Jared Polis: Democrats Are 'More Pro-Freedom Than Republicans'
The Colorado governor finds common ground with many libertarians. But does he really stand for more freedom?

Colorado has a popular Democratic governor, Jared Polis.
He's a rare Democrat who says, "I'm for more freedom and lower taxes."
But is he really?
At least he's willing to come to Stossel TV to debate.
Refreshingly, Polis supports charter schools. He even founded two. Unfortunately, his state's school choice program only applies to government schools. Florida, Arizona, Utah, Indiana, West Virginia, Iowa, and Arkansas now help parents send their kids to any school.
When I tell Polis that Colorado lags, he responds, "I'm not a fan of these voucher programs with no accountability where it can be Joe's Taco Shop and K-8 academy and they're getting taxpayer money."
But it's not true that independent schools have "no accountability." They are accountable to parents, which is better than being "accountable" to sleepy government bureaucrats.
His state also launched universal preschool. But why? Even the much-praised Head Start program doesn't help kids. A federal study found that by third grade, there was no difference between those who attend Head Start and those who don't.
"Why fund something that makes no difference?" I ask.
Polis responds: "High-quality early childhood education leads to better outcomes."
It probably would. But rarely does government offer "high quality."
Another Polis mistake: He supported a higher tax on vape products.
"Vaping saves lives," I point out. "It's better than smoking."
"Even though vaping has been effective in helping people get off of smoking," Polis responds, "it's also led to more nicotine addiction, especially among young people."
But nicotine isn't what kills.
At least, when it comes to legalizing marijuana and psychedelics, Colorado leads the country.
"It's ultimately a matter of personal responsibility," says Polis. "If you want to use marijuana, if you want to drink, if you want to smoke, that's your prerogative. The government shouldn't be deciding that for you."
That's good to hear.
Colorado produces lots of oil and gas. Polis is requiring 30 percent reductions for nitrous oxide emissions.
"Sounds like it will cripple the business," I tell him.
"The oil and gas companies are going to be able to reach that," Polis responds. "It simply means rather than moving oil and gas on trucks, they use pipelines."
We'll see how that works out.
Another area where we disagree: Polis opposed the recent Supreme Court decision that ruled a website designer should not be forced to create a wedding site for a gay couple.
"It's OK to force me to make a website or cake for your marriage?" I ask.
"If you're a public accommodation or storefront, you can't say no Blacks, no Jews, no gays," Polis responds. "Obviously, you don't accept a commission to paint something or do something that you don't agree with. There's a gray area…what's creative and what's public accommodation."
I don't think it's a gray area. Business owners should be free to make their own rules. They created the business. Consumers have choices. There's more than one bakery or website designer.
Polis also criticized the court for declaring President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness unconstitutional.
I ask, "Why should someone who doesn't go to college…have to pay for people like you and me who went to the same overpriced college [Princeton]?"
"There is a problem with costs in higher education," replies Polis, dodging my question but admitting that government handouts raise prices. "Federal policy…helps fuel the increase in costs."
Polis then claimed that Democrats are "more pro-freedom than Republicans."
But most Democrats don't want people left free to own guns, choose their kids' schools, hire whom they want, or not bake cakes for people with whom they disagree. Sometimes I think abortion is the only choice Democrats support.
I complain to Polis, "Democrats got me pretty much banned from Facebook because I say climate change is not an emergency."
"Why do you say it's Democrats?" Polis replies, arguing that Republicans are more eager to ban social media. He points to Montana's ban of TikTok. But of course, that's not about censoring content; it's about China's ownership.
Polis and I talked for almost an hour about crime, equity versus equality, entrepreneurship, and more. We disagree but also find common ground. I'm glad he's willing to debate. You can watch the whole interview at JohnStossel.com.
COPYRIGHT 2023 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Polis then claimed that Democrats are "more pro-freedom than Republicans."
Goebbels would be so proud of him - - - - - - - -
Stossel doesn't seem to sufficiently think Polis is dreamy. Presumably his tenure at Reason is nearing its end.
Presumably his tenure at Reason is nearing its end.
Not to be pedantic, but technically Stossel hasn't worked directly for Reason for quite a few years. He has his own company, JFS Productions that he publishes under and Reason simply re-publishes his content. But, there may come a time when Reason stops doing that if he's not careful.
Surprisingly, I just noticed that they no longer have that disclaimer about Stossel's content not reflecting Reason in any way. It was weird that only his articles had it (from what I noticed.)
Ya, he's more of a "Reason Contributor".
Sarc, jeff and Mike make the same claims. Even after censorship, covid, vax mandates, political prosecutions, increased regulations, etc.
Dems are also pro-Constitution, they say.
Except for the whole Electoral College thingy.
And the Senate.
And the “enumerated powers” bit.
And the dangerous First Amendment. (speech and religion)
And the unconscionable Second Amendment.
And the anarchic Ninth Amendment.
And the secessionist Tenth Amendment.
And the “Interstate” part of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
And the “Equal” part of the Equal Protection Clause.
Goebels was an amateur compared to Demunists.
Provided one likes having the government dictate what stove to buy.
What light bulbs to buy.
What energy you can use.
What car you can drive.
What gun you can own.
What school your child/ren go to
What your cake says.
What the website you design says.
>>Polis responds: “High-quality early childhood education leads to better outcomes.”
goalpost mover. jeff must love this toolbag. where did he go?
"Why do you say it's Democrats?" Polis replies, arguing that Republicans are more eager to ban social media.
This was a disingenuous switch of the question being asked as well.
seriously. Matt Taibbi on line 2, Jared.
Seems like his stock response to most of the questions was to move the goalpost, reframe the question to something other than what was actually asked, or just change the subject. I expect nothing less from a career politician.
Reporter to Imam: Can we talk about the beheadings in your country for adulterers?
Imam: Texas has the death penalty, no?
“High-quality early childhood education leads to better outcomes.”
Agreed... BUT... Has anyone EVER done a correlation study of Teacher's Union powers increasing v/s "High-quality early childhood education"? I for one would bet that the correlation is NEGATIVE!!!! More money and POWER means more lazy bottom-feeding parasites looking out for themselves ass opposed to the students!!!
WHOSE job IS it, primarily, to "love the children", the parents or the Teacher's Union and the collective inflated-salaries-paying taxpayers?
Maybe he choked on a ham sandwich, like Mama Cass.
Well, he's either living in the '60's, or he's wrong.
“I’m not a fan of these voucher programs with no accountability where it can be Joe’s Taco Shop and K-8 academy and they’re getting taxpayer money.”
Ooh! Does the backhanded swipe at the unbridled good of entrepreneurial taco-truck-educated immigrants finally get Polis on Reason’s black list or does Reason find some way to backflip and say natives should be liberated from taco-truck-level education by immigrants? Stay tuned to find out!
He said Joe not Jose. [Don't ask what Jose in Spanish translates to.]
Are they individual breakfast tacos?
Asking for dr jill.
Given what's been going on in Chicago and New York, there's a whole slew of Democrats who should be falling HARD, in permanent marker on the Reason black list. I haven't heard peep one about them though.
I am curious where the accountability for public schools exist.
No matter how shit the results are --- they always get more money.
He points to Montana's ban of TikTok. But of course, that's not about censoring content; it's about China's ownership.
After a few articles where I begin to wonder if Stoss isn't just drifting more leftward more slowly than the rest of Reason he says something like this that demonstrates that he's at least capable of course corrections.
All kids need for education is reading and arithmetic. Reading is the gateway to all further knowledge, and anyone who doesn't understand the use of basic arithmetic is an idiot.
Writing, as in forming letters, is a natural outcome of knowing how to read and need not be taught. Writing, as in coherent logic and "proper" grammar, is also a natural outcome of reading. It should be encouraged but need not be taught.
History, geography, literature, foreign languages, and mathematics like algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus, should all be left for students to read about on their own, and ask for as much help as they need. Basic statistics, as in how to lie with them and how to detect the lies, is more important than any other mathematics, but does require some simple math.
Sex ed, home ec (do they still teach that?), driver ed, are the parents' job, and if they want to hire someone for the teaching, especially driving, that's their business. They are far too easily corrupted and distorted to be left to government schools.
Which brings up the matter of government schools. It's one thing to extract taxes and redistribute them as vouchers, it's not right, but it's less wrong than government-run schools or government-mandated curriculum or standards.
Teaching kids the earth is flat or 6000 years old harms no one, and doesn't affect 90% of jobs. But teaching woke nonsense does affect everyone, and that is what government teachers do, expand into every bit of indoctrination they can. Government indoctrination violates every principle of freedom, not to mention the First Amendment.
>>home ec (do they still teach that?)
my football pillow has made it 40 years lol.
I think you underestimate teh value of formal education for a lot of people. Some people can learn everything they need independently, but a lot of people really need the structure to get into advanced topics. Not that I think the current system of classroom instruction is necessarily particularly good, or that any of it should be compulsory.
And from the things you listed, I think reading and arithmetic are probably the easiest to pick up on your own. I have no memory of learning to read or acquiring a basic understanding of numbers and arithmetic.
No I don't People are capable of, and willing to do, a whole lot more than schools require of them. People built the pyramids and sailed around the world with what would today be a piss poor education.
Let kids find what interests them. Stop stifling their minds with canned lectures and mass production indoctrination. When they find that history interests them, there are tons of history books to satisfy them.
People are capable of a lot. But most people don't get near they potential. All I'm saying is that some people will learn a lot more with classroom instruction. Learning by doing, on the job or otherwise, I think is also often valuable in a similar way. For me, and many other's I'm sure, feeling some kind of external obligation to get something done is a strong motivator. If you don't need that, good for you.
I am saying make all those unnecessary classes optional. Stop forcing kids to sit through classes they will never remember, never use, and which make them think education is for someone else.
This. Get the government out of children’s education altogether, and let parents decide if they want to pay for additional education.
Have a kid that really likes shows and movies involving history, get them some books and/or sign them up for a class about history.
Have a kid that likes airplanes, get them some advanced math books/classes.
"History, geography, literature, foreign languages, and mathematics like algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus, should all be left for students to read about on their own, and ask for as much help as they need. Basic statistics, as in how to lie with them and how to detect the lies, is more important than any other mathematics, but does require some simple math."
On there own. Sure have you met most of the children under college age? As Covid showed, when not pushed to learn most don't. I think all the items you list should be taught at schools so at least students are exposed to it, Not the woke stuff.
Plus I'm told math is racist and it doesn't matter the value you get.
Just make the books available. If it interests them, get better books.
How much of primary school history and geography, or high school literature, do you remember? How many jobs actually require algebra or calculus?
Yes, real engineers and scientists need lots of knowledge. But very few people are real engineers or scientists. For an example, look at climate scientists.
The best way to improve educational outcomes is for parents to be more involved.
And the best way to get parents more involved is to charge them tuition.
“If you’re a public accommodation or storefront, you can’t say no Blacks, no Jews, no gays,” Polis responds. “Obviously, you don’t accept a commission to paint something or do something that you don’t agree with. There’s a gray area…what’s creative and what’s public accommodation.”
Then surely he doesn’t support cancel culture, getting banned from social media, accounts deleted, entire platforms deleted. Surely those are public accommodations, right, Polis? Right? Oh, but it's OK to ban whites, straights, and Christians, I see, gotcha.
Modern "mainline" libertarianism is:
Pro school "choice"
Pro weed
Pro sex work
Pro wearing masks to get the government to leave us alone
Pro corporate censorship even when done at the behest of government actors and various state agents as long as there was no force-force because moderation and Section 230
Anti lockdowns but only if the science doesn't fully support it
Pro vaping because it's an alternative to smoking cigarettes-- hey man, as long as I can smoke this joint within 20' of the entrance who cares about the 20' rule for cigarettes
Pro food truck
Pro full-government services and welfare for anyone who does an endzone dive into our social construct
Anti harsh sentencing unless it was someone sending mean tweets from an entirely separate social construct which took place during the Holy Day of January 6
Anti political prosecution of opposition candidates that occurs in social constructs that aren't this one where swarthy military officers ride in Jeeps, wear aviator shades and twirl cigars menacingly.
So yeah, Democrats like Polis are more pro freedom than Republicans and have a lot in common with libertarians.
But don't take MY word for it!
"Polis is the most destructive governor in Colorado’s history when it comes to personal and economic freedom."
Well, that guy is not mincing any words.
I’m not an expert on Colorado politics, but I grew up in a state that bordered Colorado and I assume that Colorado has historically had a string of conservative-ish, right leaning executives who pretty much left people alone economically, people could own their guns, lots of ranching, didn’t stand in the way of oil or ag business etc. But as Colorado has seen a large influx of retarded Californians who left the state because they voted it into a shithole, are now willing to vote the same way in Colorado. Having said that, as milquetoast as Polis is when compared to the rest of the party hardliners, he might actually BE the most destructive governor to sit in the governor’s mansion. I’m imagining banning any kind of firearm in Colorado in say, 1978 and you would have been laughed out of the room.
These things always start slow *cough*California in the 1930s*cough* and progress(!) from there. Polis represents the first wave of the “blueing” of the state.
...as milquetoast as Polis is when compared to the rest of the party hardliners, he might actually BE the most destructive governor to sit in the governor’s mansion.
I think it's probably a toss up between him and John Hickenlooper (aka Lick-a-pooper), his immediate predecessor. Most of Polis' more destructive policies are just a continuation of Lick-a-pooper's.
But as Colorado has seen a large influx of retarded Californians who left the state because they voted it into a shithole, are now willing to vote the same way in Colorado.
Let's not forget Washington, Oregon, and Nevada. Coming soon Texas and Arizona. Possibly Idaho in 20 years.
Ugh, don’t remind me about Texas.
Working hard to keep that shit at bay, but it’s an uphill battle, to be sure.
Where we really needed to "build the wall" was at the California border, not Mexico.
In fact, we should build a wall around the entire state and then fill it with milk. Why milk? Because it's the breakfast cereal state: full of fruits, flakes, and nuts.
Mrs. DesigNate, who definitely leans more “burn it all down” anarchist than I do, started saying the same thing a few years ago.
I've been advocating a border wall with CA for decades.
Escape from LA had the right idea, the only problem was it was just LA and not the whole state.
Eastern half of the state is pretty OK and if you get far enough North of the Bay area, the hippies are sort of old school. The big metro coastal areas need to fall into the sea.
Colorado's actually been run mostly by business-friendly Democrats for most of the last 50 years. Polis isn't any different in this regard, to be honest, it's just the neo-marxist cancer cells from his party inhabiting the state house and offices like the Secretary of State's office such as Jena Griswold who are the main problem.
A lot of the state's current shitlibbery is actually the result of easterners migrating to the state for its outdoor culture, not Californians.
I caucus occasionally with Democrats and would love to see a Presidential candidate under 70. Of course I don't agree with everything; I rarely do.
But don’t libertarians want more than dope and crypto?
Not really. Maybe a little ass sex and slave labor from latin America, dpending on the Libertarian. Otherwise, no, they really don't. They don't really care about freedom wri large. They care about their freedom regarding a couple of pet issues.
Who is "they"? Libertarians disagree about everything.
No we don't!
😉
Yes we do!
Let's agree to disagree.
I'm sorry - I just cant do that [born in Scotland?]
don’t libertarians want more than dope and crypto?
Hookers, open borders, and food trucks?
Sodomy and transvestites.
Dammit, I knew I was forgetting something.
"But don’t libertarians want more than dope and crypto?"
SOME libertarians (CERTAINLY including me) want to RETAIN FUCKING DEMOCRACY, fer Chrissakes!!! And most Rethugglicans these days do NOT!!!
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 the GOP into GOD (Grand Old Dicktatorshit).
Anti harsh sentencing unless it was someone sending mean tweets from an entirely separate social construct which took place during the Holy Day of January 6
So that's what Reason meant when they called the sentences excessive. I was wondering, because that goes completely against the narrative.
If there's anything to be learned from these comments it's that when someone contradicts what people say about them they, not the morons making stuff up, are the liars.
Except they also called the months to years of non violent sentences modest. Retard.
So that’s what Reason meant when they called the sentences excessive. I was wondering, because that goes completely against the narrative.
Yes, Reason believes that they shouldn't be put in jail... *checks Reason* forever. Less than forever? That's negotiable.
Oh and by the way, the ongoing whinge about people pointing out that this or that BLM/ANTIFA group did the same or worse and got little or NO jail time IS valid argument. There is actually a process in American jurisprudence to challenge what's called "selective prosecution". If one can show that someone who committed the same crime got a considerably lighter sentence, then that's grounds to appeal on selective prosecution grounds.
I don't see an equivalence between rioting over police abuse and trying to prevent the certification of an election.
Well for one, the people protesting at the capital didn’t kill anyone.
Or try to set the building on fire, with people locked inside.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/28/michael-fanone-trump-gop-riots/
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 dicktatorshit, 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 dicktatorshit, as led by EvilBahnFuhrer, above ALL else, dammit!
Thanks for proving my point that the J6 assholes didn’t actually kill anyone.
You know, unlike the assholes who took over entire city blocks, barricaded themselves and proceed to pretend to be autonomous zones (thus figuratively seceding from the Union).
It's all political protest. Should be the same under the law. The legitimacy of the cause has nothing to do with its legal status.
I'm not talking about the cause. I'm talking about the actions. One group marched through the streets while the other stormed a federal building. Not the same.
Ummmm….they also did this. Maybe you spent to much of 2020 in a drunken stupor to remember everything they did then?
I realized that's probably what you meant after I posted.
I do think that "stormed" is not a very good characterization of what the vast majority of people being prosecuted for Jan 6 actually did and that for the most part it was a peaceful political protest. I don't have any problem with people who broke shit and assaulted people being prosecuted. I do have a problem with people being prosecuted to the fullest for doing things that would normally get you a night in jail or small fine (if anything) at most political protests.
I do think that “stormed” is not a very good characterization of what the vast majority of people being prosecuted for Jan 6 actually did and that for the most part it was a peaceful political protest.
I really don't know. I think of "stormed" as "we entered so that they will leave."
I do have a problem with people being prosecuted to the fullest for doing things that would normally get you a night in jail or small fine (if anything) at most political protests.
Again, it all connects to the certification.
Need to caveat that with normal sentencing for the violent charges, not escalated.
“I don’t have any problem with people who broke shit and assaulted people being prosecuted.”
Nobody does. But just prosecuting those people doesn’t accomplish their goals of labeling this an insurrection, conspiracy, etc, which is what makes all these other prosecutions blatantly political.
Ok, noted, so any protest over an election result is an attempt to block the certification of the election. And any attempt to block a certification of an election deserves 22 years in prison… but not “forever”.
Also noted, the next time I read “pro-democracy” protest (on NPR) any time some group is angry about the results of an election in any country– especially those with dudes with aviator sunglasses in military outfits– I’ll just dismiss it as seditious conspiracy to block the certification of an election.
You know, this reminds me of the Grayzone reporters (trigger warning: hard lefties) debating that woman from The National Endowment for Democracy when they informed her that her organization was a CIA-created group that funds efforts to overturn foreign governments and put in US-friendly regimes. She quipped back to them: So a protest against an election isn’t democracy? And they quipped back: You mean like January 6? And she got completely stumped.
Your notes exist only in your imagination by reading things I didn’t say.
Fuck. I hate this but I'll do it this once.
Ok, noted, so any protest over an election result is an attempt to block the certification of the election.
They interrupted the actual process of certifying the election. It wasn't like some yahoos marching down Main Street protesting the results. They showed up at the fucking Capital and forced an evacuation.
And any attempt to block a certification of an election deserves 22 years in prison… but not “forever”.
I don't know where you go that. I never said such, nor have I read that in any Reason articles.
Also noted, the next time...
I don't have the energy to fight these men of straw. Good day.
So your concern is people protested government which is a step too far. The vote wasn't being stopped retard. But you repeat the liberal and media narratives to satiate your hate of conservatives.
There’s a good case to be made that the riot, which most definitely had undercover feds at the forefront, and some evidence that Pelosi had a hand in, stopped legal challenges to electors from certain states that violated election laws.
So your rioting is good but others rioting is bad?
This is called "tribalism", and it runs unchecked, these days! Have ye NOT noticed?
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 feared and 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/ .
In conclusion, troglodytes, thanks for helping me to prove my points!
Then they crucified Jesus, 'cause Jesus made them look bad! ALSO because Jesus made them look bad FOR THEIR STUPID, HIDE-BOUND TRIBALISM! "The parable of the Good Samaritan" was VERY pointed, because the Samaritans were of the WRONG tribe, in the eyes of "Good Jews" of the day.
Sarc provides rationalizations of why it is different when the left does worse.
Butt... Butt WHATABOUT?!?!?!
(Sure, JesseBahnFuhrer tortured, and then drank the blood of, the newborn Christian babies, in Satanic and Witchcraft rituals, BUTT... WHATABOUT THOSE THAT THEM THAR DEMON-CRAPS, Government Almighty DAMN it all?!?!?!?)
“Butt… Butt WHATABOUT?!?!?!”
Poor retard doesn’t understand how retarded this is when the topic is unequal application of law.
Butt WHATABOUT the ideological idiocy of Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer, which often exceeds even the ideological idiocy of R Mac Who Talks and Snorts Smack?
Oh I see, just spewing random off topic nonsense.
Hey R Mac Who Talks and Snorts Smack!
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank You! -Reason Staff
You left off anti-police.
Anti-shooting-unarmed-political-protestors-in-the-face, unless they are trespassing on public property, and support Trump.
But most Democrats don’t want people left free to own guns, choose their kids’ schools, hire whom they want, or not bake cakes for people with whom they disagree.
Get real. Most Democrats don’t want all guns banned.
School choice is here now. Just don’t make me pay for your brats madrassa.
Affirmative action is state mandated discrimination. This one is the only one 100% correct.
-------Now lets do Republicans.--------------
They want to ban abortion/reproductive care and ban travel for such.
Repubs like Mike Lee.want to ban porn everywhere and books in schools.
Repubs want to ban gay marriage and trannie dancing.
Repubs want to ban end of life options.
Repubs are FAR WORSE on drugs.
Anyway, there is plenty to dislike with both parties.
Get real. Most Democrats don’t want all guns banned.
No, just the ones in common use.
They want to ban abortion/reproductive care and ban travel for such.
are 75% of Americans "Democrats"?
A GOP controlled Congress voted for a gun ban in 2013.
Obviously, the GOP is still better on guns. But for personhood/bodily freedoms Dems win easily.
Obviously, the GOP is still better on guns. But for personhood/bodily freedoms Dems win easily.
Sure, if we keep “bodily freedoms” relegated to abortion in the third trimester and *checks notes* weed, and weed ONLY, yes, Democrats are marginally better than Republicans.
Phun Phact: Democrats are beginning to waver on weed. But don’t fear, they’re only wavering in a typically Democratic way: it needs restrictin’ and tight regulatin’ because The Science shows that *checks notes* “Cannabis Use Disorder” is rampant.
Q: What’s that guy suffering from?
A: Methamphetamine addiction.
Q: What’s that guy suffering from?
A: Heroin addiction
Q: What’s that guy suffering from?
A: Opioid addiction.
Q: And that guy over there?
A: Cannabis Use Disorder.
Democrats are beginning to waver on weed.
Democrats waver on everything. They lack the sociopathic intensity of Republicans.
#resist says you’re full of shit. Although everything says that.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Don't remember many Republican states demanding I get a jab to...well, do anything whatsoever in public.
Really? How is that every single Dem in congress voted to regulate our economic decisions?
From PPACA:
EFFECTS ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND INTERSTATE
COMMERCE.—The effects described in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased
Gladys Kessler (Mead v. Holder):
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Congress had
a rational basis for its conclusion that the aggregate of individual decisions not to purchase health insurance substantially affects the national health insurance market. Consequently, Congress was acting within the bounds of its Commerce Clause power when it enacted § 1501
Ginsberg et al (NFIB):
First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“[E]ven if appellee’s activ- ity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.”
If the mandate had merely been a tax on income with a corresponding tax benefit to those who purchased an approved insurance plan there would have been no court challenge. You might recall that President Obama during his 2008 campaign against Hillary actually chided her for the mandate in her plan. But the idea that a crisis ought not go to waste was too great for the Dems, and so rather than going the income tax route, they sought to have the courts rubber stamp the idea that Congress can control how each person spends his money even after paying all his income taxes. It was an insane power grab. so much so that Dems do not want to admit it even happened and would rather put the mandate down the memory hole.
Just the ones that are actually useful for the purpose the Second Amendment had in mind.
Revolvers and shotguns are fine, after appropriate background checks, training, waiting periods, and political oaths.
Republicans are left of Progressives when it comes to economic freedom.
And bookmarked.
Ignore licensing laws, lower regulations, lower taxes, increased competition...
Ignore tariffs (which are taxes on consumers), ignore industrial policy (also called cronyism), ignore basic economic principles like comparative advantage...
Democrats don’t support tariffs? Since when?
Democrats are king of industrial capture? IRA wasn’t one giant handout to green companies? Big pharma isn’t in their pockets?
When did Democrats enjoy comparative advantages and not use tax dollars to prop up favored industry?
You truly are retarded sarc.
I even left out union and race based favoritism.
But you never defend the left lol.
Business friendly is cronyism not economic liberty. And Republicans are very business friendly.
I’m not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican.
Why not frame is as government vs liberty, and save party affiliation for later?
I just gave you a fucking list of shit democrats put to policy. Youre the one who said progressives favored economic liberty more you dishonest shit.
sarcasmic 7 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Republicans are left of Progressives when it comes to economic freedom.
Your fucking words.
Democrats are the literal party of gigantic government. Yet you spend every week here claiming they are more pro liberty than the right despite all fucking evidence. Censorship, covid, regulations, taxation, wars. Another example when you claim you never claim the left is more pro liberty.
https://reason.com/2022/08/04/monkeypox-is-giving-public-health-agencies-a-chance-to-prove-theyve-learned-nothing-from-covid/?comments=true#comment-9632024
That means that libertarians now have more in common with the left than with the right. Not because libertarians have drifted left. Rather its because the conservative right has abandoned support for liberty in general.
Despite the constant evidence of the left intruding on even a fucking choice of light bulbs you make statements like that constantly. You defend the left constantly. You are literally full of shit.
Economic freedom as long as you’re purchasing the Party approved lightbulbs, toilets, shower heads, stoves, water heaters, cars, etc.
Taxes? Pour sarc doesn’t think that relates to economic freedom.
Hahahahahaha
(Edit) I laughed because Jesse rightly pointed out ways Republicans are better economically and you pointed out things that both parties do to greater or lesser degrees.
So democrats are shit on all of the things you pointed out AND shit on everything Jesse pointed out.
I used to say that Republicans were at least friendly on economic liberty. But that's not the case so much. Yes they're better. But that's like saying cow shit is better than dog shit. It's still shit.
You just said progressives are better and then defended your stance you ignorant retard.
Whoof!
This is amazing you lie even in the same thread. Live with your ignorance dumdum.
You said something completely retarded in defense of progressives. Live with it forever as it is bookmarked.
The bookmark was the correct action. What an economic ignoramus sarc is.
Yeah, progressives will give you plenty of economic freedom, after they take their 70% cut off the top.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/4/18168431/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-70-percent
Regardless, however, the 70 percent figure isn’t just a random number a young House member plucked from thin air — it represents cutting-edge empirical research on how to maximize federal revenue.
""Repubs are FAR WORSE on drugs.""
Yeah, let's just ignore that Biden was a co-sponsor on every crime bill that increased the drug war.
Also ignore that Democrats load “decriminalization” bills down with so many rules and regulations they know the more libertarian/anti-drug war republicans will vote it down (poison pill). But they’re totes better!
>end of life options
Suicide pods are a stupid idea, the repubs are correct on that.
We've seen the slippery slope Canada is going down. There but for the grace of God go we.
They morphed from "Kill to alleviate suffering" to "kill because...why the hell not?"
“But most Democrats don't want people left free to own guns,”
Including Polis.
If the Democratic Party was where Polis was on issues then I would agree they are more libertarian than where the Republican Party is. But Polis is the outlier just like Massie is an outlier. Both parties are pretty strongly statist shitbags on most issues.
Both parties are pretty strongly statist shitbags on most issues.
THEMS FIGHTIN' WORDS!
(capitalization is always parody of the Trump Cult)
Do not waste time engaging the TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit turd. turd lies. turd lies when he knows he’s lying. turd lies when we know he’s lying. turd lies when he knows that we know he’s lying.
turd lies. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit and a pederast besides.
Polis is by far, not a "bad" Democrat. He's what I would call a 90s era, center left Clintonian Democrat. You know, the Kind Nick Gillespie has been desperately trying to make friends with for 20 years, and thinks are still predominant on the left.
Polis-- as best as I can tell, will raise taxes and attack guns just enough to avoid a full on revolt from his rural constituencies. He seems to do pretty well at staying out of culture war issues by standing on the sidelines. Even if the rest of his party is rounding up dissidents, having struggle sessions and hanging people in the street, he remains quiet. If this were Nazi Germany, Polis would be a "party member" because it's required for your career, not because he believes in the Final Solution. (no, I'm not comparing Polis to a Nazi, I'm just using that analogy to paint a picture of his "loyalty" to the modern Democratic Party).
He does believe in open borders, which aligns tightly with modern inside-the-beltway Libertarianism Plus and also believes that an expansive welfare state should go along with it-- and be extended to those people who make their way to his "sanctuary state"*... literally.
*Colorado is not legally a sanctuary state like New York is, or Chicago is (state in this context means political district) but Colorado is, in some respects and effective sanctuary state-- at least economically and from a standpoint of state services and comprehensive welfare-- by law.
It should also be stated that open borders is not a clear-cut libertarian issue, just like abortion isn't a clear cut one, nor a clear-cut left/right issue.
You also left put Polis increased land use regulations.
Being generous, Polis is as libertarian on purpose as DeSantis is on accident.
"I complain to Polis, "Democrats got me pretty much banned from Facebook because I say climate change is not an emergency."
"Why do you say it's Democrats?" Polis replies, arguing that Republicans are more eager to ban social media. He points to Montana's ban of TikTok. But of course, that's not about censoring content; it's about China's ownership."
So John complains about being censored/banned/whatever on Facebook and this guy brings up banning social media apps themselves. He must have misheard John. There's no way that was a deflection of any sort. Nope.
And it even contradicts his "public accommodation" bullshit earlier.
If there is any sort of state-level public accommodation, presumably compelling foreign socialists/fascists/nationalist supremacists to respect domestic Constitutional liberties is it.
climate change is not an emergency.
Well, that is just pure ignorance on Stossel's part. My reply is far more accurate and frustrating to progressives:
Climate pollution is so dire and entrenched in modern life that the only remedy will be found in innovation via capitalism. Any country that attempts to mitigate global heating without private innovation is doomed.
Climate pollution is so "dire" that the biggest worriers about it...fly private jets more than anybody else, take trips more than anybody else, have most wasteful homes than anybody else. etc.
As has been said, I'll take it as a real problem when the people who claim it is a problem act like it is a problem.
“Why do you say it’s Democrats?” Polis replies, arguing that Republicans are more eager to ban social media.
And of all the weaselly things he ever says, this is the most disingenuous. Left progressives who have become more libertarian in their outlook, such as self-described libertarian Michael Shellenberger– who had access to the actual censorship models of the social media companies says that the censorship was predominantly directed at right-leaning people. And the only time it hit left leaning people was when those left-leaning people were critical of the establishment Democrat Party narratives.
This has been proven so many ways from Sunday, we’re way, WAY past the “it’s not happening/ok it’s happening but it’s not as bad as you say/it’s happening and it’s a good thing” process flowchart.
There is only ONE way that Polis could even assert this and-- while being wrong-- could not be outright lying: He truly does sit on the sidelines of the culture war and, just like Nick Gillespie, when someone brings up the trans issue asks, “Like, what are even the stakes here, man?”
Ie, sitting on the sidelines with both fingers in your ears singing “lalalalalalalalalalalalalala” and then claiming you didn’t hear a thing anyone said. It’s technically true.
What drives me nuts is that Polis gets to dodge this issue and not be held accountable for it. He wants every GOP member to be held accountable for what Montana has done with TikTok, but he will never accept accountability for the massive, Federally-enabled, Whitehouse-run censorship-by-proxy ring setup by the head of his damn party.
And this is important. We aren't talking about marginal issues like Abortion that 90% of Americans will never deal with. We are talking about government censoring the content that each and every one of us will ever see. But it is just one little checkbox in a larger list that includes nitrous-oxide emissions and cakes.
Well put
"And of all the weaselly things he ever says, this is the most disingenuous. "
I forgot to add in my initial post: it certainly seems like he was suggesting that it could possibly be Republicans that are banning people for not believing climate change was an emergency. You know, that hard-line stance on climate change that Republicans are known for.
"Why do you sat its Democrats?"
Because Democrats who are the religious zealots on climate change and rather intolerant of dissent and heresy on that issue, not Republicans.
Polis is proof that all Nick and company care about is butt sex, weed and no borders.
How is he on food trucks and keeping ferrets?
Pro trans on both.
Tangential: When Swampy tells you to shut the fuck up, you’ve “lost the room”.
In other words: “Guys, we are already getting everything we want in politics. Shut the fuck up with your traffic snarls and painting vandelizing, or you are going to generate a blowback.”
One cannot watch Clarkson’s Farm and not conclude that the Brits/EU already have a “Climate Majority” that is actively fucking over the peasants in their quest for human purity.
It funny that Polis does not see the contradiction between his preferred policies on vaping products and those on Marijuana and psychedelics.
One wonders just what his objection to the SCOTUS ruling on a business owner's rights exactly are. I believe the ruling does largely hinge on web design being a specifically creative endeavor.
Polis manages to at least pay lip service to all the standard Democrat political shibboleth's while maintaining he is more "pro freedom". What I come away with is thar that assertion is "not proven".
One wonders just what his objection to the SCOTUS ruling on a business owner’s rights exactly are. I believe the ruling does largely hinge on web design being a specifically creative endeavor.
Because it takes a piece of shit to say to a prospective customer "You're gay. Get lost".
The legal pro/con is not worth another debate.
Bend the knee. Do not object to promoting the LGBTQ+ dogma, dhimmi. So say the gay ayatollahs.
Gayatollahs?
Fabulous Persia!
Turd’s lying about the bake the cake issue, surprising no one.
Except that wasn’t the issue you lying sack of shit.
I see: you think it's OK to deprive someone whom you consider to be "a piece of shit" of their freedom.
In other words, you're the opposite of a libertarian.
He’s a legit fascist, yes.
My question is…. What kind of person does it take (i.e. it takes a piece of shit) to say I get hard-up and poke other men’s poop-holes and that makes me especially/specifically entitled to your service and to pull out gov-guns if you don’t??
Because you must face the reality of it all. Customers get kicked out for all sorts of reason from disrupting, wearing slippers, no sleeves, disgruntled, etc, etc, etc, (endless list) yet somehow poking other men in the poop-hole makes a special exception to all of that.
Takes a bigger piece of shit to say "You will write what I say to write, prole"
Seems weird that Colorado has only one bakery.
What's it going to come to when he realizes cannabinoids are the more popular vapes?
Polis: "Do not move oil and gas by truck, use pipelines".
Rest of Democrat Party: "No new oil and gas pipelines!"
It is up to the private sector how to comply with these contradictory mandates.
+22 Catches
Lone Moderate Republican: I'm not comfortable with abortion after the first trimester.
Hard liners: Ban all abortion!
Lone Moderate Republican: *shrugs*
That’s some hard hitting journalism right there. Not even reaching out the the LPCO for comment. How much did Polis pay you to have you lick his ball sack?
The LPCO proved themselves irrelevant by agreeing not to run Libertarian candidates in races where there are “liberty-minded Republicans” running instead. So much for the “Party of Principle”! Anybody with half a brain cell knows that the Republicans have been saying nice words about freedom and lower taxes for decades but when push comes to shove, the Rs want to tax and spend, ban things and run our lives just as much as the Ds.
At least the GOP is somewhat more honest about it. They're not dumping taxes, regulations and unfunded mandates on people and pretending it's for their own good, unlike a certain political party I could think to name.
And, they're tamping down on the classism that the Dems now proudly own.
"They’re not dumping taxes, regulations and unfunded mandates on people and pretending it’s for their own good"
I guess you've missed all the bans on abortions and gender-affirming medical care and drag performances in red states nationwide, just to name three - and those are all supposedly for the moral "good" of the populace.
"...I guess you’ve missed all the bans on abortions and gender-affirming medical care and drag performances in red states nationwide, just to name three – and those are all supposedly for the moral “good” of the populace..."
Oh, oh, our poor, poor virtue-signaling shit pile! More than willing to allow the federal government to steal our wealth and limit our freedom than to allow states to make choices.
There's a claim that at an IQ level of 80, it's hard to fold paper to fit in an envelope. Can you do that, ignoramus.
No, I haven't. I also haven't missed the fact that the choice between the GOP and the Dems is a choice of which freedoms I want to lose.
If you want your drag shows, stop package-dealing them with a widely rejected and failed economic system.
I don’t think there are just as many RINO’S (Democrat Politicians running under the Republican Name) as there are Democrats. But what do the party-platforms tell you? One party is for [WE] mob RULES [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] and the other is for Liberty and Justice for all (defined in the US Constitution).
Yes there are a ton of hacks in the Republican party; but at least the party has the right goalpost instead of a treasonous conquering and destroying the USA.
"The LPCO proved themselves irrelevant by agreeing not to run Libertarian candidates in races where there are “liberty-minded Republicans” running instead..."
Yeah, we can abandon any progress to TDS-addled shit-piles like this. Don't ever vote for someone who advances freedom of limits government unless they have a L behind their name!
Fuck you with a running rusty chainsaw, you pathetic, partisan, excuse for humanity. Fuck off and die.
No. Next stupid question.
Compared to Whitmer and Newsom, he's practically an anarchist.
Which is why he's not mentioned as a Presidential contender.
By the way, my favorite thing about the climate change debate as it relates to the left that I’m seeing rumblings on in the remote corners of the dark-ish web– is that lefties who were covid dissidents, but historically on board with the Climate Change Narrative are beginning to waver on climate change, because they noticed that the VENN diagram between COVID alarmists and Climate Change Alarmists was a single circle.
Edit: They realized it was about power.
Richard Fernandez had something quite astute to say about that subject on Twitter this week. He said
A part of the Green constituency will someday realize that environmentalism was always about giant geoengineering, replacement industries for sunsetting ones and herding people into nodes of the grid, so there could be no escape. But they'll realize it too late.
I think the liberals you are talking about here understand they are on the menu.
I think the liberals you are talking about here understand they are on the menu.
That's exactly what happened. The lefty COVID dissidents (a lot of whom I follow) who had, in years past, been beating the drum about Climate change realized... they're on the menu. They watched the entire country retool its economy and public institutions over an "environmental" threat, they saw their freedoms diminished in dramatic ways, they were censored aggressively on social media, there were calls to jail dissenters-- literally everything that occurs on the Climate Change debate, and they had that 2x4 of reality across the forehead moment.
Test. Posted a couple of comments that didn't show up. Got a "duplicate comment detected" message. Comments still not showing up.
You're meta muted.
FWIW, I see two comments above from you. No comment on their quality. *ducks*
The “disappeared” comments were in reply in the MonitorsMost thread.
I think you can appreciate that his stance is the same, once-in-a-decade clockwork where some low-brow Reason commenter takes a *very* mildly libertarian Democrat, ignores the openly socialist wing of the party, compares the cherry they picked to a *very* libertarian Republican, ignores said Republican’s relatively libertarian peers, further ignores all the republicans-turned-libertarian that have effectively been propping up the LP (Mises Caucus or other) for pretty much its entire history, and does it all in order to declare “Democrats are about as bad as Republicans on Liberty.”
I mean, FFS, at least a decade ago they could, with some credibility, point to the GOP as “tough on crime”, warmongering profiteers. Today “Democrats are about as libertarian as Republicans because Polis.” should be laughably stupid.
> Democrats Are 'More Pro-Freedom Than Republicans'
As a non-partisan outsider, they are BOTH antithetical to freedom, just in different ways. And sometimes in surprisingly similar ways.
Boath sides have been hostile to narcotics decriminalization and legalization. Democrats may have seemed like they were for it, but they also wanted to tax the shit out of it for the revenue. To this day black market pot is still cheaper than legal pot due to the onerous taxes and regulations surrounding it. Plus, people like Biden and Pelosi were historically the biggest drug warriors.
Boath sides want big government spending, just in different areas. Democrats want moar taxes for new entitlements and give aways, Republicans want moar spending for military and law enforcement. Even Trump was giving away money to foreign companies if they built on US soil (ei. FoxConn).
Boaf sides love regulating and strongarming businesses, just in different ways. Warren wants to smash Amazon, DeSantos wants to punish Disney and InBev.
In short, Democrats are anti-economic freedom and only vaguely personal freedom, while Republicans are anti-cultural/personal freedom and only vaguely economic freedom.
Now I would take a Polis over most of the clowns running on the GOP side any day. But his statement is wrong. On the flip side, those Republicans calling for moar authoritarian controls in the name of freedom are just as wrong.
Boath sides
You misspelled "bowf".
He also misspelled "both." Double fail.
He also lied about his political leanings.
This.
There's much I can agree with in that but where did you get, "Republicans are anti-cultural/personal freedom" from?
That sounds like double-speak. What does cultural have to do with personal anyways? They're practically opposites in scope.
Brandyshit is the ultimate partisan; if there is no L behind the name, that person will never get the asshole's vote, regardless of the policies/ actual actions.
Further s/he is a permanent teenager; personality is the total measure of a human. Perhaps one day, the asshole known as brandyshit will graduate from the 12th grade, but don't bet on it.
Finally, brandyshit has a hard time hiding his/her liberalism while claiming libertarianism.
Brandshit is a fucking liar and an ignoramus.
Brandybuck 9 hours ago
"As a non-partisan outsider,.."
As a totally partisan ignoramus, unable to make any distinctions at all. please quit lying and please fuck off and die.
Yeah. In the vein of “I’m not a racist but…” the self-referencing “As a non-partisan outsider…” should strike everyone as absurd.
“As an immortal demigod who’s absolved himself of all sin, I have returned to offer my non-partisan outsider political opinion.” Cure a few blind people, turn some water into wine, bring some actual peace to some place other than the Reason forums, then get back to us. Otherwise, fuck off. You're just another dot somewhere on the Nolan Chart just like the rest of us.
"If you're a public accommodation or storefront, you can't say no Blacks, no Jews, no gays," Polis responds. "Obviously, you don't accept a commission to paint something or do something that you don't agree with. There's a gray area…what's creative and what's public accommodation."
It's not a gray area. Nobody's getting banned. Certain services that conflict with religious beliefs are.
As I indicate above, it's an assembly of bullshit deflections in favor of certain social(ist) policy.
A private web designer refusing to serve gays is a gray area of public accommodation; but Montana barring Tiktok because China is an overt socialist dictatorship, that uses Uighyrs for slave labor and employs its software companies as vectors for government surveillance, is censorship.
"overt socialist dictatorship"
The only socialist dictatorship I can get behind, tbh.
Paintings yes - cakes no. Legalized prostitution will cause all kinds of mental gymnastics with public accommodation laws. If I accept money for sex - do I really have to fuck everybody?
I broke someone with that question, once. It was hilarious. She was actually crying, she was so mad at me.
Another moral conundrum. Can a conjoined twin sever thier sibling from themselves without thier siblings consent? My body my choice.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is refusing to serve gays. I doubt they inquire about sexuality if you wanted them to design an business website. The right to refuse certain jobs or certain types of work seems like a pretty basic right.
And if you can't find a gay wedding cake baker, you're probably not looking too hard.
Or too F'En lazy to bake it themselves. Flour and Eggs doesn't care if you can get a government granted status-symbol.
Wait, UA's comment wasn't a double entendre?
Around here you have to try really hard to find a non-gay cake baker.
The only people who insist on absolutely repealing the CRA1964 are people like Stossel and paleos and such. That is the sole basis upon which you would assert that this isn’t some gray area at all. It is a very strong element in libertarian thinking and it absolutely separates that strain of thought from everything else in society except the remaining Jim Crow supporters.
There are significant elements of society that believe that CRA1964 worked. That ending Jim Crow would not have occurred without it. And therefore that any reform of or restriction to the definition of public accommodation is precisely a ‘gray area’. This includes most of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
People may disagree about what the gray area is and what is/not an acceptable rollback. But the nanosecond someone says ‘There is no gray area’, then you are saying ‘let’s go back to 1964 and relegislate the CRA’.
CRA1964 was an act of slavery. It demanded a person by his very own labors and private property service against his own will. If said 'discriminated' party had a beef they could've DONE the labor themselves.
CRA1957 wasn't because it only dealt with Commie-Education.
CRA1866 established that all men are created equal under the law.
CRA1866 required the 14th Amendment (with its federal notion of US citizenship that creates civil rights for said citizens) to pass. And it failed precisely because the powers-that-be decided that the 14th Amendment would not be used to enforce it.
CRA1957 was specifically gutted to eliminate 14th Amendment enforcement. That was the notion of states rights by then. Only states can define/enforce the rights of US citizens. That was the version of states rights that Goldwater specifically supported. There is no 14th Amendment. Hence it failed
And no surprise you and your ilk want that sort of legislation. Guaranteed to fail but that signals happy thoughts about how nice you want to claim to be. Basically a declaration of National Ice Cream Day.
Talk about spinning the 14th on it's head.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-----------------------property---------------------!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
You and your BS CRA1964 stupidly pretends off in delusional land that "equal protection of the laws" grants anyone access to other peoples private property and labors / business. Literally tromping all over the 14th Amendment and picking special-people who are exempt from private property law literally VIOLATING the 14th Amendment.
Because that is what the leftards lobby for constantly. Entitlements. Entitlements to other people's earnings, property and anything else they desire by gov-gun force.
And the BS propaganda behind it all is pretending that it's their 'right' to act criminally.
And P.S. your wrong about Goldwater who saw it correctly as an entitlement not some BS about being a State issue.
and also; it's the same game the left plays with on the wealth-status.
That person has more money than me; so gov-guns should uphold my ?rights? to his money. /s You left-leaners are so polluted with BS you can't distinguish between an ****inherent**** right and an entitlement to someone else's stuff.
And P.S. your wrong about Goldwater who saw it correctly as an entitlement not some BS about being a State issue.
You're wrong.
It so happens that I am in agreement with the objectives of the Supreme Court in the Brown v Board of Education decision. I believe that it is both wise and just for negro children to attend the same schools as whites and that to deny them this opportunity carries with it strong implications of inferiority. I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgement of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina, or to tell them what methods should be adopted or what pace should be kept in striving for that goal. That is their business not mine. Barry Goldwater from Conscience of a Conservative 1960
This is pure states rights without the bigotry of segregationists and without the 14th amendment to create a federal responsibility to secure the privileges and immunities of US citizens that might end segregation.
Brown vs Board of Education was 1954. You’re talking about CRA1957.
Here’s his reason for being against CRA1964.https://www.centralmaine.com/2014/07/19/goldwaters-vote-against-civil-rights-act-of-1964-unfairly-branded-him-a-racist/
“Senator believed parts were unconstitutional, would lead to preferential treatment”
LOL... Your own reference is before CRA1964.
Jeezus. You people don't know how to source shit do you. I don't give a damn about what some editorial opinion writer in Maine says 50 years later. Here's Goldwater's speech on the day he chose to explain why he opposed CRA64 two days after he had voted against cloture (for the filibuster). He really really would have preferred that the filibuster go on forever (as it always had before).
Most of the rhetoric is actually election maneuvering since those CRA 1964 votes of late June were held just after the GOP primaries, after Rockefeller withdrew and Scranton entered the race, while Goldwater was trying to sway the non-primary R state delegates, while Wallace was still deciding whether to stay in the D race or endorse Goldwater or go third party, after the Alabama D's set up their unpledged elector slates, before the GA/MS/LA/SC D's set up their unpledged elector slates, and before the GOP convention two weeks later. Interesting stuff really.
But he did explain his real vote:
The two portions of this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called public accommodations and in the area of employment — to be more specific, Titles II and VII of the bill.
I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional republic in which 50 sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal Government.
IOW -yeah it's states rights. And while he could find the 10th Amendment in his copy of the Constitution, he couldn't find the 14th or 13th or commerce clause.
You do realize you just changed quotes right?
And this quote does state what that article does.
"a regulatory course of action with regard to private enterprise in the area of so-called public accommodations"
He was a "Federal" Senator and as such his scope is Federal Authority. He obviously was more concerned about 'private enterprise' than just allowing States authority to thwart private enterprise/property.
"The only people who insist on absolutely repealing the CRA1964 are people like Stossel and paleos and such..."
The only people making such a claim are lefty shits like JFree. Fuck off and die, asshole.
Baking a cake is creative. It's art.
Creating a website is creative. It's art. If it's not art, it's publishing, which is actually literally protected in the First Amendment.
Given his anti-2A stance, he should be thrilled that Liberty Safe has a secret backdoor access code that they've given to the feds.
(I believe this is breaking news)
Yep. They’re about to het the Bud Light treatment. Oops.
So, not a safe, and no liberty. Why's it called Liberty Safe again?
They should name themselves Virtue Signal.
the only way you can look at either major party and call them pro freedom at all..... is by first deciding the freedoms they don't like are justified, or at least don't matter. then it helps if you look at the other side and decide the freedoms they don't like DO matter.
...and that rights have to be inherent else they're *entitlements*.
There is no 'right' to a government status-symbol as if government status-symbols should even exist in the first place. (i.e. marriage).
Foo_dd is the equivalent of those claiming communism hasn’t been done right yet. As an ignorant piece of shit, Foo_dd probably isn’t yet conscious that the rest of us know how stupid and narcissistic he is; he means only that HE (she?) is the only one to decide matters; entirely too stupid to make distinctions of degree let alone function.
Like the asshole Brandyshit, the assumption here is the idiotic desire for perfection!
Up yours, Foo_dd; we need progress and shits like you prevent that. Fuck off and die
Democrats Are 'More Pro-Freedom Than Republicans'
Well, duh. Of course they are. They're pro-free shit for everybody. But a life free of consequences for your poor choices puts the responsibility on others against their will, which is a funny way of defining 'freedom'. It may be great for your freedom if somebody else is responsible for paying for your food, clothing, housing, healthcare, education, and high-speed internet connection so you can be free to play video games all day, but it sucks for my freedom if I'm the one stuck paying your bills. And no, the government can't give you all that for free without first taking it from someone else.
Yeah, um I’m gonna need more than high speed internet to play those video games. What about the console?
Fucking fascist.
Pol Pot was more pro freedom than Hitler?
Khrushchev was about as much of an outlier as Kennedy, ergo the Soviets and Democrats are equally bad when it comes to liberty.
Well, you could argue that, as a proportion, his population was 'freer' from the need for food.
You mean more dead? Freer from the burdens of breathing.
That too.
"Polis then claimed that Democrats are "more pro-freedom than Republicans.""
Polis then elaborated on his position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMK4cfXj5c0
Don't bogart that joint...
OMG.... Polis certainly wins the award for Double-speak, flip-flop and talking out of his *ss that's for sure. I can't believe reason lobbied for such a buffoon.
Every seconds the answer is, "Whatever you want to hear."
ALL politicians claim to be more pro-freedom than there opponents. That makes them the LEAST reliable source for such information.
Jared Polis: late-night TV host with zero ratings, or an ignoramus with less brain-cell activity than Rachel Maddow?
You decide.
And he is correct: Democrats are "pro-freedom" in the same way Marxists/socialists/communists are: they want more "freedom-to-act" for more people. Many libertarians get confused about this as well.
However, libertarians and classical liberals are not interested in maximizing "freedom-to-act", they are interested in maximizing "freedom-from-government-coercion".
“Freedom to pull out gov-guns against those icky people.”
Well said.... 100000+
They are accountable to parents, which is better than being "accountable" to sleepy government bureaucrats.
If the bureaucrats were only sleepy, it wouldn't be so bad. They are political, climate, COVID and woke activists, that's the real problem.
It's pretty hard to be held accountable when the bureaucrats are packing gov-guns.
One of the many ?blessings? of Commie-Education.
Only 'guns' can teach kids! /s
Polis is requiring 30 percent reductions for nitrous oxide emissions.
Nitrous oxide? That is no laughing matter.
That means he wants to ban cows.
Nitrous oxide is not considered a nitrogen oxide pollutant (NOx).
That said, used correctly N2O does allow your car to consume more air and fuel and, thus, produce more harmful tailpipe emissions per mile, so I suppose requiring reductions could possibly be considered an environmental protection initiative.
(But it's more likely that someone just failed to copy edit this article properly...)
You are out of date. They now consider nitrous oxide one of “the most dangerous” greenhouse gases.
It is part of the push to ban cows.
In Colorado you can go to prison if you 3d print gun parts. Thanks for the freedom Polis.
Is that Polis (D) by any chance?
Has he lifted the COVID lockdown yet? The last reason.com fluff so-called-article about this megalomaniac said he supported freedom, while he had just finished re-signing his executive order locking everyone down. I was forced out of this beautiful state by this authoritarian, and any so-called "journalist" that supports him will find their due in time (they always kill you all off first after all, no offense)
OFFS!
He gave cities the "freedom" to lock down thier residents.
Freedom to rampage, riot, commit violence, rape, groom children, steal the trophies of women, impose their views on others...
These are the "freedoms" Demunists value.
So what we have is a governor who sucks on gun rights issues, is pretty bad on school choice (to the point that he mocks any non-state educational entity), is in the "bake the cake"/business has no right to freedom of association crowd. He's fine with regulating peoples personal health choices and regulating the energy industry at the expense of the consumer and businesses.
The one thing he seems to get credit for in this article is marijuana and psychedelic legislation. Bear in mind that Colorado legalized weed through a ballot initiative years before Polis came to office. Magic mushrooms again came up for legalization through ballot initiatives rather than legislation Polis led on. The only legislation where Polis actually is involved amounts to a magic mushroom business licensing scheme and adds regulations on how much personal supply and individual can cultivate. He deserves little to no credit on this issue.
His answers on school choice and whether businesses have the right to decline certain clients also indicate he has no real free market principal, just a slightly underdeveloped authoritarian muscle. To only allow school choice for state-controlled ventures means that there is no way to opt-out from whatever issues the state finds most important to teach your kids (which in recent history has mostly been about sexual grooming kids and/or encouraging them to remove their healthy organs and feed into their mental health problems).
I've been really sick and tired of Reason either praising Polis or giving him the kid-glove treatment. I'm glad Stossel finally challenged him somewhat, even if only a little.
The funny thing is that his party really is frustrated with him to a certain extent for being 98% rather than 100% on board with every stupid law they want to pass. For instance, they were livid that he came out against the bill that would have forced medium and small size towns to build "affordable housing" irrespective of what was proper for their community, which was enough for some of the Democrats in purplish districts to ultimately kill it. He gets the kind of pass from them that Sinema doesn't get from Arizona Dems because he, along with several other members of the Front Range's gay millionaire mafia, was at the forefront of the funding and political strategy starting in 2006 that ultimately turned Colorado indigo blue.
I think Polis is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Even though vaping has been effective in helping people get off of smoking," Polis responds, "it's also led to more nicotine addiction, especially among young people."
"It's ultimately a matter of personal responsibility," says Polis. "If you want to use marijuana, if you want to drink, if you want to smoke, that's your prerogative. The government shouldn't be deciding that for you."
He isn't stupid. He knows how contradictory these statements are. The question is why he's playing the L card on certain issues. I suspect he is thinking about the Presidency and wants to have his pet cause to say he bucks the party. Unfortunately for him, Trump exists and is the new standard of bucking parties. Polis is a sham.
In which John Stossel comes out against the Civil Rights Act because "there's more than one" shop, ignoring the entire explicit history of the civil rights era laws and supreme court rulings. There were other schools too. Separate and supposedly equal.
The problem with Stossel and all libertarians is their steadfast allergy to understanding things or appreciating even the slightest hint of the nuance of reality.
Here's a fun fact... House Democrats were only 12-votes shy of having a majority insistent on school segregation. The problem with the CRA1964 is it trampled private property rights for *entitlements*.
You're the one who has a steadfast allergy to understanding things or appreciating even the slightest hint of the nuance of reality.
When did socialist dictators become freedom loving?
Apparently for Polis it was when he realized touting slogan lies can win him an election. It's amazing how much blatant contradiction he tried to sell that Stossell wouldn't just buy. I laughed a few times.
Socialism is all about "freedom to act": it wants to redistribute money so that more people have more economic choices available to them, even if they are unearned.
Libertarianism is about "freedom from government", a different concept of freedom.