, incompetence, and stupidity, because none of those things is purely personality…”

                      Correct; they are your opinion, not factual.
                      Show us any grift, cite any incompetence, and tell us how you know Trump was anywhere near your level of stupidity.

                    4. I’m going to start with the stupidity one. I know that there were no airports (or aeroplanes) in the Revolutionary War. Cite:

                      https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-revolutionary-war-airports/

                    5. Also, even though I am not the Commander in Chief, I know that it is “hypersonic missiles”, not “hydrosonic missiles”. Cite:

                      https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-keeps-messing-up-name-of-hypersonic-missiles-2020-10

                    6. Not going to do incompetence, because you will not agree with any example I give.

                    7. You don’t know that water is H2O, but we’re supposed to believe you know the difference between hypersonic and hydrosonic?

                    8. You don’t know that water is H2O, but we’re supposed to believe you know the difference between hypersonic and hydrosonic?

                      WK – there’s another textbook ad hominem. The funny thing about personal attacks is that some people find them to be compelling arguments. Usually those people are on the left, but there are immature Trumpistas who feel the same way.

                    9. Talk to Tulpa about the water thing, since he is the one who said it, not me. Every time you mention the water b.s., you are showing you don’t care about truth.

                    10. It’s even pathetic that R Mac went for that ad hominem because anybody who is interested in the truth, and capable of copying the handle on the comments he is referring to into an online hex editor can see that Tulpa spoofed my handle.

                      So, not only is it an “ad hominem fallacy”, it’s a “lying my ass off fallacy”. I’m sure Ken can tell us the fancy Latin rhetoric term for “lying my ass off fallacy”.

                    11. Tjat also all apply to Biden, perhaps moreso
                      With none of Trumps good instincts on policy

                  2. Do you actually want to challenge any of the adjectives I used to describe Trump? I can back each and every one up with numerous cites.

                    1. Whoosh! (Again)

                    2. “Whoosh! (Again)”

                      Attention: Ken and JesseAz. This is an example of an ad hominem. R Mac is trying to use a personal attack on me to avoid discussing the actual argument I made.

                    3. “R Mac is trying to use a personal attack on me to avoid discussing the actual argument I made.”

                      That’s all he ever does. The guy has never once made an argument that wasn’t about a person.

                    4. Says the lying hypocrite that said he doesn’t read all my posts.

                3. “…do not value a grifting, incompetent, stupid, mean-spirited, attention-hogging, buffoonish President…”

                  Correct; that Biden is a real POS.

                  1. I never said that Biden isn’t also some of these things. Let’s see:

                    – grifter – Don’t see Biden as a grifter. Whereas Trump clearly, objectively is a grifter.
                    – incompetent – Biden is incompetent. Especially, his economics.
                    – stupid – Maybe. Or maybe it’s more advancing dementia.
                    – mean-spirited – More reckless about the unintended consequences of his policies. I’d say he is more incompetent than mean-spirited.
                    – attention-hogging – He is a successful politican, so he loves attention, but not at Trumpian levels.
                    – buffoonish – He has the infamous Biden gaffes going for him, but he’s not a buffoon at Trumpian levels.

                    1. “– grifter – Don’t see Biden as a grifter.”

                      Yeah, offering political access to get his son hired is just business as normal
                      The rest of your ‘opinion’ is simply an admission that you are more than happy to accept a government with an unlimited desire for my money because of your adolescent focus on personality.
                      You deserve what you get, TDS-addled asshole, I don’t.

                    2. Come on Sevo, we all know Hunter has the appropriate professional skills to be on a Ukrainian energy companies BOD.

                    3. “Yeah, offering political access to get his son hired is just business as normal”

                      If he did that, it’s a fair cop to call that grifting.

                      So far, I’ve only seen solid evidence that Hunter Biden is a grifter. But weak evidence his father was in on it, other than turning a blind eye to Hunter’s shady activities.

                    4. “The rest of your ‘opinion’ is simply an admission that you are more than happy to accept a government with an unlimited desire for my money because of your adolescent focus on personality.”

                      Where is your evidence that I approve of Biden’s economic policies? You won’t find any, because I don’t support his economic policies. I think they are really bad.

                    5. “Come on Sevo, we all know Hunter has the appropriate professional skills to be on a Ukrainian energy companies BOD.”

                      I guess you are trying to put those words in my mouth. So, let me be really, really clear: Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified at all to be on the board of Burisma.

                    6. What evidence do you have that Tony Bobulinski was lying?

                    7. “What evidence do you have that Tony Bobulinski was lying?”

                      First of all, I will preface my answer with saying I don’t have conclusive evidence. It’s possible Bobulinski is telling the truth.

                      The two items of evidence that cast doubt on Bobulinski’s version are:
                      1) Another partner, James Gilliar, told the Wall Street Journal, “I am unaware of any involvement at any time of the former Vice President.” It may be Gilliar who is lying, but we do have one partner saying Joe was involved and another saying he wasn’t.
                      2) Bobulinski hurt his credibility by showing up as Trump’s guest at the Nashville presidential debate. That’s not strong evidence, but it does undermine any claims Bobulinski might have of being politically neutral.

                4. a grifting, incompetent, stupid, mean-spirited, attention-hogging, buffoonish President.

                  Jeez, you just described Biden to a tee yet you never have anything critical to say about him.

                5. Not at all. You just need to be lead so badly that it’s pathetic.

                  I don’t care enough to vote, but I thought the dude was pretty funny. Sense of humor is the first thing to go if you wanna be a self righteous prog.

              4. “Yes, you’re convinced that everything the left does, all the way down to which brand of toilet paper they buy, is evil. We get it.”

                Was it bullshit like this that got you kicked off glibs?

                1. Do you still rape children?

                  1. Why are you here? You said you didn’t like it here and were leaving. We know you’re a lying hypocrite, but this is just getting pathetic.

                    1. You didn’t answer my question. Do you still rape children, or is that something you’ve given up?

                    2. So you were lying when you said you didn’t like it here and were leaving because of the rhetoric.

                      Hey White Knight, what’s your position on people calling others child rapists?

                    3. I was having a conversation with Ken. Go back to the kiddie table and trade stories about middle school.

                    4. “Hey White Knight, what’s your position on people calling others child rapists?”

                      Generally, not cool. Hey, sarcasmic, you shouldn’t call R Mac a child rapist.

                      On the other hand, I’m not too worked up about it, since R Mac is a total asshole.

                    5. A conversation where you said he doesn’t like people’s toilet paper and he’s just repeating Hannity’s talking points.

                      Fucking hypocrite.

                    6. Generally, not cool. Hey, sarcasmic, you shouldn’t call R Mac a child rapist.

                      Child asked a loaded question “Was it bullshit like this that got you kicked off glibs?”

                      Child was asked a loaded question in return.

                      Child gets upset.

                      More at 11.

                    7. Nice justification for being a lying hypocrite.

                    8. Upset child calls people names.

                      More at 11.

                    9. Hypocrite calls me out for calling him names, while calling me names.

                    10. Shorter R Mac: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

                    11. Pointing out you’re a hypocrite isn’t crying, hypocrite.

                  2. Do you still fuck goats?

                2. Umm, sarcasmic is still on glibertarians.

                    1. Wow, you really contribute valuable insights here.

                    2. Squawking like a bird is not valuable insight.

                    3. Leo, I asked you for the last contribution you made on this site a week ago. Were you unable to find it?

                  1. Dee, you bitch!

      2. Haha. No one is “losing control”, you idiot. And we don’t care that you hate yourself either.

        Delusions of grandeur.

  28. Apparently, Jenna Ellis’s husband, Davis Rivers, isn’t giving her the meat:

    As you know, my husband David Rives chose to Separate in August. He refuses all church authority, accountability, or biblical counseling for some very critical issues…

    {snort} IOW… gay. What a disappointment, Jenna!

    1. Parasitic plie of lefty shit seems jealous.

    2. Unclear why HER marriage is of such interest to you.

    3. Maybe he will fuck your faggot ass for you. You sniveling cunt.

    4. Am I supposed to know who this person is and give a shit?

  29. https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1387768039807111171?s=19

    BlueAnon.

    FDR literally had to deal with the Klan and actual racist laws.

    “@RBReich
    Biden could be as transformative a president as FDR.
    But FDR didn’t have to contend with a paranoid, xenophobic, racist opposition drenched in lies and extremist propaganda from right-wing media.”

    1. We get to deal with delusional piles of shit like Reich.

    2. Er, no, FDR didn’t have to deal with a racist opposition, the Klan was his base.

  30. Can we please close the ‘fake journo-list’ loophole and fire about 90% of Emote staff immediately?

  31. More proof that unlimited, unrestricted immigration is the only sensible policy — especially during a pandemic.

    Coronavirus live news: India reports record new infections and deaths

    The US must invite India’s 1.4 billion people to immigrate here, since Biden has delivered the vaccine and shut down the virus like he promised. Additionally, this influx of cost-effective labor would be great for billionaire employers like our benefactor Charles Koch.

    #OpenBordersWillFixEverything

    1. Thank you! Come again!

      1. I read that in Apu.

  32. So we are already removing fundamental rights from people based on a complaint, not a conviction, that they might have done something violent, for a very broad definition of “violent”.

  33. I thought that the “boyfriend loophole” was that you’re allowed to pretend to have a boyfriend when you don’t want all of your friends and family to know that you’re a lipstick lesbian.

  34. Libritarians “Biden, and the progressives want to completely dismantal America, the American way of life and all freedoms and benifite”
    Biden “we want to completely dismantal and change how America operates”
    Americansocialist “you libritarians are all hyperventilation about Biden”

  35. used to love going to the VAWA for baseball cards & hoagies & tastycakes

    1. Their hot dawgs and wooder ice aren’t bad either.

  36. Joe Biden, also told us over a decade ago, “You can keep your plan …”, amongst many other lies. He campaigned as a moderate, and is governing like a socialist, that’s investigating Trump’s lawyer to set an example. Are Democrats trusting Biden to lie to us, to get power we’ll never get back? There are many firms using Critical Race Theory to get conservatives to shut up if they want to keep their job.

  37. I believe the ATF defines a ‘ghost gun’ as any gun that does not have a serial number on it. This includes normally manufactured guns whose serial numbers have been filed off. I’m guessing the majority of ‘ghost guns’ mentioned in the links above had their serial numbers filed off.

    Building a gun from mail order parts is more expensive than buying a gun through legal or illegal means.

    Gun control types do want to nip 3D printed guns in the bud, but I don’t think this is technically feasible.

    1. Guns made prior to the GCA did not require serial numbers. I have an old Marlin lacking a serial number.

      Is it a “ghost gun”?

  38. The Congress needs to tell Biden and Co. to Stick It. By the way, this citizen wonders as to when federal courts will tell California’s Anti Constitutional Rights Mafia where to get off also.

  39. Of course, VAWA increased violence against men.

    Violence in the form of men being railroaded into jail. Violence in the form of loss of 2nd Amendment rights. Violence in men being stigmatized by a rigged criminal justice system.

    How about if Reason stands up for men’s rights?

  40. California is ahead of Biden’s game in banning ghost guns, having since 2018, as the Center for American Progress summed up, “require[d] all self-assembled firearms to contain a unique serial number from the California Department of Justice. Furthermore, owners of newly serialized firearms must provide identification information to the California Department of Justice. Under California law, self-assembled firearms cannot be sold or transferred.”

    Allegedly, it would be a tool against gangs, who probably would be in the businesses of selling these firearms in back alleys in the ghetto.

  41. Amazing how many stories about how Biden’s policies suck are starting to come out of the woodwork from people who did their best to get Biden elected.

Please to post comments