Protests

Canada's Freedom Convoy Embodies Fatigue with Pandemic Authoritarianism

COVID-19 policies eroded liberty and many people want it back.

|

Canada appears to be governed as you would expect of Wisconsin if California's snotty political class were exiled to Madison. This puts generally nice, compliant people under the rule of an especially self-regarding and contemptuous gang. But some Canadians have been driven to revolt against that ruling class's pandemic policies in the form of the trucker-led Freedom Convoy. So powerful are the shock waves of this unprecedented uprising that they crossed the border and flipped the positions Americans of the left and right take on the legitimacy of political protest and suppression of the same. More importantly, the movement cautions the political class everywhere against pushing people too far.

As the Freedom Convoy arrived to fill the streets of Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau focused, as politicians often do, on those few protesters who inevitably engage in bad behavior.

"We won't give in to those who fly racist flags. We won't cave to those who engage in vandalism….There is no place in our country for threats, violence or hatred," Trudeau huffed.

Others tried to wave away the sentiments of convoy participants.

"To the extent that the convoy is anti-vax and anti-science, it is on the margins of Canadian society," Professor Andrew McDougall, assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, told The New York Times. "It is not the beginning of a movement but the most extreme manifestation we have seen of frustration about pandemic restrictions."

But "to the extent" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. People who actually talked to protesters found a range of opinions, not especially hateful, and all related to fatigue with intrusive pandemic policies.

"I have spoken to close to 100 protesters, truckers and other folks, and not one of them sounded like an insurrectionist, white supremacist, racist or misogynist," Ottawa-based Rupa Subramanya wrote February 10 for Bari Weiss's Common Sense. "Ostensibly, the truckers are against a new rule mandating that, when they re-enter Canada from the United States, they have to be vaccinated. But that's not really it.…so it's about something else. Or many things: a sense that things will never go back to normal, a sense that they are being ganged up on by the government, the media, Big Tech, Big Pharma."

That "sense that they are being ganged up on" has a credible basis. While Canada's pandemic response varies at the provincial level just as most of the American response is determined by states, Canada has generally been more restrictive than its neighbor. You'll hear that those policies are relatively popular, and polls say they are—except among those who hate them.

"Canada's citizens feel that they have little control over their lives, a sentiment that has been compounded by pandemic-related restrictions on individual freedoms," The Economist's new Democracy Index 2021 reports. According to data collected in October 2020, "a mere 10.4% of Canadians felt that they had 'a great deal' of freedom of choice and control."

Canada scores more highly on the index than the U.S. but is falling more sharply (globally, democracy and liberty are in decline). That is bound to spark reaction among those who favor free choice. This may help explain why generally peaceful Canada birthed the rebellious Freedom Convoy. 

The more protest-prone United States likely avoided this scenario by not just decentralizing but often ignoring rulemaking. The split may best be captured by the media's constant contrast between locked-down New York and wide-open Florida. Even in restrictive states, many local officials refused to enforce curfews, mask orders, and business closures. Within or in defiance of the law, local policies in-line with local sentiment mean fewer pissed-off people. If the U.S. had widely imposed national mandates, politicians in Washington, D.C., would probably now be wishing the pushback had stopped at traffic jams and honking.

That's not to say the Freedom Convoy hasn't had an impact south of the border. It effectively flipped the positions prominent Americans take on political demonstrations. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who denounced Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality that sometimes degenerated into violence as "organized terror attacks," has embraced the Freedom Convoy. In contrast, former Obama administration official and current Harvard professor and CNN commentator Juliette Kayyem, who supported the Black Lives Matter protests, channeled her inner Tom Cotton when protesters barricaded Detroit's Ambassador Bridge, which carries over a quarter of commerce between Canada and the U.S. "Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks," she snarled in a tweet that she later walked back.

That's a bit unfair, since Canada already has its own Tom Cotton in the form of David Pratt, minister of defense under former Prime Minister Paul Martin. "When there is no one else to turn to, the military are there as a disciplined, well-trained and professional body to take orders under strict rules of engagement and get a job done," he wrote last week in the pages of The Globe and Mail. "The Ottawa occupation should be treated as a national emergency."

That longing for troops in the streets reeks of panic for good reason. While Canadian authorities have cleared the blockade on Ambassador Bridge, efforts to chase protesters and their street-jamming trucks from Ottawa have been less successful, and the convoy wins wide sympathy among people on whom the government relies.

"The tow trucks operators on contract to the City of Ottawa are taking a hard pass on requests to haul vehicles out of protest areas, according to the city's top public servant," CBC reported last week.

Meanwhile, more protesters are flooding into Ottawa. Not coincidentally, officials in Alberta, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan blinked, announcing an end to most restrictions.

"The population is fed up. I'm fed up. We're all fed up," Quebec Premier François Legault acknowledged.

And now Freedom Convoy-inspired protests have spread to France, New Zealand, and the Netherlands. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security even latched on to the protest as a justification for its ongoing fretting about domestic dissent.

"Two years after the world first heard about covid-19, the coronavirus pandemic has led to a huge extension of state power over people's lives and the erosion of individual freedoms," the Democracy Index 2021 observes about conditions around the world. That loss of liberty inspired waves of popular but disconnected protests in country after country among people seeking the return of liberal norms and respect for their personal choices. Now, improbably, those protests may be coming together under a maple leaf and a #HonkHonk hashtag.

NEXT: When Is Drinking Ayahuasca a Religious Experience?

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. Which reason writer covers fbi corruption? Will reason have an article today about Hillary Clintons campaign paying Rodney joffe and his spooks to hack into trump tower servers before the election and the white house servers after the election?

    Or do they need to wait to see if the NYT and wapo run the story first so they know their cocktail party friends say its OK?

    1. Reason....cover corruption in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, DOD, DHS? The NYT and WaPo slanting their news articles?!

      LOL, LOL, LOL....you need to talk to OBL. 🙂

    2. But someone said trump flushed papers down the toilet. It is perfectly equal.

    3. Reason staff is busy attending lots of cocktail parties to triangulate what they’re taking points should be. They are aiming for being just lightly out of the progressive mainstream in order to keep that libertarian brand image alive, but they want to avoid accidentally adopting a conservatives, Republican, or actually libertarian position. It’s hard work!

    4. DID YOU SEE WHAT CHARLIE KIRK TWEETED ABOUT THE HALFTIME SHOW!?!

      CHARLIE FUCKING KIRK!

  2. Also.

    Black lives matter - $4.5 billion in property damages and at least 27 people murdered during protests.

    Freedom convoy - 0$ in property damages and 0 people murdered.

    I think they're the same.

    1. Insurrectionist Trumpanzees gone apeshit... 217 people killed, 3 entire cities destroyed.

      BLM protesters... Some anti-back racists had their Baby Feelings hurt, and that was it!

      NOTE that I have JUST AS MANY citations as you do!

      1. SQRLSY, this isn't hard academia. I don't need a reference to know that the sky is blue or to remember the past two years of headlines.

        1. Idiots like sqrsly, jeff, Mike, sarc, want everyone to forget what they've said even in the same thread. It shows them to be hypocrites.

        2. It's probably a good thing for commenters here to give cites. I see a LOT of made-up "truths" repeated here.

          1. You mean like links to lethal fire extinguishers amd rolling stone horse medicine?!

            Bahahahaha

          2. You spent an entire year lying about fire extinguishers, zip ties, poop smears, molotov cocktails and protesters being armed.

            1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riots-cops-describe-facing-pro-trump-rioters/
              "Kill him with his own gun:" Cops describe being attacked by Capitol rioters

              As a "lawn odor" Back-the-Blue luster after the "R"-party dictatorshit, ALL THINGS (to include even the tiniest modicum of respect for LEOs, even respect for the very lives of LEOs), EvilBahnFuhrer says, MUST give WAY! POWAH for the R-Party dictatorshit, as led by EvilBahnFuhrer, above ALL else, dammit!

              1. Look at you trying to deflect for White Mike. Meanwhile quoting the exact same people who later peddled the lies about fire extinguishers, zip ties, poop smears, molotov cocktails and protesters being armed. Your outdated source even lied about having a "mild heart attack", as the FBI list of casualties later proved.

                Maybe the next time you want to peddle your Reichstag Fire Big Lie, pick a more current article that leaves out some of the more egregious lies, you stupid fascist fuck.

                1. Refute this, totalitarian Wonder Child!

                  Also please tell us...
                  WHEN are you going to give us an example of a 1-party state that led to long-term peace and prosperity? Since you SOOO clearly advocate for a 1-party "R"-party state?

                  https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
                  Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

                  The above is mostly strictly factual, with very little editorializing. When I post it, the FACTS never get refuted… I only get called names. But what do you expect from morally, ethically, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt Trumpturds?

                  Totalitarians want to turn GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).

                2. I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($200 to $300/ hr.) online from my laptop. Last month i got cheek of nearly 85000$. hjk This online work is simple and straightforward, don’t have to go office, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this Job. I really thanks to my friend who refer me this Site….., http://extradollars3.blogspot.com/

                3. theres stupid that trolls and stupid people that respond to them

                  It takes a Pair to make Sock puppets .

                4. Sqrlsy only brought up the poop smears because he was hungry.

          3. What are the names of the supposed 217 people that were killed? I doubt you or SQRLSY One are able to answer this.

            1. Well, I cannot name them, that is true.

              But I also don’t know what SQRLSY was referring to. It’s a joke, surely, but I’m not sure whether the number 217 was just one he picked out of the air or if it has significance.

              Anyway, I don’t say it. So, ask SQRLSY.

              1. Didn’t say it. Thanks iPhone spelling correction.

            2. 217 is a random number pulled from my ass! BUTT... Butt it has ASS MUCH validity and Truthfulness ASS about half of the crap I see posted here by Trumpturds!

              1. Which retarded writer are you?

                1. I never considered mike, SQRLSRY, ect could be writers for reason, I always wondered if reason writers read the common pages here, and why it made so little impact upon them.
                  Maybe they do, it’s like trolling squared!

    2. If you're looking for similarities, BLM had millions of dollars stolen from it by marxists and the freedom convoy is in the middle of the marxists second attempt at stealing millions from them.

      1. ^

    3. For those not too lazy to look at more accurate notes with cites... But I am sure that the like of Alex Jones will have higher and FAR more "accurate" numbers!

      PS... Note that vaccine mandates have killed NO Canadians, while quite a few blacks were killed by police ultra-violence! Two wrongs don't make a right, sure! But we do have to keep in mind that tribalism causes these kinds of things, and when we go WAAAY too tribalistic, we could at LEAST keep "proportionality" in mind!

      From https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled
      At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020
      of those 25...

      Nine of the people killed during protests were demonstrators taking part in Black Lives Matter protests. Two were conservatives killed after pro-Trump “patriot rallies”. All but one were killed by fellow citizens.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8740609/Rioting-140-cities-George-Floyds-death-cost-insurance-industry-2-BILLION.html
      REVEALED: Widespread vandalism and looting during BLM protests will cost the insurance $2 BILLION after violence erupted in 140 cities in the wake of George Floyd's death

      1. TL;DR: was it JOOOOOOOOOS!

        1. JOOOOOOOOOS, Lizard People, AND Jewish Space Lasers!

          1. You sure do hate the Jews, huh?

            1. It’s kind of a requirement to being a NAZI, so of course.

              1. Jew hating is also a prominent characteristic of communism, ever since Marx itself.

                -jcr

                1. Well, Nazis were socialists.

                  1. The progs tell me the Nazis weren’t really socialists, and that it’s mere coincidence that the word ‘socialist’ is in the name.

      2. Hmm, it's odd if you don't just click the top link in Google you get real information. Here's 17 people killed as of TWO SUMMERS ago just related to George floyd. All killed during protests, almost all black. And almost all killed by other black people. Names, bios, cause of death all listed.

        https://www.foxnews.com/us/deadly-unrest-people-have-died-amid-george-floyd-protests-across-us

          1. Or this beauty lmao.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/08/26/almost-none-deaths-linked-recent-protests-are-known-have-been-committed-by-protesters/

            Headline "Few of the deaths linked to recent protests are known to have been caused by demonstrators"

            Quotes from article...

            "Calvin Horton Jr. Shot on May 27 in Minneapolis. John Rieple, the owner of a pawnshop being targeted by looters, allegedly fired his shotgun at the group. It is not clear whether Horton was participating in the looting. Rieple has not been charged."

            "Chris Beaty. Shot on May 30 in Indianapolis. Beaty was shot by an unknown assailant in an attack that was linked to nearby protests"

            "Marvin Francois. Shot on May 31 in Kansas City, Mo. Francois was shot by an unknown assailant as he was picking up his son from a protest."

            "John Tiggs. Shot on May 31 in Chicago. Tiggs was shot by an unidentified assailant as he was entering a store which had been looted."

            "Marquis Tousant. Shot on June 1 in Davenport, Iowa. Tousant was shot by an unknown shooter near a protest."

            And then literally every death listed goes on to say they were killed looting or protesting lmao.

        1. Goog- holes been taken over by radical leftists to rig search results to bring leftist propaganda instead of just search terms.

          Search for "porosity of N95 masks."

          Had no trouble getting that result back- of CDC and NIH papers proving N95 masks dont work and are not filters.

          That was 1 year + ago.

          Now those OFFICIAL Govt papers dont appear. Replaced with " masks keep us safe" political memes.

      3. Did they count Aunt Jemimah, Uncle Ben and Kareem of Wheats?

    4. They had bouncy castles and BBQ at the convoy protests. True terrorism.

      1. BBQ = Car fires

        Therefore Convoy same as BLM/Antifa

        1. If bouncy castles aren't a statement in defense of The Monarchy, I don't know what is.

      2. If the truckers were terrorists, Castreau would be singing their praises and fellating them. He got out the knee pads for BLM, didn't he?

        -jcr

    5. There was vandalism in Canada, it was just committed by the police.

  3. Canadian truckers aren't the only people tired of the mandates. Give a thought to those poor poor celebrities valiantly fighting mask mandates at the Super Bowl last night. And their courageous struggle will continue at the Oscars: no mask or vax mandates.

    1. I predicted it in my article before the game: The only masks were on the help.

  4. I do appreciate this being covered here. The coverage could be better in some ways. Maybe acknowledging the lack of violence in these protests towards towards innocent third parties and their property (we should as libertarians praise protestors for not burning down a private citizen's business when their beef is with the government), but overall it was a mostly good take on a topic that is very important to libertarians and the libertarian movement.

    1. They were shutting down international commerce. They could hardly have been more destructive. Public opinion was completely againt these idiots.

      1. But enough about government officials.

        1. The entire world reacted about the same way. You beach drinking idiots had even worse ideas.

          1. “It’s ok if everyone does it”.

          2. Sweden didn't.

          3. But Mom everyone is doing it....

          4. You don’t get pass on stupid because most governments are stupid, too.

          5. "But all my friends jumped off the bridge!"

            "Oh, ok."

          6. "As long as we've got a coalition of the willing, the war in Iraq is a go."

          7. The entire world reacted about the same way.

            Just look at you lie.

          8. Sure they did. Or at least your fellow travelers in the media tried to make everyone hate them. As usual, everything you people say is a lie.

        2. Bleach

          1. Oh hahahaha. So droll.

      2. Yes, I agree. Groups who are publicly unpopular should not protest. Protests are only for people that everyone agrees with.

        Idiot.

      3. When the public transport unions strike, it has much the same effect on the publics daily life (at least in big cities). Maybe you should view this through the lense of truckers going on strike. I'm sure if you honestly compare this too many protests that you have supported in the past you will find that the only thing objectionable to you about this protest is what the protestors are protesting, as you have supported more violent and disruptive methods in the past when you agreed with a protest.

      4. The only poll I've seen saying that was a voluntary, internet poll that couldn't be modeled because the data was so biased.

      5. The fucking BLM protests the last 8 years didn't shut down any business at all, right?

        Oh, wait, prior to the Freedom Convoy, the left ALWAYS said protests were supposed to be disruptive. Now, disruption is terrorism. Got it.

        You morons just can't take your own medicine.

        1. They literally 'protested' on Friday night - blocking roads and smashing windows.

          https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/eh-it-was-mostly-peaceful

        2. You are dedicated LIARS
          . you racist BLM haters.

          Guess you missed the Ferguson PD chiefs statement...' the violence came from OUTSIDE...'
          . Not BLM

          So do YOU work for the violent groups doing the violence and PROJECTING it on BLM just bc you hate black people?

          Survey says " YES!"

          1. I actually cleaned up after the Ferguson 'protests' in 2014.

          2. So it was Anitifa? What's the difference?
            The Phucko Knows

      6. To be accurate, some of the Canadian protestors blocked the bridge. There are plenty of protestors not involved in blocking the bridge, not even in the same city where that was happening.

      7. "Public opinion was completely [against] these idiots"
        except for all the examples already in the article of all the people who aren't against them.

        Maybe in your little ideological bubble, opinion is "completely against" them. The rest of us see a largish group who support their protest (and an even larger group who just want to be left alone).

      8. AOC literally said protests are to make people feel uncomfortable and disrupt their lives while marxist black folks were destroying their own neighborhoods like the retards they are.

    2. I appreciate the article too, but this is an extremely important protest, and Reason should have had a feature article about it before now. Instead, they largely ignored it, just like most of the MSM tried to do initially. When it got to big to ignore, the MSM mostly mischaracterized it with extremely biased coverage. This protest has implications far beyond the borders of Canada. The truckers are standing up for all of us, and deserve our support.

      1. Positive reinforcement, give them a back pat when they do good, and gently point out how they can improve. Harsh criticism is being well covered by other posters, and a variety of approaches can't hurt in encouraging them to examine the issues with their reporting.

        1. Good advice in general, although few Reason writers ever look at the comments, anyway.

          1. The comments are the only thing people come here for.

        2. THAT was patronizing bullshit.

          You stupid enough to believe news or its ugly twin sisters are driven by reader comments?

      2. Did you actually look? Reason has been covering the trucker protests since at least February 2nd, maybe earlier.

          1. This is why we know you're a bitch, sullum.

        1. Pathetic shill.

    3. So in modern journalistic parlance you want him to have played up the "insurrection" angle and contrasted that against the "peaceful protests" characterized by burning buildings, robbery and assaults?

      1. I'm not quite sure what you are saying in this post. It's hard to parse what is sarcasm.

  5. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who denounced Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality that sometimes degenerated into violence as "organized terror attacks," has embraced the Freedom Convoy.

    You know, that’s not exactly a trivial distinction. I know it’s become fashionable in certain circles to pretend otherwise, but libertarianism is sort of supposed to be not initiating aggression.

    1. In both scenarios, there is scant evidence that anyone engaging in violent or even anti-social behavior had any official affiliation with organizers of peaceful protests.

      I often get the smart alec answer that BLM-adjacent rioters “don’t carry membership cards” while they are rioting. But exactly the same thing is true of, say, some random person showing up at the Canadian trucker protests and waving a Nazi flag.

      I am consistent about this. And, for the record, I have nothing against the Canadian truckers and other protesters.

      1. There is plenty of evidence. You just denied it all.

        1. Those peaceful protestors just didn't understand they were giving cover to rioters -- for 100+ straight days!

          1. So, if someone protests peacefully, they are still responsible for the actions of completely different people who are engaging in violent rioting because they are "giving cover"? Are you sure you want to have that as a standard for judging peaceful protestors, because it can be applied to conservative protestors, too?

            1. Those are your rules, asshole.

            2. Where did blm protest peacefully? Citations please.

              Even here in Pittsburgh our largest blm March smashed outdoor diners plates and tables, stole their food, and beat the father of an autistic child with a skateboard because his autistic son accidentally rode his bike into the protests while he and his father were just trying to cycle downtown on a Saturday.

              https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/09/07/pittsburgh-protesters-restaurant-patrons-clash/

            3. Progs didn't always get a pass. Then they successfully controlled the narrative in Charlottesville.

            4. Those are the fucking rules YOU want to play by now. How many people STILL in jail for Jan 6 were actually rioting?

              1. Pretty much all of them.

                1. Citation?

      2. You fucking retards should've read the writing on that swastika sign that was calling Trudeau a nazi. It's already been disproven even if it's still on ypur media matters morning email.

        Like I said, you're always a day late and a buck short junior.

      3. Except that counter really isn't honest. I think it's safe to say there's a fundamental difference between an idiot waving a Nazi flag and a sociopath burning down a liquor store. One is incredibly distasteful. The other is engaged in an act of actual physical aggression. And we see the distinctions in the response to the outliers from the protests themselves and their defenders. The Canadian truckers were asked about it and responded that if they saw somebody waving a Nazi flag, they'd "kick their teeth in, eh". The Canadian truckers plainly and without equivocation said they were at odds with guys waving Nazi flags.
        Some of us are old enough to remember the BLM riots. They weren't really that long ago. And, no, it wasn't ubiquitous for the peaceful BLM protesters to plainly and unequivocally condemn the rioters. Nor was it particularly common for the protests' defenders in the media to make a point of condemning riots. Doing so was, in fact, conflated with condemning the protests themselves.

  6. Imagine enthusiastically supporting banning abortion, banning gay marriage, banning "CRT" (noxious though it may be), banning books, demanding police be unaccountable for violating rights, downplaying or outright supporting a coup attempt, suppressing voting, passing laws allowing overturning elections on a flimsy and political basis, and still claiming to be the "party of freedom" because you're bravely standing against simple public health actions so you can ensure the most people possible die during the pandemic.

    Democrats have their own problems with authoritarianism and being anti-freedom, but conservatives pretending to be the party of freedom is fucking delusional. We don't have a "party of freedom". But conservatives are *by far* the more extreme authoritarians. And given how most Libertarians support the more authoritarian party because one of the few areas they support freedom is freedom for the wealthy and corporations to exploit everyone and everything free from intervention (we unfortunately have a near complete lack of left libertarianism here, and nearly every commenter here is a simple right-auth Republican being edgy, not even reaching the right-lib quadrant on the 2d map), no, they don't get the title either.

    1. Hoo-Ray for you!

      Please note that the rad-right crowd that posts here aren't libertarians, they are just authoritarians whose posts get shot down at other sites.

      THIS is my best cite to show that the "R" party has been RUINED for who-knows-how-long, by the Cult of Trump!

      https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/trumps-big-lie-and-hitlers-is-this-how-americas-slide-into-totalitarianism-begins/
      Trump’s Big Lie and Hitler’s: Is this how America’s slide into totalitarianism begins?

      The above is mostly strictly factual, with very little editorializing. When I post it, the FACTS never get refuted… I only get called names. But what do you expect from morally, ethically, spiritually, and intellectually bankrupt Trumpturds?

      Totalitarians want to turn GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).

      1. You need Jesus, as does fafalone and SPB.

        1. The tribalists killed Jesus 'cause they hated him for being an anti-tribalism truth-speaker. Are YOU a metaphorical Jesus-killing tribalist, Oh "Truthfulness"?

          I for one can’t STAND the idea that a casual reader here of a libertarian news and commenting site would read the vapid and vile comments, and conclude, “Oh, so THAT’s what libertarians are all about!” No, it’s just that libertarians (and VERY few others) still believe in free speech, so the troglodytes come HERE, where their vile lies & vapid insults will NOT be taken down!

          The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

          “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

      2. Who is Matt Rosa and why should anyone treat his op-ed fantasies like they’re evidence?

    2. "Imagine enthusiastically supporting..."

      Imagine judging the protestors on what they protest, rather than made up motives and positions of a caricature in your head.

      The public should be fucking outraged that their leaders have claimed these powers for over 2 years. You should be livid that these leaders have continued to claim these powers despite their complete effectiveness in stopping the spread of COVID.

      If you really think yourself a libertarian, then *YOU* should be outraged about this pandemic policy, not acting squeamish because people who agree with you might be (gasp) conservatives. Either the policy is right or wrong.

      "But conservatives are *by far* the more extreme authoritarians."

      Polls indicate that Republicans and Independents reject- by large majority- the idea that the government ought to police speech to stop "misinformation". Democrats support it. Democrats are also unique in their trust of federal institutions like the FBI, CIA, CDC and IRS.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5GiuWJqYJg

      Democrats are the ones who overwhelmingly support mandates that children cover their faces and get needles stuck in their arms. That's the Left. Not independents. Not Conservatives.

      But NONE of that should matter. At the end of the day, your desire to automatically lump "protests against infringement with our freedoms" with Conservatives (even though these protests are also popular with libertarians and independents) shows that you are exactly the person these politicians want you to be.

    3. complete lack of left libertarianism here, and nearly every commenter here is a simple right-auth Republican being edgy

      Most of the Peanuts here reject the classical liberalism of Hayek and embrace the populist Trump Cult.

      It is a sad reflection on this site.

      1. We've been over this. You aren't a classical liberal.

        1. But he IS a pedophile.

      2. Trump's views are a lot closer to libertarian than anything the Democratic party offers.

        Trump's border enforcement is widely criticized by left-leaning libertarians but the open-borders proponents fail to show how an open borders policy can possibly lead to a more libertarian US with all of the socialist policies in place and with immigrants tending to vote against libertarian ideas and candidates.

      3. Your lack of incarceration for child pornography is a sad reflection on this site.

    4. "Peanuts" explained - the editor in chief of Reason called the comment section "the Peanut Gallery".

      1. What do they of creeps who post links to child porn?

        1. “Think”

    5. "Democrats have their own problems with authoritarianism and being anti-freedom, but conservatives pretending to be the party of freedom is fucking delusional."

      In a scientific experiment, if the test results contradict your hypothesis, changing the test results to match your hypothesis isn't the right thing to do. You're supposed to change your hypothesis to match the data. Your hypothesis doesn't seem to be accounting for Biden's White House flagging posts and accounts for Facebook to censor and deplatform, and it doesn't seem to account for Joe Biden siccing the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards either.

      The fact is that the progressives who control the Democratic party are openly hostile to free speech if the speech contradicts their preferred narrative, which is exactly what they're talking about when they're talking about "misinformation". When the Democrats are openly advocating censorship and siccing the FBI's terrorism task force on parents for opposing their local school boards, arguing that they're the party of civil liberties is what comes across as delusional.

      . . . and the definition of "delusional" being someone who believes things despite all evidence to the contrary is a pretty good one. Are you aware of what happened to Parler? Do you support deplatforming platforms because of the speech of the people on that platform, and if so, do you still consider yourself a champion of civil liberties anyway?

      1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

        ----First Amendment

        Does anybody see anything in there about how the right to free speech doesn't extend to "misinformation"?

        Does anybody see anything about how the right to assemble is only protected if the protest is not against progressives?

        Can anyone explain how the Democrats can somehow be both openly hostile to the First Amendment and the champions of civil rights?

        1. "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security even latched on to the protest as a justification for its ongoing fretting about domestic dissent."

          "Dissent" being a key word. Read the article, and it sure looks like an enforcement of right think to me. And to do that a government must first establish parameters of what is and is not acceptable, and then marginalize and demonize those who do not fall in line.
          I knew when those fools stormed the capitol last year that they gave a tremendous gift to our betters in the form of the word "insurrectionist." Add to that most of MSM is more than happy to serve as their propagandists.

        2. "Can anyone explain how the Democrats can somehow be both openly hostile to the First Amendment and the champions of civil rights?"

          To answer your rhetorical question:

          The Democrats view of civil rights is not the civil rights defined in the BOR. To Democrats "civil rights" means imposing equity of outcome across race/gender/etc. BOR is irrelevant.

    6. The left is banning books far more than the right. Very few on the right voice support for banning gay marriage (last decade wants it's talking points back). The laws on voting are not a loss of freedom, unless you think have transparency is a loss of freedom.
      The left is openly using tech companies to suppress, cancel and get people fired if they don't toe the line. The left is openly calling to jail people for their personal views. The left is in favor of using government power to destroy people who disagree with them. The left is openly trying to nationalize all elections in a way that benefits the left. The left is openly trying to control every facet of our daily lives. The left is openly saying parents shouldn't have a say in their childrens' education and that teachers should have more power than parents. The left is openly trying to divide and segregate people by skin color. The left is openly trying to curtail multiple individual rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The left is openly trying to end federalism.
      There isn't any comparison. On abortion, is it freedom to kill an individual human being? Because that is what the right believes, that abortion is killing a unique, individual human being for the convenience of another human being.
      I am not a Republican, voted LP last two elections, but it is obvious to anyone paying attention who is the true threat to freedom, and it isn't the right.

      1. Very few on the right voice support for banning gay marriage (last decade wants it's talking points back).

        Even at that, it's an apples v. bananas 'gay marriage vs. talking about homosexuality or organizing gay rights protests online' comparison. It's not like conservatives were saying anything like 'You have to have a gay card or a weekly HIV tests in order to show up for work.'

  7. "This may help explain why generally peaceful Canada birthed the rebellious Freedom Convoy . . . . That's not to say the Freedom Convoy hasn't had an impact south of the border. It effectively flipped the positions prominent Americans take on political demonstrations."

    ----J.D. Tuccille

    The bigger picture has to do with the effectiveness of Biden and the progressives's authoritarian response to protest activity since January of 2021. You simply cannot organize a protest like this in the United States anymore. Facebook won't allow it and neither will Twitter. Parler was pushed off its host, kicked off the app stores, etc.

    Meanwhile, the Biden administration has sicced the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for opposing their local school boards, and been quite public about it in an attempt to scare would-be protesters into silence. The reason these kinds of protests haven't emerged in the United States is because the government, here, has actively suppressed the right to protest.

    And the reason the right has become more concerned about the right to protest is because their right to protest (and their right to organize protests online) has been repressed by the government. We have a one party government in the United States that is doing its best to enforce conformity of thought. It is hostile to free speech, and it will not suffer protest gladly.

    1. To make something like that work here, you really need the tow truck operators refusing to tow vehicles. Then it works.

      Perhaps the 495 beltway around DC can be....congested for months.

      1. You can't even get to that point if people can't organize a protest on social media. And there's no way Facebook, Twitter, or any of the others will let you do that on their platforms right now. Truth social is supposed to launch one week from today, and my bet is that the progressives will shut it down before anyone can use it to organize a protest.

        . . . but I've been betting on that since before the trucker protest started. The progressives have been repressing protest for over a year now on social media and elsewhere. Biden sicced the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for opposing their local school boards because he doesn't want people protesting. That's the whole point.

        1. My bet is TRUTH Social will be much more restrictive than their promotion has led people to expect, and that they will eventually go broke through their own incompetence and lack of wide appeal and advertising base.

          1. So much evil within you.

          2. Yes, we know you have TDS. You don’t need to keep reminding us.

          3. How much?

            1. She won’t really make a bet, she’s just shitting up the thread with her squawking.

      2. The problem is that congestion is the baseline for 495, so I’m not sure anyone would notice.

    2. “You simply cannot organize a protest like this in the United States anymore.”

      Yet, somehow there were protests galore in the Sixties, with the closest thing to the Internet being mimeograph machines and bulletin boards.

      1. THE FUNNIEST PART is that all those protestors from the 60s are now the diabetic, progressive boomers who want to shur down the MISINFORMATIONZZZZ

        1. Well they are in charge [of universities, the media, and government bureaucracies] now. And when you've attained that measure of control, protesting just isn't what it used to be any more.

      2. Because the news media was unbiased and reported on them.

        Unlike our current government controlled corporate media which refused to cover the freedom convoy until it began affecting us imports, has banned the most recent presidential from nearly all platforms, refuses to cover his rallies even though their attendance is higher than fugly maddows viewership, refused to cover hunters laptop, refuses to cover the hillary/dnc/fbi corruption in the Russia hoax, refuses the cover faucis ties to the nih funding in Wuhan, etc etc etc.

        It's too bad you're too stupid to understand that.

    3. “Meanwhile, the Biden administration has sicced the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for opposing their local school boards…”

      Not all that accurate, since you are leaving three details out:
      - The FBI memo was about following up on serious threats, not just someone yelling at a school board meeting.
      - The FBI publicly backed down.
      - Before the FBI backed down, they never actually sic’d themselves on anyone.

      1. The DOJ got caught. That's why they didn't sic themselves on anyone.

      2. So, you are justifying the actions of the government because their garbage plan was found out and caused an outcry resulting in the government capitulating to political pressures?

        The concept that as long as the government doesn't get caught they can do awful stuff is a strange libertarian position to take.

        1. I’m not justifying anything. I’m just pointing out Ken’s deliberate distortion of the facts.

          My opinion, which you could ask instead of trying to supply yourself, was that the whole episode ended up being a pointless rhetorical war between Red and Blue teams, in which nothing actually happened. Just a lot of posturing and talk from left and right.

          Ken distorts what actually happened/is happening when he say the FBI is (present tense) being sic’d on parents:

          https://reason.com/2022/02/14/canadas-freedom-convoy-embodies-fatigue-with-pandemic-authoritarianism/?comments=true#comment-9354041

        2. I should explain why it was rhetoric and posturing on the part of the Biden Administration: the FBI’s job is already to investigate violent threats, they didn’t need a memo about it.

          1. So, unconstitutional authoritative posturing by the government to purposefully scare parents and intimidate people is totes cool as long as the government doesn't actually follow through with the threats?

            Again, you take bizarre libertarian positions.

            1. You are putting words in my mouth when you say it is "totes cool". I don't think it was "totes cool" at all. It was wrong.

              Again, I was pointing out how Ken is trying to distort the facts.

              1. Your statement: "My opinion, which you could ask instead of trying to supply yourself, was that the whole episode ended up being a pointless rhetorical war between Red and Blue teams, in which nothing actually happened."

                The problem about being so wishy washy on every subject is that when you take a position, you still claim that you didn't take a position. So, either stand by your claims or don't post them. But this crap of pretending like you didn't take a position after you took a position is just embarrassing.

                1. "... the whole episode ended up being a pointless rhetorical war between Red and Blue teams, in which nothing actually happened."

                  Where in that did I say that Team Blue's statements were "totes cool"?

                  1. I hate this game. It just amazes me how many people are comfortable playing dumb in order to avoid the illogic of their positioning.

                    You didn't specifically say the government (funny you refer to government as Team Blue) statements were "totes cool." I paraphrased from your positioning.

                    You explained that the actions of the government ended up being a "a pointless rhetorical war between Red and Blue." Ignoring your terrible and incorrect framing of being a pointless rhetorical war, you clearly are minimizing and excusing the actions of the government. Thus, your position is that the actions of the government were no big deal. And you predicated this idea on the fact the government didn't follow through with it's plans sufficiently enough to qualify as concerning for you.

                    So again, your position is that unconstitutional authoritative posturing by the government to purposefully scare parents and intimidate people is totes cool as long as the government doesn't actually follow through with the threats.

                    It's a tough world when you try and make a point and then run from the point you made. I suggest you stop doing it.

                    1. “ you clearly are minimizing and excusing the actions of the government”

                      No, I am not. And I don’t see how you are getting that from what I said.

                    2. “and then run from the point you made”

                      I’m not. You keep trying to put words in my mouth that go way beyond what I actually said.

                    3. Mike Liarson is a squawking bird named Dee and should be treated as such.

                    4. Mike,
                      Good lord. Here is your comment one more time for the slow of learning: "My opinion, which you could ask instead of trying to supply yourself, was that the whole episode ended up being a pointless rhetorical war between Red and Blue teams, in which nothing actually happened."

                      Grow a fucking pair and learn to stand behind your own position. Jesus.

          2. So why did the doj put out the memo then? Why did they begin collecting information on regular citizens for attending public school board meetings? and why did the Biden admin tell the nat fed of teachers to write their doj a letter saying teachers felt scared, which the nat fed of teachers then had to retract after it was discovered the Biden admin instructed them to write it?

            It's literally the same playbook as the Russia hoax. Make a fake claim, force an outlet to publish it (here the teachers, in the Russia hoax it was the NYT), then say "look they published this! Corroborating evidence! We should investigate it!"

            1. The DOJ did not put out the memo. It was the national school board association. And do you not think people who make statements like this should be looked into?

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

              or those being threatened with "we will find you" should be concerned about their safety?
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmtfFAqUwtI

              1. You realize the DOJ requested the letter to be created and disseminated, right?

                1. DeAnnP was sent here by some left wing propaganda outfit, is my guess.

                  1. So those who agree with you are just regular ol' Patriots engaging in conversation but those who don't agree with you must be part of some widespread organized propaganda outfit. LMAO.

                    1. No, just people who are so blind to reality. When you profess stuff that is so antithetical to what actually happened, you are either a fully blown tribalist or you are being required to act such a way.

                    2. Lots of people I disagree with aren’t paid to be here. You seem to be though.

                  2. "DeAnnP was sent here by some left wing propaganda outfit, is my guess."

                    And the progressive siccing the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for protesting against their local school boards is indefensible. That progressives are still defending it is another reason why progressives are America's most horrible people.

                    Biden and the progressive siccing the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for protesting against the policies of their elected leaders is a fundamental assault on democracy.

                    1. So are there actually any instances were parents were questioned or "sicced" on by the FBI? That poor little frail mother from Virginia was charged by the Luray Police Department for her mere "protesting". But who exactly has the FBI contacted, anyone know?

                    2. DeAnnP,

                      Nice, moving into the playing dumb portion of the standard progressive retort playbook. Well done!

                      Quick question for you: would you have been cool with William Barr at Trump's behest seeking a letter from school officials in order to provide to the DOJ so that the DOJ could begin investigating "unruly" Democrat parents?

                    3. "Nice, moving into the playing dumb portion of the standard progressive retort playbook. Well done!"

                      Why do they always brag about how stupid they are?

                      Don't they realize that makes them look . . . stupid?

                    4. People paid to post bullshit don’t care if they look stupid.

                2. LOL says who? The white house asking for documentation on details on the types of threats so it can be sent to DOJ equates the DOJ "disseminating" said memo? Bottom line, the DOJ did not put the memo, and wackos were threatening school board members.

                  1. Progressives use doubletalk because the truth is so embarrassing for them!

                    "In newly obtained emails between National School Boards Association board members Marnie Maldonado and Kristi Swett dated October 5-6, 2021, Ms. Swett —an officer of the NSBA board currently serving as secretary-treasurer —asserts that Chip Slaven (who was, at the time, the interim executive director of NSBA) “told the officers he was writing a letter to provide information to the White House, from a request by Secretary Cordona” [sic].

                    "This is the first such mention of Secretary Cardona’s involvement in the creation of the NSBA’s since-retracted letter requesting federal intervention in school board issues."

                    You can read the emails obtained through a FOIA request for yourself, here:

                    https://defendinged.org/press-releases/new-foia-document-asserts-nsba-letter-was-drafted-at-request-of-education-secretary/

                    And, no, there isn't anything acceptable about the Biden administration asking the interim CEO of the NSBA for a letter--that asks the Biden administration to sic the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards.

                    The reason they defend it is because progressives are America's most horrible people.

                    1. So I see mention of the education secretary and members of the NSBA and the white house. I am not seeing Garland or the DOJ in those emails. If I missed it, please point it out to me.

                    2. DeAnnP,

                      Did you miss Garland's public speech about the letter and this matter?

                      How dumb are you gonna play to try and avoid the obvious?

                    3. That's not "playing"; that piece of lefty shit is D-U-M, dumb.

              2. 1) The NSBA officially apologized for the letter.

                https://www.nsba.org/News/2021/letter-to-members

                2) Emails obtained through FOIA requests revealed that the White House told the acting CEO what to write in that letter. That letter was signed by the acting CEO of the NSBA, but it was effectively written on NSBA stationary to the White House by the White House.

                Shameful.

                1. Again...the DOJ or Garland was involved in "putting out that memo" how exactly?

                  1. Biden's Education Secretary sent a phony letter to Biden by way of the NSBA, asking for Biden's Attorney General to get the Biden administration's FBI involved, and you can't figure out why this has something to do with Biden?

                    It's like you're bragging about being stupid.

                    Why, I'm so stupid, I don't understand why Joe Biden should be held accountable for the behavior of Biden's Education Secretary or Biden's Attorney General!

                    Are you to stupid to know what the president's job is? Are you really too stupid to understand why people might hold the president responsible for what his Education Secretary and Attorney General do? You know we're talking about the Education Secretary in the United States, the Attorney General of the United States, and the President of the United States, right? If you're too stupid to understand why Biden might be responsible for what the people in his administration do, you are really, truly, epic stupid.

                  2. See Inquisitive Squirrel's reply above. Or rather let me quote him here:

                    DeAnnP,

                    Did you miss Garland's public speech about the letter and this matter?

                    How dumb are you gonna play to try and avoid the obvious?

            2. and Russia hoax? LOL Wondering if someone can explain to me the email to Junior about the meeting that he first denied, then said oh it was about adoption, and then oh okay, it actually was about dirt on Hillary, it literally says the Russian Govt supported Trump

              On June 3, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

              Good morning

              Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

              The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

              This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump—helped along by Aras and Emin.

              What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

              I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

              Best

              Rob Goldstone

              On June 3, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

              Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

              Best,

              Don

              1. Wait, you still believe the in the Russia collusion hoax?

                1. Wait, you are avoiding addressing the content of the email?

                  1. There isn't anything acceptable about the Biden administration asking the interim CEO of the NSBA for a letter--that asks the Biden administration to sic the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards.

                    It takes a truly horrible person to defend any aspect of this for any reason, but it doesn't surprise me to see progressives defending it--progressives are, after all, America's most horrible people. Is there another way to explain why you'd defend the Biden administration siccing the FBI on parents for opposing their local school boards?

                    Here, I'll give you an example of what non-horrible people do when the president does something they don't like:

                    "Trump was wrong about trade with China, immigration, and Section 230. I support trade with China. I support letting Mexican citizens cross our borders without a visa, and I support Section 230. Trump was wrong about all three, and I oppose his positions on those issues."

                    ----Ken Shultz

                    You see? It's really not that hard. All you have to do is be honest about your criticism of the president. Now you try. Go ahead and tell us something you don't like about Joe Biden. I doubt you will. I doubt you can! I mean, if you won't oppose Joe Biden and the progressives for siccing the FBI on parents for opposing their local school board meetings, what would you oppose from Joe Biden?

                    Go ahead and type it. I dare you.

                    "Joe Biden was wrong to sic the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for opposing their local school boards".

                    1. 1) Biden is not the DOJ.
                      2) If the FBI was actually ever sicced on anyone for "opposing" local school boards, it would be wrong. If snowflakes freaking out about masks are threatening the lives of school board members or threatening to bring all their guns to school as in the video's I posted above were "sicced" on...not a damn thing wrong with it.

                    2. "1) Biden is not the DOJ."
                      The DOJ works under direction of Biden.

                      "2) If the FBI was actually ever sicced on anyone for "opposing" local school boards, it would be wrong..."
                      The FBI did so on its own.

                      You.
                      Are.
                      Full.
                      Of.
                      Shit.

                    3. "1) Biden is not the DOJ.
                      2) If the FBI was actually ever sicced on anyone for "opposing" local school boards, it would be wrong. If snowflakes freaking out about masks are threatening the lives of school board members or threatening to bring all their guns to school as in the video's I posted above were "sicced" on...not a damn thing wrong with it."

                      This is stupid.

                      It has no basis in fact.

                      It has no logic.

                      Suggesting that we shouldn't blame Biden for the policies of his Attorney General is stupid.

                      Objectively, she's a ridiculous idiot.

                    4. P.S. Where's the criticism of Biden for . . . anything?

                      I knew she couldn't say anything bad about Biden. She wouldn't even say anything bad about Biden on a dare!

                      It's like arguing with a six-day creationist or a Moonie. If she can't think of anything bad to say about any particular politician, she should go to some kind of cult deprogrammer or a shrink.

                  2. DeAnnP,
                    I don't have to avoid it. The freaking special counsel thought nothing of it. You know, the $30 million investigation that landed flat on its face when it was clear there was no Russia collusion. But you're right, the entire DOJ apparatus going after Trump couldn't come up with the smoking gun that you think you have. LOL!

              2. What are your thoughts on the Clinton campaign hacking Trump's internet activity on the campaign trail and while he was President?

                1. He/she will just claim no hacking occurred.

          3. There were no terrorist threats towards school boards. Just some angry parents. How is that federal jurisdiction?

      3. One wonders why the FBI had to "back down" from anything if they weren't actually doing anything in the first place. But Mike is intentionally trying to gas light us. As was reported by Reason at the time, there was no epidemic of "serious threats" that required a Federal Response. No one was asking for help. The entire scheme was cooked up BY THE WHITE HOUSE, who privately asked the NSBA to write the letter.

        It is also noteworthy that the DOJ's Press Release noted that they were setting up a task force including "Criminal Division, National Security Division, Civil Rights Division, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, the FBI, the Community Relations Service and the Office of Justice Programs," to setup tools for prosecution and training to local boards on how to "understand the type of behavior" that could be reportable to them.

        These were local protests where the local law enforcement was not screaming for help. The NSBA wasn't even screaming for help- they were solicited by the government themselves. For the government to suddenly claim that it thinks they need to weaponize the entire justice department to address "threats" is chilling. And for Mike to deny that with his "they weren't really doing anything, and they backed down anyways" gas lighting is revisionist history to the fullest. But as we know, that is nothing new for Mike.

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

        (That's just one example of Mike claiming something completely contrary to what he was pushing a few days earlier.)

        1. Mike is evil.

          1. Dee is a lying cunt.

        2. Ding ding. Winner! Down goes deelion mikejefftard! Down goes deelion mikejefftard!

    4. "The reason these kinds of protests haven't emerged in the United States is because the government, here, has actively suppressed the right to protest."

      Not just the government, but The Left in general. Just look at fafalone's post above. The media, the government and anyone else with "followers" has done everything in their power to associate skepticism of the leviathan with "white supremacy". To object is to put a target on your back and be canceled. Diversity Equity and Inclusion offices have made it extremely risky to push back on "equity" programs that seem to intersect pretty well with creeping socialist policies.

      I agree that the Biden administration has been a villain here- and the largest considering that it is a villain with guns. But the media's ability to target people for cancelation is doing enormous damage all on its own to suppress speech.

      1. "Not just the government, but The Left in general. Just look at fafalone's post above. The media, the government and anyone else with "followers" has done everything in their power to associate skepticism of the leviathan with "white supremacy"

        I think the part of this that matters is that the social media companies are suppressing speech at the behest of government. Since January 6, the progressive party and the federal government are one in the same thing, and these companies are taking their order from the progressives for that reason. They're under threat of having their companies broken up for tolerating "misinformation". It is much worse since the Democrats took control of the White House and the Senate, and it won't get better until the Democrats are no longer in control of the government.

      2. Look what they did to Parler!

      3. Not just the administration and media, but plenty of little activists and corporate America too.
        Twitter nuked all the posts about it, but last night givesendgo got hacked and donors names, addresses, license plates, employers were spread by thousands of little stazi activists cheering for them to be retaliated against for donating a few bucks to anti mandate protests.
        I say again: remain peaceful at your own peril.

        1. We’re past the point where where Americans can tolerate the continued existence elf the democrat party.

    5. Yeah, as soon as US truckers tried using FB to organize their own protest, FB banned it immediately. The DHS put out multiple alerts, Biden called Trudeau and threatened him if Trudeau didn't stop the protests. The media had a melt down. What they don't realize is that Americans see all these actions for what they are, and the blatant partisanship. There is a reason FB is crumbling, I suspect Twitter is too, but it's far more secretive about releasing such information. And you are right about what happened to Parler, it blows the whole just build your own alternative out of the water.

      1. "And you are right about what happened to Parler, it blows the whole just build your own alternative out of the water."

        Trump's social media platform is supposed to go live a week from today, and we'll see what happens with it.

        There won't be any excuses about private property when the government moves to shut down Trump's social media company down for tolerating speech--despite the fact that he owns the social media company.

        1. They aren’t going to do anything to it.

          1. They'll try.

            1. “That’s not speech!” -the left

          2. Sure they will. When they do, you will dutifully be supporting their narrative. As you always do.

    6. Why does one have to have twitter or facebook access to organize? Why would it be okay to force a platform to host something on its social media site? If a cause is that important, then they can set up their own sites; i.e.,

      https://www.letthembreathe.net/

      https://defeatthemandatesdc.com/

      Most sane rational people have no problem with people protesting anyone. But when BLM blocks highways or freedom convoy truckers block highways, shut them down.

      It's so odd to me to see the hypocrisy in people angry that these truckers are finally being arrested are the same who cheered Florida passing a law that if you run over a protester its okay. I watched right wingers cheer over a 70-something year old protester getting his skull cracked open by soldiers for standing on steps of city hall in Buffalo, then be mad because people who smashed and crawled through windows and wiped their shit all over the walls of the capitol are being taken to task for it. Or laugh as the Wall of Moms got tear gassed, and made excuses for NYPD kettling tactics. Are you seriously going to say those folks i mentioned above, those protesting the killing of citizens by government police officers were no being "repressed" by the government while protesting?

      1. "Why does one have to have twitter or facebook access to organize? Why would it be okay to force a platform to host something on its social media site?"

        Why do people create straw men?

        Social media has been the primary nexus for protest (world wide) since before the Arab Spring ten years ago. You're not suggesting that killing the primary means by which protests are organized has no impact on the ability of protests to be organized, are you? And that wasn't the only way Biden and the progressives have actively discouraged protests. They also, for instance, public sicced the FBI's terrorism unit on parents for protesting against their local public school boards. Is this the first time you've heard of the chilling effect? Because that's been a feature of case law on the First Amendment since the 1950s.

        And who said anything about forcing someone to put anything on their social media site? We're talking about the Democrats using the coercive power of government to force social media to keep speech and accounts off of their social media platform.

        Is the first time you've heard that Lina Khan at the FTC is suing to break up Meta into three companies under the argument that Facebook's tolerance for "misinformation" is a symptom of a lack of competition? Are you unaware that both Psaki and Biden, himself, have confirmed that Biden's White House flags specific posts and accounts for Facebook to ban?

        1. You created the strawman. " The bigger picture has to do with the effectiveness of Biden and the progressives's authoritarian response to protest activity since January of 2021. You simply cannot organize a protest like this in the United States anymore. Facebook won't allow it and neither will Twitter. Parler was pushed off its host, kicked off the app stores, etc."

          Why mention Biden with the decisions Facebook and Twitter and Parler are making. Being denied access to certain privately owned websites does not mean denied access to communicate over the internet. I provided 2 examples of ways of groups/movements getting out their information without the use of the above-mentioned platforms. Strawman.

          "The reason these kinds of protests haven't emerged in the United States is because the government, here, has actively suppressed the right to protest."

          How has the government here actively suppressed the right to protest? Strawman.

          1. "Why mention Biden with the decisions Facebook and Twitter and Parler are making."

            Read the comment you're responding to, you idiot.

            1. Like I said...You created the strawman.

              1. Do you really not understand what Ken is saying?

                Ken is alleging that the government is coercing Big Tech to censor people it wants censored. In case you were unaware, this has long been recognized by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment.

                Also in case you weren't aware, what you are accusing Ken of doing is not a strawman. A strawman is when you unfairly describe your opponent's arguments, to make it easier for you to counter. Ken is not summarizing anyone's arguments. He is making his own argument- that these companies can no longer be viewed as operating as private businesses, since they are currently being threatened by the government.

                1. She asked why I was mentioning Biden and the progressives regarding the decisions Facebook and Parler are making--in a response to a comment about how Biden's FTC chair is fighting to break up Facebook over its tolerance for "misinformation" and after the White House confirmed that it's flagging content and users for Facebook to ban. Her response to my post just shows that she's so blind, she can't understand what she reads. The White House spokesperson announcing that they're flagging content for Facebook to ban apparently isn't good enough evidence that Biden is interfering in Facebook's censorship policies?! If she doesn't understand what I'm saying, she's either too dumb to understand or she doesn't want to understand. She's probably just another shit posting troll, and we should probably treat her as such.

  8. Before Reason staff can really get on board with what's really happening and why, I suppose they first need to admit to themselves that Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others are working on behalf of the progressive government. Until they're willing to accept that, they're not dealing with the real world. The shots simply aren't being called by private property owners anymore--not since the Democrats took control of both the White House and the Senate.

    The government using its coercive power on private contractors to force them to violate our First Amendment rights (or else) is not an excellent example of principled libertarian property rights in action. That was a principled argument before January 6, before the results of the Senate runoff elections from Georgia came in. The government using the threat of antitrust to force Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and others to deplatform whole platforms was a disgrace to the First Amendment.

    We won't whether any of these private companies are making choices for themselves anymore--instead of under threat from the government--until the progressives no longer control the House, the Senate, and the White House, all at the same time. Maybe they're doing what they're doing because that's what they want to do, but there's no way to tell so long as the progressives are holding a gun to their heads.

    1. Glad you're here to tell Reason what they're supposed to care about.

      1. Glad you're here to deflect away from any criticism of Biden and dems authoritarianism.

      2. Never mind that Ken won’t even address the question of whether Twitter, for example, is simply voluntarily aligned with the Biden Administration because of the liberal views of its management and employees.

        Or considering that Facebook may be as much driver of proposed restrictive laws, as it is victim of coercion.

        Or that all these companies are international, not just serving the US market, and have to please advertisers.

        Or that Twitter is total fluff with no competitive moat at all, and nobody on God’s green earth actually needs to communicate in little 280-character posts. And that most people don’t use Twitter.

        1. "Never mind that Ken won’t even address the question of whether Twitter, for example, is simply voluntarily aligned with the Biden Administration because of the liberal views of its management and employees."

          This is Mike gas lighting again. This is exactly what Ken just fucking addressed. The whole last paragraph from Ken says that we cannot tell one way or the other as long as the government is holding a gun to their head. But Mike is trying to throw up any interference he can because he isn't here to discuss things, just to troll.

      3. Despite Ken’s verbosity, when you distill down what he is actually saying it isn’t nuanced at all: (1) progressives are evil, (2) everyone should vote Republican.

        1. Notice that in two consecutive posts, Mike quite clearly lies about Ken's positions. In his post above, he brought up an argument that Ken had already addressed, and then in his second post he lies about what Ken said. He isn't even reading Ken's posts, but he is here to explain to us what he means.

          1. Mike is evil.

            1. Mike is the Powder River, a mile wide and an inch deep. He lacks the ability to do anything resembling critical thinking.

              1. And you're soooooo deeeeeep.....

                1. Deeper than either you or Mike. The love fest and need to protect each other and attack anyone who disagrees with either of you, pile up on anyone who disagrees with either of you, the trolling you both do is simply not the acts of people willing to listen to others. It is intellectually dishonest.

          2. Actually Mike summed up Ken's post perfectly.

            We won't whether any of these private companies are making choices for themselves anymore--instead of under threat from the government--until the progressives no longer control the House, the Senate, and the White House, all at the same time.

            You're telling me that Ken is not saying "Progressives are evil! Vote Republican!" in that sentence?

            I know you've got a personal beef with Mike, but he is right sometimes.

            1. I think he's saying the words inside the quotation marks.

              Which infer that democrats probably have undue influence over the media but we'll never know until someone other than democrats has subpoena or investigate power in congress.

            2. No, if you think the opposite of Progressive is Republican only, that says more about you than Ken. It is also wrong and dishonest. Unless you are admitting that Republicans are the only party that is classically liberal or libertarian, left.

        2. Well he got the first part right

        3. he' right. democrats are completely evil -- to their core. they hate this country and everyone who isn't a leftist democrat. they are the enemy and must be opposed at all costs. if left alone they will destroy this country.

          1. You sure have a lot of hatred for democrats. You and Nardz should get together. Do some cleansing.

            1. Other than people like Manchin, there are very few Democrats, right now who deserve anything resembling respect. They are the opposite of anything classical liberals, libertarians, constitutionalists or federalists could support.

            2. And judging by the behavior of most Democrats how is just me wrong is his appraisal of their behavior? Once again you make a simplistic personal attack, bring up people who aren't even posting at this time. At this point in time you are no longer worth anything but the same behavior you do to others. At this point, it is no longer worth trying to debate you honestly. You troll others constantly. Launch personal attacks, sometimes completely unprovoked and then whine whenever anyone does the same to you. And yes, that is what it is, whining. It isn't amusing, it isn't sarcasm, it isn't anything but being thin skinned.
              You excuse your behavior by saying others started it. At this point it no longer matters. Because you not only continued it, but have ratcheted it up. You seem preoccupied with certain posters, to the point that you name them, even if they aren't posting. You openly list enemies. You knee jerkedly attack anyone who dares even suggest Republicans are better at this point in time than Democrats. You don't debate their points, you attack them personally, and often overtly misrepresent what they stayed. You imply evil intent, or dishonesty on their part. There is a reason no one except Mike and Jeff support you, or defend you. I have defended you and agreed with you in the past. But your bad behavior and dishonesty is no longer definsible. Very few posters any longer respect you. And I think deep down inside you realize this, that is why you have increasingly become so vehement in your posts.

      4. Have to protect Reason from any and all criticism no matter how accurate, right Sarc?

        1. Nah, I just like mocking people who feel like they should be the editor.

          1. No, you are white knighting and trying to gaslight us. You can't help but post shit like this whenever anyone criticizes your bible.

            1. I know I'm correct when I draw an emotional reaction like that.

              1. Or your drunk and think everyone is as emotional as you.

                I bet you're one of those alcoholics whose divorced because of it, but cry yourself to sleep with your family pictures from the 90s every night.

              2. It isn't emotional. There you go again dismissing honest criticism of your behavior as something they aren't and somehow disingenuous. I've been telling you this all day. Yet you continue to do the same behavior. You can't accept anything that resembles your definition of wrong think.

              3. And your claiming that you are right and by extension everyone else is wrong (something you do a lot) is a classical symptom of a variety of mental disorders, such as narcissism, delusional thinking, sociopathy, psychopathy etc. It doesn't make your case any stronger, it just makes you appear unhinged and thin skinned.
                You also refuse to engage anything people actually post. Instead you interpret it in the worst light possible and then engage that worst case interpretation. This is intellectually dishonest. It is also the actions of a sycophant and tribalist. It is also bordering on ad hominems. And yes, as a result people do do the same shit to you, because neither you nor Mike ever try to actually debate honestly and respectfully, so why would you expect anyone to treat you with respect?
                Additionally, you both have a knee jerk reaction to anyone who criticizes the left by playing whataboutism. You have openly defended partisan left-wingers like Buttplug. I am not saying you are left wing, but sometimes you certainly sound like you are giving them cover. You constant need to bring up Trump, or to attack Republicans, whenever anyone criticizes, even if it is justly deserved, the left, certainly appears to be providing cover for them. And I am not sure how aware you are this is how others perceive you.

              4. It’s a sign of your advancing alcoholism. Either seek help or give in and crawl into your bottle forever. Or at least until liver failure.

      5. Frankly, I wish reason writers would read the comment section, I doubt it would phase them, anymore than the comment section has touched your heart, sarcastic. But it would be nice to see the writers at least aware that their base has little respect for them.

    2. "We won't [know] whether any of these private companies are making choices for themselves anymore--instead of under threat from the government . . . "

      ----Ken Shultz

      Fixed.

    3. "Maybe they're doing what they're doing because that's what they want to do, but there's no way to tell so long as the progressives are holding a gun to their heads."

      You are far more generous about their motives than I am. I think it's more of an incestuous relationship than a coercive one. All of those platforms stand to gain substantially by toeing the government line, by way of favorable regulations that effectively squash meaningful competition, as well as a deaf-blind legal apparatus that leaves anyone damaged by these practices without meaningful recourse. All of the execs of all of those corporations got obscenely rich during the covid mania.

      While there is certainly a stick involved to some extent, I think the motivation is more the ENORMOUS piles of money available if the fall in line.

      Reason is more than willing to jump all over local licensing boards and trade associations for rent-seeking policies, but they'll turn a blind eye and pretend it's just a simple property rights issue here.

      1. They were all on the same page before Biden appointed Lina Khan to be the chair of the FTC.

        None of the Big Tech companies are on board with being broken up into little pieces or having their ability to make acquisitions restricted.

      2. It is worse than that. The revolving door between Democrats in government and the Social Media Giants and the media makes all three basically one organization.

      3. just like democrat controlled congress, corporate america is populated with uber leftists that agree with the censorship, blm riots, crt, dei, etc. these people are the useful idiots of the democrat party. they enable all the evil policy because they agree with it. sadly taking control of congress will not fix much.

        1. Companies like Apple and Disney would rather talk about gay marriage and racism than working conditions in Chinese factories or whether their films are made for the Chinese market.

          Their hand waving is meant to distract us.

          1. I went to watch Swiss family Robinson the other day and realized Disney now has a racism warning at the beginning basically saying "we depict Asian pirates and barbarians as Asian pirates and barbarians. We're sorry."

    4. The government using the threat of antitrust to force Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, and others to deplatform whole platforms was a disgrace to the First Amendment.

      We won't whether any of these private companies are making choices for themselves anymore--instead of under threat from the government--until the progressives no longer control the House, the Senate, and the White House, all at the same time.

      We lost the ability to know this circa 2010 when Joe Lieberman (I!) phoned up Amazon to have Wikileaks booted off their services. Quite arguable that it was well before this, but after, the fig leaf was off. Now it's just complaints about how much junk any/all sides can rub in your face before it's too much.

  9. "It effectively flipped the positions prominent Americans take on political demonstrations. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who denounced Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality that sometimes degenerated into violence as 'organized terror attacks,' "

    Yes, BOWF SIDEZZZZZZ definitely applies here, especially with all the rampant rioting and burning of cities that the truckers are doing.

    Initially, BLM enjoyed wide public support, but the promptly lost it when MANY of their protests degenrated into violence, and remained violent for several months. People died, including children. People were violently assaulted. Entire city blocks were destroyed, mostly in minority neighborhoods. Billions of dollars of property damage.

    Why is Reason incapable of covering this honestly, without having to draw half-assed comparisons between BLM and the truckers? They are not that same. The trucker convoy demonstrates that you can protest, "make people uncomfortable," and have ENORMOUS impact without violence.

    1. Mean honks, eh?

      Let's also note the disparity of response - Trudeau took a knee in solidarity with BLM, yet Castro Jr declared a state of emergency from his undisclosed bunker for a traffic jam.

      1. I can barely stand the sound of his voice. I’m surprised he hasn’t started sobbing at any of his press conferences. Trudeau is the epitome of a beta male pussy.

    2. And conservatives and "the right" never had issues with organized protest. The political right in the US has been against rioting and vandalism in the name of protest, while many on the left were defending the right to destroy property in the name of protest.

      In 2020 we were having to point out that riots are not an effective tactic for effecting social change because people on the left were saying it was necessary. If truckers started funding their protest by looting local business and burning down shopping centers, they would lose the political support they have from the right.

  10. Since both sides are on record both supporting and opposing the use of disruption in protests it's best we just look at the substance of the complaints.

    What is the complaint? That we don't have enough freedom amidst a virus that has killed upwards of a million on this continent? You wouldn't have people from Wisconsin engaging in this behavior because in Wisconsin everything is and has been wide open for a year now. The protesters have gotten more-or-less what they wanted from the beginning, or at least since May of 2020. They have installed our death panel policies that have traded their freedom for predictable death.

    On the other hand, we had BLM protesters protesting against state violence against people and a prison/probation complex that keeps millions of people in a state of semi-servitude and just a traffic stop away from violence or more lock up.

    Let's keep these comparisons in mind when writing these stories.

    1. Clit, this virus is a glorified cold.

      1. Colds don't kill millions of people. Your exaggerating in the dismissive direction isn't justified by others having exaggerated in the catastrophizing direction.

        1. They really do. Every single year.

            1. Do you have a cite regarding your request for a cite?

        2. Derp.

          Deelion mikejefftard has never looked at worldwide influenza deaths.

          Or the fact that if we calculated flu yearly or biannually like covid numbers, instead of seasonally, it'd look a lot worse too.

    2. Or maybe we could acknowledge that violence against innocent private citizens and mass destruction of private property might play a role in how each side views protests.

    3. A million people died with, but according to the CDC 3/4 of them had 4 or more co-morbidities. Many of them would have died within the last two years with or without COVID, statistically speaking. The BLM riots were based on a lie, that blacks were disproportionately killed by white cops. But when you look at this compared percentage of violent crimes committed by different populations, you find whites are actually killed disproportionately compared to their percentage of violent crime.
      Rather than focus on the bad parts of criminal justice, they made it about a false racial narrative. They even attacked people who supported criminal justice reform but rejected the false racial narrative. I am one of these. I support criminal justice reform, but reject BLM and the riots they spurred on. I reject their Marxist narrative, their racist narrative. You are correct there is no comparison, but your preferred protest is one actually lacking in moral authority. And this has nothing to do with supporting whites over blacks, because blacks and other minorities have been the hardest hit by these useless mandates (as the science is showing more and more each day).

      1. Soldier - "A million people died with, but according to the CDC 3/4 of them had 4 or more co-morbidities. Many of them would have died within the last two years with or without COVID, statistically speaking. .."

        Really? "Many"? Like how many and where in your colon did you pull this. Did you know that about 1/2 million die in America every year from cancer and about the same for heart disease. Wanna' bet how "many" would have died in 2 years anyway and is that cause for not seeking cures and treatments or having patients under multiple prescriptions, etc?

        I notice you don't mention the elephant in the covid room (of heart disease, cancer, and covid, it's the only one that is contagious by the way): In both red and blue states, new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are all driven by the unvaccinated. Is one of the co-morbidities you mention brain damage or genetic stupidity?

        1. Nice meaningless post. The mitigation efforts haven't done anything to stop the transmission or the deaths. They did delay some of them, but at a huge cost to society.
          Your example of seeking cures for cancer and heart disease aren't relevant, as we don't mandate behavior of free individuals, nor lock down society to treat those problems or until we find a cure. As for your assertion about the unvaccinated, they may make up the majority of cases, but even then the number of vaccinated who need medical assistance is significant and would still result in terrible costs to society and severely stress medical establishments. And calling people who disagrees with you, as brain damaged is just juvenile and not the sign of someone who can defend their position on its strengths. When you resort to demonization of your opponents, you realize the weakness of your position and the only alternative you have is to besmirch others. There is a reason ad hominems like that are called logical fallacies.

          1. You don't address the elephant soldier - hey I don't blame you given what it would lead an honest person to admit - if new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are driven by the unvaccinated in both red and blue states - they are and you can look it up - then those idiots are causing more infections (you can't spread it unless you catch it) and mitigation by promoting and mandating vaccines is slowing the spread. No, nothing "stops" it and you know it. then of course the unvaccinated have also been taking up beds in our hospitals and unfortunately many are dying there. We don't even know all that "long covid" does or how many have that.

            So, in summary, the unvaccinated are killing themselves - "Let's Go Darwin!" - taking up hospital beds for no good reason, taxing hospital resources and staff - I personally know very well two docs who treat them regularly - and increasing the spread of the contagious disease across the country.

            You are right that getting the unvaccinated vaccinated wil not "stop" covid. Nothing will and you know that .... I hope.

            You are right that cancer and heart disease are not contagious, but that argues for more concern for covid than those two diseases on which we spend billions.

            PS Of course you and the others here never insult your perceived political opponents - No! Never happened! - so I'll try to stick to your high standards and cool objective take.

            1. You get boosters and I'll not, then we can have a race.

              https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346

        2. What's your point? That we should have the same draconian level of restrictions to prevent cancer and heart disease?

          Let's ban all unhealthy foods, institute mandatory BMI checks and not let people into restaurants if their BMI is too high. Ban alcohol and all recreational drugs. Ban going to the beach on high UV-risk days. Have mandatory daily exercise for everyone. We're all in this together!

          1. Try reading slower justa - not what I said at all - but also try to use your brain: None of those are contagious at all and covid is highly contagious. No one trying to do what you facetiously suggest above for that reason, while the government has legitimate public health interest in contagious diseases as the SC ruled in 1905. Flouting rules and programs established for that purpose is no more "freedom" than crapping in the reservoir is.

            1. The behavior that leads to obesity and heart disease and many types of cancer - overeating, less exercise, etc. is certainly contagious. If we're going to justify draconian government controls on the basis of public health then we should start banning all sorts of unhealthy behavior.

              1. No, that behavior is not contagious.

                1. But it is genetically heritable and increases the likelihood of your children getting a hear attack, you fat fucking proto-child abuser.

            2. Your health is YOUR responsibility. Safe and effective vaccines have been available for over a year in the US. There is no reason to force rules on everyone. Individuals can choose to be reasonably safe from COVID if they want.

              1. justa, maybe you don't realize this, but when you were a kid, you almost certainly did get vaccines under a mandate which said no vax, no public school (and probably most private ones as well). That is still the case for universities and many other organizations and institutions. The SC ruled that states had this power in 1905 as a matter of public health, in which the state has a compelling interest.

                1. Children have no significant risk of death from WuFlu. This is universally accepted. So there is no compelling interest in vaccinating them.

            3. No you dragnet knock off, you did not call for us to be locked down in all ways (I kind of picture everyone inVR pods, like in the matrix.)

              It’s the only way to keep people from doing unsafe activities, getting unsafe information, getting unsafe foods. From living. But that is the end outcome, for this bizarre pushing for “safety“ at all cost continues, life is not safe, and you will be hurt, you will die. No matter what.

              You don’t understand the implications of “Safety at all costs”. People who give up freedom for safety, deserve (and will get) neither.

        3. Jesus fucking on a pogo stick, Barbie Jack you illiterate twat how many times do I have to cite the CDC with/of to you?

          Really, it's pathetic how you cling to bullshit.

          https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7014e2.htm

          1. From Salted's link:

            "These findings support the accuracy of COVID-19 mortality surveillance in the United States using official death certificates."

            1. And those certificates sayyyy...

              5.5% died OF Covid alone. The remaining 94.5% had... Multiple comorbidities.

              1. From your link salted which proves you don't understand what you are talking about.

                "These findings support the accuracy of COVID-19 mortality surveillance in the United States using official death certificates."

        4. The mRNA shot is not a vaccine. So there for no one is vaccinated. Again your full of shit Friday.
          The Phucko

      2. JFC....cant you make your point without having to lie. Your "stats" that you are attributing to the million deaths is WRONG. Those were the results of 1 study of a small portion of people who died, not everyone who died.

        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7101a4.htm?s_cid=mm7101a4_w#F2_downWhat is already known about this topic?

        COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective against COVID-19–associated hospitalization and death.

        What is added by this report?

        Among 1,228,664 persons who completed primary vaccination during December 2020–October 2021, severe COVID-19–associated outcomes (0.015%) or death (0.0033%) were rare. Risk factors for severe outcomes included age ≥65 years, immunosuppressed, and six other underlying conditions. All persons with severe outcomes had at least one risk factor; 78% of persons who died had at least four.

        1. C19 therapeutics WERE effective at reducing symptoms several variants ago.

          Sounds like a teensy bit less risk from a tiny risk to begin with, but hey, never mind astronomical increases in various forms of vascular and coronary disease associated with an unnecessary jab.

    4. LOL you guys keep pretending that you can stop covid instead of just adding lockdown deaths to covid deaths.

      1. That's completely false Elvis. Catching it, going to the hospital, and dying are more likely by significant amounts if you are unvaccinated and the odds increase with each of those 3 possibilities. Untold lives have already been saved and more could be if people weren't listening to crackpots.

        1. So I can take my horse paste, yeah?

          Or any other number of readily available treatment options, since nothing stops the spread, right?

          1. Vaccinations reduce the spread salted.

            1. Nope. They do not change viral loads in un/vax and it's aerosol borne. Been that way from the beginning. Symptoms only.

              1. Salted, this is simple. You have to catch it spread it. The unvaxxed are driving new cases everywhere. That's a fact.

            2. And why can't I take my horse paste regardless of that?

              Why did Pfizer withdraw it's pediatric vaccination plan, and why did Moderna's CEO dump $400m in stocks?

              Maybe heart attacks in kids totally not at risk from this is bad business?

        2. So I guess on your tombstone it will read; "It could've been worse". My my..., u r just a simpleton of a little man.
          The Phucko Knows

        3. Untold lives have already been lost due to you and your friends shouting down talk of, and preventing access to, cheap and effective therapeutics. It’s even worse than that, as liming patient choices, plus democrat coercion have forced many people to take the ‘vaccines’ unnecessarily. Which has caused dangerous, and sometimes lethal side effects.

          You and your democrat friends have an ocean of blood on your hands.

    5. '...Let's keep these *strawmen* in mind when writing these stories..."

      Fixed it for you shithead.

  11. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who denounced Black Lives Matter protests against police brutality that sometimes degenerated into violence as "organized terror attacks,"

    100 straight days of riots.

    What the fuck reason? 2 dozen killed. 2 billion in insurance claims.

    It wasn't a sometimes.

    How can you be so fucking narrative driven.

    1. Driven and committed. It's not like the usual, "Whoops, we said he got shot in the back when the released footage show he got shot in the front." It's known and understood that the riots killed dozens and destroyed billions in property. First time gun buyers, demographically, are on par with the general population. They already ran an article about how the BLM money has pretty much gone up in smoke. Whom do they think you're serving by continuing with the "BLM is mostly peaceful."? Even the "They serve the remaining Koch brother." doesn't make a whole lot of sense with the prior two statements as you're effectively telling black people that he doesn't care what they think.

      1. Whom do they think *they're* serving...

  12. "The U.S. Department of Homeland Security even latched on to the protest as a justification for its ongoing fretting about domestic dissent."

    "...domestic dissent." Now that is more chilling than the -0 F where I live.

    1. Gotta plant that seed now if it's gonna sprout by midterms.

    2. More chilling than "Homeland Security"?

  13. Best example of racism in policing- these fucks get to parade around days on end without issue. BLM protests more often than not were countered with tear gas and other measures.

    If you're going to argue that BLM protests were handled fine then these fucks should've had the same consequences but no no no, can't do that to conservative assholes.

    1. Yes, it's totally racist that the truckers haven't tried to burn Ottawa to the ground.

      Fucking idiot.

      1. Most Canadian drivers aren't white. Sikhs make up the largest majority of Canadian truckers.

        1. And they're sikhing an end to mandates.

          1. And today's Chumby Award goes to...

        1. It's sad that leftists can't even update their shitty false flag attempts that nobody bought anymore

    2. Best example of racism in policing

      "Chicago killed 24 mostly black people since Feb. 1, but fuck that noise, I've got some white people in my head that I've got to impugn for being racist."

    3. What is your most trusted news sourc?

    4. No, BLM protests were not handled fine. Those rioters should have been beaten down and locked up the minute they got out of control.

  14. It effectively flipped the positions prominent Americans take on political demonstrations.

    BLM: Sets fire to buildings. Lays siege to portions of major cities. Lawlessness ensues.
    Everyone except Tuccille: We support the right to peaceful protest, but we don't support this.
    Jan. 6th: Some windows were broken. Chairs were overturned. Feet were put up on desks.
    Everyone except Tuccille: We support the right to peaceful protest. This may've been disruptive, but it wasn't the same as rioters setting fire to a church.
    Canadian truckers: Literally parked trucks and nothing else happened.
    Everyone except Tuccille: We support the right to peaceful protest, and this looks like an exceedingly legitimate peaceful protest.
    Tuccille: Quit flip flopping on the peaceful protest issue!

    GTFOOH Tuccille.

    1. I admit to some conflict on blocking roads, but at least they do it in a way that doesn't involve unprotected pedestrians.

      It is an amazingly effective tactic to bring the issue to the table by choking the economy into submission.

  15. So powerful are the shock waves of this unprecedented uprising that they crossed the border and flipped the positions Americans of the left and right take on the legitimacy of political protest and suppression of the same.

    No they didn't. If the truckers were setting occupied buildings on fire, killing people and acting violently across the board I would completely support the RCMPs busing heads and clearing them out.

    1. It must be humiliating to be outed as the impotent, frigid cowards, incapable of an original thought, Reason is. Greenwald left the media organization he founded to make it on his own, a true free market, risk taking libertarian. Reason sucks billionaire dick for a paycheck.

      1. Yeah, wake the fuck up. It flipped the positions on the left 100%. And while I have no doubt that if you dragged the GOP lake, you'd find people who probably said that "blocking a street isn't legitimate protest" and those comments were completely divorced from the attendant violence of the BLM/Antifa actions during, well, all of 2020, most people on the right (the very few that I follow) have been very clear to point out the peaceful, non-violent nature of the protest.

        It's the left that's playing the "French Gendarme" game of calling the home office to find out which protest should be cleared and which ones should be allowed to continue.

  16. "Pandemic authoritarianism" is authoritarianism under the guise of public health.

    It was only an excuse, not the reason for their actions.

    1. Hitler did the EXACT same thing.

      Those Joos were a threat to Ayran genetics...
      somehow...

      He didnt know how they were a threat but they must have been, but he knew murdering them would eliminate the root cause.

      And thats all a Psychopath needs!

  17. "But some Canadians have been driven to revolt against that ruling class's pandemic policies in the form of the trucker-led Freedom Convoy. So powerful are the shock waves of this unprecedented uprising that they crossed the border and flipped the positions Americans of the left and right take on the legitimacy of political protest and suppression of the same"

    1. THATS the result of Marxism. Marxists will Marx....

    2. The Serfs on the Left figured out their leaders are the problem.

    It just takes pulling their heads out of their dead asses and looking around instead of being brainwashed into what to Bleat by the Lockstep Media.

    The compensation mechanism of oversimplification and relying on group thought collapses and there they are, face down in a pile of shit called " reality of their own making."

    HA ! ( Rocket J. Squirrel)

    Bidens got us into a war. As Democrats history shows itll take a R to get us out.

    Trump 2024.

  18. Cute but not funny: "Canada appears to be governed as you would expect of Wisconsin if California's snotty political class were exiled to Madison."

    1. Madison and California's snotty political class are pretty much one in the same. The difference being one side fatter and out of shape from all the time at the bar, and the other looking suave/metro/hipster with a tan.

  19. These idiot truckers do not care about freedom at all, they just all want to be fuckers to hurt others.

    1. That’s why they’re braving the cold for this. Goddamn you’re a twat. Now tell us how the BLM/antifa protests were based solely on principled convictions.

    1. Ffs, that was for Molly.

    2. some stupid fuck whining about EMPs

      Nothing says "crackpot" like that..

      1. It was the video, dave.

  20. "...There is no place in our country for threats, violence or hatred," Trudeau huffed..."

    Unless it's the government's.

    1. Alanis Morissette would be proud of such ironic prose.

  21. Mon Corps, Mon Choix.

    For you Quebecois...

  22. I’m a gay, black man and am GOP Proud like Milo and Caitlin. When I think of these freedom convoys I think of sticking my BBC out the windows and saying “FUUUUCCKKK YEAH!!”

    I surely can’t be the only one.

    Pandemic authoritarianism

    Unfortunately there’s nothing that will shrivel my BBC more than the phrase “pandemic authoritarianism.” When I hear that term I think of how badly it’s going for Sarah Palin and her completely justified libel case. Witness here:

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/media/sarah-palin-new-york-times-case-dismissed/index.html

    FUUUUUCK NO! Where’s Judge Trump Wingnut when you need them? Follow me, ok? Sarah Palin is just like any other working person in the country. Since the GOP is the party of the working man it only goes to figure that the GOP represents working interests more because of its stance defending this Every Man women.

    1. You are so bad at this, please retire already.

    2. You’re just embarrassing yourself.

  23. Given Trudeau just ended democracy in Canada, is it time the Wapo and NYT start the drum beat for sanctions and yes...intervention? We must defend democracy not just in the middle east and eastern Europe but at home right? Actually, sanctions on Canadian politicians and firms that supported the issuing of martial law should occur.

    1. Biden fucking told him to do this.

      1. Probably threatened him if he didn’t. Trudeau is a huge pussy, so he probably whined and groveled.

    2. Indeed, Titus, indeed. But Biden, Kamala, and nearly all democrats are tyrants. This Trudeau martial law order sets a precedent that serves American dems well.

      1. At this point, does anyone really dispute that the democrat party is a mortal threat to American freedom?

  24. The asshole Trudeau is now flipping his hair off to the side and claiming "emergency powers".
    Grease-ball Newsom must have been on the phone.

  25. Oh hey, boosters lost efficacy against all variants within four months - sounds like three to foir

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.