Reason Roundup

Abortion Ban Stimulates Interstate Travel, Says Texas

Plus: Government shutdown, demographic diversity in rural America, and more...

|

The federal government can't sue over a near-total ban on abortion in Texas because it "is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel," the state argues. In a motion to dismiss the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit against it, Texas suggests that legal precedent cited by the DOJ only lets the government sue when "interstate commerce was obstructed by a denial of civil rights."

"One of the precedents that applies here is a case where the US was able to get an injunction against striking workers, partly because it was impacting interstate commerce," explains Jacqueline Thomsen of the National Law Journal on Twitter. "Texas argues this doesn't involve the same issue so the precedent doesn't work."

"In this case, the federal government does not bring a commerce claim, nor does it cite any actual evidence that the Texas Heartbeat Act burdens interstate commerce," states the Texas motion, filed September 29. "What evidence that does exist in the record suggests that, if anything, the Act is stimulating rather than obstructing interstate travel," it says, noting an "increase in Texas women traveling to Oklahoma" to terminate their pregnancies.

So, the state admits that its "pro-life" law isn't actually stopping Texas women from getting abortions, just driving them across state lines—that is, not "saving babies," as supporters claim, but simply making women getting abortions jump through hoops.

Texas also argues that the federal government hasn't specified a cause of action, lacks jurisdiction, and "has not clearly shown that the Texas Heartbeat Act is unconstitutional." It says that for the law to be challenged, it must be done by private citizens in state court. You can read the state's full argument here.

The Volokh Conspiracy has a multi-part series analyzing constitutional challenges to the Texas law (Senate Bill 8), which also lets abortion doctors and anyone who "aids and abets" an abortion be sued. It has already spawned a couple of lawsuits. See:


FREE MARKETS

"We have an agreement on the C.R.—the continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown—and we should be voting on that tomorrow morning," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) yesterday. The Senate "can approve this measure quickly, and send it to the House so it can reach the President's desk before funding expires midnight tomorrow."

Government shutdown starts today if Congress can't get it together enough to vote against it. For that to happen, it looks like everyone will have to agree to Republicans' preferred version of a stopgap funding bill. From CNN:

The effort to prevent a shutdown has in recent days been caught up in a fight over how to address a looming debt limit crisis. Democrats initially attempted to pair the two fiscal issues—the debt limit and government funding—and pass legislation that would resolve both, but that ran aground in the Senate due to GOP opposition.

Republicans have said they would support a "clean" stopgap funding bill that does not include a debt limit provision, arguing that Democrats must address the debt limit on their own without GOP votes. Democrats have pushed back, saying that addressing the debt limit is a shared bipartisan responsibility.

In the face of GOP opposition to combining the two issues, Congress now appears poised to pass a "clean" funding bill without the debt limit attached. Schumer said Wednesday that once they fund the government, Congress still needs to "address the urgent matter of extending the debt ceiling."


FREE MINDS

Demographic diversity in rural America. It's on the rise, according to the latest U.S. census. "The future of rural America is increasingly marked by growing diversity and expanding inequity within and across regions—creating an intricate picture that binary thinking can't capture," Brookings Institution researchers write. They note that rural parts of the country have gotten more racially and ethnically diverse, and that "the distribution of people of color in rural America is complex and highly regionalized":

Contrary to the dominant narratives that use "rural" as a synonym for "white," 24% of rural Americans were people of color in 2020. While rural America is still less diverse than the nation as a whole (42.2% people of color), it is diversifying as well: The median rural county saw its population of color increase by 3.5 percentage points between 2010 and 2020….

The makeup of rural populations of color is shaped by highly regionalized variations in the concentration of Black Americans, Latino Americans, and Indigenous Americans across the nation. As Figure 2 demonstrates, rural counties in the South and West are particularly racially and ethnically diverse—with a substantial number of rural areas in these regions majority or near-majority people of color.

More maps and data here.


QUICK HITS

• The U.S. mail is about to get slower and more expensive.

• "New psychological research suggests that trigger warnings do not reduce negative reactions to disturbing material—and may even increase them," reports The New Yorker.

• The former London police officer who abducted, raped, and murdered Sarah Everard was sentenced to life in prison.

• YouTube is blocking anti-vaccine content.

• Check out the Mexican town built by 3D printers.

• Former President Donald Trump lost his lawsuit against Omarosa.

• Come work at Reason:

NEXT: A Good Day for the Fourth Amendment

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. We have an agreement on the C.R.—the continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown—and we should be voting on that tomorrow morning…

    Surprise.

    1. it was expected the drama was for the media and to drive up donations. its all theater for both parties.

      1. These are 2 pay checks $78367 and $87367. that i received in last 2 months. I am very happy that i can make thousands in my part time and now i am enjoying my life. Everybody can do this and earn lots of dollars from home in very short time period.CEh Your Success is one step away Click Below Webpage…..

        Just visit this website now………… VISIT HERE

        1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGR And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

          Try it, you won’t regret it!…READ MORE

          1. Sarah getting Paid up to $18953 in the week, working on-line at home. I’m full time Student. I shocked when my sister’s told me about her check that was $97k. It’s very easy to do.QEd everybody will get this job. Go to home media tab for additional details……

            So I started……… https://bit.ly/3u3ryIo

      2. It’s not theater if you’re a poor woman in Texas & find yourself unexpectedly pregnant, for whatever reason, & you want an abortion. It’s very real then.

  2. “growing diversity and expanding inequity”

    IOW my assertion that immigration will turn the entire country into California — which has the highest poverty rate of all 50 states — is proved correct once again.

    #LibertariansFor50Californias

    1. A wise man once said, “Rich families are all alike; every poor family is poor in its own way”. Or something.

      1. Fyodor Tolstoy, I believe!

    2. What the hell is ‘expanding inequity’? Isn’t everyone at maximum inequity already (Source: Everything)?

      1. and since when does diversification lead to inequity. I though they wanted diversity. these people can’t make up their mind of what they want. and clearly the statement was literal word salad to come to a preconceived notion

  3. The future of rural America is increasingly marked by growing diversity and expanding inequity within and across regions—creating an intricate picture that binary thinking can’t capture…

    That won’t stop Civilized America from imposing policies to correct whatever issues Civilized America binary thinkers feel exist in Flyover America.

    1. And it won’t stop 90% of America from declaring all the ills of that diversity being due to Team Not Me.

    2. Complexity can’t be captured by 1/0 thinking. Pretty profound or profoundly oxymoronic, I can’t tell.

  4. Wow the Authoritarians were out in force last night in the article about San Diego’s vaccine mandate for kids. It was really eye opening.

    If you don’t see mandating the vaccination of kids from a virus that is zero risk to them as a terrible abuse of government power, you are either an authoritarian or willing to support them in order to mock your enemies.

    I am vaccinated. My oldest kids are vaccinated. But I get on these forums every day to oppose these mandates. Because liberty is more important than “Owning dem Cons”. I don’t do drugs, and I do everything in my power to keep kids from doing the same. But every article discussing the War on Drugs will see me lining right up with leftists to denounce it.

    Some of you people have become more deeply invested in the culture war than you are willing to admit- even to yourselves. If you got on that thread to try and have “Conservatives don’t like science, hur dur” for the 50th time, then you are part of the problem that has allowed the government unprecedented control over our lives this last year. That thread should have been filled with “Holy shit I support the government but this has gone too far.”

    1. What good is power if you can’t get more if it?

    2. Yeah, you’d think “compulsory medical procedures” would be one of the hills that libertarians are willing to die on, but I guess virtue-signaling to your preferred tribe is the order of the day at Reason.

      1. It may not be signaling. Like Trump before it, COVID broke a lot of people I didn’t expect to be broken.

        1. Something about delicate snowflakes?

        2. Most of them were already broken and just waiting for the final straw.

          1. Many weren’t constructed properly from the ground up and their facade unable to withstand the weight of even slightest of straws.

            Again, Ron Bailey was speaking in support of mandatory vaccinations and travel bans for Zika.

            1. Good point. Many of the left leaning libertarians here seem to be libertarian because they think it sounds cool on their deep blue area of living. They still align with democrats on 90% of topics. They demur against government expansion. They justify tax cuts as a cost or equivalent to government spending. Etc

              1. This. For our Reasonistas libertarianism is a way of announcing that they’re a contrarian, but still socially left. Their libertarianism mostly concerns the way that sex and drugs works for the American upper-middle class elite.

            2. I thought straws had been banned already.

              1. We can still use shitty paper ones.

            3. Again, though, you can have a principled discussion with Mr Bailey about the actual morality. And he is arguing about vaccine mandates where the vaccinated person is at significant risk from the disease.

              Mandating kids to get vaccinated from a virus that is zero risk to them when at-risk people can freely get vaccinated is beyond the pale.

          2. I Know a person like that. the year before covid broke he was saying we were going to have a pandemic some day. He is so smug about how it came true. the stupid part is people have been predicting the next pandemic since long before i was born he just got lucky. but he took to it like a moth to light. all mask and vacines or else we all die

      2. To be fair, it Reason’s article took the stance I would expect: This is absurd and should not stand. I would not be shocked to find that there are those in the Reason staff that DO see a moral obligation to vaccinate for the public health, and even some who might accept limited mandates. But they didn’t try arguing those facts in the article, because that is not the time or place. Why some commenters don’t do the same is a mystery.

        1. They can’t wait to wear their “I survived the pandemic “ tee shirts.

      3. Yeah, you’d think “compulsory medical procedures” would be one of the hills that libertarians are willing to die on

        Or any american really. WTF

    3. I don’t really support the government and this is many miles beyond too far.

    4. Seems like increasingly more lefties are being paid to post left wing totalitarian nonsense on this formerly libertarian website.

      1. I’m not sure they’re being paid. There’s no shortage of true believers on the left.

    5. I almost made the same post this morning.

      It is amazing watching people who claim to be libertarian turn so quickly to violate the NAP on the justification they might get sick. It is a complete denial of life in general and simply rationalizing their authoritarian impulses.

      They have happily sat back and watched the unvaccinated be ostracized, fired, and in one case even shot at a protest. They truly believe those they disagree woth should be removed from society. JFree has even gone so far as to believe hospitals should turn them away.

      Often these moves are done through unscientific lies like the vaccinated don’t spread disease. They do. The unvaccinated are doing it for politics abd are conservatives. The biggest unvaxed groups are PoC and even doctorates. The unvaccinated cause mutations of the virus. Ignkring evolutionary pressure and the vaccines not being sanitizing.

      They have told themselves every lie to justify their authoritarianism. The same as leftists have been doing for a century. It is to save kids. It is to save grandma. Mask up. Don’t travel. Stay in doors. Ignore increasing obesity and lack of monitored care. The very same justifications the left is using to push GND under the guise of global warming.

      They have traded freedoms and choice for a mere appearance of a small increase in safety.

      1. I vehemently disagree with people who support mandates for adults and even people who believe you have a moral obligation to vaccinate for the safety of others, but it is a fine philosophical argument to be had.

        But last night’s article wasn’t some philosophical grey area. No one who follows the science or the policy of governments and national health institutes around the world can argue that children are at risk from this virus. By *any* risk analysis, mandating kids to vaccinate is not justified.

        If you saw that article and your first impulse was to start saying, “Well, akshewallly, this isn’t very unprecedented…” or to pick fights over statistics with others, then you are either a culture war fanatic, or one of their unknowing useful idiots.

        1. They are doing it under the guise of spread in children despite the fact covid already spreads in animals and the vaccinated. At this point the vaccine is a prophylactic. They’ve already shot down every other prophylactic, yet hold the vaccine as sacrosanct. That is because it is the only avenue that allows the tyranny they seek. See Jeff’s response below.

          1. At this point the vaccine is a prophylactic mitigative intervention.

            FIFY

        2. It really does blow my mind when I see the discussions in the comments section. That precedent argument should have never been brought into the discussion in the first place and definitely should have been abandoned by everyone at the obvious example (among so many other examples) of “well there is a legal precedent for a cop to shoot an unarmed citizen without recourse. Does that make it justifiable?”.

          The discussions around this have become so tedious and repetitive. Even the hospital bed discussion is fucking stupid. These idiots are running around trying lay blame on the unvaccinated because it scores culture war points. The more libertarian discussion around hospital beds is that the government has their tentacles too deep into healthcare to allow a real free market response. You don’t blame the consumers. You blame the supply limiting government regulations.

          Assuming these people actually reject mandates, at some point they need to fight the mandates as hard as they fight the culture war. That means way more than a small disclaimer at the end of post saying “but I don’t support mandates”. Outside of the culture war, who cares about the science as it relates to mandates? The mandates are evil no matter what the science says.

          1. “These idiots are running around trying lay blame on the unvaccinated because it scores culture war points.”

            Funny, I see at as just the opposite: partisans trying to score points by denying the very plain truth news coming from red-state hospital ICU wards all over the country that they are filling up with COVID cases, almost 100% of them unvaccinated.

            Thing is, I’m not on Team Red or Blue. I’m a libertarian who reads the news. So, I’m definitely not taking the “get vaccinated, you partisan angle” to score points. I’m not on one of the culture war teams.

            1. Big fucking surprise. Still no argument against mandates.

              Your impartial libertarian claim would have been more convincing if you would have left out the “red state” part of your comment on hospitals.

              You need to open your eyes. The unvaccinated are not just a bunch of team red conservatives. You making that claim and trying to dunk on it completely tips your cards and shows everyone you are full of shit.

              1. “Big fucking surprise. Still no argument against mandates.”

                Are you saying you want me to make an argument against mandates? I oppose vaccine mandates, especially the OSHA one, which is based on really flimsy legal reasoning. Don’t have a problem with private companies mandating vaccines, especially hospitals. I’m on the fence about public school mandates, seeing arguments on both sides as valid.

                1. The consistent problem is that your first impulse is to try to pick a fight with anyone you think is conservative. It is not to defend liberty. Even your first response to me was to turn this into a culture war team red vs blue even though my comment had nothing to do with that. Then you throw these tepid weak disclaimers that you don’t agree with mandates. If you argued against mandates with a fraction of the energy you fight “conservatives” on here, I would at least have a reason to believe you meant it.

                  1. I’m picking a fight? Go back and read your initial comment, and the tone and language you use.

                    1. And none of that should have elicited a negative response from you. Everything I listed in that comment was a standard libertarian position 18 months ago.

                      Precedent is not a good justification for new government action.

                      The government interferes too much in our healthcare markets and makes them inefficient and unable to quickly adjust to the needs of their customers. It is not the customer’s fault, it is an overly restricted market.

                      You somehow took these to mean that I am Team Red and must be challenged. If these are Team Red positions, it is by pure coincidence. If you start to follow my comments, you will see that you will not be able to put me into a neat little box of Team Red or Blue.

                    2. “And none of that should have elicited a negative response from you.”

                      Go back and read my initial response. It wasn’t negative. I just disagreed with you.

                    3. What are you talking about? You even threw in an “Ashli Babbitt was unarmed”, which is a right-wing talking point, not a libertarian one.

                      You used argumentative language such as “fucking stupid”. You were trolling for an argument.

                    4. Babbitt being unarmed is an actual fact. Not a talking point. What the actual fuck?

                    5. Mike,

                      Where did I even mention Ashli Babbitt outside of responding to your false claim that I mentioned her? You have now made this false claim twice in this discussion. This is not even a person that I discuss at all. It does not interest me.

                      This is what I am talking about. You want to lump me in with Team Red so bad that you either imagine me saying things that I did not or you are inferring things way beyond what my comments even said.

                      Believe it or not, there have been a lot of unarmed citizens shot by police. Not just the ones that people like to use to fight little public battles over.

                    6. Stonebraker, Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee, and should be treated as such.

                      Any effort you put into honest discussion with her is wasted effort. You can keep trying, but soon you’ll realize it will never happen. It’s best to just ridicule and laugh at her.

                  2. You even threw in an “Ashli Babbitt was an unarmed innocent” right-wing signal that was completely off topic.

                    1. I think you may have posted this response on the wrong chain. I didn’t say anything about Ashli Babbitt. Unless you assumed that my comment “well there is a legal precedent for a cop to shoot an unarmed citizen without recourse” was about her. It definitely was not as I have not invested any time into researching this case to have an informed opinion. This was more of a critique of qualified immunity which the last time I checked is a libertarian position.

                    2. If you had been talking about qualified immunity, that would be where the cops get away with shooting someone because there is _no_ precedent, i.e. no case where exactly the same circumstances resulted in the coo shooting someone and being ruled wrong for doing so.

                    3. Mike,

                      Please tell me you are not serious.

                      There is established legal precedent of cops successfully using qualified immunity to escape punishment for crimes committed. It is the legal precedent that a cop can get away with crimes. I don’t give a shit what the crime is. It can be shooting, strangling, beating, stealing. There is still a legal precedent that a cop can get away with a crime because of qualified immunity.

                      Again you are trying way too hard to put me onto Team Red.

                    4. Go read up on how qualified immunity works, and then you might understand what I’m saying about the role of precedent in qualified immunity: lack of precedent is exactly what gets a cop excused from guilt.

                    5. I understand how qualified immunity works. I think we are getting into a semantics battle. I am not arguing the definition of qualified immunity. I am pointing out that there is strong legal precedence that “i didn’t know I couldn’t shoot a person on a red bike and there is no legal precedence that I can’t shoot someone on a red bike” can be used as a legitimate argument in a court of law leading to acquittal. The red bike was an exaggerated example but you get my point. Even though there is solid legal precedence that it is an acceptable defense, it is not right and should not exist.

                2. You oppose the word mandate. You still want the same outcome.

              2. “The unvaccinated are not just…

                Sure, but “not just” means that some of them are. And that is the specific topic I am addressing here because this commentariat is full of conservatives who are being partisan dumbshits about vaccination.

                I’m not sure if there is even a single African-American commenter here, let alone one who is part of the black anti-vaxxer demographic.

                1. “And that is the specific topic I am addressing here because this commentariat is full of conservatives who are being partisan dumbshits about vaccination.”

                  No, Mike is doing it because the only reason he is here is to engage in his Cultural Holy War. He would much rather fight the cons than actually further the cause of liberty.

                2. Thank you for finally admitting that you are more here to own the cons than to defend liberty or libertarian principles.

                  1. I really don’t care anymore. When you start telling people like JesseAz or Mother’s Lament that they are out of line, I’ll care about what you think.

                    1. I’m oUt oF LiNE for disagreeing with him and saying nice things about Trump.

                      The White Knight
                      January.6.2021 at 5:07 pm

                      It is now crystal clear Trump is monster. If you still support him, you are a bad person. There is no ambiguity, no wiggle room anymore.

                    2. Out of line for pointing out your lies and obfuscation?

              3. WTF is the point of making an argument against mandates in a comment thread on Reason. That is not picking some hill to die on. Picking some hill to die on means making an argument to a crowd that is actually opposed to you. Where you may be the only one making that argument.

                What you all do is preach to the choir and virtue signal the pure breeding of your haggis. With the ugly consequence that what you then do is head down the road of denying all facts and engaging in ludicrous conspiracy bullshit and doing everything possible to avoid and hide from reality because you need to cluster among the likeminded.

                1. Fair enough. It probably does not matter discussing these things in the comments. But then again, why would any of us come into the comments other than to discuss the nuances of libertarian philosophy and how they apply to the current world.

                  In the non-libertarian world, it is really difficult to justify a no mandate position and convince others of that when all roads leading to the mandate are conceded. If you solely blame ICU strain on the unvaccinated and not correctly point out that the government overly restricts the ability of hospitals to meet the demands of their community, this leads to support of the mandates. If you argue that there is legal precedent for mandated vaccines and that this is an acceptable argument, this leads to support of the mandates. I think it is possible to have a more nuanced discussion on these points within a libertarian community, but these are points in support of the mandates beyond the libertarian world. I am not saying to ignore any of the conditions in the world, but you should also not tailor the discussion around these conditions only in the direction to undermine your position against mandates.

                  1. In the non-libertarian world, it is really difficult to justify a no mandate position and convince others of that when all roads leading to the mandate are conceded.

                    First call it the real world. Not the non-libertarian world as if everything outside ideological choir practice is merely a stage for arguments. If you don’t understand that, read Dale Carnegie.

                    Second, I do not find that at all. The pajama class is the only group of people who do not ever listen. But they never listen to anything. Has nothing to do with a covid mandate in particular. It is simply about the power that they have and want to keep so that no one else has that power. And have no doubt that is both D and R.

                    What DOES create an impossibility for someone to talk about mandate is denying every possible fact of reality because ‘all roads to the mandate are conceded’. This is just the flu. Why are we even talking about this. 600k+ extra people haven’t died. No one died. Move along now. Except the vaccines have killed 600k. So if we mandate them it will cause more deaths. If it wasn’t the flu, then it’s all the fault of the Biden, Fauci, and the Chinese. Because the virus itself is just the flu. And the hospitals are in on it all too. They are killing people by first diagnosing them with covid and then putting them on ventilators. Let’s snort sheep dip instead. blahblahblah.

                    That does not prepare the way for a discussion about anything. It just informs people in the real world that – oh god here comes the asshole.

                    1. “First call it the real world.” Ok. real world

                      “The pajama class is the only group of people who do not ever listen. But they never listen to anything. Has nothing to do with a covid mandate in particular. It is simply about the power that they have and want to keep so that no one else has that power. And have no doubt that is both D and R.”

                      This is 100% accurate.

                      If you actually read my comments, you will not see me making any of the ridiculous points you listed. I already know that all of these (plus the other standard arguments around the science or hospitalizations) are losing battles and won’t win anyone over. People tend to dig in their heels once they even hear the start of these arguments. So there is no point in addressing them.

                      I know you disagree, but I believe it to be counter productive to solely lay blame on the unvaccinated as opposed to the government. The latter of which is far more to blame for many of the current issues.

                    2. Yes, there are libertarian arguments about government messing up the market forces that would be at play in truly free market hospitals.

                      However, that is something that can only be addressed over the long-term. Getting vaccinated is something an individual can choose to do to help with the problem in the short run. In other words, it’s one of the few practical measures that can be taken right now, by individual, free choice.

                    3. Mike,

                      This is one of your best comments on this topic so far.

                      I only partially agree that the government obstruction of the free market is a long term play. I think if this was a more prominent discussion, some pressure could be put on to free up some of the restrictions to help hospitals make the moves they need to support their communities. Somewhat like the pressure to fast track the vaccine. In my opinion, the government has made everything around COVID worse than it should have been, and instead of releasing their control on the market, they are doubling down. Really disappointing to see.

                      I even felt like the FDA should have stepped out of the way to allow the release of the vaccine immediately even without testing. Right to try if you are will to take the risk. But I feel that way about every drug.

                  2. “Even the hospital bed discussion is fucking stupid.”

                    Nuance.

                    1. Yeah. I would agree. Not one of my finest moments.

            2. Mike still denies seasonality of virus spread. Weird.

              Also Mike claims 30% w/ covid cases in ICUs is ICUs being filled up with Covid. Weird.

              He points to one story in Wyoming that doesn’t even involve a full ICU but was a change in policy to slow down elective surgery use in ICUs as a precaution. Weird.

            3. the very plain truth news coming from red-state hospital ICU wards all over the country that they are filling up with COVID cases, almost 100% of them unvaccinated

              The thing that goes mostly unnoticed in this reporting, and this is why words are so important and comprehension is imperative to root out the story, is this:
              Most of the reporting reports on two things, but reports as if they are one. For example, they report that a hospital is filling up to capacity then in the next sentence say the COVID patients in the ICU are mostly un-vaccinated. The average reader then conflates the two as the hospital is filled up with un-vaccinated COVID patients. Reporting mission accomplished.
              The reality is the ICU’s are filled with all kinds of patients and the fact that some are COVID patients is not relative, particularly when only 1 to 5% of Covid cases warrant hospitalization.
              Read between the lines a little.

              1. “The reality is the ICU’s are filled with all kinds of patients”

                You are wrong. The news stories are quite clear that they are filling up with COViD patients.

                1. The news stories are quite clear that they are filling up with COViD patients.

                  What percentage of the patients in ICUs are COVID patients, on average?

                2. They are not ‘quite clear’. That was my point. Here is a link and excerpt from the MSN story.
                  https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/are-hospitals-actually-being-overrun-by-covid-19/ar-AAONmzw

                  The question of just how overwhelmed hospitals are varies from location to location. Media reports highlighted anecdotal cases of individuals being denied care due to a lack of beds, or high stress on healthcare workers facing an influx of patients, but such incidents were not equally distributed across every state.

                  And this is what I was talking about in the reporting:
                  Eighty-one percent of inpatient beds were in use at 268 reporting hospitals in Florida at the time of publication, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services. Nearly 13% of those beds were in use for COVID-19 cases. While both those numbers are above the national rate of 78%, neither is out of line with typical hospital capacities, and both are down from the August peak.

                  1. Nearly 13% of those beds were in use for COVID-19 cases.

                    ^ Worth emphasizing.

                    1. Yet similar cites have been emphasized repeatedly, and the liars here continue to ignore them.

                      Did Dee ever even admit she was wrong after pimping the Rolling Stone story about gun shot victims in Oklahoma? You know, the one with the picture of people wearing coats in line at a hospital.

                    2. That is not the case in other places, such as Idaho.

                    3. Idaho was at 30% covid and never went into triage. They implemented policies to reduce elective surgeries in case of surge dumbfuck.

                    4. One of the issues with Idaho has been the huge influx of people from the lockdown states, CA, WA, OR. The population surge drove real estate prices through the roof and caused a housing crunch. Idaho’s infrastructure, I think Boise is the city you refer to Mike, was having issues servicing the large influx, the hospitals being an example of that. JessAZ’s response about the policy change was the response to the surge in people and COVID surge. Idaho is used as a talking point, but once again the MSM is only giving a fraction of the story to promote the Red State COVID narrative.

                    5. The Coeur d’Alene area is the worst, with the Boise area not as bad. The growth in population contributes some to the problem, but by far the biggest, most easily solved factor is if conservatives would just stop believing nonsense about the vaccines and get vaccinated.

            4. You need to update your talking points. The southern states are already on the downswing from their summer spike, exactly as predicted by the seasonality theorists.

              Hint: The whole country gets hint with the winter wave. Just like last year.

                1. Dumbshit Mike thinks Alaska is in the south.

                1. The bay area is one of the worst conservative dominated areas. LOL.

                  1. Yesterday I actually looked at the stats for the states. Idaho does indeed have the highest percentage of beds being used for covid. 21%.

                    Of course, 36% of their beds are free.

                    This woman going to the bay area was a result of them implementing crisis care protocols, not by an actual shortage of beds.

                    1. The protocol is because of a shortage of beds.

                    2. I have consistently referred to ICU beds, not beds.

                    3. Mike caught in another lie.

          2. So you’re upset that not everyone emotes as hardly against the mandates as you would like?

            1. Once again, you are more interested in picking a fight with conservatives than actually standing up for liberty. It is telling.

              1. This is the exact problem. If they only argued for liberty with a fraction of the energy they use to own the cons, I would at least be able to believe that they were for something other than the culture war.

                1. There was an article in one of the Socialist Workers Paradise magazines where they absolutely lamented the rise of BLM. They hated it because (and this is exactly their reasoning, but me reading their minds) they felt that if Blacks were able to get relief through the political system, they would have no reason to overthrow the system. And that is what the socialist crazies want: They want blacks so fed up with the system that they will join the socialists in overthrowing it.

                  And surprise, surprise, Antifa did everything in their power to turn last summer’s BLM protests into riots. Why? Because for the first time in forever, the nation was largely aligned with the idea that police have too much power, and there was finally room for a centrist solution. So Antifa drove a wedge between that forming consensus, leading to both tribes retrenching.

                  Mike is actively acting like Antifa here. He is here to ensure that there is NEVER any consensus. I cannot tell if Chemjeff is just blinded by tribalism or, like mike, is actively trying to reinforce it.

                  1. He is here to ensure that there is NEVER any consensus.

                    OMG. Never any consensus? What a horribly evil outcome. Looks like I too need to head back to repeat the Libertarian Creed of St Rockwell. Maybe put on a hair shirt and fast for a few days. Before I can rejoin the LP and do the hard work of making sure everyone agrees about the platform.

                    1. Do you want a turn JFree? Are you going to actually OPPOSE this draconian assault on liberty- forcing kids to vaccinate against a virus that has no risk? Or are you just here to oppose anyone making that argument?

                    2. No one here is making an argument against mandate. You are just saying ‘I oppose the mandate’. That is virtue signalling. Especially when the only real argument you are making is ‘You people are not saying ‘I oppose the mandate’ loud enough’. Like this is Libertarian Summer Gulag. Fuck you.

                      You wanna make an argument against the mandate, then head over to Mother Jones or HuffPost or wherever mandate supporters are nodding and bobbing their heads in complacency with mandates because everyone there agrees about mandates.

                    3. “No one here is making an argument against mandate.”

                      Lol.

                    4. “Especially when the only real argument you are making is ‘You people are not saying ‘I oppose the mandate’ loud enough’. Like this is Libertarian Summer Gulag. Fuck you.”

                      That is such transparent bullshit from you JFree.

                      If it is of no consequence to vehemently condemn Mandates on this site, why won’t you do it? You would rather spend post after post telling me how useless my protests are, than to actually agree. How many posts are you going to do where you refuse to condemn Mandates and say my condemnation isn’t really a condemnation because it doesn’t matter?

                      Just for shits and giggles, I *beg* you to go through this thread and read you, Mike, Chemjeff and Sarc’s comments. Not one of you can spare a single breath to *condemn* mandating children to stick needles in their arms to prevent a disease that represents zero risk to them. Not one of you has said, “What the school board did in San Diego is wrong”. At BEST, you say “I don’t support mandates.”

                      Well mandates are here. What are you going to actually do about it?

                      The government is FORCING KIDS TO STICK NEEDLES IN THEIR ARMS TO PROTECT THEM FROM A VIRUS THAT HAS ZERO RISK TO THEM. And yet you want to pick a fight with me. That was the whole point of my post, which started this thread. The government could be crushing redneck kids beneath their boot, and you would rather stick your thumb in the eye of trumpaloos than agree with them that it is too much.

                    5. Not one of you has said, “What the school board did in San Diego is wrong”

                      I don’t live in San Diego. I don’t live in California. I don’t give a shit about California. Nor do I give a shit about anyone who gives a shit about anything in/from/about California. Nor honestly do I believe most of what people from California say about what happens in California. So – why do you care what I think about California when I don’t care what I think about California?

                      But hey since it really matters to you, I think what the school board did in San Diego is wrong. Really wrong. I’m serious. Happy now?

                      Now let me ask you – WHY do you think it is wrong? Because covid is just the flu? Because kids are parental property? Because informed consent/assent is simply assumed to occur no matter what horseshit or fraud or deceit is part of the public/parental discussion – as long as a bureaucrat is playing three monkeys?

                    6. Not one of you has said, “What the school board did in San Diego is wrong”

                      I don’t live in San Diego.

                      Pathetic.

                      So – why do you care what I think about California when I don’t care what I think about California?

                      Dude – you’re the one who leapt into the conversation to take issue with him.

                      And pro tip – if you don’t care about CA and by your own admission know nothing about it, stop preaching to people about it.

                  2. they felt that if Blacks were able to get relief through the political system, they would have no reason to overthrow the system

                    I used to know Communist activists who were like that – really angrily opposed to any sort of pro-labor legislation because anything that would help improve the conditions of workers would delay the Revolution. They saw FDR as the single greatest villain of modern history – way worse than Hitler.

                    1. Yeah Mises Caucus in the LP is like that. The biggest enemy are other LP.

                  3. As jfree has stated he’s not in favor of a Vax mandate, he is just in favor of the unvaxxed not being allowed in hospital, public spaces, and have the denied jobs. Totally not a mandaye

                    1. You really don’t get the point of my proposal.

                      It undermines pretty much all other mandates (x probably hospital staff mandates) because it directly eliminates the transfer of medical risk to ‘other’.

                      The nanosecond this proposal is announced (which is a major purpose of the proposal), it would change the vax decision calculus. People would actually start paying attention to the TRUTH about hospitalization risk rather than the lies you just the flu folks have been spreading about the death risk. More people would get the vaccine. And within two weeks, the hospital pressure would completely change the dynamics of this epidemic.

                      I don’t despise the unvax. My sister is one. Two of my cousins and I presume most of their kids are. I certainly do despise those of you who who have been deceiving everyone about this for a year now – especially those of you doing that deceit in the name of ‘liberty’.

                    2. I don’t think there’s much chance JFree’s proposal will be adopted, but what seems to be in the works are health insurance companies saying, “Get vaccinated if you want us to pay your COVID-19-related bills.”

                    3. I certainly do despise those of you who who have been deceiving everyone about this for a year now – especially those of you doing that deceit in the name of ‘liberty’.

                      Yet no animus for those who have been deceiving everyone in the name of over-empowering the government and locking down society.

                2. I think you are onto something chemjeff. Some people judge others’ politics by how much they emote.

          3. The mandates are evil no matter what the science says.

            If the vaccine cured COVID and brought the dead back to life, it would still be morally wrong to mandate it.

            1. Vax Lazarus

        3. We should be consistent and be against all school mandated vaccines.

          Kids are not at zero risk. People are defining risk as death as if the disease was a binary thing. They get the virus and many of them get sick to various degrees. It is no fun. They have to be in quarantine at home. No school no playing with friends. Their contacts need to be notified.

          It most cases sure it is like a bad cold. If we had a vaccine for that no doubt they would get that too.

          Anyway it is not even approved yet. This will not start to happen until next school year at the earliest.

          As to health care there is no need for the government to be involved at all. It is already happening all by itself. In a short time it will be the community standard for the entire industry.

      2. They have happily sat back and watched the unvaccinated be ostracized

        With the exception of those who are medically unable to take the vaccine – yes, absolutely. They should be mocked and ridiculed. Because they are making a stupid decision based on irrational fear and politics.

        The decision to get vaccinated, vs. the decision to not get vaccinated, are not two equally valid choices. One is a smart decision and one is a dumb decision. And I’m going to laugh at the people who make dumb decisions for dumb reasons.

        The decision to drive drunk vs. the decision to not drive drunk are not two equally valid decisions. One is smart and one is stupid.

        The decision to brush your teeth, vs. the decision to not brush your teeth, are not two equally valid decisions. One is smart and one is stupid.

        1. The Germans believed the same of the Jewish.

          I like how you also ignored them losing their jobs, being told not to go in public, etc.

          Whatever you need to do to justify your tyranny Jeff.

          1. Jesse being Jewish as the Nazis defined it was not a choice. It was defined by race so not a good analogy. They also persecuted communists. That would be a better comparison.

        2. The decision to get vaccinated, vs. the decision to not get vaccinated, are not two equally valid choices. One is a smart decision and one is a dumb decision.

          More children were killed woth guns in democrat cities last year than died of covid. Vaccinating kids who have a near zero risk of covid is not a smart decision given the side effects known about and documented in children.

          Youre not intelligent enough to make my evaluation of risk for me jeff. Youre just a statist.

          1. More children dies in one city alone, Chicago, from gun shots than the number of children who died from covid for the entire country..

            Of course the left will use that number to attack legal gun owners instead of the fallacy of vaccines for children

            1. What a strange argument.

              1. Oh really? Seemed logical to me.

                Why did you find it “strange”?

                1. Because Dee is a bird brain.

                2. Her limited cawgnitive skills caws her to have reading cawmprehension issues.

        3. “They should be mocked and ridiculed. Because they are making a stupid decision based on irrational fear and politics.”

          The decision to vehemently condemn mandates to stick needles in the arms of kids at ZERO risk from a virus is simple. Failure to do so is a stupid decision based on irrational fear and politics.

          You, Jeff, are guilty of irrational fear and politics. There is very little reason to vaccinate children from a disease that poses little to no risk for them. There is ZERO reason to mandate it. This is such a simple moral choice, and all you want to do is drag this conversation back to the more general vaccination mandates.

          This is why people call you a troll. We should be gleefully in agreement here, but something in you just refuses to do it. What is that problem?

          1. There is very little reason to vaccinate children from a disease that poses little to no risk for them. There is ZERO reason to mandate it. This is such a simple moral choice, and all you want to do is drag this conversation back to the more general vaccination mandates.

            MUH AXTERNALITIEZZZ

          2. The irony here is that I could use Jeff’s very same statement slightly modified.

            “The decision to lose weight, vs. the decision to force others into a medical treatment, are not two equally valid choices. One is a smart decision and one is a dumb decision. ”

            We know 80% of covid deaths had obesity related problems. One of the primary ways to reduce covid related deaths is to focus on obesity. This would also reduce a lot of other medical risks. But jeff has never ostracized a fat person (because he is one) not called for the firing of fat people to reduce employer costs for Healthcare. Etc.

            He is a hypocrite.

            1. I wonder the reaction if, say, Congress decided to require increasing coinsurance when BMI passes certain thresholds. Over time it would do far more good than COVID control policies in elementary schools and daycares.

              1. Seeing as:

                – most of the covid hospitalizations and deaths are elderly
                – most of the money spent on health care is for the elderly
                – 100% of Medicare expenses go to the elderly

                Therefore:

                – we should increase Medicare premiums by 100% for every 5 years a recipient lives beyond age 65

                I’m sure the AARP will be all over this proposal.

                1. The amount this country spends on last 6 months of life is astounding.

              2. Congress decided to require increasing coinsurance when BMI passes certain thresholds.

                Interestingly there is some actual medical research that may indicate what the actual link is with covid and diabetes. Which is not the number/size of fat cells around the belly – but the loss of nasal microbiota diversity which is associated with covid severity.

                Course none of this matters to just the flu crowd.

                1. Obesity and diabetes isn’t linked? Lol. God damn jfree. Keep proving yourself a fool.

            2. “The decision to lose weight, vs. the decision to force others into a medical treatment, are not two equally valid choices. One is a smart decision and one is a dumb decision. ”

              Not only can you not even follow along with the simple analogies that I presented above, you misstate my position, and turn it into a personal attack all at the same time. Par for the course.

              Of course you admitted openly that you deliberately argue in bad faith in these comments, so I am not surprised at all. Why anyone takes anything you say seriously is a mystery.

              1. “…individualist”? Your handle is lie#1.

              2. You have replied multiple times to pick a fight with Jesse and to now declare yourself a victim. You have defended mocking and demeaning- even ostracizing- people who decline to be vaccinated.

                Yet you still cannot bring yourself to condemn an obvious overreach of government- forcing broad vaccination on kids for a disease that has little to no risk to them.

                Why is that?

              3. I literally said I as going to use your own words against you dummy. My god jeff, are you as incapable of comprehension of the written word as sarcasmic?

                1. Except you don’t use peoples words against them. You put words into peoples’ mouths and then use those words against them.

                  1. By quoting you directly with your own posts? Let’s see what you claimed today…

                    sarcasmic
                    September.30.2021 at 12:34 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    Yeah, they go and say those things, then claim that they’re strawmen when repeated back. Typical.</<

                    In reference to:

                    chemjeff radical individualist
                    September.30.2021 at 11:49 am
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    It is black/white thinking gone haywire around here.

                    “Masks don’t work 100% therefore they are 100% useless.”
                    “Vaccines don’t work 100% therefore they are 100% useless.”
                    “Vaccines are not 0% free of side-effects therefore they are 100% poison.”

                    A complete strawman you have pushed prior yourself. You are literally doing what you claim I do… except I actually use your own words that you’ve said.

                    We’ve been over this. How many times do you want your own quotes thrown back at you before you realize it is you who is lying?

                    1. You can call it a strawman all day long. Doesn’t make it so.

                    2. @sarcasmic

                      Masks don’t work 100% therefore they are 100% useless.”
                      “Vaccines don’t work 100% therefore they are 100% useless.”
                      “Vaccines are not 0% free of side-effects therefore they are 100% poison.”

                      THREE strawman arguments, and they are obvious strawman arguments not because anyone says so, but because they are obvious strawman arguments. Exactly no one except your ilk has said anything akin to these things.

              4. Also…

                Of course you admitted openly that you deliberately argue in bad faith in these comments

                Cite? Both sarcasmic and White Mike have said they do this. I have never done so. You always demand citations, so please provide it.

                1. I never said I argue in bad faith. I exaggerate and use hyperbole, yes. And it’s usually pretty damn obvious when I do so, to someone who isn’t obtuse.

                  1. No, Mother’s Lament has posted your claim of you coming in to stir things up quite often. That’s what you said. You have no interest in good faith argumentation. You’ve literally admitted to trolling. Are you going to deny this also?

                    1. Stir things up with hyperbole and exaggeration, yes.

                      I have plenty of good faith conversations here. You are not in any of them.

                    2. Thing is, you aren’t even slightly interested in honest conversation or good faith argumentation. You’re here to score points and virtue signal to the girls, evidenced by all your comments being personal attacks. So please, go fuck yourself.

                    3. Here we go:

                      sarcasmic
                      August.12.2021 at 4:45 pm

                      I only show up to watch the clowns duke it out, while tossing in this or that provocation. Bread and circuses. This is a circus.

                      https://reason.com/2021/08/12/cdc-took-mistaken-data-on-delta-variant-transmissibility-from-a-new-york-times-infographic/#comment-9044167

                    4. This was fun:

                      sarcasmic
                      September.9.2021 at 11:59 am
                      I’M EVERYONE AND EVERYWHERE!!!!!!! I DONT EAT OR SHIT OR PISS OR FUCK OR NOTHING!!!!! ALL I DO IS POST UNDER MULTIPLE NAMES 24/7!!! I HAVEN’T BEEN TO THE BATHROOM IN WEEKS!!!!

                      https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091932

                    5. I have plenty of good faith conversations here

                      With his imaginary friends:

                      “sarcasmic
                      September.28.2021 at 7:08 pm
                      keep projecting. My lurker friends get a good laugh out of it.

                      https://reason.com/video/2021/09/28/why-you-should-fear-big-government-more-than-big-tech/#comment-9129090

                    6. Go read the comments in this very thread and count the number of mine pertaining directly to the argument. Then count yours.

                      Youre so dishonest. Lol.

            3. In Australia they are now limiting alcohol so food will be the next item to limit in order to end comorbities that cause an early death from Covid. its next on the list for us as well

              1. “its next on the list for us as well”

                Pure paranoia.

                1. “If only Comrade Stalin knew” – White Mike 2031

            4. Forcing people to lose weight would be beneficial to a larger percentage of people than a jab mandate, therefore……..

          3. We should be gleefully in agreement here, but something in you just refuses to do it.

            Why? You say you oppose mandates but in reality you only want to associate with people who already oppose mandates. IOW, you don’t want to actually change anything that makes mandates happen. Hell, you don’t even want to be in an environment that brooks any dissent or disagreement at all. You just want to suck your thumb and ensure that Reason is a safe space for you.

            Pathetic.

            1. “You say you oppose mandates but in reality you only want to associate with people who already oppose mandates. ”

              This is self evidently false. The WHOLE REASON I am on this forum is to engage people who have differing views.

              ” IOW, you don’t want to actually change anything that makes mandates happen.”

              I do! That is why I am calling on people like yourself and Chemjeff to oppose this mandate. I would think that mandating children to vaccinate against a virus that poses no risk to them would be a perfect opportunity to change something. Do you disagree?

              “Hell, you don’t even want to be in an environment that brooks any dissent or disagreement at all. You just want to suck your thumb and ensure that Reason is a safe space for you.”

              Based on what evidence? I have given you guys ample opportunity to agree that these specific mandates ought to be opposed. I have said multiple times that I probably disagree with you guys on the finer details, but that we should all agree that mandates for kids is beyond the pale.

              But NONE of you guys want to do that. You don’t even want to argue the merits of this ban. You want to call me pathetic, or lump me in with the trumpers who I disagree with regularly on subjects like Immigration, Section 230, and Tariffs.

              Who is the pathetic one, JFree? Why can’t you muster even the faintest bit of concern for children who are now being forced to undergo medical procedures designed to prevent a disease that represents no risk to their health? It isn’t pathetic. It is bizarre. Absolutely bizarre.

              1. That is why I am calling on people like yourself and Chemjeff to oppose this mandate. I would think that mandating children to vaccinate against a virus that poses no risk to them would be a perfect opportunity to change something. Do you disagree?

                The only perfect opportunity to argue against a student mandate would be at a school board meeting where that is on the agenda. Not some blahblahblah mandate from you about what I should do.

                At that sort of school board event, there is no question that I would much rather see sarc, jeff, mike, echo, etc get into the discussion about the mandate.

                I would cringe the nanosecond I saw most of you tromp in for that meeting. Because within two minutes every one of you would offend everyone else with your desire to pick fights about this is just the flu. The meeting would shut down – and the board would vote on mandates – and institute them – without a discussion.

                THAT is the effect of you assholes enforcing ideological certitude and purity on everyone else. You end up with a tiny circle of head-bobbers. And wonder why everyone else despises you and considers you irrelevant.

                1. “At that sort of school board event, there is no question that I would much rather see sarc, jeff, mike, echo, etc get into the discussion about the mandate….The meeting would shut down – and the board would vote on mandates – and institute them – without a discussion.”

                  THANK YOU! You finally admit what I have been saying this entire thread. You would rather see “Bad People” owned than actually see a school board decline to infringe the rights of vulnerable, innocent kids.

                  You are really, honestly, no different than the people in To Kill A Mockingbird who would rather support a lynching than vindicate a black man.

                  “THAT is the effect of you assholes enforcing ideological certitude and purity on everyone else.”

                  Right. I literally said that while I may disagree on whether mandates are EVER justified, or if there is EVER a moral obligation to vaccinate, I believe this is a place where everyone can agree. The government has no place forcing children to vaccinate for a virus that represents zero risk to them.

                  Meanwhile you are still falling back to the same ideological arguments about “THIS ISN’T THE SAME AS THE FLU!!!” Who, really, here is enforcing an ideological certitude?

                  JFree, free yourself.

                  1. THANK YOU! You finally admit what I have been saying this entire thread. You would rather see “Bad People” owned than actually see a school board decline to infringe the rights of vulnerable, innocent kids.

                    That is absolutely positively the most deliberately (since you are the one who chose the three dots) deceitful and dishonest editing of my comment that I have ever seen in a comment thread at Reason. You are now on ignore.

        4. Young, healthy people getting a vaccine for a disease that is of practically zero risk to them, when the vaccine does not even offer lifelong immunity, is indeed monumentally stupid.

          1. Monumentally stupid is Jeff’s modus operandi. That’s the whole point to left-wing gaslighting, to make us question reality.

          2. There is fundamental confusion here about how vaccines work. The vaccine doesn’t offer or not offer lifelong immunity, the individual’s immune system does that.

            It’s all being studied and will continuer to be studied. Latching into some study that you saw and then repeating that back as the vaccines categorically “not offering lifelong immunity” is just cherry picking.

            1. Dumbass Mike nobody here is confused about anything, except you and sarcjeff and that’s because you’re both far left wing democrats trying to stake out a position that is untenable.

            2. LOL. You literally argued natural immunity didn’t exist just a few days ago.

              But nice introduction of a strawman and a fundamental misunderstanding of what a sanitizing vaccine is.

              The only people discussing lifelong immunity is you. Most are talking about long term immunity. But if you were honest you’d know that. 9 months is not long term.

            3. It is black/white thinking gone haywire around here.

              “Masks don’t work 100% therefore they are 100% useless.”
              “Vaccines don’t work 100% therefore they are 100% useless.”
              “Vaccines are not 0% free of side-effects therefore they are 100% poison.”

              1. If you keep beating your strawmen long and hard enough I’m sure you’ll convince… well, no one not already sharing your fantasies about who you’re talking at, actually.

              2. Yeah, which is dumb because if there is one thing that is clear is that the real-time information that comes in in the form of studies, anecdotes, plain-old lies is going to be confusing and contradictory. It just is.

                Medical research is messy and never clear-cut, and people shouldn’t expect it to be otherwise — yet partisans will latch onto whatever study (Israel) they can use to score points.

                1. You’re right, medical research is messy and never clear-cut. But you’ve been demanding that people be forced into potentially dangerous measures against their will, based on messy and unclear research.

                  It’s impossible for you to think critically, isn’t it.

                  1. When did Mike say he wants forced vaccinations? Got a quote, or are you lying?

                    1. Sarc rushes to the defense of his fellow leftists. LOL.

                    2. If it isn’t my favorite lolcow, riding in to save fair damsel White Mike.
                      Did you bring all your imaginary friends with you today?

                    3. I’ll take that as never, no, and yes.

                    4. To think Sarc used to be on the side of being against the government overreach with covid just a few months ago. Now he spends his time defending Jeff/Mike instead. Who both openly push to limit people’s societal interactions if they refuse vaccines. Way to be libertarian buddy.

                    5. If I give you a quote where White Mike defends forced vaccinations, will you apologize to everyone for being a troll, and fuck off for a week, sarcasmic?

                      Also, since I’m going to accuse you of doing it here, you might want to look up “sealioning” soon.
                      That way you won’t make an ass of yourself like you did with strawmanning.

                    6. If I give you a quote where White Mike defends forced vaccinations, will you apologize to everyone for being a troll, and fuck off for a week, sarcasmic?

                      No, but I’ll tell Mike to go fuck himself.

                    7. sarcasmic:

                      “When did Mike say he wants forced vaccinations? Got a quote, or are you lying?

                      Are you?

                      Laursen, upthread: “Don’t have a problem with private companies mandating vaccines…”

                    8. You won’t find such a quote.

                2. I thought the science was settled?

              3. Except none of that has been expressed even once. You’re flat-out lying here.

              4. Yeah, they go and say those things, then claim that they’re strawmen when repeated back. Typical.

                1. So you can provide a citation? I already asked you for one. You then lied and claimed you never made that strawman argument even though I provided you the link.

                  You keep making claims people have argued this. But this is solely a strawman you 4 (mentioned above) keep making when your arguments fall apart.

                  1. Oh come on. You guys were going on and on and on about how masks are completely and totally useless because they aren’t 100% effective. This was around the same time you were accusing me of supporting BLM because I hadn’t denounced every single protestor as a rioter. Remember?

                    1. Nobody said anything like that. We said that they don’t stop the virus from going through the population, so eventually everybody gets exposed regardless. Which is 100% true.

                    2. So you have no citation?

                      The argument is at best they very slightly slow the spread, even though no data actually even exists to provide that evidence. The only study to show mitigating effects was the use of a mask perfectly sealed on a straw between two rat cages. There is no correlation with mask mandates and infection rates after 19 months of use. Also the CDC itself has said asymptomatic spread is nearly non existent, so having asymptomatic people were masks is useless. It provides zero mitigation other than security theater.

                      Because of those things, the government should not be allowed to introduce a forced usage of masks.

                      You claim this means we are pushing that nobody should ever wear masks at all. If you have the sniffles, sure.

                      But you’re pushing a strawman above because you feel attacked and want to own the cons. You can’t have an honest arugment.

                    3. You claim this means we are pushing that nobody should ever wear masks at all.

                      Considering you openly mocked anyone who wore a “face diaper” I’m afraid I can’t take that statement seriously.

                    4. Again I will ask you for a citation because I’ve never used that term.

                      You do nothing but lie. I provide my evidence of your statements, can you provide a cite?

              5. “It is black/white thinking gone haywire around here.”

                You actually had an opportunity to stop the black and white thinking. You had an opportunity to stand up for liberty and say, “See, I’m not just a shill who will oppose you guys out of reflex. I do care about liberty.”

                Instead here you are fighting the people who would HAPPILY join you in resisting this terribly authoritarian mandate.

              6. The only 4 people who have made these strawman arguments are Jeff, Mike, Chipper, and Sarcasmic.

            4. A child who gets Covid today will have life long immunity something vaccines can’t do. see research on those who survived the Spanish flue

              1. Immunity works differently for different viruses. COVID and influenza aren’t related. So there’s no reason to assume immunity will be the same.

                1. Also, immunity varies with individual physiology. The vaccine doesn’t confer immunity — it triggers the jabbee’s immune system.

                  A kid’s immune system will probably respond more strongly than an elderly person.

          3. “It’s stupid to wear a seatbelt if I only drive 20 mph.”

            Agree or disagree?

            1. It’s stupid to imagine that your analogy has anything to do with anything.

              Also depends on whether there’s the possibility of a ticket, etc.

            2. That’s a personal choice and where am I driving on the fields in the farm?

              1. Shit, my wife(!) doesn’t even bother to strap in the toddlers when we’re at the farm. Like, what’s the point? Are the goats and chickens going to hotwire a truck and t-bone us?

            3. “It’s stupid to wear a seatbelt if I only drive 20 mph.”

              Disagree. What is the context? What is the risk? Can I determine the risk myself without government intervention? Can I stand the seatbelt beeper beeping at me the whole time? Hmm. Maybe, I could decide if it is stupid or not.
              I could also say, it’s stupid to drive. It’s stupid to leave the house. It’s stupid to shower, I could slip and fall. Where is the line?

              I still stick to my original argument. The vax has killed some of the people who chose to get it. If someone is afraid they may die, how ever unreasonable YOU feel they are being, they should have the right to make that choice.

              1. The vax has killed some of the people who chose to get it.

                By my research it’s killed three people in the US. Three. Out of nearly two hundred million. Sure someone can choose not to get it for fear of being killed, but the odds being killed by the vaccine are statistically equal to winning the lottery without a ticket.

                Yes someone can make that choice. But it would be based upon a pretty irrational fear.

                1. And wouldn’t you agree that forcing kids to get a vaccine for a disease that isn’t a risk to them is ALSO a choice based on a pretty irrational fear?

                  Let’s step out of the emotion here for a second, Sarc, and go to a simple question.

                  Is there any point of government mandates where you would rather spend post after post condemning the government, than arguing with the trumpers? Or will you forever remain silent as the government mandates kids as young as 5 to stick needles in their arms, just so long as you don’t find yourself on the same side of the argument?

                2. But it would be based upon a pretty irrational fear.
                  Tell that to the three that died. It may be irrational, but there seems to be a surplus or irrationality surrounding this virus. Pushing a mandate onto people or shaming them into coercion doesn’t seem like the path to follow to get more onboard. Some will listen, some will die.
                  C’est la vie

                  1. You are literally making the “if it saves one life” argument, which is usually made by liberals, and right criticized by conservative and libertarians.

                    1. You are literally making the “if it saves one life” argument
                      Are you kidding me? I think your forgot to read, and more importantly, comprehend, the rest of my post.
                      Here it is without the first line you so obviously cherry picked for your rebuttal.
                      It may be irrational, but there seems to be a surplus or irrationality surrounding this virus. Pushing a mandate onto people or shaming them into coercion doesn’t seem like the path to follow to get more onboard. Some will listen, some will die.
                      C’est la vie

        5. “…[the unvaccinated] are making a stupid decision based on irrational fear and politics.”

          “The decision to drive drunk vs. the decision to not drive drunk are not two equally valid decisions. One is smart and one is stupid.”

          The reason government should be empowered to prevent drunk driving is externalities, not that citizens should be forced to do what government thinks is smart. Jeff apparently disagrees.

          1. I didn’t say anything about FORCING people not to drive drunk, or FORCING anyone to get a vaccine, or FORCING anyone to brush their teeth. My comment is about the decision itself. I’m not going to treat a smart decision and a dumb decision as both equally valid and legitimate decisions that we all should refrain from judging.

            The anti-vaxx idiots out there want not just the liberty to choose not to take the vaccine – which I fully support – but they ALSO want to be free of criticism for their choice, which I don’t support.

            1. But the decision to not take the vaccine (and umpteen booster shots) can be quite rational, and not merely for the limited categories you exempted. You’re blanket statement about that is wrong, too.

              Also, and separately, he risk for most is low enough, as far as I can tell, that I think it rational to decline the Jabs just to maintain a tradition of resistance to government overreach.

              1. For my age and non obesity profile the risk is less than being struck by lightning. I oddly haven’t changed my life to never go outside when there is a cloud in the sky to mitigate my lightning exposure either. I still swim in the ocean instead of mitigating risks against shark attacks as well. Jeff would tsk tsk at me for not being scared like he is of either.

            2. I see, so you just wanna be a boring scold, Jeff? Makes you feel superior?

              Lol. What a doosh.

        6. I’m not sure how many groups in good health having a fraction of percent of a bad outcome is stupid when making a decision many times after having covid not to get it?

        7. Imagine being so arrogant you think you know somebody’s health better than they themselves do.

    6. If you don’t see mandating the vaccination of kids from a virus that is zero risk to them as a terrible abuse of government power, you are either an authoritarian or willing to support them in order to mock your enemies.

      Okay, so let’s clarify the issue. Is the issue the mandate itself, regardless of the type of vaccine? Or is the issue the relative (non-)severity of the disease to kids?

      If you are opposed to any vaccine mandate at all, then I would expect the consistent individual to oppose mandates for all vaccines, including measles, mumps, rubella, polio, tetanus, etc. Is that the case?

      If you are opposed to *this particular* mandate because of the nature of COVID, then what is your threshold for when a disease becomes “harmful enough” to justify a mandate? Does polio cross that threshold? How about chicken pox?

      And this discussion is really part of a larger discussion of what we would like a libertarian society to look like, particularly with regards to public health. In Libertopia presumably there would be no government mandates of any kind. But there would still be “good ideas” vs. “bad ideas” for how to live one’s life. No one would force any individual to live a “healthy life”. And unless Libertopia is nothing more than a collection of misanthropes, efforts to get people to live healthier lives would have to rely on social pressure and voluntary persuasion. So even if we all agree that there should be no mandates particularly with regards to the COVID vaccine, at least we should be using our own voices to advocate for making smart choices vs. dumb choices.

      1. Stop with the sophistry. He was very clear in his statement.

        1. He can’t. If it wasn’t for bad faith, he’d have no faith at all.

        2. Whenever Jeff says “let’s clarify the issue” I know he’s going to try and obfuscate or change the topic.
          It’s like he works from a master list of fifty-center techniques, “If they say X, then try response Y”.

          1. Yes, there is a playbook.

            Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals Paperback – October 23, 1989
            by Saul D. Alinsky (Author)

            You can buy it on Amazon, but it is much more satisfying to pry an aged, bong-water stained copy from a dying hippy’s arthritic fingers. Be careful that they don’t cough on you. You don’t want to know where that hippy has been.

            1. jeffy’s favorite play:

              Okay, so let’s clarify the issue. Is the issue the mandate itself, regardless of the type of vaccine? Or is the issue the relative (non-)severity of the disease to kids?

              RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”

              Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

          2. Let’s clarify the issue, when making a decision about vaccines, do you still beat your wife?

      2. “Okay, so let’s clarify the issue. Is the issue the mandate itself, regardless of the type of vaccine? Or is the issue the relative (non-)severity of the disease to kids?”

        No, you don’t want to clarify the issue. You want to drag me into a general argument about the lines where vaccination may or may not need to be mandated. We don’t need to do that here. By the FDA and CDC’s on traditional guidelines, you don’t require people to take medicine to treat an illness that has ZERO risk to them. Trying to split hairs at this point is like trying to argue the finer points of the Death Penalty on an article about a cop shooting an unarmed man. There is no reason to have that argument.

        Just stand up and say, “This is fucking ridiculous. We should not be mandating a vaccine for kids who are at zero risk from the virus.”

        It isn’t hard. Can you do it?

        1. I don’t care about the kids. If it’s one small step in protecting me then I approve of the mandate.

          1. It’s not protecting you and I don’t mean in the sense that it’s 75 or 95 or whatever % efficient. It’s protecting the property of the state. Are you the property of the state? Even if you are, is everyone else? As a libertarian and thinking human, I’m nominally OK with the you beleiving the latter. I’m not OK with the conflation of “Everyone else should protect me.” with “I’m just protecting myself.”

              1. Actually it is more of a criticism of the misanthropes around here masquerading as libertarians.

                “I don’t care for anyone’s liberty other than my own, so screw you all!”

                1. Yes, I said he was mocking you.

                  You choose to attack others for not mitigating your risk when you are solely responsible and capable of causing the most mitigation to your risk by losing weight. That’s why you’re not a libertarian. I’m not trying to force you into a diet to reduce your risk profile.

          2. joking here, But instead of covid vaccine mandates we could just off the old, people with co-morbidity and fat right? Protect me from their disease enabling bodies!

            1. It would also help open up hospitals.

              I honestly have never understood the drive to extend end of life care by 3-6 months at the costs we do. It was estimated that Medicare spends roughly 2/3rds of its cost in the last year of a patients life. Often to extend life by just a few months.

            2. I don’t want to say this out loud, but how about mandate the vaccine for parents and guardians and leave the kids alone?

        2. By the FDA and CDC’s on traditional guidelines, you don’t require people to take medicine to treat an illness that has ZERO risk to them.

          By the CDC, FDA, AMA, and Federal Government’s own traditional guidelines, you don’t require people to undergo a treatment to an illness that poses *any* risk to them. Violating a DNR will get your license to practice medicine revoked. People are free to walk around with untreated HIV right up to the point that they knowingly give it to someone without their informed consent. Doctors can be/are prosecuted, civilly and potentially criminally, for unduly or incorrectly informing other individuals of your HIV status.

        3. You want to drag me into a general argument about the lines where vaccination may or may not need to be mandated.

          I want to explore what your general philosophy is on the matter and then see where specific absolute deductions follow reasonably from that philosophy. Making absolute statements in the absence of a philosophical framework supporting those statements seems a lot like special pleading instead.

          By the FDA and CDC’s on traditional guidelines, you don’t require people to take medicine to treat an illness that has ZERO risk to them.

          Well, I disagree with the premise that COVID has “ZERO” risk to kids, and I disagree with the idea that the FDA’s or CDC’s guidelines ought to be normative in a general sense.

          Do you want a general discussion on the important issues, or do you want to emote and rage against vaccine mandates for kids?

          1. No, you want to obfuscate the argument to try to get a win.

            I disagree with the premise that COVID has “ZERO” risk to kids

            CDC: 335 Children Ages 17 and Under Have Died of COVID in U.S. During Pandemic

            https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdc-335-children-ages-17-and-under-have-died-covid-us-during-pandemic

            In an average flu season thousands of children die every year. Yet you’ve never called for a mandate to force adults to take a flu vaccine. The reason you switched positions is that you believe your health is at risk so you want others to mitigate your risk.

            1. Show me one place where I have ever advocated for a government vaccine mandate. Just once, Jesse.

              We know you keep a dossier of quotes about the people you hate around here. So, pull out your dossier and provide the quote.

              Oh wait, I haven’t ever advocated for a government vaccine mandate? And you intentionally and deliberately lie about the people you don’t like around here, and purposefully argue in bad faith, in order to “get a win”?

              1. Jeff, this is part of your sophistry.

                Above you literally agree with and approve of people being ostracized from society, losing their jobs, and basically being social outcasts due to their behavior you disagree with.

                Government has allowed business to do this and has even pressured business to do this.

                You are agreeing with a mandate.

                Stop being a weasel. The outcome you want is the same.

                People here aren’t as stupid as you are, they understand what your motivations and preferences are.

          2. I want to explore what your general philosophy is on the matter and then see where specific absolute deductions follow reasonably from that philosophy.

            No you don’t. You’re a liar and an idiot who never argues in good faith.

          3. “I want to explore what your general philosophy is on the matter and then see where specific absolute deductions follow reasonably from that philosophy”

            You know what my general philosophy is. We have argued it ad nauseam.

            “Well, I disagree with the premise that COVID has “ZERO” risk to kids, and I disagree with the idea that the FDA’s or CDC’s guidelines ought to be normative in a general sense.”

            Then you are in strong disagreement with the relevant science, and that undermines every single attempt you have ever made to paint others as “stupid”. Every reputable source to opine on the matter has unambiguously stated that COVID represents less risk to kids than the common flu. Set aside little scare stories, the overwhelming consensus is that children are not at risk from COVID.

            But you disagree with these reputable sources. So what do you agree with? Are you arguing that the government should mandate children be vaccinated with experimental vaccines for a virus that represents no risk to them?

            “Do you want a general discussion on the important issues, or do you want to emote and rage against vaccine mandates for kids?”

            I want the government to not mandate kids get chemicals injected into them to prevent a virus that represents no risk to them. That isn’t emoting. It is a perfectly logical thing to discuss since that travesty of justice is, you know, ACTUALLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

            But you want to have a “general discussion”? The only way the government backs off this obvious and unjustifiable encroachment on CHILDREN’s autonomy is if the entire nation stands up and screams, HALT. So your call to have a more general discussion strikes me as the tactic of someone who would rather argue endlessly about fine lines, than to actually get the government to stop doing something absurdly unjust.

      3. He is very clearly talking specifically to the Covid vaccine in children.

      4. Although, calling people dumb is probably not a good way of persuading them to get vaccinated. I’m not sure; can partisans be persuaded of anything anymore.

        I know that I have been calling anti-vaxxer commenters here stupid, but the commentariat has become a wasteland of right-wing trolls so I just don’t care anymore. IRL, I am much more respectful when talking to people.

        1. Weird. Your self imposed intellectual bubbles agree with the lies you push daily?

        2. Hey look, Mike has parachuted into the comments to look like he is a very reasonable guy. For the benefit of the thread he is not. He is a leftist troll who uses this “I’m actually very reasonable” schtick to try and launch very predictable culture war attacks on people he perceives as being conservative.

          Notice that Mike, like Jeff, refuses to actually talk about the issue starting this thread. They want to pick a fight with conservatives MORE than they want to condemn a clear abuse of government power. The hilarious part is that he then complains about “right-wing trolls” as he engages in his trolling.

          Reminder: arguing with Mike is arguing with someone who will never take responsibility for what he says. In fact, you might as well mute him now and save yourself the frustration. He is a completely disingenuous adversary and you would do better arguing with the main character from Memento.

          https://reason.com/2021/09/09/california-is-set-to-outlaw-unannounced-condom-removal/#comment-9091773

          That is Mike insisting that he “would never look to Rolling Stone” for news, after spreading their bogus ivermectin story only days earlier. Consider that: He didn’t apologize. He didn’t even try to ignore his mistake. He brazenly tried to dunk on Rolling Stone to make himself look like an arbiter of truth.

          1. Absolutely right. He is way more interested in fighting the culture war than fighting for liberty. I have yet to see him make a real argument against mandates other than a bullshit disclaimer every once in a while of “having said all of that, I don’t support mandates.”

            1. You don’t already know the arguments against mandates? You need me to lay them out?

              1. Mike will disagree with everyone opposing a Mandate and call them idiots. But you know, he is TOTALLY REASONABLE ™. Don’t let his constant attack on people opposing Mandates confuse you. He doesn’t support them. He doesn’t support them SO MUCH that he will complain when you ask him to explain WHY he doesn’t support them.

                Concern troll, AHOY!

          2. He is a leftist troll who uses this “I’m actually very reasonable” schtick to try and launch very predictable culture war attacks on people he perceives as being conservative.

            Nonsense, he’s just a reasonable libertarian who reads the news. No red vs blue, no culture war partisanship here. Who could argue with that?

            1. Lol, that’s peak Laursen.

              It reminds me of this one:

              The White Knight
              December.19.2020 at 12:38 pm

              I use my eyes, but have trained my mind not to exaggerate about what I’m seeing, and never to buy into the false dichotomy that I have to act like a sheep

        3. Super respectful Mike in action:

          Mike Laursen
          September.18.2021 at 11:38 am
          SQRLSY, can you cover for me today? In a typical day, I usually:
          – post a comment or two pointing out logical flaws, contradictions and partisanship in Ken’s essays, which he regards as examples of flawless logical thinking
          – post a comment or two pointing out that Ashli Babbitt was not a saint and the January 6th MAGA rioters were violent
          – post one “Fuck Tulpa!” comment
          – post a comment or two that actually seriously discuss a topic. Everyone once in a while I’m lucky and someone responds in serious conversation, but most of the time I just get met with a bunch of grayed-out insults from JesseAz and the other Trump Mean Girls.

          https://reason.com/2021/09/18/environmentalists-pan-unintended-environmental-consequences-of-flawed-agricultural-laws/#comment-9110728

          So he says his daily agenda is to troll Ken, say “Fuck Tulpa” and bait everyone else. And then he asks the comment section’s biggest shitposting troll to give him a hand.

          And that’s what this creep calls “being respectful”.

          1. Don’t forget stealing my handle to teach Tulpa a lesson about stealing people’s handles.

      5. Is the issue the mandate itself, regardless of the type of vaccine?

        yes

      6. Do you have any capability at all of making an argument against mandates?

        1. Well of course. Vaccine mandates take away liberty and choice. Every adult ought to be free to decide what goes in his/her bodies.

          What I don’t do, is start calling them EVIL, making Nazi comparisons, or virtue-signal emoting about it.

          1. You called for the shaming and forced unemployment of the unvaccinated just above dummy.

      7. jeffy’s ‘good/bad choices’ is a distraction. The government is using trumped up public health concerns to force people to do things with the intention of preparing people to comply faster the next time. Our homegrown socialists are 3 steps behind the CCP and sprinting to catch up.

        Here’s the thing: COVID is a 21st century artifact. I have seen jeffy whine about how COVID compares to the Spanish flu. Guess what? There is no comparison. The population that is vulnerable to COVID was practically non-existent in 1918-19. Heart disease killed people with their first heart attack. The first injection of insulin was given to save the life of a dying 14 year-old in 1922. The sitting POTUS used cigars to combat life-long asthma and died in office at age 60. Most of the people killed by the Spanish flu were healthy.

        “But people are dying now, too!” Boo-fucking-hoo! Here is the best decision for the public: let the vulnerable get their jab and take ownership of their own health while the rest of us get on with our lives. This has never even remotely been an existential crisis.

        Good intentions have their place. Caring for the needy, the sick and afflicted, the widows and orphans – has historically been the providence of churches and charities. They are also willing to mourn with those who mourn.

      8. If you are opposed to *this particular* mandate because of the nature of COVID, then what is your threshold for when a disease becomes “harmful enough” to justify a mandate? Does polio cross that threshold? How about chicken pox?

        Yes, I am. Now, you first.

        1. …well, not just “the nature of COVID”, but also the nature of the COVID Panic… excessive, overreaching, mendacious, in need of being resisted…

          But I want to know where you draw the line in the “nature” question, as well. Don’t ask for answers you’re not willing to give.

        2. “Yes I am”, meaning that you are opposed to all government vaccine mandates? All vaccine mandates in total?

          And no I am not going to “go first”. I have played that game too many times. If you can prove that we can have a respectful dialogue then I’ll be happy to share my thoughts. But there are too many bad-faith actors around here who use the example of someone stating a position as an opportunity to mindlessly demagogue over it without offering anything of substance in return.

          1. Jeff wants to be able to use the Perfect Solution Fallacy against others. That is one of his primary arguments in these discussions.

            He is dishonest.

            http://www.skepdic.com/perfectsolution.html

    7. But every article discussing the War on Drugs will see me lining right up with leftists to denounce it.

      Where are these leftists who denounce the War on Drugs?

      1. The main leftist complain about the war on drugs is that it disproportionately affects black people. If more white people were in prison for drug crimes, lefties would have no problem with the war on drugs.

    8. I think it has little or nothing to do with “The Science” (genuflect). I think it has a lot more to do with seeing people not obeying their “betters”.

      For some people, the Covid pandemic has been heaven-sent. It scratches the authoritarian itch that infects them, with the bonus of giving them the precious opportunity to pose as intellectually and morally superior. I don’t think they want it to ever end.

      They see themselves being interviewed on TV in their old age, much as WW2 veterans and Civil Rights activists are now. “Next up: a veteran of the Big One in 2020 describes how she and her cats saved the world from the Evil Unmasked.”

    9. Exactly. The point of a vaccine is to reduce risk. Vaccines are low (but non-zero) risk, and are intended to protect the recipient from some dangerous disease. If for a particular age group the disease is very low risk, why expose them to the risk of the vaccine? For young people especially, the unknown long term risks have a lot longer to play out. And what kind of person would mandate that someone else’s kids get an experimental shot they don’t need?

      And let the collectivists argue that vaccines should be mandated to protect the herd. Libertarians should oppose mandates while encouraging individuals to get vaccinated to protect themselves.

      1. Libertarians should oppose mandates while encouraging individuals to get vaccinated to protect themselves.

        this right here

        1. Libertarians should oppose mandates while encouraging individuals to get vaccinated to protect themselves

          Or others. It’s not anti-libertarian to voluntarily do things for the benefit of others. I’m all for charity and being a good neighbor. It’s coercion that I oppose.

        2. You aren’t encouraging people. You advocate for shunning them and having them be removed from society such as by losing their jobs.

          You are a primary violator of the NAP.

          You believe the above should be done even for those not infected or those who have already had covid.

        3. So when are you going to actually OPPOSE the mandates, Jeff?

          Seriously. At best I have seen you “not support” mandates. I see you vehemently oppose people that protest the mandates. I have seen you endlessly insist that people have a moral obligation to protect the public by sticking needles in their arms. I have seen you constantly dismiss skeptics as trumpaloos only interested in politics.

          I have never seen you ACTUALLY OPPOSE mandates. And guess what: this makes you useful to the totalitarians. Until you stand up and OPPOSE mandates, the government will keep pushing further and further into our liberties.

          It isn’t hard Jeff. OPPOSE the mandates. Get on a forum and argue about how BAD they are, rather than arguing about how bad the anti-vaxxers are. Resist the government, rather than the Trumpers.

          But I don’t think you’ll do it. The cause of liberty means LESS to you than arguing with trumpaloos. And that is why totalitarians are winning.

      2. Exactly if your 60 the odds of the vaccine complications coming into play in your lifetime are small and since over 60 people don’t give birth there is no risk of birth defects.

    10. I’m not sure that denouncing the war on drugs = “lining right up with leftists.” I see zero support for the war on drugs from anyone here.

      “Some of you people have become more deeply invested in the culture war than you are willing to admit.”

      Indeed. And some are making rationalizations for why they’re above it.

      1. “I’m not sure that denouncing the war on drugs = “lining right up with leftists.” I see zero support for the war on drugs from anyone here.”

        Maybe I was imprecise. My point was that even though I often spar with leftists in these forums, I will happily protest the War on Drugs along side them. Because, as much as I have my tribe, resisting an unjust government is far more important than tribal allegiance.

        And this is my problem with Mike, Chemjeff, Sarc and others- they would rather continue the tribal bullshit than take this opportunity to join together and resist a clear example of government overreach.

        The jackboots are coming for CHILDREN, people! CHILDREN! If you see that and all you can do is complain about trumpers, you have a perspective problem.

        1. Absolutely correct. I appreciate your posts.

  5. It’s time that all of us ask our local policymakers to end the unnecessary and harmful policing of families. https://t.co/u72HPD3saM

    — ACLU (@ACLU) September 29, 2021

    Unless the algorithms police the exercising of a certain civil liberty which shall not be defended.

    1. Or unless that policing is about what children must wear on their faces.

    1. Charles’ late Brother, David, ran for VP on the “low tax liberal” ticket.

    2. Reason has a job opening. You should work for them, at least then they would have one person who is honest about actually being a progressive authoritarian.

      1. They’re already pissed at Ken for making them look stupid below the ad bar, they’re not going to let him do it above it.

  6. The U.S. mail is about to get slower and more expensive.

    Just like the boomers who use it.

    1. The U.S. mail is about to get slower and more expensive.
      Is that really possible?

      1. Hold my beer…

        1. Now or when it gets here?

  7. New psychological research suggests that trigger warnings do not reduce negative reactions to disturbing material—and may even increase them…

    We can’t just acknowledge it’s stupid and childish at its core?

    1. That triggered me!

    2. Doctor: “I must gently break you some bad news: In your condition, the slightest shock may kill you.”

      Patient (clutching chest and slumping to floor): “ARRRGHHHH!!”

      1. That a Zucker film gag? Seems like their stuff.

        Awesome as it is.

        1. Not sure of the origin, but the bit reminds me of Malfunctioning Eddie.

    3. So what every person who isn’t an idiot said about trigger warnings was correct

      1. I can’t believe they call them “trigger” warnings.

  8. Is anything tyranny-related going on in Australia? I guess not, as it seems like something Reason would cover if there were.

    1. Of course there’s tyranny going on in Australia, a massive multi-national media conglomerate can’t host an internet comment section because Muh Private Company They Can Do What They Want a different massive multi-national media conglomerate won’t do it for them!

      1. I think there might be a protest or two going on….

        1. Surely those protests are about the lack of a First Amendment Of The Internet in Australia.

    2. Or even maybe some media outlets in the USA. Let me check….

      Nope. not a peep.

  9. Contrary to the dominant narratives that use “rural” as a synonym for “white,” 24% of rural Americans were people of color in 2020.
    Skin color remains an obsession for some people.

    1. Are those rural POC still considered rednecks?

        1. FYI, burnt umber necks often start out red.

    2. Can’t have a full fledged Nazi-Regime without sex, skin color and religion being the biggest factors about anyone and the basis of every Gov-Gun mandate…

  10. The former London police officer who abducted, raped, and murdered Sarah Everard was sentenced to life in prison.

    LA Sheriff Department would still like to hire him, if they can outbid Baltimore and Chicago.

  11. YouTube is blocking anti-vaccine content.

    That months-old science is settled.

    1. YouTube just blocked RT in Germany ostensibly over COVID information though their coverage of the German elections may have been part of it.

    2. So they’re going to deplatform Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?

  12. “Contrary to the dominant narratives that use “rural” as a synonym for “white,” 24% of rural Americans were people of color in 2020. While rural America is still less diverse than the nation as a whole (42.2% people of color), it is diversifying”

    Since every person on this earth is a “person of color” (as everyone’s skin is colored, and many people get darker in the summer due to sun exposure), the entire purpose of the term “people of color” is to play the race card to divide Americans and to portray racial/colered minorities as victims of racism.

    1. Considering that darkness is technically closer to an absence of color than whiteness, I am sort of amazed by the whole euphemism.

      1. That’s according to the absorpative theory of color you racist, binary-thinking partisan dumbass. There is no presence/absense of light, it’s a spectrum.

      2. Depends on additive or inverse. For light, white is the presence of all color, for physical media, black is. I read a breakdown of the issue a long while back, so I dont remember the correct terminology. May have been on Straight Dope when they werent pimping lefty narratives. Could have been on Cracked.com before they lost their fucking minds.

        1. What a fantastic fountain of the absurd that was for a time. Then they decided to go all in on fucking DOB, the worst fucking writer they had.

        2. For light, white is the presence of all color, for physical media, black is.

          Better, maybe: When observing the light from something (e.g., “physical media”) black is the observed absence of all color because all incident light is being absorbed by that something. If what you observe is reflective then the color observed is those wavelengths that are reflected, out of those present in the incident light.

          Is that close to what you remember?

      3. The Science is settled! Color is socially constructed and racist and any contrary claims will be deplatformed in the name of diversity and protecting POC’s from fear of attack!

  13. Check out the Mexican town built by 3D printers.

    I think I’ll stay here in the Second Dimension, thank you very much.

    1. Where did they find the labor to assemble it?

      1. What does “labor” have to do with building houses? I thought labor was a political ideology and voting bloc.

      2. Is that why my lawn didn’t get mowed this week?

    2. He ekes out a living making about 2,500 pesos ($125.17) a month

      the 3-D printing market is forecast to be worth $55.8 billion by 2027

      Just imagine, in 6 yrs. he’ll be making 25,000 pesos ($1,251.70), enough for afford a 500 sq. ft. home in Nevada or Colorado. All thanks to an industry predicted to be worth $55B in a scant 6 yrs.

  14. Former President Donald Trump lost his lawsuit against Omarosa.

    MSNBC might have some content to fill its schedule for the next few days.

    1. They have their work cut out for them, the judge didn’t call anyone Hitler.

      “But a judge ruled in a summary judgment dated September 24 that the NDA was not legally enforceable under New York law. He said it was too vaguely worded and broad in its scope and therefore couldn’t be enforced.”

  15. A-ha! The brilliant Robert Reich has solved the mystery of why — despite total Democratic control in DC — billionaire wealth is skyrocketing while leftist economic proposals like Medicare for All and a $15 / hour minimum wage go nowhere.

    What if — and hear me out here — we stopped letting two corporate Democrats singlehandedly block every single progressive policy we elected Democrats to pass?

    Yup. It’s just Sinema and Manchin. Only those two. Replace them with different Democrats, and THEN we’ll finally start “drinking billionaire tears.” 😉

    #OBLsFirstLaw

    1. If we only had the right people in charge……..

      1. Look. Trust me. Democrats sincerely want to tax billionaires and corporations so they can redistribute their wealth among the working class and poor. Didn’t you see AOC’s dress?

        But they can’t get it done quite yet. Their Congressional majority isn’t large enough, you see. That’s why it’s your duty to vote Democrat in the midterms. If they have at least 65% of each chamber, I promise you we’ll finally get some leftist economic legislation passed.

        1. We need to increase billionaire wealth through killing small business so we can later take their wealth away.

        2. Oh heck; just use your own FREE WILL to redistribute their wealth into yours. Demand more pay or GO START A BILLIONAIRE corporation!!!

          What the hold-up??? Not as easy as you pretend it is and it’s just far easier to justify your criminal intentions to *STEAL* from others by pointing Gov-Guns at them?

          Lazy, Whiny, Useless, Self-Centered, Self-Entitled Criminalistic Scum is the best adjectives to describe that mentality as well as belongs in Prison.

    2. The only billionaire tears I’d drink are from Gov-Gun Toting criminals in Washington D.C. who Oppress compulsively, Break the laws, Steal and well do whatever they want…

      The billionaire’s who provide majorly useful items have well *earned* their share and EVERYONE prospers from their work.

      VALUE = WEALTH?? Who could imagine such a thing.
      Gov-Guns = Wealth… Pushes the criminalistic Nazi-Regime until that day they all figure out they can’t eat guns.

    3. What if you had to have an actual majority backing progressive policies to pass progressive bills in Congress? Gee, maybe you don’t have a majority after all.

      And maybe some members of Congress, even Dems, are elected by their own states or districts and not by “we” Progressives. And maybe the voters in some of those states and districts care about the national debt, and inflation, and taxes going ever higher?

  16. Job alert! @reason is hiring! For a lot of positions!

    All the libertarian writers are still at home collecting COVID unemployment.

    1. Someone had to peruse Twitter to find abortion article content. The current staff are all now editors and this task is beneath them.

    2. I bet I’d make an awesome Reason columnist… 😀

      1. “Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair!” ™

        This simple six word truism sums everything up and makes them all obsolete.

        I’m a shoo-in for this job. Haha.

  17. …Texas suggests that legal precedent cited by the DOJ only lets the government sue when “interstate commerce was obstructed by a denial of civil rights.”

    The possibility of limiting the scope of the ICC, or the hope of legal abortions. What side for a libertarian to fall on.

    1. It’s no dilemma, Reason “libertarians” simply need to check which side rabid leftists choose and follow them.

      1. Why are you here, then?

  18. Red COVID? Coronavirus deaths are highest in counties with the largest share of Trump voters: report

    In counties where former President Donald Trump received at least 70% of the vote in the 2020 presidential election, COVID-19 has killed about 47 out of every 100,000 people since the end of June, health care analyst Charles Gaba tells the New York Times. But in counties where Trump won less than 32% of the vote, the number is a fraction of that — about 10 out of 100,000.

    The Times report featured in its morning newsletter on Monday also referred to a recent Pew Research Center poll looking at the political divide in vaccination rates, which found that 86% of Democratic voters had received at least one shot, compared with 60% of Republican voters.

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/red-covid-coronavirus-deaths-are-highest-in-counties-with-the-largest-share-of-trump-voters-report-11632764116

    Darwin Group Award winner!

    1. So when will Drumpf finally be behind bars?

      Recall that it was back in May when you promised us The Dotard will join his convict team soon. Honestly I’m getting impatient. I mean, Mueller literally proved he was a Russian intelligence asset who colluded with Putin to “win” a hacked election. What are they waiting for?

      #TrumpRussia
      #ItsMuellerTime

    2. But we are totally not politicizing the virus.

      1. If only those damn wreckers and kulaks who are hesitant to take the chinavirus vaccine weren’t making this so political! Now we have to take away their jobs. Look what you made us do! By making it political!

    3. “…since the end of June…”

      Cherry pick your stats much? This is the result of people being driven indoors in southeast states due to late Summer heat. Wait until January, when the rest of us can post things like, “Since November….”

      1. Seasonality of virus spread no longer exists. – The Science.

      2. yeah, if they had done the same stats for February to June of 2020, certain blue states in the Northeast might have looked like they were mismanaged or something.

      3. If it wasn’t for cherrypicking, Buttplug wouldn’t have anything to post.

    4. Go stick another pin in your Trump voodoo doll. That should calm you down.

    5. Or buttplug pedo drinks his own urine and calls it good. Which is smarter, that or reading far left wing bullshit fake news.

    6. So .0001 versus .00047 wow.

    7. Herman Cain Award

      1. Yeah, cancer sucks.

        They give awards for that now? Huh.

  19. Never ceases to amaze me how ENB and this mag think abortion at any time is a sacrosanct libertarian plank.

    1. Or The top story every day.

    2. Abortion up until birth is literally the second most sacred belief of all principled Koch-funded libertarians. Only open borders (especially during a pandemic) ranks higher.

      #JustAClumpOfCells

    3. Well yeah libertarians should be opposed to restricting women’s liberties over their own bodies.

      1. “women’s liberties over their own bodies”

        A science-loving atheist should know not to associate abortion with “women.” After all, transmen and nonbinary people get pregnant too. Or do you not think abortion rights apply to actor Elliot Page?

      2. Well yeah. Libertarians should be against killing other people of unique DNA for convenience purposes.

        1. Clones and twins hardest hit.

          1. Stormtrooper lives matter

      3. Like a woman’s right to choose whether or not to get injected with an experimental vaccine?

      4. Eat shit. Die.

      5. “…their own bodies”? What about their child’s body?

      6. Because it’s not like they were given a choice on whether to breed or not. Gaia envisioned sexual reproduction as casual entertainment, not actual reproduction.
        Also, condoms and birth control aren’t a thing.

    4. Or perhaps the libertarian plank that personal decisions isn’t a place for Gov-Gods to legislate.

      1. Yes, government is out of bounds getting in the way of the personal decision of killing another human. Murder is an anachronistic legal concept, after all.

        1. … personal decision of killing another human violating one’s own body.. Does a human virus get included too? Is killing a virus murder too..???? Keep toting that propaganda to justify the tyrannical dictation.

          1. A virus is not human, it it is even a matter of some debate whether or not viruses qualify as being s form of life. If you think that is a response that makes sense, you are mad.

            1. … And a 30% developed fetus with 0% chance of being an individual person at that point would qualify as a whole other person? If you think that is a response that makes sense, you are mad.

          2. Did the mother have zero agency in the human being in her body in the first place?

            We will permit rape cases because of this.

            If she CHOSE to engage in the activity that causes this, then that is life. Men have the same issue…if you knock her up, you’re paying for the kid, whether you want it or not.

            1. Why yes; Women should pay for their abortion. No argument there.

            2. Women pay for the child if they actually have the child, too. They also pay for abortions.

          3. …another human violating one’s own body…

            Perfect description of a fetus. Except that “human” bit. That’s a… typo. Everyone agrees, right?

            1. errr… Except that “another human” bit.

              Y’know, Rason, if you kept edits visible you could allow post-posting edits and still not suffer retconning.

      2. A choice involving 2 people requires agreement. Not one side making the choice for the other.

        The oy way you can say what you did is if you believe DNA doesn’t define a human. The baby has a unique DNA signature.

        To be consistent with your logic you would have to be fine with a mother abandoning their newborn on the woods whenever she feels it is convenient. You can’t force her to take care of it or even take it to somewhere that would. That would be a violation of her personal autonomy right?

        1. “Not one side making the choice for the other.” — and you don’t see the irony there by Pro-Life???

          1. Yes. I see fully the irony of your statements.

            In general society has agreed people can’t go around randomly killing other people.

            So the question now is can intentional actions precondition responsibility.

            If you voluntarily become a foster parent can you at some arbitrary point kill the kid given to you when they become inconvenient?

            The only argument for involuntary action for pregnancy is rape. But we aren’t discussing those rare cases in general.

            1. Way to dodge the point; “Pro-Life making the choice for the other.” As-in pointing Gov-Guns at them and taking away all choices for ‘the other’ persons healthcare options.

              There is nothing ‘random’ about ‘killing a personal violator/trespasser’. There is nothing ‘random’ about a woman killing her rapist.

              Can we ban all driving due to the ‘intentional action’ precondition that other’s will die from it? This is handing Individual Liberty over to Safety – something I’m against.

              Especially when that Safety is for but a 30% growth that cannot be turned into a live human being with all the medical technology of the world.

              1. Lol. No. I didn’t dodge the point at all. I pointed out the fallacious nature of your question.

        2. “or even take it to somewhere that would” — so why isn’t the proposed legislation that abortions (separation) can only occur by medical professionals and that the separate individual be survived if possible?

          Heck; half of that equation is already established.
          What you are arguing isn’t the actual argument.

          1. Except a fetus is viable at 20 weeks per medical evidence at this point. And getting shorter and shorter in the pregnancy timeliness.

            1. Great; Lobby to save it then w/o dictating people’s personal choices… Problem solved. I can’t believe such a debate could be generated from only a 1-week difference. Roe v Wade established 21-Weeks. And I’ll support the Roe v Wade (although it too actually allows the State wild tyranny ability) just out of the sense of willful neglect.

              1. Roe v wade didn’t list a time table. It said viability. It helps to understand what you are arguing about.

          2. You know the answer. “[T]hat the separate individual be survived if possible” doesn’t cut it.

            1. EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
              Because they aren’t TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

        3. Scientists can keep human cells alive in a petri dish — is it a human?

    5. Cato has it right. Naturally, Twitter reacts in horror. And since ENB is a creature of, by, and for Twitter, well.

      Cato hasn’t and won’t be filing in Dobbs, as we haven’t in any abortion case, for three reasons: (1) libertarians in good standing span the gamut from the staunchest pro-choice to the staunchest pro-life, (2) we have nothing unique to add about what an “undue burden” is or how it may apply to any particular abortion regulation, and (3) while Cato lawyers may each have our own views on when rights attach — see point 1 — this is fundamentally a philosophical, theological, and thus ultimately political question, not a legal one.

    6. Any thinking person should be able to see that it is a complex issue and there is no right answer.

      1. The right answer is to maximize Individual Liberty as much as feasible. Of which the Roe v Wade (written by Republicans I might ad) pretty much did.

        1. You still don’t get it. There is a perfectly valid path of reasoning that leads one to believe the fetus is an individual and deserves protection from violence.

          You don’t even need god and spirits to get there.

          It’s not an easy solution because there is a perfectly valid path of reasoning that gets you the opposite conclusion.

          1. It’s called Pro-Life Propaganda. The ability to see past the propaganda into reality seems to be rare these days.

            1. Lol. Wow. What propaganda?

              1. Squirt, pop, there’s another ‘baby’ another ‘child’ another ‘person’.
                Ya; that’s not really how reproduction works now is it.

                Too bad I can’t *pretend* my way into harvest like that; Heck, I could sell 6-bushels of apple’s for $100 and send them a seed. Well, maybe a seed with roots? What do you mean a seed isn’t 10-bushels of apple’s.. It will be so it is!

  20. We must support abortion without restriction (and cost). How else can we achieve the progressive goal of life without personal responsibility?

    Pay without work, apartments without rent, shoplifting without prosecution, medical care without cost, and sex without any chance of parenthood are human rights, right?

    1. … And a female body without her discretion – sound a lot like a pimped out *free* hooker to me.

      1. The fact that you keep insisting only one individual is involved in abortion is telling.

        1. The fact that you keep insisting two individuals is involved is telling.
          Since making them individual seems to be what Pro-Life is actually against!

          1. Yes. It tells you I understand science. Your theory requires one to believe an individual magically changes from clump of cells to human.

            Mine defines it as DNA.

            Probably why you think a virus can be human above.

            1. The Birth Canal Fairy magically transforms you into a human as you pass through her halls.

              Of course non-magical thinkers would disagree:

              “I do, as a humanist, believe that the concept “unborn child” is a real one and I think the concept is underlined by all the recent findings of embryology about the early viability of a well conceived human baby, one that isn’t going to be critically deformed (or even some that are) will be able to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier, and earlier and I see that date only being pushed back. I feel the responsibility to consider the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society in the future, and thus to say that it cannot be only the responsibility of the woman to decide upon it, that it’s a social question and an ethical and a moral one. And I say this as someone who has no supernatural belief…

              I have always been convinced that the term ‘unborn child’ is a genuine description of material reality. Obviously, the fetus is alive, so that disputation about whether or not it counts as ‘a life’ is casuaistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not it counts as ‘a life’ is casuistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not this ‘life’ is ‘human.’ What other kind could it be? As for ‘dependent,’ this has never struck me as a very radical criticism of any agglomeration of human cells in whatever state. Children are ‘dependent’ too.” – Christopher Hitchens

              “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” – The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology

              “It misses a crucial point to say that the extermination can take place because the brain has not yet functioned or because that thing is not yet a ‘person’. Whether the life is cut off in the fourth week or the fourteenth, the victim is one of our species, and has been from the start.” – Nat Hentoff

              “The pro-life groups were right about one thing, the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make much of a moral difference. We cannot coherently hold it is alright to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive.” – Peter Singer

            2. So a transplanted organ with different DNA is a human? To be used to legislate against the organ receiver own self? Got-it… And it’s still B.S.

              1. If in another six months that organ is going to survive outside the body, and get a job at sixteen, then yeah.
                The “clump of cells” argument is the worst kind of sophistry, as evidenced in the quotes I posted immediately above.

                1. A transplanted ovum and a sample of sperm can do that.

                  See; And I thought the worst kind of sophistry was telling fairy-tales, denying reality, gaslighting words and propaganda. It doesn’t really matter what name you give it; it STILL cannot be another individual until PAST the Roe v Wade deadline. And on that account is DEAD-ALREADY!

                  1. A transplanted ovum and a sample of sperm can do that.
                    Not individually, who are you trying to fool?
                    Are you sure you’re not a prog?

                    I’m going to repost this, and do try and come up with a credible refutation of their points:

                    “I do, as a humanist, believe that the concept “unborn child” is a real one and I think the concept is underlined by all the recent findings of embryology about the early viability of a well conceived human baby, one that isn’t going to be critically deformed (or even some that are) will be able to survive outside the womb earlier and earlier, and earlier and I see that date only being pushed back.
                    I feel the responsibility to consider the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society in the future, and thus to say that it cannot be only the responsibility of the woman to decide upon it, that it’s a social question and an ethical and a moral one. And I say this as someone who has no supernatural belief…

                    I have always been convinced that the term ‘unborn child’ is a genuine description of material reality.
                    Obviously, the fetus is alive, so that disputation about whether or not it counts as ‘a life’ is casuaistry.
                    The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not it counts as ‘a life’ is casuistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not this ‘life’ is ‘human.’ What other kind could it be?

                    As for ‘dependent,’ this has never struck me as a very radical criticism of any agglomeration of human cells in whatever state. Children are ‘dependent’ too.” – Christopher Hitchens

                    “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo development) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” – The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology

                    “It misses a crucial point to say that the extermination can take place because the brain has not yet functioned or because that thing is not yet a ‘person’. Whether the life is cut off in the fourth week or the fourteenth, the victim is one of our species, and has been from the start.” – Nat Hentoff

                    “The pro-life groups were right about one thing, the location of the baby inside or outside the womb cannot make much of a moral difference. We cannot coherently hold it is alright to kill a fetus a week before birth, but as soon as the baby is born everything must be done to keep it alive.” – Peter Singer

                    1. Look’s like a deceitful sales pitch…. If you want access to the Gov-Guns; there better be something more substantial than paragraphs and paragraphs of excuses.

                      But I really like this one …. Children are ‘dependent’ too. The good old, “It’s for the children.”, cries. Every child should get Gov-Gun enforced slavery … “It’s for the children!”.. I could go on and on but this one pegs it the best…

                      *FREE* healthcare for the children!
                      *FREE* money for the children!
                      *FREE* education for the children!
                      *FREE* housing for the children!
                      *FREE* food for the children!
                      *FREE* weather control for the children!

                      Maybe the cries of the ‘children’ just aren’t a innocent as they appear to be.

              2. White Mike tried this same stupid argument.

          2. It generally takes between (at least) 3 and 4 individuals to succesfully perform an abortion.

            It’s conceivable the Virgin Mary could’ve achieved it in 1-2.

          3. “Since making them individual seems to be what Pro-Life is actually against!”

            That made zero fucking sense. Care to explain?

            1. Removing it from the womb would make it ‘individual’; It makes undeniably perfect sense … but Pro-Life propaganda has flipped common-sense on its head.

              1. So conjoined twins aren’t individuals? The placenta doesn’t separate the child from the mother?

                Also it’s not about “removal” it’s about killing. Can you mention an abortion technique that doesn’t involve killing the kid before removing it. They C-section preemies and remove them all the time without killing them, but abortionists deliberately and purposefully kill the kid first.

                I’m becoming convinced that abortion aficionados deliberately keep themselves ignorant on how all this works.

                1. So conjoined twins aren’t individuals?
                  No; They are not.

                  Pregnant women should have the option to do a C-section at will. It’s their body not a [WE] mobs body.

                  As far as how it all works – Doesn’t there need to be some attention given to a mercy killing. I mean gosh; If Joe-Somebody got in a car accident and had 60% (exactly proportioned to the Roe v Wade deadline) of himself cut-off and the doctor wanted to transplant various pieces and cut and chop pieces together to survive Joe; perhaps Joe’s FAMILY might decide that would just be cruel and unusual punishment.

                  But one thing is for certain; It’s not a subject the [WE] mob needs to stick their big fat noses into.

                  1. So let’s not worry about murder, pedophilia and rape then, if we’re keeping our “big noses” out of things.

                    It’s not just her body anymore. She made the conscious decision to participate in an activity that has 1.2 billion years of precedent. She knew what fucking is for.
                    For the next 9 months that body belongs to two people, not one, and both parties should have equal say. Not just the lazy slut.

                    1. That day suicide became murder.
                      That day pedophilia became taking a nude photo of one’s self.
                      That day rape became masturbation.
                      Ya…… If y’all could just keep your “big noses” out of it….
                      Because………….. IT’S PERSONAL!

                      “It’s not just her body anymore.” ……….. Sell your individual souls to the [WE] foundation; because YOU don’t own you, [WE] own you!!!

                    2. Whoops; That day masturbation became rape….

                    3. It’s not “peRsONaL”, there are two people involved. It’s a biological reality.
                      Quit trying to pretend there aren’t.

                    4. “Whoops; That day masturbation became rape….”

                      Is this sarcasmic? because nobody else strawmans quite like this.

                    5. I guess I don’t consider 30% of an item a whole item. Color me shocking (not toeing the propaganda)! I also don’t consider living inside a 100% someone else’s item justified rights to it by my own mere existence.

                      Ironically even if I did throw reality to the wind; Of those two-people it’s really none of my business unless I’m one of them and if I’m functionally unable to portray my will then it’s left to just ONE of those two-people. ITS NOT UP TO a bunch of outsiders who like to run around with Gov-Guns dictating others personal lifes.

        2. There are three lives involved.

          1. Seems like there has to be 330M lives involved. I don’t know why that can’t just mind their own business.

            1. Because one of them is being killed? What a retarded argument.

              1. Killed by the mere NATURAL fact that they aren’t alive enough to function independently. But don’t let that reality get in the way of useful propaganda to dictate others with Gov-Gun-Forces.

                1. Created by the choice of two people. Two parents hiking in the wilderness should neither abandon nor kill the 2-year old they took with them via papoose because it would be less inconvenient for them to hike back sans child.

                  1. Never-mind that 2-year old just showed up along the way (Because they decided to hike that day – it must be there fault for going hiking); perhaps decent people would willfully take care of that UN-welcomed guest showing-up but I’m not going to pretend Gov-Guns must demand them to.

                    And Never-Mind the UN-welcomed guest has to crawl up your ass to survive. Perhaps it’s too cold and there is no more coats available – who cares; you decided to go hiking in the winter time. A ?person? (not really) has to crawl up your ass to survive so the [WE] mob will make sure you allow them to be there by the force of Gov-Guns!

    2. I dont think Ive ever seen it summed up better than this.

  21. Congress still needs to “address the urgent matter of extending the debt ceiling.”

    Oh, FFS! Just abolish it once and for all. Think of all the time an money we’ll save by not going through this charade every year.

    1. People need no credit limits on their credit cards!!! And certainly don’t need to have any respect for money – just because some idiots actually work for it. FREE labor for everyone; where’s my SLAVES!

      1. Bad analogy. Do I really need to say this? You know the government actually has no limits on its credit cards, but merely pretends it does, right? Would your cards really have limits if you were in charge of setting those “limits” on yourself?

        1. Limits on SLAVERY…. As long as people labor for USD that’s what it is.

    2. Maybe the best way to deal with a debt problem isn’t to beg to raise your credit card limit.

  22. YouTube is blocking anti-vaccine content.

    It also blocks any discussion on side effects even documented in studies. Youtube us essentially forcing an untrue narrative of vaccines do no harm to anyone. A few of the videos hit even merely discussed the near zero risk of covid for children.

    1. It’s the deadliest disease ever! That’s why only an old tee shirt strapped across your face will save you!

      1. 2 or even 3 t shirts. – Fauci.

        Fauci yesterday now stated a complete vaccine treatment includes booster shots. So even if you think you’re compliant with vaccine mandates after the first round…. nope. Youre locked in for life.

        1. If they told the truth they’d have to admit that they destroyed the livelihoods of millions for nothing.
          It’s in their interests to keep this going forever.

          1. Nah. They can still slowly back off without admitting anything while patting themselves on the back for doing such a great job. And face very little backlash. Sad.

            They should do that soon, tho.

    2. When the Science is Settled, there’s no need for further discussion.

  23. The Texas government’s lawyers are making lawyer like arguments against the federal Justice Department’s standing in bringing a suit against Texas. The pro-abortion side screams that the pro-life side must only behave and argue in ways that conform with the pro-abort’s caricature of pro-life ideology.

  24. Billy Binion
    @billybinion
    Job alert! @reason is hiring! For a lot of positions! Are you a writer who loves crypto & rockets? We want you. Are you a new or aspiring reporter? We want you too. Also seeking podcast producers of all levels of experience. Come work with me!!!

    Are your top 3 sites visited Twitter, NYT, and Vox?

  25. Progressives Democrats are still saying they will vote against the infrastructure bill unless moderate Democrats pass the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill first.

    The following things are true.

    1) If the infrastructure bill fails in the House, some moderate Democrats are more likely to support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill–because they want the infrastructure bill and if that’s a precondition, they’ll pinch their nose and do it.

    2) If the infrastructure bill passes in the House, others moderate Democrats are less likely to support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill–because they believe it wildly unpopular in their district and it will cost them their seat.

    Nancy Pelosi rarely (if ever) brings a vote to the floor unless she knows it will pass. She didn’t bring the infrastructure bill to the floor on Monday because she didn’t have the votes to pass it in the face of progressive opposition. However, Pelosi probably needs the bill to either succeed or fail in order to break the logjam.

    If the moderates won’t give in until the progressives vote down the infrastructure bill, then Pelosi needs the progressives to vote down the infrastructure bill in order to get the moderates to support the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. On the other hand, if the infrastructure deal passes over the objections of the radical progressives, the progressives will need to face the facts and pare down the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill to about $1.5 trillion.

    Ultimately, if Pelosi decides to break her promise to the moderates and hold a vote on the infrastructure bill TODAY, I suspect what we’ll see is something like a de facto vote of no confidence like they have in parliament in the UK. Pelosi won’t have enough support to make a majority on any future legislation if she burns the moderate Democrats by not holding a vote on the infrastructure bill. She can only the support of three seats on any given legislation, and she’ll be throwing nine Democrats, at least, to the lions.

    If we don’t get a vote on the infrastructure bill today because there aren’t enough votes to pass it, it will become painfully clear to everybody–including the moderate Democrats themselves–that Pelosi is sacrificing their political careers on the altar of progressive radicalism. Sheep follow the shepherd to the slaughter because they don’t know the shepherd is planning to slaughter them. I think the moderates will be impossible to shepherd if Pelosi burns them by not holding a vote this time. And, remember, she’s already promised not to seek the Speaker’s chair after 2022.

    1. If I remember correctly, the vote was supposed to be on Monday but got pushed this week to Thursday. Then the vote getting pushed back another day seems to be a good sign, right? If they had the votes, the Democrats would put it to a vote immediately.

      1. From a libertarian capitalist perspective, the best outcome is that both bills fail. That’s probably too much to hope for.

        If the infrastructure bill passing makes the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill fail, then that might be the best of the likely options.

        Part of me is hoping that the Republicans in the House support the infrastructure bill and help the moderate Democrats pass it over the progressives’ objections for that reason. The Republicans in the House are saying they would help the moderate Democrats pass the bill if the progressives weren’t making their support for the infrastructure bill contingent on the moderate Democrats’ support for the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. However, because support for the infrastructure bill is associated with support for the $3.5 trillion bill, they won’t vote for it because it’s enabling that awful bill.

        I can’t argue with that logic.

        The best that can be reasonably hoped for is that the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill fails–and they’re forced to cut out $2 trillion in Green New Deal funding and the expansion and creation of whole new entitlement programs.

        The moderates are being asked to commit political suicide. They were already facing a hard slog in 2022, and if this thing passes, especially on their votes, their political careers are over–and they know it. I’ll be glad that the infrastructure bill passes IF IF IF it means that the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill will fail. I guess it’s important to understand that it doesn’t depend on Republicans or libertarians at all. The best we can do is stay informed and be ready to call out the awfulness when it happens.

        All we can do is make the Democrats pay at the polls for what they do, and we can do that by talking to our friends and family about this stuff. The Roman Empire was overwhelmed by Christians using word of mouth.

        1. P.S. Talking about spending and taxes in the face of progressives attempts to make everything about abortion, transgender issues, and social justice may be the best we can do with our friends and family. The progressives use these hot button issues to distract us.

          1. Agree. Though a brief discussion on the NAP can help non-libertarians understand our perspective on those “distractor” issues.

    2. What I can’t understand is how anyone could possibly support the passage of this ridiculous bill.

      1. Look up the word “graft”.

      2. It’s a religious thing, like eating fish on Fridays.

    3. Hopefully the progressives vote down the 1.2 trillion dollar “infrastructure” bill and the 3.5 trillion dollar wreck-the-silly-nation bill never sees the light of day, and we all save 4.7 trillion dollars.

  26. “What I have made clear to the President and Democratic leaders is that spending trillions more on new and expanded government programs, when we can’t even pay for the essential social programs, like Social Security and Medicare, is the definition of fiscal insanity . . . . I cannot – and will not – support trillions in spending or an all or nothing approach that ignores the brutal fiscal reality our nation faces”

    —-Joe Manchin, Last night after meeting with Biden and the Democratic leaders

    https://thehill.com/policy/finance/574574-manchin-fires-back-at-progressives-trillions-in-spending-fiscal-insanity

    The best possible outcome from a libertarian capitalist perspective is for both bills to fail, but that’s probably too much to hope for when the Democrats control the White House, the House, and the Senate.

    1. What could they possibly offer Joe Manchin that they haven’t already offered him?

      1. That all depends on just how much of the $3.5 Trillion they can steer to WV and AZ without looking like they’re buying votes. It’s Obamacare all over except with Manchin and Sinema playing the roles of Nelson and Landrieu.

        And if history is repetitive, they can both vote for this monstrosity and then kiss their seats goodbye.

      2. A pass to rape one intern with no reprocussions, or do you get that just by being on team d?

      3. A Hunter Biden painting?

    2. Can we have Joe Manchin as President?

  27. How the heck did the abortion issue fly into interstate commerce when it’s obviously more about the 13th Amendment and involuntary servitude or the 4th Amendment for, ‘people to be secure in their persons’.

    The BIG LIE (and everyone know it) is that pregnant women are two separate individuals. It that was true no-one would expect a woman to be legally bind-ed to have other separate individuals inside them against their will. That would be legalizing RAPE!

    1. It’s only rape if she doesn’t consent.

      1. It’s only rape if she doesn’t consent to reproduction..

        1. If only there were a myriad of means to help ensure her voluntary actions don’t result in an unwanted outcome.

          1. There is; But Pro-Life wants those ‘means’ eliminated.

            1. There are. Period. I’ll stand with you to fight against restricting access to those.

              1. …And when a natural accident happens … As they always do?
                You’ll fight for people’s ability to drive; but not after an accident happens. Then their right to their own body must be denied and they must (by the force of Gov-Guns) donate all body parts to save another?

        2. Hardly. If she was not raped, she willingly engaged in activity, known by all, to lead to the very likelihood of reproduction.

          You cannot kill somebody inconvenient because you regret your choices.

          1. “You cannot refuse to reproduce because you regret your choices.”
            Says the moral elitist Pro-Life lobbyist. I guess anyone in a car wreck should be denied any healthcare due to their choice to drive.

            1. Reproduction is fucking. Stop pretending that biologically they are different things.

              1. Just as soon as you stop pretending a pregnant woman is two different persons.

                1. Woman with child clump of cells.

                  1. Or just a pregnant woman; will do.
                    (Woman) (Child) is a Woman with a child both defined as ‘individuals’.
                    Calling a pregnant woman (especially before viability) with a child is not just a stretch of imagination it’s a misnomer.

        3. TJJ2000 thinks that if the woman consents but decides it was a rape when she wakes up the next morning then you should believe the victim.

          All in favor, raise your hands.

          1. Pro-Life thinks that if the woman consents she looses all her Individual Rights to her own body later on.

            1. She purposefully created a life. She doesn’t get to kill them because she didn’t really mean it later.

              She can keep her body’s sovereignty as long as she doesn’t try to destroy the bodily integrity of the other.

              1. “She purposefully created a life.” — Stated facts not in evidence.

                She can keep her body’s sovereignty as long as she doesn’t try to destroy the bodily integrity of the other.

                Gosh; I guess we need to start mandating diets, exercise, pills, vitamins and minerals, sleeping, etc, etc, etc….. Best just lock her up in a cage-of-care and well; actually EVERYONE because anyone might destroy the bodily integrity of another… Selling off liberty for safety.

    2. You can’t revoke consent for someone to be in your car while driving at 100 mph. Your expected to pull over and let them out. If there is nowhere for you to pull over you will be guilty of murder for kicking them out while going full speed instead of waiting ten minutes for a safe spot. This goes double if the only reason they are in your car in the first place is because you cracked them over the head with a baseball bat and dragged them into the car while they were unconscious.

      The child did not consent to being held hostage, and you can’t murder them for someone else’s actions.

      1. My favorite take so far in all the wailing and weeping about the Texas law is the woman who wrote an op-ed for some major china-paper (post or times or something) and talked about how NOW she was going to have very serious conversations with her daughters about getting on the pill and fastidiously using birth control.

        NOW?!?!??! W…..T……F

        1. What about anal? Or is that cultural appropriation from gay men?

          1. …she could always swallow. Just sayin’.

      2. Gaslighting defined: “The child”…. The propaganda spreads like wildfire.

        1. Pro-Choice wants to let them out!

  28. Wait….I want to write for Reason. They need a libertarian perspective on issues. 🙂

    1. Their first interview question is “What is your favorite Matt Yglesias article.” But you do get a free signed shirtless Justin Amash poster for applying.

      1. LMFAO! It’s funny because it’s so true…

    2. I’d write for Reason but only if I’m allowed to write libertarian things.

  29. Soon Oklahoma abortion clinics will secretly start to fund the campaign to keep the Texas law so they can set up clinics right next to the casinos just north of the Red River. I wonder what the Dallas Billboards will say?

    1. They’ll just repurpose Taco Bell billboards.

      Make a run for the border to get your Doritos Locos Tacos abortion on demand.

      1. I like it, but I don’t think you need to cross the Doritos Locos Tacos out, just add an “and.”

  30. Some people became libertarian when they read Ayn Rand (why?!?!). Others when they got their first paycheck and noticed most of it was missing. Still others who were conservative and then got busted for smoking pot.

    For me, it was was Reagan caved and signed the Continuing Resolution. It was then that I knew I couldn’t trust either party with my life, my liberty, or my property.

    1. Reagan’s designer drug ban and his full embrace of Earned Income Tax Credits (pure welfare for having unneeded children).

      I had voted for Reagan in 1984 then said fuck both parties. Never again.

      The Bushpigs were so bad I went back on my vow to punish the GOP as any patriot should have.

      Now both parties suck so much I vote for gridlock.

      1. Funny how you want to ‘gridlock’ the federal government but seem to compulsively fight against Trumps De-Regulating the Federal Government.

        1. What Trump deregulation? From my perspective in trade and commerce he has added regs like union friendly content requirements in his warmed over NAFTA.

          So you can pollute more? That is his dereg? Like Hayek said – there are a few restrictions that are acceptable.

          1. If you needed any more proof at this point, buttplug pedo is not a libertarian and did not vote for anyone in the GOP.

          2. What Trump deregulation?

            A couple of months ago, Shrike was screeding about how Trump may have performed a lot of deregulation, but Carter did more.

            Today he’s pretending that Trump’s massive dismantling of the Democrats regulatory state didn’t even happen.

            I guess the fifty-cent factory isn’t paying him to be consistent.

      2. (pure welfare for having unneeded children).

        Define that.

    2. For me Ayn Rand was definitely the gateway to libertarian thought. She showed me that there was a consistent set of moral reasoning behind the concepts of liberty that she was espousing.

      But I’m beyond Rand now, I don’t buy into the more “virtue of selfishness” stuff.

      1. LOL. You’ve never been consistent.

        And you didn’t read Ayn Rand if you are misunderstanding what she mean by virtue of selfishness.

        Hint, most of her protagonists chose to be poor and not compromise their ideals rather than sell out to make money.

      2. Me, too.

        The last few years in this commentariat have absolutely convinced me that libertarianism not coupled with maturity and civil mindedness ain’t all that great.

    3. That’s an impressive strawman you created there.

      Rand was an objectivist, which is not the primary libertarian form of thought. Maybe you should understand her before invoking her?

    4. Still others who were conservative and then got busted for smoking pot.

      Right, because Democrats want to legalize stuff that you put in your own body, man.

  31. Just because X is stupid doesn’t mean that argument Y against X can’t be even more stupid. Texas’ SB8 is a bad idea. The DoJ’s arguments against it manage to be even worse.

    re: the trigger warnings article – In other news, new research suggests that water is wet and hot stoves can cause burns.

    1. Water is not wet. It causes things to be wet.

  32. Hey look. Team DeRp’s 2024 presidential candidates have been located!

    https://archive.is/BFH64

    1. Dubious link, and also you voted for Biden so you’re suspect.

    2. Do we need to remind you that the current Dem President is a shade younger than dirt. And their Congressional leadership are all significantly older than dirt.

    3. Yeah, the rEthUGliCans are far older than Pelosi, Schumer, Biden, Warren and co.

      It’s always funny when jeff does a self-own.

  33. Meanwhile –

    A bunch of woke idiots tried to force NASA to re-name the James Webb Space Telescope.

    Allegedly he wasn’t as tolerant of gays in the 50’s and 60’s as today’s PC culture demands. Not that he personally did anything egregious in particular, mind you.

    NPR’s take? “NASA refuses to rename James Webb Telescope . . . “

    https://www.npr.org/2021/09/30/1041707730/shadowed-by-controversy-nasa-wont-rename-new-space-telescope

    Not that a bunch of morons demanded we hold some long-dead historical figure to (beyond) modern day standards, but that NASA refuses to accommodate them. Yeah.

    1. Best outcome would be to cancel the project.

    2. these same people would run out all the gays on a rail without a second thought if that was the dominant culture of our day.

      1. They still will when they are no longer politically necessary for attacking Christianity.

        In the 30’s the Nazi Party was full of homosexuals at every level, particularly the SA which basically got it’s start as a gay gymnasium. The Nazis were the most LGBTQ group in Europe.
        But then some of the more politically inconvenient gays needed removing, and overnight the party was purged and they all ended up in Auschwitz.

        Once the LGBTQ have outlived their convenience, the establishment will pop them back in the closet.

      2. There are no gays. Just people who are confused about their gender identity.

    3. The controversial thing should be that they named a space telescope after a bureaucrat rather than an astronomer. The astronomers apparently cared more for having a new instrument available, than having one of their own honored. The objection being made here is special pleading to further sanctify the sacred gays. Webb was the head of NASA during the years leading to the moonshots, he had some accomplishments relative to space.

  34. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/mcconnell-signals-gop-support-avoid-government-shutdown

    In a SHOCKING turn of events, GOP leadership will corroborate and avoid a government shutdown. Gee who woulda thunk?

    1. Why would he do that?

      The Dems OWN all of it. If the shutdown happened — dare we dream? — it’s EXCLUSIVELY their fault.

      1. McConnel said it was a clean funding bill without the debt ceiling being lifted. That deadline is next month.

      2. because they are all on the same team.

  35. “New psychological research suggests that trigger warnings do not reduce negative reactions to disturbing material—and may even increase them,” reports The New Yorker.

    Whoa, some woke idiocy backfired? You don’t say?

  36. YouTube is blocking anti-vaccine content.

    These guys are essentially an arm of the government at this point (have been for a while). Indistinguishable from Pravda.

    If the FDA were to change its tune and ban the vaccines, YouTube would only allow “we have always been at war with Eastasia” takes .

    1. Maybe – and just hear me out here – YouTube doesn’t want their platform to be used by demagogues spreading lies about vaccines that could cause people to get sick or die by refusing vaccination.

      1. that is not it.

      2. I didn’t see much when plenty of prominent Dems said they would not touch “Trump’s vaccine”.

      3. You mean like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?

          1. “Yes, but that’s different because fuck you” – t. chemjeff

      4. If the “science” can’t be questioned, it’s not “science”.

  37. So, the state admits that its “pro-life” law isn’t actually stopping Texas women from getting abortions, just driving them across state lines—that is, not “saving babies,” as supporters claim, but simply making women getting abortions jump through hoops.

    Similar to the embarrassingly clickbait headline, this is embarrassingly tendentious and stupid nonsense. TX is arguing that a particular precedent doesn’t apply b/c at least SOME women will travel out of state with no offsetting blockage, with no implication that ALL pregnant women will do so, which unmade assertion is the only possible basis for the asserted “admission” that “[the] law isn’t actually stopping Texas women from getting abortions”.

    Why is Reason platforming someone, this Elizabeth Nolan Brown person, as a “Senior Editor” no less, whose brain is this broken or who believes we’re all too moronic to notice that her propaganda is insultingly stupid?

    1. This was always going to be the worst outcome of any state-level abortion ban.

      A few hours drive across state lines.

    2. Robby has never had a better BJ.

      1. Did she make him a sammich afterwards?

    3. I had a friend in college who asked me to take her to PP to get an abortion. I refused, because I am pro-life and could not materially support her actions in any way. She ended up getting a ride from someone else and had an abortion anyway- despite my effort to convince her not to.

      My refusal to drive her there didn’t stop her from getting an abortion, but it did stop me from being complicit in it.

      Sometimes, despite your best efforts, people are going to do bad stuff anyway. That doesn’t mean you have to participate in it or facilitate it.

      1. Good for you, Cronut. And I really mean that in all sincerity. That was admirable.

      2. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, people are going to do bad stuff anyway. That doesn’t mean you have to participate in it or facilitate it.

        Or actively stop them.

  38. McConnell is wisely passing a funding resolution to keep the government funded through early December–without raising the debt ceiling.

    If he hadn’t, there would have been pressure on the moderate Democrats to pass something hideous in order to avoid a default by the government on our debt in early October.

    Regardless of what McConnell has done in the past, he’s done a really good job at orchestrating this to minimize the chances of the Democrats passing the $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. If it fails, he’ll deserve some credit for that.

    1. Once we get to the holidays, Congress will be all about fundraising for 2022, and even fewer Democrats will be willing to stick their necks out for something as radical as the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill in an election year. If the monstrosity gets pushed out to December, it probably won’t happen at all. He punted and downed the ball inside the Democrats’ five yard line. They have two minutes on the clock and no time outs.

      1. Yeah, this was a shrewd move. He took away an important leverage point the progs had on the moderates, and they can just run the clock out now.

        1. We should note, too, that there are only 96 House Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus#House_members

          . . . which, by my count, means that about 124 House Democrats are not in the Progressive Caucus.

          You know how when you’re being confronted by a bear, you’re supposed to raise your arms in your jacket and make yourself look bigger than you are? The progressives are masters of that. By taking over the airwaves and social media, they make themselves look like there are a lot more of them than there are, and they use bullying tactics against their fellow non-progressives Democrats.

          But there are a lot more than the nine moderates who were openly defying Pelosi. There are a lot more than nine Democrats who would rather not vote for this $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill, I’m sure. The reason the progressives bully them is because they wouldn’t do what they’re being told to do if they weren’t being pushed around.

          1. I have limited empathy for the moderate dems. They went all in with the progressive caucus to “fortify” the 2020 election, and now the progressive caucus expects to be paid for their efforts. The progs spent half a year demonstrating that they and their consituents are willing to use violence- they’re even willing to come to your house and threaten your family. They spent half a year demonstrating they will burn ANYTHING to the ground to get what they want.

            If moderate dems are being bullied, it’s by a monster of their own making.

            1. Yeah, they created a monster, and now the monster is boss.

              1. Ask Ted Wheeler about how controlling the Red Guard works out.

            2. The so-called “moderate” Democrats voted in Nancy Pelosi. Fuck them. They aren’t moderate. They facilitated this.

          2. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2021/09/30/is-that-a-knife-in-nancy-pelosis-back-looks-like-chuck-schumer-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-aka-joe-manchin-way-back-in-july-pic/

            Looks like Schumer made a deal with Manchin back in July over the $3.5T package. His limit was established at $1.5T, and Schumer acknowledged it. Probably why Schumer knew he could deal with McConnell. He already knows the terms of the deal that’s going to pass.

            Manchin is throwing out paper reciepts now. The $3.5T is dead, I think.

  39. The former London police officer who abducted, raped, and murdered Sarah Everard was sentenced to life in prison.

    Wow, their police union must suck.

  40. Brookings Institution researchers write…”Contrary to the dominant narratives that use ‘rural’ as a synonym for ‘white,’…”

    It might be interesting to find out exactly where it has been “the dominant narrative” that “rural” is a synonym for “white”. Unlike these “Brookings Institution researchers” it never occurred to me that that was the state of rural, say, Mississippi or Texas, or California, for that matter. But I guess I live in the real world and not in their silo.

    1. It was the synonym in Texas unless you use the phrase “non-Hispanic white”. Brookings Institution researchers are basing it off of the census findings but the census classifies Hispanics as white. It also classifies most middle-Easterns (about 1% of the state population) as white. But in all other research and discussions, they are people of color now.

      1. …the census classifies Hispanics as white.

        They wrote about “the dominant narrative”, not census categories. Is Brookings so brain-dead that they think that in “the dominant narrative” the largely Indio rural TexMex are white?

  41. Government shutdown starts today if Congress can’t get it together enough to vote against it. For that to happen, it looks like everyone will have to agree to Republicans’ preferred version of a stopgap funding bill. From CNN:

    So we’re starting with this bullshit again, I see.

    1. Were you expecting any less? Rule #1 for the corporate media is that any problems are the Republicans’ fault.

      Three years ago, it was Republicans’ fault because they had the White House and majorities in both House of Congress but couldn’t get their act together. Today, it is the Republicans’ fault because, even though Democrats have the White House and majorities in both House of Congress and can’t get their act together, the Republicans won’t bail them out.

    2. You would think 29 trillion dollars would be enough debt to get us through the tough times when no one is hiring, like now.

  42. I don’t mean to be that guy, but there is no Abortion Ban in Texas. Start doing real journalisming.

    Some style guide options for you:

    Abortion Limit
    Abortion Rules
    Post-six-week Abortion Ban (if you really need the clickbait headline).
    Abortion Restrictions

    No one is asking you to do the work of pro-life activists, but you might stop doing the heavy lifting for the pro-abortion activists.

    1. ENB will never mention ‘heartbeat’ despite it being in the title and the description of the bill. It humanizes the lump of cells.

      1. That’s just an opinion from an older, slightly larger clump of cells.

    2. It’s perfectly clear, as I pointed out above, that Elizabeth Nolan Brown (the identity of “you”, I assume) IS a pro-abortion activist.

    3. Common Sense Abortion-Control?

      1. That would be a *finger-kiss* excellent troll, but in fairness, that would be doing the work of pro-life activists.

        So, you get points for style, but not for journalisming.

  43. Pro-Life in a nutshell; Cherishing the *Gaslighting* of Reproduction into a ?Person? while taking away Individual Liberty and demanding Gov-Gun-Forced Reproduction from EVERYONE.

    You can keep your gaslighting to yourselves. You decide.. You don’t get to decide for everyone else.

    1. …Cherishing the *Gaslighting* of Reproduction into a ?Person?…

      Only persons can be gaslit, not categories like “Reproduction”, nor can categories be transformed into persons. Your fifteenth comment on this page is a random explosion of rage directed at nothing in particular that doesn’t even parse, much less make any sense. Get a grip.

      1. Nor can a pre Roe v Wade be transformed into an individual person.
        Like I said ‘Gaslighting’ the reproduction process into another individual person.

        1. You: “gabble, gabble, gabble”.
          So, your brain is broken in more ways than just your idiot politics.
          Good to know.

          1. It’s always a won battle when the opposition can’t do anything but make personal attacks.

        2. Here is an exercise for you to try:

          Walk up to a 8 year old that knows you and trusts you. Tell them you would be perfectly happy if they had never been born if it would have been inconvenient for their mommy. Return and report.

          For bonus points, tell them that because of them, their mommy was a slave for 9 months. Of course, many mother’s breast feed, which prolongs the period of enslavement, but we don’t want to make the child feel too guilty.

          1. And then walk up to an imagination and say the same thing. Since all “unborn children” weren’t born because it was inconvenient for their mommy.

            But this pegs what I’ve said before…
            God gave Women the gate-keepers key to reproduction.
            That made the [WE] mob very angry and jealous so now they want to take that KEY away…..

            Mark 12:17 – Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

  44. This _is_ hurting interstate commerce, because it is stopping people from all the other states from traveling to Texas to get (legal) abortions. Similarly their ban on drugs is stopping people from all the other states from traveling to Texas to get (legal) drugs. Also, their ban on prostitution is stopping people from traveling to Texas to have (legal) paid sex. Etc….

    Maybe the Texas government should just shut up about interstate commerce unless they really believe in it.

  45. So it’s a law that only affects poor women.

Please to post comments