Hypocrisy on Bodily Autonomy at the DEA
Trump’s pick for federal drug enforcement was ousted for not respecting personal freedom. Too bad that that’s a job requirement.

Here's a news item no one saw coming: A man was deemed unworthy of heading the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) because he didn't demonstrate sufficient respect for Americans' rights to take risks with their own bodies.
Watching President-elect Donald Trump assemble a Cabinet has been chaotic, to say the least. But no saga has been more interesting for the fate of bodily autonomy than the squabble over the DEA.
Trump announced the selection of Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister on November 30. The local Florida lawman was an odd choice for a federal agency that runs complicated international operations and has about 10,000 employees. There were also immediate whiffs of corruption; he's married to the daughter of former San Francisco 49ers owner Edward J. DeBartolo Jr., whom Trump pardoned during his first term. But neither of those reasons are why he withdrew suddenly on December 3.
After the nomination was announced, Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) posted: "I'm going to call 'em like I see 'em. Trump's nominee for head of DEA should be disqualified for ordering the arrest [of] a pastor who defied COVID lockdowns."
Massie, a consistent opponent of the lockdowns, flagged a boastful March 2020 tweet from Chronister "announcing the arrest of Dr. Ronald Howard-Browne, Pastor of The River at Tampa Bay Church, who intentionally and repeatedly disregarded state and local public health orders, which put his congregation and our community in danger." The arrest came just days after an executive order was put in place banning gatherings of 10 people or more—including faith-based gatherings. The evangelical pastor proclaimed worship an "essential service" and declared he would not close his church "until the rapture."
Massie is right the arrest was nothing to brag about. It was one of the many, many instances of state overreach during the pandemic. In the ensuing controversy, the church claimed it had been honoring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's distancing guidelines (which later turned out to be unscientific and needlessly bureaucratic).
It is heartening to see so many Republicans leap to the defense of bodily autonomy, indeed to consider it a litmus test for a potential officeholder's worth. It's deeply weird to see that happen over an appointment to head the agency responsible for some of the most egregious violations of that autonomy.
***
The DEA operates under the misguided premise that it has the right to enforce arbitrary standards about what risks individuals can take with their own bodies—the same basic issue at the heart of the lockdowns. From raiding medical marijuana dispensaries in states where cannabis is legal to aggressively pursuing patients and doctors in pain management cases, the DEA routinely preempts the rights of seekers of relaxation or relief.
The agency criminalizes personal choices, incarcerates people for nonviolent drug offenses, and exacerbates public health crises like the recent wave of opioid abuse by instilling fear in doctors who might otherwise prescribe necessary medication and thus driving users into black markets. By its very nature, the DEA assumes federal power over matters of personal health and risk taking.
Moreover, the DEA's focus on prohibition over harm reduction fuels unsafe underground markets, endangering lives while claiming to protect them. Its existence is a testament to the federal government's willingness to sacrifice personal liberty on the altar of moralistic control, making it one of the most antiautonomy agencies in Washington.
For its role in the prohibition of psychedelics, it infringes on freedom of conscience and even, in some cases, on traditional religious practice. The Supreme Court made clear in 2006's Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal that protections under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could apply to the use of ayahuasca, a tea containing the hallucinogenic substance DMT, in religious ceremonies. Yet the DEA considers it a Schedule I substance.
***
Massie, to his credit, has been a skeptic of what he has called the "failed war on drugs." He has called for an end to marijuana prohibition, as well as for checks on drug enforcers' invasions of privacy. But most are not so consistent. The same hypocrisy is evident on many issues—and present on both sides of the aisle—from fertility and gender to draft registration.
The case against overzealous enforcement of COVID-19 lockdown orders is the case against the DEA. Good riddance to Chronister, but while we're weeding out threats to personal liberty from law enforcement, let's consider striking at the root.
That executive order that Chronister was enforcing? It was signed by Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was, at the time Chronister withdrew from consideration, rumored to be under consideration for a possible Cabinet spot of his own.
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
The ONLY reason you get to claim that the public health response to the real COVID threat to life was “unscientific” was because the people who created COVID and obviously had the science, China and the US, were lying and denying they did. Insisting instead that it naturally occurred in a market located near the Chinese laboratory that developed it with US funding and oversight.
Had they instead released the science at the outset, masking and lockdowns would have been “scientific”.
Huh?
What are your thoughts on the Jews?
Eh, his thoughts on everything have been refuted.
Was it the reference to lying that made you think about Jews?
That’s your/ their satanic religion that defines you.
When lying is criminalized, you’re going to need to find a new religion Kol Nidre boy.
Do they still make their matzos with the blood of baby Miseks?
Also 'Kol Nidre' isn't an insult to anyone not insane.
I had to look it up but it's apparently a "Aramaic prayer which begins Yom Kippur services in the synagogue".
"In the Heavenly Academy and in the earthly academy, by the authority of Hashem and by the authority of this congregation, we hold it lawful to pray with these sinners. May all the people of Israel be forgiven, including all the strangers who live in their midst, for all the people are in fault. O pardon the iniquities of this people, according to Thy abundant mercy, just as Thou forgave this people ever since they left Egypt."
"The Lord said, 'I pardon them according to your words."
Ohhhh, insulting.
You left this part out you lying piece of shit. The part that clearly advocates lying. Of course you did.
“All vows, obligations, oaths, and anathemas [curses]which we may vow, or swear, or pledge, or whereby we may be bound, from this Day of Atonement until the next we do repent. May they be deemed absolved, forgiven, annulled, and void, and made of no effect: they shall not bind us nor have any power over us. The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligations; nor the oaths be oaths.”
Yes, you advocate lying, and should be executed for it. Just like your fellow socialists at Nuremberg.
That doesn't advocate lying you pathologically dishonest garbage.
That expressly ask for God's pardon and renounces prohibitions and vows they placed on each other. We can all read it. How fucking stupid do you think we are? It's in black and white in your very own post.
You want to talk anti-God? You're espousing a satanic antichrist spirit. You want to outlaw lying? You should start with yourself.
There's zero wrong with the Kol Nidre, you fucking piece of lying garbage.
The text is clear,
“The vows shall not be reckoned vows; the obligations shall not be obligations; nor the oaths be oaths.”
We call that lying.
Are you one of the stupid fucking Jews who claim that it’s about lying to god?
One of the Jews that are sooo stupid you don’t realize that god is OMNIPRESENT existing in past present and future simultaneously, knowing all?
Hey FUCKWIT, lies don’t work on god.
That stupid fucking Jew “explanation” doesn’t make sense.
Lies ONLY work on people so unless the Kol Nidre is just stupid fucking Jew nonsense, it must be about lying to people.
Refuted
One of the Jews that are sooo stupid you don’t realize that god is OMNIPRESENT existing in past present and future simultaneously, knowing all?
The effectiveness of lying isn't why people try to lie to God.
But you are way too deep into anti-Jewry to understand that.
Like I said,
Lies ONLY work on people so unless the Kol Nidre is just stupid fucking Jew nonsense, it must be about lying to people.
Yeah, I don’t understand stupid fucking Jew nonsense but apparently you think you do.
That’s your delusion.
Or you’re just a lying waste of skin.
Yeah, I don’t understand stupid fucking Jew nonsense but apparently you think you do.
Because forgiveness is not in your vocabulary.
Therefore I will forgive you no more.
To the mute box you go.
You do you Jew
The bigotry button was made for you.
You don’t deserve forgiveness for planning to lie.
I don’t need forgiveness for telling the truth.
Do murderers deserve forgiveness when they’re on their way to murder someone?
Or do they deserve to be stopped with lethal force?
If that’s the “forgiveness” you’re looking for, I’m all over it.
Refuted.
True libertarian support Trump, and Trump supports the war on drugs. Therefore true libertarians support the war on drugs. Anyone who says otherwise is a leftist.
Also... True libertarians support Trumpolean, and Trumpolean supports the American wars on Canada, Greenland, Panama, and possibly more. Therefore true libertarians support the American wars on Canada, Greenland, Panama, and possibly more. Anyone who says otherwise is a leftist.
Don't worry, be happy, Trumpoleon will LOVE us all!!! More than we can EVER imagine!!!
https://image.politicalcartoons.com/291287/600/a-wish-for-normalcy.png?utm_medium=reason_email&utm_source=reason_alert&utm_campaign=reason_policy&utm_content=Reason%20Alert:%20MAGA%20Fights%20Over%20Immigration,%20Biden%27s%20Powers,%20Midnight%20Regulations,%20and%20Freeing%20Sharks&utm_term=&time=December%2027th,%202024&mpid=104082
Sad.
Yes it is sad that Trump defenders will defend his support for the drug war and call libertarians leftists for opposing it.
Where is this happening? Your imaginations again?
By the way, you continue to be rarely here quite a lot.
He blacks out a lot.
Fair. Alcoholic amnesia is surely his super power.
There a lot of people like him out there.
He's not wrong.
I would love to hear just one time when you will criticize Trump for something he did or said, *on its own merits*, without reference to Biden or Obama or any Democrat or even any other Republican or anyone else. Can you do that? Or is Trump ALWAYS going to be given the infinite benefit of the doubt, are his terrible actions and words always going to be excused and rationalized away?
Oh yeah? You do that with Biden and Democrats! You excuse everything they do and attack Trump! You're a hypocrite! You, you, you!
/Jesse
Cite?
When I accuse you of ways you defend Biden, I provide the source material. You provide what you imagine lol.
Fucking projecting dishonest leftist shit.
Why are you on so much for rarely being here? Your entire family chose to be away from you?
Any thoughts on Chase Oliver having a historically myopic vote return in the election?
I mean, Jo Jorgensen shat the bed with a 1.865M votes in 2020. The "most secure election in the history of ever".
Chase dropped almost 2/3 of that number. 650,120 votes. He f'n lost to RFK Jr, who dropped out of the race months earlier and endorsed and campaigned with Trump. And it was not all that close (RFK Jr hit 757,000 votes)
Would you now say he was a less than stellar candidate and, easily, the worst performing one the LP has had in recent, well, decades?
Oliver just wasn’t gay enough to pull in votes. I certainly found him unconvincing.
Wait. Oliver is gay?
Was J.D. Vance wrong about Oliver?
Sarc should have told us.
See? Not nearly gay enough to pull millions of votes. He needed to be full on Buddy Cole from ‘The Kids In The Hall’.
I don't see a criticism of Trump in your above comment there. Huh.
So, Chase is still a great candidate in your eyes, even though he basically cratered the LP to depths few thought they'd ever hit again.
Good to know.
Deflection was noted.
And I've criticized his spending for years. More than you, for example, ever criticized Biden on anything.
Chase was an identitarian democrat pretending to be a libertarian. Jeff loves him.
He is wrong. And so are you. You're both notorious trolls and liars here. Sarckles a little more of the former, you a little more of the latter.
Let's see one criticism of any of Trump's major policies that run completely counter to libertarianism, or which there are many. We've got his opposition to free trade, opposition to the free movement of people, opposition to supporting one's self without government permission, support for the drug war, and the list goes on and on. Give just one.
I bet you can't do it because you support the man, not his policies, and your partisan brain equates any criticism of him or his policies as support for Democrats.
What are Trump's policies, Trolltits? Tell us which ones you hate and are violently opposed to.
I'll give you a hand if you're not to drunk to read this. You can find them on his campaign website.
What makes you supermad, Sarckles?
He hates:
Deregulation.
Lowered Taxes.
First Step Act.
No new wars.
Not bowing to China.
Not spending government dollars on illegal immigrants..
Federalism during covid, noy forcing masks and vaccines and quarantine camps.
Stopping government censorship.
Ending Sue and Settle.
Ending redirecting fed suits to NGOs.
Reducing NGO funding.
Being against funding Ukraine.
Not spending government dollars on illegal immigrants..
Reminder: It is your team that wants to spend government dollars on illegal immigrants - by paying government agents to throw them into government cages and then put them onto government planes to deport them. Libertarians want the government to spend only a minimal amount of dollars on immigrants, primarily by facilitating the free flow of peaceful migrants to and fro.
If you don't want government money spent on immigrants, perhaps you shouldn't have voted for Trump.
And what ingrates they are for not appreciating the government benefit of deportation.
Hay Fatfuck. That’s pennies on the dollar compared to keeping them here. Which is YOUR fault in the first place.
We’re just cleaning up your mess, as usual.
That is just a retarded fucking take but I guess that's you doing your best.
You've been given the long list dozens and dozens of times. Unlike you we can criticize him. Nobody has called him perfect or even a libertarian. But he's far closer to libertarian than the shit stains you pine for, the democrats and neocons. Or you and Jeff, leftist open border democrats. You're a joke sarc lol.
Me: Let's see you criticize Trump.
ML: You're just a troll!
Still no criticism of Trump.
For what, you fucking sociopathic politruk?
Why are you so desperate to have everyone denounce him? Do you get a fifty-centing bonus for it?
You're just like the Maoists during the Cultural Revolution. All they needed during a Struggle Session was to get the group to admit to one thing their target did wrong and they could snowball it into a lynching from there.
That's exactly what you paid internet political officers try to do today. You're so disgusting.
This is just like when you desperately tried to convince everyone that Trump lied during the debate, and when people challenged you and you came up empty, you tried to lawyer and redefine the meaning of tariffs, and deny the existence of import brokers and foreign importing.
When I call Lying Jeffy a paid shill I'm not resorting to hyperbole, folks. Witness it yourself with his attempts to get people to publicly denounce Trump.
All Jeff and sarc have left is projection and lies. Every one of their views have been laughably destroyed. They don't change the definition of words though, they are too stupid to actually know the actual definitions. Their knowledge base is narratives, not facts or evidence.
They’re just trolls.
Do what Sarc claims to do and mute them.
Still no criticism of Trump. Trump is PervFection Personified, just like the lot of Ye PervFected Trumpanzees Gone Apeshit!
YE CUNT DO SHIT!!! Trump has taken over EVERY cell in y'all's bodies!!! Prove udderwise, Ye PervFected Trumpanzees Gone Apeshit!
Grey rectangle says what?
So, this is what I call the "deflection via outrage" tactic. You refuse to answer the question posed, and instead deflect by trying to generate outrage in the questioner. "How dare you ask that question, you Nazi!" The point is to generate a response rooted in defensiveness and emotional outrage, so that the original question is lost. This is a deliberate tactic on your part when you are confronted with questions that you don't want to answer.
No one here is asking you to "denounce" Trump. Only to treat him like a normal human being, and a normal politician. Every human being is flawed in one way or another, and every politician sometimes acts in his/her own selfish political interests rather than due to some altruistic interest (i.e., Public Choice theory applies). So, with your deflection strategy batted away, do you think Trump is a normal human being, and has flaws? What do you think some of these flaws are? How has he expressed these flaws? Do you think Trump the politician sometimes acts according to selfish political interests, i.e., that Public Choice theory applies to him as well? If so, what do you think are some instances of these cases when he has done so?
Revealing that he equates criticism of policy with denouncing the man.
How is calling Trump like Hitler attacking his policies drunk? Need a reminder?
https://reason.com/2024/11/14/trumps-immigration-picks-are-terrible/?comments=true#comment-10801689
Wow. You and Jeff. Sure sounds like policy.
https://reason.com/2023/12/19/texas-new-immigration-law-will-lead-to-more-policing-with-less-accountability/?comments=true#comment-10364358
So much policy discussions. Comparing him to Hitler.
Should I go into your support of lawfare next? Or you claiming Trump only did good things by accident?
Why are you and Jeff so full of shit? And you persist in your shit despite knowing we've been bookmarking shit for when you lie.
In other turds, JesseBahnFarter-Fuhrer pleads fully guilty to Worshitting the Very PervFect Poop that Dear Leader swims in, ass charged, and can stink of NOTHING less than PERVFECT about Dear Leader! Twat an udder slurprise!!!
(Also, the Demon-Craps did shit first and worst, so shit's OK! MORE than OK! Shit is BLESSED!)
That’s really what looking for. That, and tacit support of your precious democrats, who just spent four years wrecking the country.
His greatest failure is not firing, jailing, and slamming Guantanamo Bay on Fauci and Brix.
The DEA operates under the misguided premise that it has the right to enforce arbitrary standards about what risks individuals can take with their own bodies
No, it operates under the very clear definition and directives of the CSA. America, in large part, does not want a nation of unchecked druggies. With overwhelmingly bipartisan support, America came together and make the so-obvious-it-shouldn't-have-needed-to-be-said point: "We hate druggies and we don't want them enabled or wandering around in our society."
Let me make that very clear for you Kat, so there's no misunderstanding: Normies hate druggies. Hate them with every fiber of their being. And despite the blue states easing up on "soft" drugs, a staggering number of Americans, when asked, are frustrated to the point of furious at the number of tent cities, shambling derelicts, and revolving door arrests of drug criminals.
So, when you try to play this game of make-believe where the DEA is enforcing "arbitrary standards" and pretend that recreational drug abuse is an issue strictly contained to the abuser - that's how you build a MAGA cult. Because they don't know what else to do in the face of you psychotics other than push back against you with force.
You're not fooling anyone when you try to compare it to scamdemic lockdowns. What you're doing is trying to dilute the reality that is America's loathing for druggies. Why don't you just say what you mean: "Hey, you know how you felt about having to wear a mask? That's how we feel about not getting stoned whenever and wherever we please."
It's a ludicrous comparison on its face. A better analogy would be you defending drug use by equating it with the "right" to take a dump on a Frisco sidewalk. Nobody wants it or likes it, but gosh darn it you want to do it and screw anyone who doesn't like it, right?
Moreover, the DEA's focus on prohibition over harm reduction fuels unsafe underground markets, endangering lives while claiming to protect them.
This is not an argument. It never has been and it never will be.
This is the response of a petulant child who, when not getting their way, holds his breath until he turns blue or run away from home, hoping that his threat of self-destruction will get you to cave to his demands.
It doesn't work with children. It doesn't work with transgenders who are "going to commit suicide." It doesn't work with abortion. It doesn't work with druggies.
Knock it off.
Normies hate witches!!! BURN them ALL!!!
Also illegal sub-humans, trannies, accused “groomers”, abortionists, gays, heathens, infidels, vaxxers, mask-wearers, atheists, dirty hippies, Jews, Jesus, Gandhi, MLK Jr., other assorted do-gooders who MAKE US LOOK BAD, and, the very WORST of them all, being one of those accused of STEALING THE ERECTIONS OF OUR DEAR LEADER, right, right-wing wrong-nuts? ANY methods are OK, so long as they are used against the CORRECT enemies, am I right?
Wrong place
Hey AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian...Has shit ever occurred to PervFected You, that shit would be FAR more effective (the list would be MUCH shorter), if, instead of listing those that You PervFectly HATE, You could simply list those who You do SNOT PervFectly HATE! You, Yourself, Your PervFected Brain lesions (they are LEGION!), Shitler, Stalin, Trump, and the Evil One... That's about shit! See? The list is MUCH shorter!
Let me fix that for you:
Y'know anarchist, America also says you have to wear pants out in public. Is that a problem for you too?
As always, I'm willing to consider the merit (lol) of the druggies and offer a compromise - if they want to do drugs, they can lock themselves in a drug sanitarium, somewhere far far away and removed from the normies, and then do all the drugs they want. And they can leave any time they want on the condition of being clean and sober. Strictly voluntary, but contingent on keeping their drug use 100% contained.
You can do any and all drugs freely, but you no longer get to participate in normal society.
Deal?
And when that's extended to freedom of speech and you are only allowed to post such drivel within a locked room, you will be satisfied.
This is always a weird response to me.
In his post he talks about the violations of the NAP committed by the druggies. The violations excused by the left. These violations cause the response.
Criminalized the acts they commit against others is a first step. And that is not anti libertarian. Excusing and turning a blind eye to bad acts, violations of the NAP, and such is not in fact libertarian, it is anarchist.
Violations of the NAP by druggies remains criminal. There is no drug that leads to more NAP violations than alcohol, which remains legal.
Shouldn't we punish NAP violations and not populations you think are more likely to violate the NAP?
Here.
The violations excused by the left.
Think you missed this.
I have always stated i don't mind uppers for crimes committed for drugs. As they are very likely to reoffend. I dont want to criminalize possession.
But the left, and many left libertarians, want to ignore the violations.
Got it.
Freedom of speech is a guaranteed Constitutional right.
Getting high is not.
Getting drunk on booze is SNOT a guaranteed Constitutional right, either. PervFected Power Pig, did ye EVER PervFectly study twat happened during booze prohibition in the USA?
Inevitable bogus comparison of drugs to alcohol! *drink*
I’d say that alcohol is definitely worse than weed in general.
Other drugs? That depends.
And I'd say that failing to go to Church every Sunday is worse than both of them.
I mean, it's a stupid thing to say as far as this conversation is concerned, because none of them have anything to do with each other. But I guess since we're just saying irrelevant stuff about what we personally believe...
Ass usual, ONLY twat AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian thinks and stinks, matters! All udders are mere mortal peons! All Hail THE AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian!!!
You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
From the conclusion to the above…
“These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.”
SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an evil, lying asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!
You don't love personal liberty. You don't even understand the term.
Purest projection! AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian thinks and stinks that personal, individual freedom means doing twatever AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian thinks and stinks that ye should be doing!
Notice how SQR made no effort to evidence any understanding of personal liberty.
Instead, he did what the typical Leftist does when any of their insane NPC wojak moron beliefs are ever challenged: "I... I know you are but what am I! Waaaaah!"
Notice how AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian presents ZERO evidence that shit understands, in even the TINIEST way, that AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian shares shit's world with OTHER beings, who should be respected at least a TINY bit, and that considerate and ethical beings SHARE at least a TINY bit of power with others, gracefully! They do NOT engage in a never-ending unquenchable thirst for ALWAYS MORE-MORE-MORE power and self-righteousness!
"Unquenchable thirst" is a damned good synonym for EVIL! Wake up, Oh Ye PervFected Servant and Serpent of the Evil One!
On the off chance that Ye ever DO want to wake up and smell Your Own PervFect Evil, start here:
M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.
who should be respected at least a TINY bit
Wait, stop right there. Why should they be respected at least a tiny bit?
Respect is earned, not owed. It is a product of merit and accomplishment, not something you're entitled to simply by virtue of existing.
considerate and ethical beings SHARE at least a TINY bit of power with others
Again, why? That's a recipe for exploitation.
You've got a real Marxist theme going on here in both those statements, dude. You sure this is what you intended to say?
Notice how AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian denies that Shit should share ANY of Shit's VAST imaginary political power with ANYONE! Also PervFected Shit denies that ANYONE other than PervFected Shit (and possibly Shitler, Stalin, Trump, and the Evil One) deserves ANY respect for being any kind of even vaguely respectable conscious being that shares the world with AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian! Look up "Power Pig" in the shitctionary and shit says, ass a definition, "AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian"!
Yea, I wholly expected I wouldn't get an answer to that. Oh well.
No, AT the AuthorShitarian TotalShitarian, NO one ANYWHERE will EVER be able to answer Your PervFected Questions about WHY You are Soooo PervFectly evil, because evil makes NO sense at ALL! Give shit up, and You (ass well ass everyone around PervFected You) will be MUCH happier!
4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons"
You really hate that one AT.
Yet even if you wanted to pretend it didn't exist there is NO enumerated power for personal bodily dictation including drug prohibition.
Maybe you deserve a curfew of 9PM. Deserve an assigned bedtime. Deserve mandatory meal-times. Maybe [WE] can dictate your life how [WE] see fit. right?
If you have voter support for it, go right ahead. There are counties that have eliminated alcohol purchase. Others that forbid dancing if alcohol is also present. Some have restricted the carrying of firearms. There are different abortion and pornography laws depending on where you go. Others have decided an age eligible for marriage or driving differently. Some places have leash laws, others don't. Blue Laws exist in certain areas. Mandatory school curriculum may vary. And so on and so on.
The point being that the whole concept behind this self-governing nation was local governance according to local values as determined by the local population.
The reason that upsets you - the reason it upsets most folks around here - is why I made it perfectly clear to Kat. Because you don't want to accept that there are very, very few local populations where the prevailing social/cultural/moral sentiment is: "You know what would make our community great? More recreational drug users and peddlers!"
So, you come up with these convoluted arguments to defy the Will of The People for no reason other than you can't win them over on the "merits" of legalized drug use/sales.. You're not making some oh-so-righteous claim about Constitutional Rights or privacy or bodily autonomy. That's a smokescreen. What you're really doing is whining about the fact that normies hate druggies. And the fact that there are more of us than there are of you, such that you never stand a chance on the ballot.
So, instead, you're looking for some - any - kind of end run on the Will of the People. And when Leftists do manage to successfully pull that off - when they make it so that ONLY the druggies get a say on drug policy (or illegals on immigration policy, or homosexuals/pedophiles on LGBT policy); when you create that tyranny of the minority - that's when you birth a MAGA movement in response.
The USA is a *Constitutional* Union of Republican States.
NOT a [WE] mob RULES absolutely 'democracy'.
Your [WE] mob hatred against druggies (?jews?) does not have the right to hunt them down in a USA.
The "Will of the People" (i.e. "We the People of the United States") ... "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".
If you want [WE] mob PERSONAL life dictation you need a Constitutional Amendment.
Your [WE] mob hatred against druggies (?jews?) does not have the right to hunt them down in a USA.
You're absolutely correct. The criminalizing of drug use/peddling is what gives us that right.
Same reason we can go out and arrest/jail people who abuse dogs or cats or livestock. Animals are 100% not covered in ANY way under the Constitution. But that doesn't mean that a State, County, City, or Locality can't decide for themselves, according to their own values, "We are NOT going to tolerate that, and we will absolutely jail you for doing something so repugnant and abhorrent."
Which is the exact same mentality America has towards druggies.
Which is what you don't want to acknowledge.
Normies hate druggies. We will not suffer you, and you (unlike Jews, since you mentioned them) have no valid claim whatsoever as to why we should have to.
If you want [WE] mob PERSONAL life dictation you need a Constitutional Amendment.
No we don't. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
And it's not personal. Recreational drug abuse has effects far beyond the "personal." I know you refuse to admit this, but your intentional ignorance isn't an argument to the contrary.
Union States aren't allowed to violate the Bill of Rights of which the 4th is part of.
"has effects far beyond the 'personal.'"
Those 'effects' do not fit within the 4th Amendment and therefore fall within the 10th Amendment.
As stated from the very beginning. Even if you want to ignore the 4th there is no enumerated power for 'Union' drug prohibition. The Federal Drug War looses on both USA legal grounds.
Union States aren't allowed to violate the Bill of Rights
They aren't. You're asserting a right to something you don't actually have - and cannot establish - a right to.
You think your [WE] mob of 'normies' has some sort of a 'right' to dictate other people's 'druggies' self?
If so ... You are wrong. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" cannot exist when [WE] mobs think they can dictate others bodies.
Your 'hatred' doesn't make that 'right'. You have to wait till the effects go beyond personal to an aggression (violation) of someone else otherwise you end up entertaining the same 'Jew' hatred and genocide the Nazi's did.
Ensuring Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
THAT is what this nation is about.
It's not dictating your body. It's controlling/restricting the production, distribution, and possession of a product that an overwhelming majority of people don't want in the American market because of how demonstrably harmful it's repeatedly been proven to be.
No different than lead paint, asbestos, drop-side cribs, and lawn darts.
What you're doing is trying to bastardize a gross misunderstanding of the 4th Amendment in order to rationalize drug abuse. Try to make the object of focus a person's body and bodily autonomy, to the exclusion of literally everything else related to the subject. Same thing the baby killers do.
What's interesting is that, in many places, you actually can't be convicted of anything merely for being stoned. Yea, if you're creating some kind of disturbance (public intoxication) or clear danger (DUI/DWI). But if 5-0 can't actually find drugs or paraphernalia - they'll be hard pressed to secure a conviction unless you tell them you've been using drugs or consent to being tested for them. So, that throws your "secure in your persons" argument out the window.
otherwise you end up entertaining the same 'Jew' hatred and genocide the Nazi's did.
And we've reached the Godwin's Law part of your flailing asinine argument. Well, been fun TJ but you're clearly out of gas. Enjoy the walk back to town.
And what part of what you said restores a USA?
None of it; You just preached about your feelings.
"No different than lead paint, asbestos, drop-side cribs, and lawn darts."
Correct. Things the [WE] mobsters RULE Government decides for you and it shouldn't be doing that. Is this a nation built on 'Government' dictates or is it a nation built on Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
You'll never keep "the land of the free" if you won't support a "land of the free".
There are a million in a half private testing/standards organizations out there because people need safe/viable products. There was ZERO excuse to 'GUN' dictate in that arena and the slippery-slope of that has already slipped and it's some of the reason this nation is in such despair.
People should be free to take most drugs. And I should be free to beat the shit out of them should they engage in shitty addict behavior. Where right now, drugs are illegals, but the addicts are coddled when they engage in shitty addict behavior.
I prefer the path of freedom and accountability. Prohibition, and freedom from accountability hasn’t worked.
^THIS +10000000000.
'Guns' are entirely the wrong tool to save anyone.
... unless ...
they are used Defensively against an Aggressive assault.
Flipping that equation on its head is flipping a free and civil society on its head and putting the Aggressive-assaults in charge (empowering criminal acts).
You're not fooling anyone when you try to compare it to scamdemic lockdowns.
I'm having trouble distinguishing the difference. As you say, Americans hate druggies, and druggies are a risk and liability to others thus justifying the law and even justifying the no knock raid in yesterday's article. Correct me if I have your logic wrong here.
In 2020, Americans hated non-masked people because they were an infection risk and healthcare cost liability to others. The law was legally proclaimed for no mass gatherings.
So were COVID laws also just and any punishment for violations enacted by the state also just, because it was the law and the citizens were fairly warned?
I put on my Magic Tinfoil Hate-Hat and tried to suss this out.
I'm not sure what to make of shit... My Magic Tinfoil Hate-Hat hasn't been calibrated lately, butt here's twat I'm channeling right now...
COVID viruses are from The Amphibian People, and The Amphibian People (think of Pepe the Stolen-IP Racist Frog) AND their viruses are of "Team R", so do SNOT stand in their way, with vaccines or masks or other such nonsense! Do snot even ALLOW private businesses or hospitals or military bases to require masks, in the middle of a pandemic! Remember, The Amphibian People (and their viruses) are on the GOOD side! So our collective bodies, our collective choices!!! Even sneeze guards at the salad bar are highly questionable!
Druggies? They belong to The Lizard People and THEIR puppets, "Team D". So in THIS case, our bodies?!?! Ha!!! Government Almighty's bodies, especially so long ass Government Almighty is mostly or all of the "Team R" kind!!!
Unread
Oh, I used my tin foil hate hat to wrap up Christmas ham leftovers...which may explain why I want my drug war with mashed potatoes.
Ass for MEEEE, being the staunch red-blooded TRUE American (and still retaining the Purity of My Essences), and a gung-ho Drug Warrior to boot... I want MY drug war with my own personal 55-gallon oak barrel of aged Jack Daniels! And a NEW one every month! (For medicinal uses only, of course.)
"In 2020, Americans hated non-masked people because they were an infection risk and healthcare cost liability to others. The law was legally proclaimed for no mass gatherings."
....except they were not. All medical evidence before and after said precisely that: masks do not do much to protect against an airborne disease outside. It was just we decided to ignore decades of science for about a two year period.
True. I was articulating the majority belief at the time, not actual truth. It makes it a good analogy for drug prohibition beliefs, I think.
Edit: Well, actually they were, just masked were equally risky.
It was not a majority belief. It may have been portrayed that way on social media, but it’s not true.
In March 2020? I think you're wrong.
I think he's a certified moron, so I keep him on mute.
“Mute”
LOL
"Muh mute button"
POST THE LIST, SARCKLES!
You don't Mute drunky.
No you don’t. And he’s a lot smarter than you even on your best day. So are you trying to tell us you’re a complete retard?
So did a search for public polls from Feb 2020 to Dec 2020. Could not find public polls. Just government warnings. Do you have a cite?
Americans hated non-masked people because they were an infection risk and healthcare cost liability to others
No they weren't. That was a 100% completely debunked lie. Normal people saw right through it instantly. Idiots, otoh, or malevolent types with ulterior motives, gobbled it up and asked for seconds. They hated non-masked people because they were intentionally (if not willfully) deceived and manipulated for purposes that had nothing to do with public health.
Unlike drug culture, the direct and indirect harms of which have been well-studied and documented over the last century, we know exactly how and why it's a problem.
It's not a legitimate comparison, Brix.
Normal people saw right through it
No true Scotsman?
If I get your jist, the drug war is justified by majority rule, but mask/social distancing doesn't apply because that majority consisted of idiots and the malevolent and is therefore void?
It is a debunked lie, but mask compliance was around 80%. I find it hard to believe that many would comply without thinking it was effective.
The direct and indirect harm of drugs does not show that a policy is less harmful than a legal policy. It sure wasn't better for Randall Adjessom.
It is a debunked lie, but mask compliance was around 80%. I find it hard to believe that many would comply without
thinking it was effectivebeing forced.How about both? On the frightened victim left, they desperately needed to believe masks worked, in order to venture out from under their beds. On the defiant right, the ONLY reason to wear a mask was to avoid some penalty.
I think it's both, but not only the left believe. All of my family are Trump supporters, but some masked even after the requirement was dropped. The most pro‐mask person I know, still masking to this day, is also the staunchest Trump supporter I know unless I count those on these boards.
Being forced was certainly part of it, especially as we dragged on into 2021. I can't find anything to back up or counter my speculation that a majority believed in early 2020 so I'll leave it there.
Also a year of false science pushed by government. A lot of really stupid people. Then Google burying decades of studies. Massive censorship for voices against government guidance. Etc etc.
You're basically arguing massive censorship and propaganda can convince half the country.
You're basically arguing massive censorship and propaganda can convince half the country.
That's exactly what I'm arguing.
mask/social distancing doesn't apply because that majority consisted of idiots and the malevolent and is therefore void?
No, that was very clearly a tyranny of the minority at work. Do it or else. The more blue the location, the truer this got - up to and including hotlines for citizen narcs.
And it involved coercion as well. The small business owners compelled it under threat of the State if they didn't. So even those who knew it was bogus, and would openly tell you it's bogus, still required it for fear of not doing so.
It is a debunked lie, but mask compliance was around 80%.
lol, in what world can you possibly think that's true? Mask theater was around 80% maybe - but compliance? I wouldn't even put that at 3%.
Are you forgetting how many people would touch it all throughout the day? How many people would wear it around their chin, or leave their noses exposed, or lower it to sip food or drink or be heard more clearly, or wear some homemade thing that accomplished nothing that could possibly be attributed to serving public health. Or the ridiculous practice of, "Wear the mask while you're escorted to your table, but now that you're seated the "risk" is magically gone. Or, my absolute favorite, the ones who lowered it so they could openly cough or sneeze, and not end up with a snot-covered rag in their face.
That was not compliance. That was lip service for fear of retribution. Apples and zebras when compared to drug crime.
The direct and indirect harm of drugs does not show that a policy is less harmful than a legal policy. It sure wasn't better for Randall Adjessom.
Randall has his brother to blame for his death. All his brother had to do was not deal in drugs. Most of us are capable of going our whole lives without ever even considering doing so. Why should we frame the entirety of American society around the ones who can't? Why should the rest of us be forced to accept it, when the laws against it are ones we wanted.
I mean, this is the whole idiotic Reason stance on border jumping criminals all over again. It's always them, their needs, their fears, them them them. Why do we pretend like America - and Americans - should not get a say in their own border policy, and change it when circumstances demand (or even require)? Reason always acts like it's the immigrants, legal or illegal, that should be defining it for us?
Isn't that kind of what you're doing with the druggies here as well? Like I said - this is how you birth MAGA cults. You look down your nose at the extreme majority of normal, average, everyday people, and tell them that they have to roll over for a minority of people's behaviors that they in no uncertain terms do NOT want running loose in society, and that they get no say in it and cancelled if they try to.
"One person, one voice, one vote. Except yours has too many for us to get what we want, so shut up - you don't get yours anymore."
Again, this is precisely why a populist demagogue has risen to power, and why the Marxist Left was not just beaten - but straight up humiliated in the last election. The mentality you're espousing right this minute is the reason why that's happened.
I appreciate the detailed response. From my perspective, it seems you alter the facts to fit your beliefs rather than alter your beliefs to fit the facts. But, you probably see the same with me because we believe very different things and being human, we both think our beliefs are the correct ones. Oh well, until next time....
Happy New Year, AT.
What facts were altered?
Here I was mostly considering AT's discounting poorly used masking practices to lower mask compliance to < 3% and that "normies" have to roll over for "druggies" when it's normies doing the arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning.
Because normies want druggies arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. This is a thing they came together on, regardless of race creed sex religion or political affiliation, and in overwhelming amounts agreed upon. This was a thing decided by themselves.
Normies didn't want masks. That was a thing decided for them. And their rejection of it, based on its obvious absurdity, was clearly evidenced by how many of them paid lip service to the government edicts on the subject.
This category of "normies" you imagine as wanting that is much smaller than you think. It's been a few small activist groups pushing to have such people locked up.
Narcotics users have been very popular. Take jazz musicians for example. And later musicians too. Same with druggies as professional athletes if it let them perform better or longer.
Cite?
There was never a time "normies came together" to express a desire to outlaw various forms of consumption of narcotics and other substances as you imagine. This was just as much an imposition on normies as masking was, not some groundswell in favor. Instead there were various opportunities taken by political entrepreneurs to clamp down on selected populations via their habits, when they couldn't do so directly.
Yea, someone already tried the mask comparison. I pointed out why it was bogus.
And the time you're looking for was the late 60s/early 70s, as the counterculture "summer of love" hippie movement started quickly devolving - in large parts because of its drug proliferation and abuse - into things like the Manson murders and Altamont, and the term "hippie" quickly reduced to a very socially undesirable demographic to normal America.
A sentiment, I might add, that persists even today: "Hippies ruin everything."
You too bro.
KMW showing that she isn't actually paying attention. While Massie was one of the voices speaking up against this guy, the loudest and most influential ones were MAGA types on X including MTG and Laura Loomer.
Further, this magazine was absolutely derelict during all of covid and is 3-4 years behind even starting to criticize Biden and others who violated our rights with obvious lies. If they had integrity and pointed out their own failing it might be fine, but they're doubling down on pretending they're consistent arbiters of truth and government skepticism while still being far behind current issues and facts.
One wonders how long it would have taken Reason to recognize Edith Wilson was President. But at least they would have been sucking up to John Adams enough to avoid prosecution for sedition.
Oh, so now we are supposed to take MTG seriously?
How about these times when MTG decided to opine?
https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greenes-10-most-outrageous-quotes-this-year-1769407
In brief:
- She thought a Union soldier monument was actually for Confederates, and praised it
- She thinks Monkeypox is exclusively an STD
- She thinks global warming is "healthy for us"
- She thinks big box stores are "grooming kids" if they happen to sell adult items in the same store as kids' items
Oh and that's not even counting her gaffes such as referring to the Gestapo as the "Gazpacho Police"
I really need a test to know when I should take cranks like MTG seriously or not. Can you help me out here?
I'm sure the rules are similar to when you're supposed to ignore what Trump says and look at his record vs when you're supposed to ignore his record and look at what he says.
Whenever convenient.
You didn't even read what Jeffy wrote, did you? Too drunk to even white knight properly.
Well there's a pack of lies by DNC mouthpiece Bickerton that are worth challenging. I hope she sues the fuck out of him.
- She thought a Union soldier monument was actually for Confederates, and praised it"
She earlier had said it was a union moment at a speech she had given at the monument BEFORE she wrote that tweet. That's right, before she wrote that tweet she made an entire speech AT the monument where she correctly attributed it to union soldiers. She said she had meant union in the tweet, deleted the old one and corrected it.
Bickerton left that out, because like you, he works for the Democrats.
- She thinks Monkeypox is exclusively an STD
Lot of heavy lifting going on for you in that 'exclusively', which she didn't actually use. That's kinda lying, Lying Jeffy. She actually wrote "If Monkeypox is a sexually transmitted disease, why are kids getting it?"
Now Monkeypox isn't an 'exclusively' sexually transmitted disease, but it is 'primarily' spread by sexual contact, so MTG had a damn good question.
You know what else aren't 'exclusively' STDs? Crabs, gonorrhea, AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia, genital warts and genital herpes, but if a child suddenly contracts them, then questions need to be asked.
"- She thinks global warming is "healthy for us"
She is 100% correct and you have to be an HO2-tier idiot not to understand this.
Here's what MTG said: "We have already warmed 1 degree Celsius and do you know what has happened since then? We have had more food grown since then, which feeds people."
"We are producing fossil fuels. That keeps people's houses warm in the winter. That saves people's lives, people die in the cold. This Earth warming and carbon is actually healthy for us. It helps us to feed people, it helps keep people alive. The Earth is more green than it was years and years ago, and that is because of the Earth warming."
Carbon dioxide is currently 0.04% of the earths atmosphere and in the last 1000 years is possibly at one of the lowest levels it has been in the planet's entire history.
This is a massive problem since CO2 is the single most important element to life on earth. More so than oxygen which was universally toxic to life until the eukaryotic organisms came along after the Great Oxidation Event mass extinction.
Every single primary food source on the planet is created through CO2 intake.
More CO2, as in 99.9% of earth's past, means a greener, wetter, more hospitable planet.
The panic in the anthropogenic warming cult is over the speed of the changes. Not the end result. They worry there won't be enough time for species to migrate and adapt.
If you weren't a fucking idiot mouthpiece you'd know this.
- She thinks big box stores are "grooming kids" if they happen to sell adult items in the same store as kids' items
Lying Jeffy decided not to mention it was dildos near children's toothbrushes.
I'm just going to quote the whole section:
"Earlier this month, Greene accused Walmart of "participating in the grooming and sexualization of children," after saying the retail giant was selling sex toys near children's toothbrushes.
She wrote: "Selling sex toys openly where children are exposed to them is wrong, inappropriate, immoral, indecent, perverted, shameful, and incredibly harmful to children. Why is Walmart participating in the grooming and sexualization of children?"
Greene said other mainstream stores were selling sex toys just a few days later while giving a speech at the New York Young Republican Club.
The congresswoman said: "By the way, you can pick up a butt plug or a dildo at Target and CVS nowadays. I don't even know how we got here. This is the state that we're living in right now."
You're one sick fuck, Lying Jeffy. Even you knew it was gross which is why you didn't mention what was in close proximity to what.
Here's some of the other things Bickerton's angry about in the article that Lying Jeffy chose not to mention:
'Not Another Penny' For Ukraine
Bickerton's MTG "craziness": "The only border that [Democrats] care about is Ukraine, not America's southern border. Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine, our country comes first. They [Democrats] don't care about our border or our people."
(No wonder Bickerton and Lying Jeffy are so mad)
January 6 Attack on Capitol Just 'a Little Riot'
Bickerton's MTG craziness: "On one side of the Capitol, people were singing, they were praying. I mean it was, you know, amazing. Other side of the Capitol, yeah, there was a little riot going on.
"Approximately over 800 people went inside the Capitol, but there was a very small percent there in total that day, out of all the people that were there that actually did anything wrong. And they are being persecuted. It's a political witch hunt."
July 4 Shootings Were to Get GOP to Back Gun Control"
Bickerton's MTG "craziness": Two shootings on July 4: One in a rich white neighborhood and the other at a fireworks display. It almost sounds like it's designed to persuade Republicans to go along with more gun control... of course this sounds like a conspiracy theory"
Joining Military 'Like Throwing Your Life Away'
Bickerton's MTG "craziness": Dobbs asked: "Can you imagine explaining to a recruit, You're gonna be just fine, just like those Marines in Kabul. We may not have time to come back and get you. But, you know, it'll work out all right.... We're going to fight a third world country for two decades and walk out with our tail between our legs. Who in his or her right mind would say, 'Sign me up for that, Sarge?'"
Greene replied: "Not my son, and I know a lot of young people don't want to have anything to do with that. It's like throwing your life away. Not to mention how they've been forced to take the vaccine, and the ones that didn't want to take it have been discharged. Who wants to be treated that way?"
Lying Jeffy wants America's sons and daughters to die for Raytheon and Halliburton profits.
Is Kamala Harris' White Husband 'Worth Less'?
Bickerton's MTG "craziness": Harris said: "It is our lowest-income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making."
In response, Greene tweeted: "@KamalaHarris hurricanes do not target people based on the color of their skin. Hurricanes do not discriminate. And neither should the federal government [be] giving aid to people suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Ian. Is your husband's life worth less bc he's white?"
Attacking the 'Gazpacho Police'
Bickerton's MTG "craziness": "So everything is completely out of control. Not only do we have the D.C. jail which is the D.C. Gulag but now we have Nancy Pelosi's Gazpacho Police spying on members of Congress." "No soup for those who illegally spy on members of Congress, but they will be thrown in the goulash."
Don’t worry. Pedo Jeffy will repeat these lies as if you never called him out and corrected him. It’s what he does.
Let me ask you this. Are you going to defend everyone on Team MAGA? Can you name someone on Team MAGA who has done something or said something offensive and/or stupid that you object to? Can you do it without referring to Democrats or anyone else, but on its own?
You're kidding, right?
Let me ask you this, Lying Jeffy... and I'll extend this to your drunken pet monkey, Sarckles, too.
I just showed that everything you just posted was deliberate smears and lies, but instead of taking stock of that fact and doing some sort of serious reflection, you're trying to make me the bad guy for pointing it out.
So my question for the two of you is this: Where is your sense of shame? How come you aren't embarrassed by what you were caught doing?
No you didn't, you offered rationalizations and excuses and whataboutisms on behalf of MTG, as well as a heaping dose of attacking the source. For example you don't admit that I was right that she did praise a Union monument as if it was a Confederate monument with the phrase "I won't forget our history" or somesuch. The fact that she later deleted the tweet is irrelevant. She went to bat for *literal traitors* as "defending history". Or the stupid vibrator/toothbrush kerfuffle. She posted ONE photo of a Walmart that was selling vibrators next to toothbrushes and she tried to spin that into a deliberate attempt by Walmart to "groom kids". That is paranoid nuttery and clickbait to boot.
But that is besides the point. I simply want to know why you can't criticize anyone on Team MAGA. Why do you have to always rush to their defense even when they are acting stupidly?
Tribal loyalty.
Speaking of tribal loyalty, here’s my opinion of it. Fuck Joe Biden, fuck Harris and fuck Democrats. They can all eat a bag of dicks. And I mean it.
That’s something neither of those sacks of tribal shit will never bookmark.
Speaking of Trump's Cabinet.
Which one again is the libertarian that he promised to appoint?
Just checking in to see if, you know, he kept his promise.
He's not president yet, but otherwise the man in question is Jared Issacman.
Lying Jeffy doesn't know who that is. He also forgot Trump isn't president again yet.
Pedo Jeffy also doesn’t know what a libertarian is, or even a woman.
In his defense, we have not had one in about 4 years now.
As far as I can tell, Jared Isaacman has no connection to libertarianism, other than vague support for entrepreneurial activity. He certainly isn't a member of the Libertarian Party as far as I can tell.
Also, the administrator of NASA isn't a part of the Cabinet.
Care to try again?
Also, the administrator of NASA isn't a part of the Cabinet.
Anyone who must pass a vote by Senate consent is a member of the Cabinet.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/85/hr12575/text
Sec 202:
(a) There is hereby established the National Aeronautics Administrator.
and Space Administration (hereinafter called the "Administration").
The Administration shall be headed by an Administrator, who shall
be appointed from civilian life by the President by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and shall receive compensation at
the rate of $22,500 per annum. Under the supervision and direction
of the President, the Administrator shall be responsible for the exer-
cise of all powers and the discharge of all duties of the Administration,
and shall have authority and control over all personnel and activities
thereof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_of_the_United_States
No, the NASA Administrator is not a part of the Cabinet.
The Constitution of the United States does not explicitly establish a Cabinet.
Cabinet is fully colloquial, but advise and consent is what separates paid staff from appointees.
Therefore, NASA qualifies.
It's pretty rich, KMW whining about hypocrisy over government control of people. I bet 90% of the articles each month celebrate how governments do things efficiently, or tell government how to do things more efficiently. FAFSA comes to mind, the most incongruous set of articles I can think of in support of free minds and free markets. One would have been an idiosyncratic result of one writer's misstep. A dozen or whatever over a year is editorial choice.
In order to make progress toward liberty in any polities which are not autocratic, libertarians are going to need support from people who don't care much way or another about freedom, or even have a slight antipathy to it. So it makes sense to get such people on your side by giving them reasons other than libertarian ones. (Libertarian reasons are basic leanings that one practically can't be argued into or out of anyway.)
Contra AT above, most people in America or anywhere don't hate "druggies", or at least don't make that a priority. What they do hate is inefficiency. Show them an organization, governmental or otherwise, whose purpose is to dig holes and fill them up again, and they'll be all about doing it efficiently. It seriously doesn't matter to them what the goal is, if they see featherbedding, cronyism, waste, etc., they'd make it a priority to at least reduce such inefficiency — like the fictional John Galt, who couldn't stand to see his torturers mishandling the equipment they were using to torture him, and so told them how to fix it to better achieve that goal.
So what's wrong with flaunting the goal of efficiency and as a byproduct improving freedom a little, if you can point out a way to be more efficient and lead to that byproduct?
Pragmatics would be fine if the writers actually gave a shit about said pragmatics.
But they don't. They care about appearing appealing to the blueskys among us.
What's wrong about being deceptive in that regard? If I could figure out how to get communazis on my side, I'd try.
Amongst other reasons, they'd have to be convincing.
Pragmatics isn't about conversions (of either the easy or hard part), it's about making the best of what you have. So lying here will only assure the communazis that these "efficiency" autists are tools.
Con artists are convincing. That's how they stay in business. It's a great skill to develop.
It's all about getting people to do something they don't otherwise want to do. If they already wanted to do it, there'd be nothing to do about it.
There already exists a candidate (and soon to be President! Again!) that satisfies Milton's famous quote.
They fully reject him at every opportunity.
They care about appearing appealing to the blueskys among us.
So Sarckles, Shrike, Lying Jeffy, White Mike, Tony, Shillsy, misconstrueman, J(ew)Free, moddles, and whatever DOL/stolen valor is socking as lately. Did I miss any?
What's wrong is ignoring the principles of individualism, self-ownership, and all the rest.
Magazines and websites decrying government inefficiency are a dime a dozen. Without principles, Reason articles are nothing different from millions of similar blog posts and articles published every day.
Principles make the difference. Perhaps you've heard of them, but Reason has gone out of its way to forget them under KMW's stewardship.
Who needs magazines reprinting a principle that never changes? The principles were stated once, and don't need to be repeated. Details of inefficiency are constantly changing and so need reporting on.
What you want, a weekly or daily piece that says, "Murder is still bad"?
Contra AT above, most people in America or anywhere don't hate "druggies", or at least don't make that a priority.
Ask them. Ask them if they want some stoned loser anywhere in common society. Practicing medicine. Practicing law. In law enforcement. Fighting fires. Dispensing prescriptions. Doing electrical work. Assisting you in banking. Finding and selling you a house or a rental. Building your house. Repairing your house. Repairing your car. Checking out your groceries. Handling your mail. Moving your furniture. Driving an Uber. Driving a forklift. Driving your kid's school bus. In your kid's classroom. In your own classroom. Babysitting your kids. Painting your house. Cooking your food. Serving your food. Washing your car. On the phone as your tech support. Cutting your hair. Painting your nails. Pick literally anything.
Or, for that matter, pick nothing. Pick some stoned loser who does nothing other than being stoned. Ask folks how socially/culturally/economically desirable they find that person.
If they have the choice between a person being stoned and a person being not stoned, people will choose not stoned. They may acknowledge that stoned people occasionally do these things without your knowledge (or maybe with your suspicion), and that they pay little mind to it - but outright give them the choice and the extreme majority of people's answer won't be "stoned." Nor will it be "I don't care."
Because it's not laudable to be stoned. Being stoned is not a good quality in a person interacting with the rest of society by any metric. People don't want stoned people around them in society. Given the choice, they will NOT choose "stoned" as a quality in a person, in any capacity.
Or, more simply put: normies hate druggies.
Like I said above - maybe they're indifferent to what drugs you do in the privacy of your own home where it affects nobody but yourself. And I even made the concession that if stoners wanted to check themselves into some drug sanitarium - free to do any and all drugs they want however much they want - where they're completely isolated from the rest of society, people would probably be OK with that.
Because the issue isn't them doing drugs. It's them doing drugs and still believing they have and deserve any place in society with everyone else, who wants no part of them being stoned in any walk of life where they might be encountered. Because normies hate druggies.
FAFSA comes to mind, the most incongruous set of articles I can think of in support of free minds and free markets.
Yes we know. So what if, as a practical matter, most college students need to fill out the FAFSA form because the cost of tuition has far outpaced inflation and is unaffordable to most without some sort of financial aid. True libertarians would be screaming at the clouds about how the form shouldn't exist in the first place without offering any realistic solutions to the immediate problem other than to tear it all down. That proves that Reason is not libertarian. Yes, we all know.
Why does it bother you that libertarians don't want to support higher ed with tax dollars?
Why do you beat your wife?
Why are you a homeless drunk that gets spitroasted by the other hobos?
In their sick addicts brain, it’s the only interaction they get, so they crinkly mistake the absolute shellacking they take here for ‘being one of the group’ w/o realizing we would happily push him off the boat 1st chance we get.
Negative attention is still attention.
That’s why all I see is grey boxes so I don’t feel into it.
Battered wife syndrome?
Swing and a miss.
You didn't answer the question.
Sad.
Do you want him to post a link you won’t read?
"Why do you beat your wife?"
Speaking of which. Remember when you were going through your acrimonious divorce and you told us that your wife accused you of hitting her and your daughter?
The solution IS to tear it all down. Constantly shoveling money at the universities and bitching and moaning when a state tries to show any level of oversight, as "libertarians" are wont to do, has been an abject failure.
I don’t disagree. However that’s not within the bounds of reality, so it makes for a nice little theoretical discussion and that’s about it. What Fiona talks about is what’s actually feasible in the reality we live in.
Seems odd that "exactly what I want" is her only feasible solution.
The solution IS to tear it all down.
No it is not. That is only the solution if you're a nihilist.
Maybe you should change your handle to The Joker.
Tearing down federal financial aid would not be a bad thing.
You mean "Ideologically consistent".
Saving college subsidies (or literally anything not spelled out by the Con) is inconsistent with doctrinal libertarianism.
Co-President Elon Musk tells MAGA to “Take a big step back and fuck yourself in the face” when they object to his immigration friendly H-1B expansion. Needless to say Vivek is solidly behind him.
Now Elon is “zotting” his MAGA critics on X. So much for free speech (as they see it).
Hilarious. And H-1B is the very definition of legal immigration. One MAGA faithful said they don’t want filthy Indians in the country because they shit in their water supply.
#EntertainmentMAGAstyle
Just like how many of them treated the Haitians in Springfield. How many of them truly believe that the Haitians in Springfield eat cats and dogs (despite zero evidence) because "they practice voodoo"? It is breathtakingly bigoted and yet they are proud of it.
Elon is the very epitome of a globalist elitist. And Donnie chose a Soros disciple for US Treasury.
Yet our gullible Trump Cultists here will arrive soon to tell us what a friend of the working stiff Donnie is.
#HowmuchPPPdidDonniegiftyou?
Cry harder, boys.
Hey know! It’s sweet that these two neo Marxist pedophiles found each other. I’m sure they’re excitedly sharing their favorite child rape videos.
Elon is the very epitome of a globalist elitist.
Well you and Jeffy should be all over him like a fat kid on an M&M then.
Well you and Jeffy should be all over him like a fat kid
on an M&M then.Fixed it.
Maybe that is because you can go to Haiti's Capitol and find cat on restaurant menus, but sure, voodoo. Fuck off you dishonest cunt.
Got any proof, or are you making stuff up like a good little Trump defender?
Because last I checked the "proof" that all Haitians eat cats were some stories about some oddballs in some hills who sometimes ate cats to celebrate some holiday.
Sarc doesn’t spend much time here.
Who’s sarc?
There is exactly zero proof that any Haitian in Springfield ate any cat.
Here, let me give you a hint.
The bigotry here is to assume that the worst cultural traits of any culture apply to every member of that culture.
It is no different than if some uptight European were to assume that every American owns 50 guns, or that every American eats at McDonald's for every meal. Now I am quite certain that there are a few Americans who really do own 50 guns and eat at McDonald's regularly. But to assume that this is true of every American is a type of bigotry. The same deal goes for Haitians. I am quite certain that there are some Haitians who do practice voodoo and do things that would be considered taboo in this country. But to assume that this is true of EVERY Haitian is bigotry.
Whatever happened to that Tesla short, retarded financial wizard?
Yeah, Pluggo. I'm curious too. Tell us all how that went.
I know you're pissy that Elon pulled the plug on the pedo bullshit on X. You can always go to BlueSky and see all the pedo nonsense you love so.
His cabin ate is not any more or less chaotic
Twat did His cabin eat? Did His cabin eat Queen Spermy Daniels twat? ... Is there video? ... Asking... For a fiend!!!
The comments so far demonstrate what might happen if the Reason trolls posted attempts to provoke reactions, and nobody cared.
I bit, but I'm bored and wanted to get into a fight today. Thank goodness our trolls are short-bus-tier and I don't have to put any effort in.
I always enjoy slapping the drunk and the two pedophiles around.
People are wising up to your shtick of telling lies about them to goad them into defending themselves, and not falling for the bait.
Say liar. Do you have an example on my end? Because whoo-boy do I ever have examples (with links) of you telling lies.
How about we both post our examples. How does that sound, trolltits?
*yawn*
Scumbag liar lies again; film at 11.
Yup, it is deflection by outrage. That is what you get from an insecure simple mind like ML. He has only faith in Team MAGA.
I really don’t understand what they get out of it. They could debate with what people actually say and mean. But instead they deliberately misconstrue what people say, demand they defend it, and call them liars when they don’t.
“You believe this, defend it!”
“No I don’t.”
“You said this cherry picked comment five years ago which means you do, defend it!”
“That’s not what that comment meant. You took it out of context and claim it means something it doesn’t say.”
“You’re a liar! Liar liar! Liaaaaar!”
*yawn*
I'll wait for the scathing article calling out the millions of pro-abortion and pro-vax mandate leftists like ENB.
How long must we wait for you hyporcrites to look at the HEINOUS DAMAGE
Top Study Exposes 5.7-Fold Death Surge in Vaccinated Children
DEA, my ass, how about those senators, Pres, VP Fauci and accelerated deaths of vaccinated children
If only the US Government were made of at least 50% of the Thomas Massie mentality.