MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

How Ron Paul Gets the NFL 'Take the Knee' Controversy Wrong

Why should obsession with "cultural Marxism" mean one should fear protesting police crimes?

Ron Paul appeared on Alex Jones's InfoWars to weigh in on the controversy that has the nation pointlessly aggrieved: some football players aren't happy with how often police kill black men and choose to express this by kneeling rather than standing when the national anthem is played before football games.

Paul, the former Republican congressman (and two-time Republican, and one-time Libertarian, presidential candidate) seemed to see other things worth being angry about in the kneeling NFLers behavior and in the team owners' tolerating it, for various unconvincing and poorly expressed reasons.

Ron Paul's RevolutionRon Paul's Revolution

President Donald Trump has chosen to cynically and idiotically fan the flames of this phony controversy, dividing the nation roughly between those who either agree that cops violently misbehave too often or that Americans should be able to peacefully and symbolically express that opinion during the national anthem at a football game, and those who think public and presidential pressure should force everyone to "show respect for the flag" in one proscribed ritual way.

Matt Welch masterfully parsed out nearly all the issues relevant to the libertarian perspective about this dumb controversy at Reason earlier this week. Among his conclusions were that it would be great to get government money and giveaways and crony treatment out of sports, and that it's a healthy thing for free Americans to react to presidential dudgeon by doing the opposite of what (he claims) he wanted. (Trump, the political imp of the perverse, likely would have been disappointed if everyone had obeyed his command to rise for the anthem.)

On his show, Alex Jones, a popularizer of the idea that the U.S. government conducts baroque and sinister conspiracies with maddening regularity and for tyrannical ends, now seems more worried that "white people" and America are being criticized. Paul, fortunately given the shadow of racist comments that appeared under his name (but were not, he insists, written by him) decades ago in newsletters he issued, doesn't directly rise to that bait, moving forward as if it wasn't even said.

But Paul apparently, for reasons he never specifies or makes clear in this interview, finds the display of kneeling by football players to be a distasteful example of a modern right-populist bogeyman, "cultural Marxism," an (often seen as conspiratorial) movement to overturn all traditional western values in order to soften our underbelly to accept totalitarian communism, through means unspecified.

The Ron Paul who created a stir for a message of small government, sound money, and liberty in his 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns nearly entirely avoided this kind of cranky right-wing talk. I never heard him claim the free choices of any American to express an anti-government opinion in any context was something to be upset about in any way. (I witnessed dozens of hours of his political speeches while researching my 2012 book Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.)

Being a politician seemed to bring out the best in him, a real rarity. When seeking a national audience as a presidential candidate, the need to appeal outside his pre-existing constituency containing many whose anti-statism had a right-populist streak gave him room to paint a wide and sympathetic vision of liberty, one with no place for griping about "cultural Marxism" or that some people are freely choosing to not embrace those old-time western family values.

That Ron Paul left right-wing culture war nonsense entirely behind, speaking instead of the human tragedies of military empire, the dangers of federal management of the money supply, the stupidity and evil of restricting our free choices that don't directly harm others, from drug use to raw milk consumption. That Ron Paul celebrated the powers of a free people and free culture to unify us and make us the best we could be, as individuals and as a nation.

His message of peace, prosperity, and a government that no longer went out of its way to help the powerful and harm the powerless seemed designed to appeal to progressive radicals as much as to staunch libertarians or the small-government right, even explaining how programs of direct help to the destitute should not be where limiting government's reach and spending should start.

In the Jones interview this week, Paul hits the correct note that President Trump should leave the NFL knee controversy alone, saying "the president ought to be a lot less noisy about it" and should not be "threatening people [like] they are committing some crime."

He also rightly said, "a lot of this got worse once football teams started talking money from government to promote supernationalism and militarism" and that "the American people should not allow government to give one cent to football and allow them to promote militarism."

Paul has built his entire political and polemical career identifying the moral crimes of the U.S. government in areas both foreign and domestic. Why should he consider it some negative "attack on tradition and culture" via "cultural Marxism" for football players to quietly refuse to show demanded obeisance to the American flag, or the American government?

He gave no hint of an explanation, and there is no decent one from a libertarian perspective I can imagine.

Paul stresses to Jones some points that are technically true, but not terribly relevant from a wide-range libertarian perspective. Pressure or restrictions on free speech not directly from government do not implicate the First Amendment, as Paul says here. True.

Yet the ability to express oneself freely is a good thing, a core part of liberty. That's why libertarians don't want government to restrict it. Those concerned with human liberty should value a culture of free expression and defend it against pressures both state and non-state, even though one does not necessarily have an absolute right to express oneself on or with someone else's property.

But to speak with Jones as Paul does in this interview of the relationship of NFL team owners and players as one of "property" rather than of contract and thus with no implications for a concern for liberty to express one's objections to government misconstrues the issue. Merely being an employee of a company does not give the company a "property right" to exercise; the employee-employer relationship is a mutual contractual one, implicit or explicit.

While the NFL could, if it wished, make employment contingent on standing for the anthem, they've chosen not to. Paul has provided no argument, and I cannot imagine one within his larger vision of the proper role of government and what makes for a prosperous and free society, as to why the players' failure to stand or the owners' failure to try to make employment as a player contingent on standing is something a libertarian should care about at all, certainly not be "disgusted" about, except possibly to cheer.

Paul encourages a "boycott" to solve this nonsensical, nonexistent "problem," which creates tensions for those who believe that free markets bind all of us across nations, classes, and creeds into a complicated but delicate system of wealth-creation and betterment for all.

Boycott is indeed anyone's right within a free market. But encouraging everyone to refuse to do business with those whom we differ ideologically or politically is a losing game for everyone, especially anyone with a radical point of view, left, right, or libertarian. Markets make us partners to mutual advantage; boycotts make us enemies. This does not mean it isn't within anyone's rights to do it. No one has a right to our business or our approval. But willfully trying to limit the wealth-generating benefits of markets to those with whom one agrees risks impoverishing us all, as those dedicated to the old-fashioned western values of cosmopolitan free trade across lines of religion, nation, and class should respect.

Thus, advocating a culture of boycott requires more heavy thought from a market advocate than Paul gives it here, especially given that he hasn't rationally established any good reason why the NFL deserves punishment.

The "cultural Marxism" he seems to be angered about was of zero concern to candidate Paul. Even current freelance popularizer Paul doesn't seem to give it very much attention, if Google is any guide.

An October 2016 episode of Paul's Liberty Report show, though, was dedicated to a rather rambling and disconnected set of comments on the matter. Paul sees an ill-defined attempt to "undermine the Judeo-Christian moral values of family" as key to imposing authoritarianism on America. He worries harsh social pressure is being aimed at, say, stores selling blue clothes to boys and pink clothes to girls; that campus officials are afraid to speak out against leftist agitation on campus; and that the notion of individual rights is being swamped by a mentality of special group rights. Paul rambles over a lot of other "cultural right-wing" concerns candidate Paul wisely left alone.

But he ends that October show with a message that the Ron Paul who was Alex Jones' guest this week should have remembered: "nobody can initiate aggression against another person"—the very message NFL's kneelers are trying to convey about American police. As Paul said in his episode on "cultural Marxism," in "a free society" one "is allowed to criticize government" and "too many people don't want that, they want people to toe the line.

"Liberty means allowing [everybody] to make personal choices, social relations, sexual choices, personal economic choices" Paul went on to say, and it should not be a "threat," it should "bring people together."

"Peace and prosperity," Paul said in that October show," is what he is "waiting for and working for." He closed with a quote from H.L. Mencken, along the lines of "the most dangerous man to any government" is the man who "without regard to prevailing superstitions and taboos" comes to the conclusion "the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable."

One might almost imagine that someone contemplating incidents of police violent abuse and murder of American citizens might come to Mencken's conclusion, and thus have a very good reason for not wanting to stand for the national anthem.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • WakaWaka||

    http://www.ronpaullibertyrepor.....an-says-so

    This is inconvenient to your narrative

  • Hugh Akston||

    How so?

  • Uncle Joe||

    You are free to express _your_ opinion. You are not free to express your opinion in a way that looks like I'm the one expressing it. The dissenting judge rightly questioned parts of the indictment that could be used more broadly against something like a fake Donald Trump twitter account sending parody tweets. The big difference in the case you're citing, is that common sense makes it easy to identify a fake Donald Trump account, while it's wasn't at all obvious that the emails Golb sent were not from the people he was impersonating. The laws need to be updated for the Internet age, but this has little bearing on the NFL controversy.

  • Quixote||

    I commend Uncle Joe on his sharp insight into the current reality of "free speech" in America. Expressing an opinion as if it were expressed by someone else is indeed a most serious crime that should always be punished by jail, regardless of the insidious arguments of the dissenting judge, who even went so far as to say that criminalizing such conduct (which clearly we should not call "speech") "amounts to an atavism at odds with the First Amendment and the free and uninhibited exchange of ideas it is meant to foster." Let us now, on the basis of this key precedent, rapidly arrest and jail all those Twitter users who "tweet" in the names of university presidents, and all the other sordid impersonators around our great nation who deviously express opinions in such an outrageous manner.

  • Quixote||

    P.s. here is a short list we can begin with:

    http://tinyurl.com/American-speech-crimes

    I suggest we immediately file complaints, obtain warrants and arrest them all. We can start with the worst of them, such as that infidel scoundrel who made it look like the distinguished pastor Joel Osteen was renouncing Christianity, or that Tucker Carlson fellow who had the nerve to open a website in the name of his rival pundit and to send out deceptive emails under such fake premises.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Bless you Quixote, for all your months of lying about case -- even on totally irrelevant topics -- but in the pursuit of liberty, against those treasonous goddamn progressives.

  • Juice||

    Chris Rossini is not Ron Paul.

  • WakaWaka||

    Oh, so now we don't hold him to the words published under his masthead? Convenient

  • Juice||

    Not when there are words that come out of his mouth that say something else. I never said Ron Paul was a racist because of what was in his newsletter and lots of words have come out of his mouth that have said otherwise, but he was definitely responsible for what was published under his name. Anyway, the whole point is what he actually thinks, and in this case it doesn't seem to be the same as what Rossini wrote in that article.

  • WakaWaka||

    I'm not seeing how opposing the kneeling during the national anthem contradicts with opposing the president's statements that those players should be fired. Conflating the two issues is why this whole protest has become a lost cause. Most people see it as disrespectful, according to polls, and don't even register what the message is.

  • damikesc||

    The players have quite openly said they kneeled to protest Trump. Cops had zero to do with it.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    I applaud the clever structure of your lie, and will use it on Infowars this evening.

  • nicmart||

    I seem to be the only one who says it, but Paul committed fraud by selling intellectual product as his own when it was not. Odd that "no force or fraud" libertarians overlook that.

  • acidovorax||

    And if the customers feel this way, they are free to sue him for fraud.

  • BambiB||

    That's a pretty far stretch. Will you apply the same indictment to every ghost-written book, newspaper and magazine? You think Hitlery actually WROTE "What Happened?" ?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    YES! We must ALWAYS ask, "What about Hillary?" to divert attention form the shameless corruption by our leaders. If not her book, then Benghazi!

  • Calidissident||

    The newsletters were published under his name, not just in something under his masthead.

    Regardless, in one case people are taking issue with the fact that he (knowingly or unknowingly) let blatant racism fill his newsletters for years. In the other, there's a contradiction between what Paul has said himself, and what someone else has written on his website, and people are assuming Paul believes what he says, but also doesn't have a problem with Rossini giving a different opinion on his website. If you apply that assumption to the newsletters, Paul still looks bad because what was in them was a lot worse than someone not having a problem with NFL protests.

  • SIV||

    And the newsletters were written by Jeffrey A Tucker who is more racist than Ron Paul.

  • Juice||

    Ron Paul is still responsible for the words published in his publications. If they are good libertarian things, then OK. If they are bad racist things then not OK. The question here though is what are Ron Paul's actual opinions, not what he allows to be published in one of his newsletters or websites.

  • WakaWaka||

    "Ron Paul is still responsible for the words published in his publications."

    Does the same notion hold if a certain publication published a Holocaust denier in the past?

  • Calidissident||

    Wouldn't that apply to the people publishing the magazine at the time and not 40 years later?

  • Juice||

    Yes, of course. Reason should never have let that happen.

  • ||

    Does the same notion hold if a certain publication published a Holocaust denier in the past?

    If the article had been denying the Holocaust, yeah.

    If he only engaged in "Holocaust-denial" years later and the thing published didn't have anything at all to do with the Holocaust?

    Not so much.

  • BYODB||

    If so, than the New York Times has a lot of 'splainin to do...

    I don't know if Ron wrote those words or not. His message while running for office held no hint whatsoever that he was some closet KKK member or had any ill feelings towards any other race whatsoever so he's either a fantastic liar, didn't write it at all, or did write it and completely changed his mind later on (and then lied about it).

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Puh-lease ... DEFEND Ron. His denial of constitutional rights for homosexuals MUST prevail.
    Look at the disaster when we granted those same rights to negroes.

  • WakaWaka||

    No, no, no. Jeffrey Tucker is A-OK now. He writes for FEE now and he has distanced himself from the Mises Institute. Nick Sarwark is pleased

  • SIV||

    Virginia Posted re-communicated Cucker to the Cosmotarian Church after his Brutalism essay

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Tucker is STILL a defender of white supremacy, How dare you denigrate him?

  • Voros McCracken||

    I thought it was James Powell who wrote them?

  • Juice||

    I thought it was Lew Rockwell.

  • CE||

    I heard it was Gary North.

  • CE||

    But maybe it was Eric Dondero?

  • nicmart||

    Is there proof Tucker wrote the newsletters? Neither Paul nor his cronies can remember who did the deeds.

  • Zoidzilla||

    "...a distasteful example of a modern right-populist bogeyman, "cultural Marxism," an (often seen as conspiratorial) movement to overturn all traditional western values in order to soften our underbelly to accept totalitarian communism, through means unspecified."

    Yes, violent Antifa, sjw's, extreme leftist takeover of academia and all the Soros backed shenanigans that reason has talked about many times, is all a conspiracy theory. At least when the right talk about it.

    It's quite a joke when Doherty tries to dismiss things that reason itself gives a sizeable portion of their coverage to.

    Oh, and here's another report about college courses that formally specialize in straight white guilt. And yet another man being kicked off campus because some snowflake says he looks like a rapist. But misandry don't real.

    reason will draw the dots, but refuses to connect them, even thought it's right there for all to see.

    The above article is a pathetic attempt at cognitive dissonance, manifested through a pretty pathetic attack on Ron Paul.
    This publication has really gone downhill, and there's no hiding that.

    Libertarian.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Oh, and here's another report about college courses that formally specialize in straight white guilt.

    Where?
    Please provide a link I can use on Infowars. White supremacy MUST prevail, Blood and soil!!.

  • WakaWaka||

    "Boycott is indeed anyone's right within a free market. But encouraging everyone to refuse to do business with those whom we differ ideologically or politically is a losing game for everyone, especially anyone with a radical point of view, left, right, or libertarian."

    I remember when you guys said the same thing about the guy who was fired for the Google memo. And when Brendan Eich was fired from Mozilla.

  • Calidissident||

    A quick search through the archive turns up articles that pretty consistently argue that Google, Mozilla, and many people in general, overreacted in those cases.

  • BambiB||

    I pretty much gave up on the NFL back when they had the players strike. Since then, I've watched maybe 30 games - not bothering with most of the supper [sic] bowls. But if I tuned into a sporting event and found the players engaged in some sort of political protest, I'd have the same reaction as if I went to the grocery store and the checkout person berated me with why Hitlery should have won. Warn them the first time - then fire them the second time. I wasn't impressed with the "black power" salutes at the Olympics and I'm not impressed by kneeling football players.

  • commentguy||

    How exactly do you have the power to fire checkout staff?

  • David Nolan||

    Only an authoritarian thug would even ask.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's Dave Navarro playing the Star Spangled Banner at the Inkmaster finale the other night.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA-gFApgGb4

    The African-American tattooers won't stand.

    This probably isn't just happening in the NFL and in the media.

    This is coming to your kid's little league game.

    And I don't think this is about police shootings anymore.

    People have a right to express themselves by not standing during the national anthem, and I have a right to boo them for it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    And I don't think this is about police shootings anymore.

    What praytell is it about?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I feel like it's about maybe 4 or 5 things now. One of the reason it's gotten so silly.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    It's a middle finger to mainstream America for ultimately, in the end, rejecting Obama and Obamaism.

  • Calidissident||

    The whole thing started before the 2016 election even happened. And it was Trump's comments, not his election, that reignited the latest round of controversy.

    Also, what exactly is "mainstream America?" Obama got elected twice. Even in the latest election where his desired successor lost, Trump won less than 46% of the vote, lost the popular vote, and won the decisive states by less than 1%. I think the overall picture is that "mainstream America" isn't just Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. Both groups are pretty much the definition of mainstream. Neither side has a significant lasting advantage.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Because it started being about one thing doesn't mean it's about the same thing now.

  • Calidissident||

    Do you agree with DD that it's about "mainstream America" rejecting Obama? I can agree that the latest round of protests have a lot to do with rejecting Trump, but its his comments about the situation that caused that, not him merely being elected.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think mainstream America sees it as a middle finger in their faces, and I think that's the way many of the protesters see it, too.

    They think they're giving white America the finger--and white America thinks that's what they're doing, too. If and when that trickles down to high school football games and your kid's little league game, it's going to become highly problematic in several ways.

    If they make patriotism a campaign issue in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, Trump will be a shoe-in to win reelection. They might as well campaign against mom's apple pie or Santa Claus.

  • Calidissident||

    If you leave out the Obama connection (because with DD of course everything always has to be about Obama) that makes more sense.

    I think it's more true in terms of how it's perceived than why they're doing it. I think most of them meant it more as a way of speaking out on an issue they cared about than simply telling everyone to fuck off. And as long as we are talking about how things are perceived differently from how people mean them, maybe we should consider why a lot of black Americans feel that "mainstream America" has been giving them the middle finger for a long time?

  • Tony||

    Lots of white voters base their vote on stupid emotional reactions to things that don't concern them, story at 11.

    I like how this is always deployed as some sort of threat instead of a wake-up call for white people to stop being so fucking stupid and emotional.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    If they make patriotism a campaign issue in Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida, Trump will be a shoe-in to win reelection.

    I'm 100% convinced that this is the only reason Donald Trump said what he said. Fire up the base that got him elected. He may say some really stupid things at times, but he isn't stupid.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    You're both right. When Trump opened his big mouth, he merely poured a giant can of gasoline on a fire that started burning even before the election.

    This mostly started due to the media gleefully pushing the twin lies of "innocent" Trayvon Martin and "innocent" Michael Brown being murdered in cold blood (the completely bogus "Hands up, Don't Shoot" narrative, which many media types including some here at Reason are still happy to subtly push).

    Then the situation got even worse when Hillary (and by extension Obama's politics) got rejected when almost everyone in the media and the major cities assumed she was guaranteed to win, and it has been slowly building ever since.

    And finally, Trump's comments over last weekend were like the straw that broke the camel's back.

  • Calidissident||

    DD,

    Why do you think the Martin and Brown shootings (and for the record, I agree with you that the very least those were not the clearcut cases of egregious shootings many on the left made them out to be) were the beginning of the situation, and not the straws that broke the camel's back? The reaction to high-profile shootings is about a lot more than the shootings themselves, it's about the context in which it happens that makes a lot of people (mostly, but not exclusively, in the black community) pissed off and untrustworthy of the police and the justice system. The anger didn't just appear because Obama and the media told people to be angry the way a lot of conservatives think. I think the advance of technology, 24/7 national news, the Internet, cell phones, etc. made it inevitable that a lot of these cases that previously may have just been local controversies blow up into national ordeals. And because controversial shootings happen pretty frequently, that inevitably meant the entire issue was bound to become a national debate. But that does not mean the underlying anger and division was not there long before Trayvon Martin got shot and the media started talking about it.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    I agree part of the reason these stories are so big now is because of technology and the 24/7 news cycle. But part of it is also because the media deliberately lies.

    Police brutality is awful and in a perfect world it would never happen to anyone. But here are some facts to put it in context:

    1) It doesn't just happen to black men. It happens to white people also! Yet our deeply cynical, divisive media almost always completely ignores when it happens to a white guy, because they want it to be framed as solely a racial issue for their own disgusting political reasons.

    2) You're a lot less likely to be killed by a cop today than you were a generation or two ago, regardless of whether you're black or white. Not a little less likely, a LOT less likely.

    3) No less than former A.G. Eric Holder himself ultimately was forced to admit that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" was nothing but a lie that one witness decided to fabricate.

    And yet that one lie from one dishonest witness spread throughout all of America like wildfire thanks the media, to the point where I bet that the lie is probably STILL believed by more people than the truthful version. Major demonstrations in major cities across America were held for an entire weekend where people were holding signs and wearing t-shirts saying "Hands up, Don't Shoot!" That is how this whole damn thing got started. With a lie.

  • Calidissident||

    I agree there were some lies about some of the cases. What I'm saying is that those specific cases were not what actually caused the present debate and division. It was going to happen even if Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown specifically never got shot.

    I also agree that it doesn't just happen to black men, but historically and today there's been a lot more police misconduct directed towards the black community (at least per capita), and thus there's a lot more anger about it there. Most white people either don't think there are systemic issues, or they don't care about it as much as black people tend to do. That's not all that abnormal when you consider it's natural to care more about things that are directly observable to you and/or directly affect you, and that black people are more likely to directly observe or be affected by this. But the fact is that when there is a racial divide in terms of attitudes and anger about policing, it's inevitable that the debate and discussion is going to involve race. I really hope we can move beyond that (and I don't mean that in the sense of ignoring race when it is relevant) but I'm not surprised by it at all.

  • retiredfire||

    And it's that parenthetical per capita that is the stumbling block.
    The argument is that black men are disproportionately placed under increased scrutiny and actual police attention, whether through simple field interrogation or weapons searches.
    What is ignored is that black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, to their per capita representation in the population.
    And those claims that it is a case of "the justice system" being racist is based on the ridiculous idea that all the levels, through which a criminal must pass, before being found guilty, are somehow irredeemably so racist as to ignore evidence or concoct proof that doesn't exist.
    All the evidence one should need is to listen to the police broadcasts in any sized city in America. They transmit the reports, from the mouths of the crime victims, descriptions of the perpetrators and they are far more disproportionately of black men, than anything else.

  • Uncle Joe||

    _"What is ignored is that black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes, to their per capita representation in the population."_

    We don't know that for a fact. We know that black men are convicted in disproportionate numbers, but they are more likely to be arrested & taken to trial than whites. Given that over half of inmates are in prison for various drug offenses, I'd avoid such simplistic arguments.

  • Holmgren||

    Uncle Joe, while we don't "know" that black men commit a disproportionate number of crimes per capita, we also don't know that black men are arrested unfairly. However, I think we can say with confidence that the likelihood that they do commit a disproportionate amount of the crime is extremely high, because the flip side conclusion would be that the police are everywhere and at all times hanging an enormous number of false crimes on blacks, and that blacks are secretly being killed by whites.

    Nearly 900 additional blacks were killed in 2016 compared with 2015, bringing the black homicide-victim total to 7,881. Those 7,881 victims are 1,305 more than the number of white victims (which in this case includes most Hispanics) for the same period, though blacks are only 13 percent of the nation's population. You actually want us to believe most of those victims were killed by whites?

  • David Nolan||

    Holmgren|10.1.17 @ 8:37PM|#,
    we also don't know that black men are arrested unfairly.

    None are so blind as those who refuse to see,. You can cook the books or compare the number of unarmed blacks shot by cops.

    Then, what sort of moral failure would equate a black killed by a black neighbor with a black killed by a police officer? And why are your standards the same for a black ghetto gangster and a police officer (any color)?

    See the danger of memorizing slogans from Breitbart. Infowars, WND and Fox?
    They only work within your own tribal cave, and this is a libertarian website.

  • Calidissident||

    I haven't seen those statistics, but I'll take your word for it. Regardless, I'm not sure if people are really arguing that it's more likely today. Again, this has been an issue in the black community a lot longer than the 2010s. Additionally, the anger is about a lot more than just the shootings, it's about the general day-to-day policing. Lastly, increasing news coverage and technology has made people think a lot of things are more common now, not just police shootings. A lot of people think there's way more crime in general today than in the past when it's actually the opposite.

  • 68W58||

    Whatever the intent of motivations of the protesters, many fans see this as exactly that-a giant middle finger. Nobody wants to spend their entertainment money on being told to get fucked.

  • 68W58||

    ...intent or motivations...

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

  • Tony||

    Dance black monkeys, dance. We're not paying you to think!

  • Sam Haysom||

    But enough about your pre- rough trade rituals. What you say to scared run aways and dirty hobos is none of our business.

  • 68W58||

    I'm certainly not paying them to give me the finger. I understand how someone as pathetic as yourself can't understand that-given that you pay whatever top daddy you got from Craigslist extra to spit in your face, but the rest of us don't get off on it like you do.

  • Tony||

    The only ones giving anyone the finger are the fat stupid rednecks wearing jerseys and cramming their faces with chicken wings aiming them at the black players. Not for disrespecting the flag or the anthem, but for the crime of having a thought in what's supposed to be a stupid-only zone.

  • 68W58||

    Everything and everywhere a struggle session, right Tony? See how that works out for you.

  • nicmart||

    I'm a White American, and I don't feel any finger directed at me. But then I don't hold views that would invite their finger. Do you?

  • Uncle Joe||

    Nobody wants to spend their entertainment money on being told to _think about something that they find personally uncomfortable_.

    Fixed that for ya, snowflake.

  • David Nolan||

    FUCK free speech

    Back when we still had real conservative, they would say (along with us) that there was no need to protect popular speech, only that which is unpopular. But that was merely our Founders and our Constitution. What are they compared with the glories of Mob Rule? .

    many fans see this as exactly that-a giant middle finger

    (yawn) Why give a shit? This is a Constitutional Republic. Even if a Democracy, would the votes of football fans rank higher than anyone else?

  • SIV||

    Kkkultural Markkkism

  • David Nolan||

    Kkkulteral Fassscccism

  • Nationwatch||

    The police shootings has a bit to do with it and maybe to some of the folks kneeling, it is mostly about that. However, the individuals kneeling are not really the voice pieces leading a movement, so their actions have been co-opted by various vocal groups to try and tie it to other and maybe larger narratives.

    To think that Trump really is concerned about these guys kneeling seems kinda silly. Maybe this would be giving him too much credit, but I think the concern is more about ESPN and the NFL acting as a sort of MSNBC and attempting to use a larger and larger portion of their airtime trying to shift their audience to be more sympathetic to the SJW, pro big-government, and ultimately less conservative (and certainly less libertarian) viewpoints -and chip away at a sizeable portion of the right's voting block. In many ways, it's a brilliant move to use the opportunity to solidify much of his base into indirectly telling the NFL and ESPN (and signaling to other leftist-led organizations) that there could be significant consequences (existential threats) if they don't knock it off. Does it look sloppy the whole way it's playing out? Yeah, maybe. But it also seems like a pretty smart move to back a portion of his base that is getting their values attacked on a regular basis. ESPN may not be able to afford the hit -which would make it the best time to punch back at them.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    To think that Trump really is concerned about these guys kneeling seems kinda silly.

    Same pattern he's used throughout his Presidency. Whenever his agenda is failing -- which is almost always -- create a diversion with something bat-shit crazy. He lost big on health care, and will lose even bigger on tax reform. Our bat-shit crazy President swallows the proggie bullshit that the rich are undertaxed!! OMG

    The rich subsidize nearly half the ENTIRE tax burden of the core middle class ($40-100k)

    https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/14in11si.xls

    His goobers elected him to drain the swamp, but he's doing same swamp's pandering for middle-class votes, buying votes with borrowed money. And his asshole party (for now) wants to increase the debt by $1.5 TRILLION ....on top of currently forecast debt increases ... with a 50% tax cut for himself, on top of the loophole that exempts 100% of his corporate income tax!!

    Draining the swamp ... into his own pocket!

    Ignore that pussy and watch Infowars for the pure, unvarnished truth.

  • Nationwatch||

    The pattern isn't much different than any other of the recent presidents. For his diversion to be pointing to organizations that are using their influence to subtly undermine Western value structures in an alinksy/Lenin-esque attack that goes on daily -shouldn't that be applauded? I can't imagine a Jeb Bush or Rubio or nearly anyone outside of Rand Paul that would launch a counterattack on leftist ideology creep. There's even an argument that can be made that this is one of the most important areas that he can make headway on -smacking down leftist organizations that consistently try to undermine libertarian ideals.

    As as being elected to drain the swamp, part of draining the swamp is exposing where the stench is coming from. Trump has exposed the stench of the FBI/CIA in a way that may never let them live down their crooked string pulling. He's exposing them more and more as the shadow gov't that goes all the way to the top, that has no problem with straight-faced lying to anyone (including congress and the president), and faces no consequences for their actions. Whether or not he can root them out is another issue -but putting a spotlight on these folks clarifies the scope of the situation and that is again a good thing.

  • David Nolan||

    I can't imagine a Jeb Bush or Rubio or nearly anyone outside of Rand Paul that would launch a counterattack on leftist ideology creep.

    Rand Paul is a fascist, perhaps not as bad as his dad, but still. Likewise your authoritarian fantasies -- no different than the leftists you wish to exterminate through state power. Your "governing philosophy" is obsolete among the PEOPLE, both left and right. Because left and right are obsolete. You'd never get elected. We've moved past all that.

    For all of human history there have been only two purposes for government. Different versions, but only two. To defend individual liberties. Or to impose one's own values, by force of government. You never speak of empowering individuals, only state imposed conformity. To YOUR values. Because THE LEFT left is authoritarian. We've heard all that before.

    A growing majority of Americans would SELF-identify as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Well over 60% of us. You foment hysteria for the authoritarian left, to empower your authoritarian right. We've seen that, too,.

    Rand Paul? He wants nationwide tent revivals, to oppose the severe threat of marriage EQUALITY. Equality SUCKS. Expand POWER, not liberty. He argues for states rights, solely to deny the fundamental rights that ALL states agreed must be done at the federal level. See 9th Amendment.

    Cont'd

  • David Nolan||

    Part 2 of 2

    Rand TALKS states rights, but SPONSORS federal legislation to achieve the opposite. His father's shell game.

    Translation, "If I cannot impose my values at the federal level, allow us to at least do it state by state." States Rights is the fallback position for oppression, originally established by Jim Crow laws, for the same purpose. Oppression.

    The flounders wisely forbade such tyranny. The Bill of Rights was endorsed by EVERY state, all agreeing to the 9th Amendment limits on their own power. Full stop.

    Rand goes the opposite. A false choice between government and government. NOT between government and liberty. Instead of expanding liberty, shift the power around, up and down, A diversion.

    As an extreme social conservative, he's as big a threat as extreme economic liberals. We say "live and let live." They both say, "My way or the highway" -- like two street gangs fighting to control a neighborhood.

    Obsolete. America is well beyond that. We're still looking for that new identity to match today's values. I hope we find it in time.

  • Nationwatch||

    Hmm... seems an interesting retort to take a response to Trumps actions, find the "Rand Paul" keyword and then insert a canned attack on Rand Paul for some unknown crime of not granting special recognitions and benefits for a dude that wants to check out some other dude's junk. Rand & Ron's argument is pretty amazingly consistent that there shouldn't be any government involvement in social matters and Rand often veers in the direction of accepting a vote for something that appears to be less involvement than the current state of things -i.e. Vote for the step in the right direction even if the whole thing shouldn't be in place to begin with. I agree with the Ron Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Rand Paul approaches, although there are good arguments that the political system is beyond a point of repair. Anywho, good luck on finding your identity and values -if there are any. And since it was most likely a bot response -dot dot, click click, io io, if then -else, and < --- insert link about making thousands of dollars by working from home ---- >

  • David Nolan||

    Hmm... seems an interesting retort to take a response to Trumps actions, find the "Rand Paul" keyword

    it was how you used it .. which is confirmed by the balance of your response.. where you CONFIRM your bigotry, and gullibility.

    and then insert a canned attack on Rand Paul for some unknown crime of not granting special recognitions and benefits for a dude that wants to check out some other dude's " junk

    You just used "special recognitions and benefits" to describe EQUAL RIGHTS ... which confirms your contempt for individual liberty, precisely as I presumed.

    Thanks for the vindication.

    P.S. As long as government is still involved, then the Constitution applies! Which part of that confuses you? Allowing you to be so shamelessly manipulated?

    P.P.S. Not all homosexuals are male either. Not a good day for you! (sneer)

  • Nationwatch||

    The pattern isn't much different than any other of the recent presidents. For his diversion to be pointing to organizations that are using their influence to subtly undermine Western value structures in an alinksy/Lenin-esque attack that goes on daily -shouldn't that be applauded? I can't imagine a Jeb Bush or Rubio or nearly anyone outside of Rand Paul that would launch a counterattack on leftist ideology creep. There's even an argument that can be made that this is one of the most important areas that he can make headway on -smacking down leftist organizations that consistently try to undermine libertarian ideals.

    As as being elected to drain the swamp, part of draining the swamp is exposing where the stench is coming from. Trump has exposed the stench of the FBI/CIA in a way that may never let them live down their crooked string pulling. He's exposing them more and more as the shadow gov't that goes all the way to the top, that has no problem with straight-faced lying to anyone (including congress and the president), and faces no consequences for their actions. Whether or not he can root them out is another issue -but putting a spotlight on these folks clarifies the scope of the situation and that is again a good thing.

  • Calidissident||

    Oh my God the horror!

    Honestly, the outrage over the protests has only made it worse. Had people reacted in a "Ok, I don't really like that, but whatever" fashion, it probably would have burned out quickly or at least stayed limited to a few players here and there. The howling about disrespecting the flag and the country, demanding players be fired, and president talking about it has only amplified the situation.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did I say it was horrifying?

    I do think African-Americans separating themselves from mainstream society is problematic.

    I remember watching a protest against Prop 187 in LA back in the 90s. They had these kids from the local high school all riled up, and they blocked traffic and marched straight down Hawthorne Blvd. past the hospital where I was working. They were all carrying Mexican flags--as if that would appeal to American voters. Protest after protest, throughout that campaign year, on the news and in the streets, there were wall to wall Mexican flags and not an American flag in sight. It's no wonder Prop 187 passed.

    They don't do that anymore in California. I've seen activists talk about their Prop 187 failures on TV. Now there's always an American flag prominently displayed at those protests. You see, the way to appeal to Americans is not to mock or disrespect their patriotism. If you want to convince American voters that you should be treated like any other American, it's probably a better strategy to persuade them that you're just as American as they are.

    Jimi Hendrix playing the Star Spangled Banner was provocative in the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war era for that reason.

    Dissing the flag makes other Americans think you shouldn't be treated like other Americans. They're othering themselves in front of the voters they need to effectuate change.

  • Calidissident||

    I'm not saying I think they're being particularly effective. I'm just saying the outrage about it is stupid. The same people who always complain about how others are "easily offended," "politically correct," and "can't tolerate different opinions" having a meltdown over this is pretty hilarious actually.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The protesters are being outrageous on purpose. They're trying to provoke outrage.

    Faulting people for being outraged by outrageous behavior is silly.

    You don't dis the flag and the national anthem and then wonder why people are getting upset.

    We've had over 50,000 dead and wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, add in all their friends and family. Then there are all the people who fought in Vietnam, who feel unappreciated and their friends and family, I've known old guys who fought in Korea, . . .

    You did the flag and anthem and are surprised when people get upset?!

    Incidentally, there are pars of SoCal, where you'd be well-advised not to dis the Mexican flag or the Virgin of Guadalupe--regardless of whether you have the right to do so. You probably shouldn't dis the Irish flag in huge chunks of Boston either. People get upset about these things, and that isn't surprising. It's expected.

  • Calidissident||

    I would say it's more provocative than outrageous. I think initially it was more about bringing attention than simply pissing people off. And it was never about making a statement about the flag or the anthem. There's plenty of instances of conservatives accusing liberals of being oversensitive for getting offended by provocative or even outrageous material or people. Their outrage of course is justified and not indicative of oversensitivity.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    The protesters are being outrageous on purpose. They're trying to provoke outrage.

    Faulting people for being outraged by outrageous behavior is silly.

    You don't dis the flag and the national anthem and then wonder why people are getting upset.

    We've had over 50,000 dead and wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, add in all their friends and family.

    You know what should be considered outrageous? Voluntarily going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill people who never harmed you, then coming home and demanding other people respect you for it after you already stole their money to pay for your adventure. I'm upset that I paid for that bullshit, and I would be upset if people tried to waste my time by pressuring me to participate in some bullshit ritual because they prefer to jerk off in public rather than private.

  • KDN||

    You know what should be considered outrageous? Voluntarily going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill people who never harmed you,

    Now this is how you make friends and influence people.

  • acidovorax||

    You know what should be considered outrageous? Voluntarily going to Afghanistan and Iraq to kill people who never harmed you,

    Now this is how you make friends and influence people.

    We libertarians aren't good at that, so might as well be right.

  • Zeb||

    I just don't believe that people are uncontrollably upset by football players not participating in the weird flag ceremony that for some reason precedes games. People are choosing to be upset because they want to be upset. It's just a fucking farce on both sides.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Being outraged because someone isn't paying their respects in the way you want them to, when their actions don't impact or disrupt you in any way? Is pretty outrageous.

  • NYer||

    How is quietly kneeling disrespectful? I understand how burning a flag is disrespectful, but no one has successfully explained to me to why kneeling quietly is so horrible? To me a person who freaks out over anyone kneeling or sitting quietly is a snowflake. Hell they're worse than a snowflake. At least with the snowflakes you usually have to say something to them to get them to melt.

  • acidovorax||

    The protesters are being outrageous on purpose. They're trying to provoke outrage.

    Faulting people for being outraged by outrageous behavior is silly.

    The problem with outrage is it is subjective and highly selective. I understand that most do glorify the national religion of flag and Pledge, but " I " find this outrageous. Why is my outrage not relevant?

    Maybe the best thing to hope for is that the leagues get rid of this political charade and we can have one less moment of our lives coerced into state worship.

  • David Nolan||

    Why is my outrage not relevant?

    It is.
    It's your thuggery which is treasonous.
    And your self-righteous double standard.

  • David Nolan||

    The protesters are being outrageous on purpose. They're trying to provoke outrage.

    He says, hysterically.

  • David Nolan||

    We've had over 50,000 dead and wounded in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years, add in all their friends and family. Then there are all the people who fought in Vietnam, who feel unappreciated and their friends and family, I've known old guys who fought in Korea, .

    Did they die for a flag ... or for our individual liberties ... like, oh, FREE SPEECH. .

    Your disrespect of their sacrifices, exploiting their deaths for political advantage is downright shameful..

  • MWG||

    ^This 1000x.

    This whole kneeling during the anthem has become middle America's burning of the Koran.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    This whole kneeling during the anthem has become middle America's burning of the Koran.

    Good point!
    Technically, the Old Testament is far more barbaric than the Koran, but SOMEBODY has to defend Jude-Christian values, even if they don't know what those values are!

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Calidissident
    The same people who always complain about how others are "easily offended," "politically correct," and "can't tolerate different opinions" having a meltdown over this is pretty hilarious actually.

    At one level, you are correct. We in the Alt-Right can be shameless hypocrites on this, but it's for a noble purpose. The white race. Blood and soil!

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    I do think African-Americans separating themselves from mainstream society is problematic.

    But it's okay when yours and my 12 does the same thing, Because we're white!

    Dissing the flag makes other Americans think you shouldn't be treated like other Americans.

    60% of Americans think Trump did the wrong thing. But they've been brainwashed by the cabal of cultural Marxists, socialist professors and the lying media,

  • David Nolan||

    Did I say it was horrifying?
    I do think African-Americans separating themselves from mainstream society is problematic

    He didn't say horrifying. But if you exaggerate what he did say ..., then your second sentence MAY even look rational. And not bigoted

  • damikesc||

    So, the protests shouldn't be criticized? Intriguing.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Isn't that exactly the reaction that went on when Kappernick originally got called out in the media for his stance? there was some outrage in a few articles specifically about him but that's it. Once he chose to opt out of his contract it became "Racist America won't let NFL hire greatest QB of all time" over and over in the media.

    Being told you're racist repeatedly just because somebody protests the wrong symbol is kind of aggravating. If you read through anything these protesters write, they're protesting the existence and history of the US, not police brutality at this point.

    You want to protest police brutality, get down to city hall and hold a rally to call the chief/commissioner to account don't say the US is a racist country that actively discriminates against the AA community.

  • 68W58||

    Most of those places are controlled by Dem mayors and city councils-so that would disrupt the narrative.

  • David Nolan||

    And your narrative is better. Because tribalism.

  • Memory Hole||

    Why do you have to boo them? What the fuck is "mainstream" America?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Not THOSE assholes But the white race is on the verge of subjugation.

  • CE||

    Maybe, out of an abundance of caution, we should just stop playing the national anthem at kids sporting events.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "And I don't think this is about police shootings anymore."

    It's about time.

  • Zeb||

    Fuck, does this mean I'm going to have to start standing for the Anthem now so I don't get lumped in with the "resist" crowd?

  • BambiB||

    It's quite a bit different when FANS don't stand for the Anthem. They aren't the paid performers.

    I can think of lots of things to protest about America - the government itself being chief among them. The idea that the flag of Northern Occupation flies over what should be free and sovereign Southern states.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    It's quite a bit different when FANS don't stand for the Anthem. They aren't the paid performers.

    Huh? Accepting a paycheck requires forfeiting one's rights? You goddamn progs think the Constitution protects only the unemployed and those on welfare. Anyone with assets is a goddamn capitalism and must be wiped out.

    That's why I founded Infowars, to expose you Marxists!
    .

  • steve walsh||

    There you go again, allowing Trump to get you all worked up and outraged. Instead of frothing at the mouth and setting your hair on fire, try ignoring his provocative statements & tweets the next time.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Just ignore the President and maybe he'll go away.

  • steve walsh||

    Haha, well, not quite - though he might!

  • Calidissident||

    Why is it that anything critical of Trump is, to some people, "frothing at the mouth and setting your hair on fire?"

  • steve walsh||

    Not to me. Here's Mr. Doherty: "cynically and idiotically fan the flames of this phony controversy," - that is at least hyperbolic. Over the weekend there was all the noise from the right people about how horrible Trump's comments were, and then even a couple of calls for his impeachment because he's violating the FIRST AMENDMENT (which he didn't btw).

    Personally I don't care if you want to get yourself all worked up by what he says and tweets. And I'm happy to read and hear about criticism of the things he does or says he wants to do. I mostly find it amusing that people allow him to play them as he does. Your outrage is on you and only you can create it, and make it go away. Giving in to it helps him.

  • Calidissident||

    I think it was clearly a cynical move by Trump.

    As far as idiotic, probably not from a purely political sense, as Trump seems to love stirring up this sort of controversy. But I think it's a fair description from the POV of someone wanting the president to not act like a jackass and focus on important issues.

  • CE||

    I want the president to focus on irrelevant issues. As much as possible. Congress too.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Occam's razor says otherwise. Trump is a white noise generator who says random stuff all the time. I don't think there's a calculating bone left in his body. And he wasn't saying anything that a hundred conservative commenters haven't said before.

    This thing blew up only when the NFL flipped its collective lid the next day. Had Goodell and the owners just repeated the pablum they've been issuing for a year now about respecting free speech, everything would have blown over. It's mind-boggling that they don't seem to have anticipated the fan reaction to attacking the president in the most hypocritical terms possible, and explicitly siding with the kneelers.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    And he wasn't saying anything that a hundred conservative commenters haven't said before.

    That's why those goddamn libertarians oppose Trump and keep saying conservatives are just as statist as the left, They keep chanting "Left and Right are obsolete."

    Would you believe libertarian bullshit includes THIS:
    "Liberals want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
    Conservatives want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.
    Libertarians want government out of your life."

    BULLSHIT. My life is made valueless if goddamn gays have equal rights.
    What's next ... allowing GERBILS to marry?

    Thanks for defending our alt-right in this den of treasonous libertarians!

  • MWG||

    "I mostly find it amusing that people allow him to play them as he does. Your outrage is on you and only you can create it, and make it go away. Giving in to it helps him."

    Easily applicable to those getting worked up and "frothing at the mouth" about athletes taking a knee, no doubt.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Not really comparable.

    People who froth at the mouth at the kneelers and boycott the NFL are not really losing anything.

    The NFL frothing at the mouth at kneeler opponents and alienating a huge part of its fanbase ARE losing something. A lot of something.

  • 68W58||

    I'd rather burn the league down than let SJW politics infest it, at that point it's lost to me anyway.

  • BambiB||

    So it's a business decision to alienate the fan base.

    Cool.

    Goodbye NFL.

    Wonder how all the kneelers will feel when their salaries get cut?

  • WakaWaka||

    "culture war nonsense entirely behind"

    If only cosmotarians could do the same

  • Alan Vanneman||

    Nice piece. Ron sometimes sounds very good, sometimes very lame. His "resignation letter" from the Republican Party circa 1986 was an impressive piece of political analysis. Ask him about the Civil War and he gets all whiny. The North wouldn't buy our slaves from us! Uh, why didn't the South free the slaves and, you know, pay them for all the extorted labor, not to mention all the raping and selling children stuff as well?

    I don't know why you have to salute the flag in order to play or watch football or any other sport. As is fairly often pointed out, the NFL didn't "require" players to go out on the field and stand until 2009. It isn't against the law to scratch your ass when someone is singing the Star Spangled Banner, and it shouldn't be.

  • Juice||

    Us? Ron Paul was born in 20th century Pennsylvania.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Ron Paul was born in 20th century Pennsylvania.

    How does that change the reality of southern slave owners at the time, or today's southern racists? Ron was elected by Republicans in South Texas, and we know THEY are still loyal to the white race and not pussies. As we all know, Texas rebelled and left Mexico, because Mexico had banned slavery, so they were the original defenders of white privilege.

    I applaud your defense of the white race, but seriously flawed arguments don't help the cause.
    We whites are still the majority, for now, so stand proudly for White Supremacy. Who would NOT want to reign supreme?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    If they wanted to stand there and ignore the anthem, which probably has happened more often than not in reality, that would be fine.

    The kneeling is done SPECIFICALLY to rile conservatives up, supposedly to "start a conversation". But then when they're asked their position, they don't even know what their position is. At most, all they have to contribute is false accusations and/or word salad. I don't know how they expect to have a "conversation" when they can't even say anything for themselves.

    It's like that scene from Family Guy where Stewie's mom is trying to get him to be less annoying by ignoring him, but he keeps saying "mom", "mommy", "momma" with varying intonations for like a minute, until she finally gives in and shouts "WHAT?!" Then he says "hi". That's what the NFL is trying to do to us, except we have the option of turning the knob.

    It isn't against the law to scratch your ass when someone is singing the Star Spangled Banner, and it shouldn't be.

    And there's the strawman, last refuge of the cosmo.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    If they wanted to stand there and ignore the anthem, which probably has happened more often than not in reality, that would be fine

    But ONLY for a reasons WE approve of, to maintain the white race..

    The kneeling is done SPECIFICALLY to rile conservatives up,

    WOW! Can I interview you, live, on Infowars It really helps my ratings to promote bat-shit crazy conspiracy theories and yours is new. To me, at least.
    .

  • Rebel Scum||

    Perfect Place: LFL shames NFL

    "The LFL recognizes everyone's First Amendment right to protest, but our nation's flag and anthem are far too sacred," the league said Tuesday. "Too many fellow Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice, so that our flag and anthem continue in all its majesty."

    The league also released a video announcing their support for the U.S. flag and the national anthem.

    "It symbolizes all the blood, sweat, and tears that have been shed so that we as Americans can raise our flag across our nation," the LFL says in the video. "The LFL salutes all those who make this the greatest country in the world."

    "We stand in salute of our flag."

    I'm not down with such rampant nationalism, but I smell a ratings boost. (and, for some reason, I smell fish...)

  • Crusty Juggler - Lawbertarian||

    for some reason, I smell fish.

    Those women would fuck you up.

  • Rebel Scum||

    That they could beat me up only makes it hotter.

  • ||

    That was my thought, "Yes. Yes they would."

  • MG58||

    You already shouldn't take someone seriously if they're taking interviews with Alex Jones.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Fuck you.
    Ron is OUR kind of crazy and , has appeared here more than anywhere else in recent years. His Klan-inspired version of States Rights has empowered and enabled the alt-right that we both helped create.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Maybe thid is difficult to see from someone who makes his living writing politcal opinion, but most people do not work in a situation where making an ostentatious show of politics on the job in front of your clients and customers is a good idea.

    When I am at work, I am representing my employer, not just myself and try to comport myself professionally. The protests have been stupid and counterproductive as it has become about uncivil behsvior then about the ostensible issue of policing reform.

  • Memory Hole||

    Yeah I agree with this even though I'm not personally offended by the protest and very supportive of police reform but I realize many people love to wallow in butthurt so why indulge them.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Maybe thid is difficult to see from someone who makes his living writing politcal opinion, but most people do not work in a situation where making an ostentatious show of politics on the job in front of your clients and customers is a good idea."

    This is right on the money.

    But it's worth noting that the NFL leadership has overwhelmingly supported the players' ability to do so. So the fact that Trump is criticizing an employer for allowing it to happen (and then thoroughly defending it) is just as silly as if Obama criticized an employer for NOT allowing an employee to do it.

    This is an area where government and its loudmouths need to stay far away. Most of the people who read Reason are usually on board with the idea that government needs to stay out of the affairs of private actors, but for some reason the conservatives on this site have trouble with that view on this particular issue. The reason that they are making an exception in this particular case is very interesting and worth probing.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Personally I just wanted to enjoy my downtime watching football and not have to deal with this nonsense from any quarter. My point merely is that most people are not going to talk politics on the job in front of the people your business depends on. The players and the League now are doing a good job of alienating their customer base, legal rights notwithstanding.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I hear you. But I'm still an avid football fan though even after years of political statements, re: military.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    So the fact that Trump is criticizing an employer for allowing it to happen (and then thoroughly defending it) is just as silly as if Obama criticized an employer for NOT allowing an employee to do it.

    Is that supposed to be some sort of gotcha? I would have had no problem with Obama criticizing the NFL in that situation, other than disagreeing with him. The president has freedom of speech just like everyone else.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's not a gotcha at all. And it's not about freedom of speech. It's about government interjecting, even without force, in the free association between people. You think it's a good thing and I think it's inappropriate.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    most people do not work in a situation where making an ostentatious show of politics on the job in front of your clients and customers is a good idea.

    The also don't wear cleats and helmets.
    Can they exercise the right of Free Speech? Did the President attack their employers, demanding who should be fired?
    Skip all that bullshit and just defend the white race. That's all we need, while we're still the majority.
    And support my channel and website with cash. I fight for YOUR rights, not for fags and niggers,

  • Ron||

    the irony of all this kneeling bs is that today it will take brave men and women to stand with the national anthem.

  • Joseph Mulroney||

    It doesn't take courage to stand with the majority and support the powerful. Those taking a knee during the national anthem are the brave in this situation.

  • Jerryskids||

    How Ron Paul Gets the NFL "Take the Knee" Controversy Wrong

    Are you implying there's a right way to take it? Beyond putting quotation marks around "controversy", I mean - this is some first-class silly bullshit, right up there with that moral majority group that called for a boycott of Disney until they made Donald Duck put on some goddamn pants.

  • KDN||

    Look, you're not allowed to disagree in good faith anymore. There's only one right answer to any position on any issue.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that our decent into hyperbolic partisanship is setting us up nicely for an AI takeover.

  • Number 2||

    "Some football players aren't happy with how often police kill black men and choose to express this by kneeling rather than standing when the national anthem is played before football games..."


    Wrong. A small handful of football players claimed to be unhappy with how often police kill black men. The rest of them had hurt feelings because the Big Bad Trumpmonster said mean things about them.

  • jdd6y||

    Not just them, but their mommas. Very few cared to protest when it was about some sort of rights issue. But call my momma a bitch and that's where I draw the line. Plus... all the cool kids are doing it.

  • retiredfire||

    I will admit to being called a "son of a bitch" at times, yet have never thought of it as an insult to anyone but me.
    This high dudgeon over the use of that, pretty innocuous, insult is sophistry and trying to justify the over-the-top reaction of the players. Poor babies.

  • Iheartskeet||

    So, the following player behavior was/is prohibited by the NFL:
    1) Wearing small helmet stickers honoring the cops murdered by BLM sympathizers
    2) Wearing 9/11 tribute cleats (banned, but wisely took no action when players did it anyway)
    3) All manner of emotional TD displays

    ...but firing players for not standing for the flag, with its huge potentially negative consequences for fan support, would be totally bad and un-American !

  • damikesc||

    That's where the "silent majority" get a huge vibe of "fuck you" from the league. The NFL has no problem, at all, silencing speech they don't like.

    But here, in THIS case, they cannot?

    They've shown what they found offensive and what they have not. Their audience doesn't agree.

    And shouldn't it be a problem that the biggest cause celebres of the racist BLM movement are just absolute lies?

  • SKR||

    Yeah well 70% of the players are minorities and if they decide to strike the league is screwed.

  • Tony||

    Are football games not white and Murica enough for you?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The NFL is in a better position than you are to judge what's good and bad for their sport. And fortunately for them, the power rests with them, not with you or the politicians you support.

  • Iheartskeet||

    What the hell are you talking about ?

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Umm, uniforms are uniform! .That's why they're called uniforms! And they're worn for the entire game. Really. So skip such stupid arguments and just defend the white race. You'll be a racist either way, so DARE to state our glorious cause as you go down.,


    .

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    Ron Paul is a Republican. Can we stop pretending to be horrified when he acts like a Republican?

    The Pauls are our allies. They are not us. They will put their status within the GOP over principles basically every time.

    When someone repeatedly tells you something, through both their words and actions, it's eventually ok to believe them. The Pauls are Republicans first. Period.

  • acidovorax||

    Ron is the least Republican Republican in like 60 years. Rand yes, but Ron, no. Ron's position on foreign affairs pretty much knocks him out of the modern Republican mold.

    I remember during the 2012 campaign (IIRC), and Dennis Prager was about to stroke out screaming on his radio show that RP was a leftist.

  • TxJack 112||

    Are NFL players employees of the teams for which they play? Yes. Are employees permitted to engage in activities, political, religious or other when at work? 99.9% of the time, no. As an employee of the company where I work, I cannot arbitrarily decide to start a political protest and do things that are disruptive, harmful and cast a bad light on my employer. Where exactly did NFL players get a special exemption for generally accepted workplace conduct? In reality, professional athletes are the best example of how ANYONE in the US, regardless of race, social status or economic background can become wealthy and famous with hard work. The NFL rulebook actually addresses the issue of the National Anthem and player conduct. It says players will be on the sideline, standing at attention, facing the flag holding their helmets in their left hands. The problem is when Kaepernick decided to throw his temper tantrum because he was replaced as starting QB for the 49ers, everyone let him slide because they were afraid of being called racists. They still refuse to do anything for the same reason. Progressives know it is impossible to defend yourself against a negative which is why they always resort to the race card.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Where exactly did NFL players get a special exemption for generally accepted workplace conduct?"

    The mistake in your argument is that you're equating an NFL player's job with your job. It would make more sense to compare them to other entertainers, in which case you would find that your "99.9%" claim is nowhere near accurate.

  • Iheartskeet||

    Nope. He's spot on.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "It says players will be on the sideline, standing at attention, facing the flag holding their helmets in their left hands."

    Close, but no cigar. It says they SHOULD stand at attention and SHOULD hold their helmets in their left hands (but rarely does that happen either). The only element that is potentially punishable is the "being present on the sideline" part, but even that is up to the discretion of the commissioner.

  • acidovorax||

    If players cannot engage in political activity on the job, then WTF is the Pledge of Allegiance being performed? Get rid of this state worship shit and this issue goes away.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Are NFL players employees of the teams for which they play? Yes. Are employees permitted to engage in activities, political, religious or other when at work? 99.9% of the time, no

    Thanks for defending our glorious cause. Can you do so without looking like a total asshole?

    The anthem does not play 99.9% of the time! And the NFL owners don't work for you. Watch how I do it on Infowars ... promotiing fascism without being as blatant as you. Try it. And watch my channel.

  • satta||

    The kneelers, in making their protest during one of the right's sacraments (the anthem), have brought down the ire of the right upon them and given Trump a perfect opportunity to score points with his base. The owners should have allowed the players to wear BLM jock straps instead and none of this would have happened.

  • Fred Zuccini||

    Since when has NFL football generated real wealth? It's value is only in the minds of its consumers and it has pissed off a good many of them. They are about to be reminded about that value. A boycott doesn't require an organized effort, just enough personal decisions.

  • CE||

    Entertainment value wealth is still real wealth.

  • Fred Zuccini||

    Only to the extent that it continues to entertain.

  • CE||

    True.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Since when has NFL football generated real wealth?

    Thanks, Fred!
    As I keep telling my viewers., free speech was never intended for dirtbags and niggers. Only rich white males, which is what our founders were.
    Blood and soil FOREVER!!

  • CE||

    Alex Jones... now seems more worried that "white people" and America are being criticized. Paul, fortunately given the shadow of racist comments that appeared under his name (but were not, he insists, written by him) decades ago in newsletters he issued, doesn't directly rise to that bait, moving forward as if it wasn't even said.

    FTFY

  • Libertymike||

    Anti-racists gotta anti-race.

  • David Nolan||

    Paul was as hateful a bigot then as he is today. His crazy fascism makes him the enabler of the alt-right, white supremacist and the Christian Taliban (LOTS of overlap there)

  • bishopcruz||

    Not sure if serious.

  • acidovorax||

    Poe strikes again.

  • ace_m82||

    It's Michael Hihn. He's serious.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Ron has always been one of us. He had the guts to say "rogue judges" struck down DOMA, when we all know that States Rights are superior to Constitutional Rights. Separation of powers and three co-equal branches are LIES spread by cultural Marxists. And the 9th Amendment was changed to what it says today by Woodrow Wilson.

    Ron alone had the GUTS to sponsor a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS to even consider any challenges to DOMA. Fucking fags have no constitutional rights to defend. Look at how disastrous it's been, allowing negroes to have Constitutional protections!.

    And the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution, so who gives a shit that Thomas Jefferson said that's what the Foubnders intended. I can name at least a dozen televangelists who say Jefferson was full of shit. And Washington, Adams and the entire US Senate in the 9th year of our Republic were hundred of years ago. What did they know?

  • Lily Bulero||

    "Paul sees an ill-defined attempt to "undermine the Judeo-Christian moral values of family" as key to imposing authoritarianism on America."

    Wow, what a paranoid loon, nobody is doing anything of the sort! Every government policy promoted by progressives is 100% pro-family! /sarc

    ""nobody can initiate aggression against another person"—the very message NFL's kneelers are trying to convey about American police.""

    I guess your mind-reading skills are better than mine, I have no idea what these spoiled loons are trying to convey by taking out their grievances on their country's symbols.

    What's surprising is not that abusive cops exist (as that white woman shot by the Somali cop can tell you), but that the USA has made considerable improvements over the past, and is still a preferred destination of many immigrants who seem to think things are better here than where they came from.

  • SKR||

    And America is better now than before because people continue to protest and demand that things not stay stagnant.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Wait. who is pro-stagnation, again?

  • David Nolan||

    "Paul sees an ill-defined attempt to "undermine the Judeo-Christian moral values of family" as key to imposing authoritarianism on America."

    Wow, what a paranoid loon, nobody is doing anything of the sort!

    True. Ron is the fucking anti-constitutional fascist, intellectual founder of the alt-right.

    For confused goobers, when he says "rogue judges" overturned DOMA he says we are defenseless against abuse of rights by state government, states rights mean NO constitutional rights, and denies Balance of Power between three CO-EQUAL branches.

    As a suckup to the Christian Taliban, he even says no founders even WROTE abiout separation ... a MASSIVE lie that excludes our first three Presidents and the ENTIRE US Senate in the 9th year of the Republic.

    But goobers need reasons to be goobers,

  • Mark P||

    Reason is following the mainstream media in applying a straw man argument to the Kaepernick case. No one is saying that Kaepernick doesn't have the right to protest against the country--the opposition is merely saying that it is DISRESPECTFUL of the country (it is), and is inappropriate to engage in political protests at work (it is), especially when it harms the business in which you are working. No one is asking why Kaepernick doesn't seek to make changes within the American system itself, using our freedom of speech, freedom of press, free elections etc to make changes. Instead, he implies that our freedoms are not good enough, that we need to overthrow the American constitution through political revolution and civil war. This is a leftist position, and the left advocates socialism and totalitarianism. Kaepernick praised Fidel Castro, a ruthless communist dictator that actually did collude with Russia--so we can get a good idea of what type of government Kaepernick prefers

  • Lily Bulero||

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "the opposition is merely saying that it is DISRESPECTFUL of the country (it is), and is inappropriate to engage in political protests at work (it is), especially when it harms the business in which you are working."

    And this is the crux of the issue. Some think it's disrespectful, others (such as those doing it) have made it as clear as they possibly can that it's not intended to disrespect the military -- or really anything other than racial discrimination in the criminal justice system or, more recently, Trump's words.

    Whether it's appropriate behavior and whether it harms the profitability of the business is better suited for the NFL leadership to determine than you or I. Quite frankly, the profitability is none of our business, unless one makes a collectivist argument that the profitability of all industries is our business.

    I should also point out that the idea that the american constitution should be "overthrown" is not a leftist position, as many, many prominent libertarians hold the same view. Unless of course you describe libertarians as leftists, which some people do.

  • Mark P||

    The act of not standing for the national anthem is in itself disrespectful, and "good intentions" are frequently used as an excuse. You tell your boss that you did not intend to be late for work: How is your boss going to respond if you were really late?.

    Harming a business is much easier to determine than you claim. Obviously, if attendance is going down and sponsors pull their ads, the business is being harmed. There is more to harming a business than profitability: harming the image of the NFL is something conscientious players would want to avoid. The perception now is that teams are spending far too much time discussing politics and what they will do during the national anthem, and not enough time preparing for football. Moreover, there is confusion over what the anthem protests mean--some say they are protesting police brutality and the entire country, others say they not protesting the country, only Trump's remarks. In other words, the political agendas they are spending so much time on are developing cross purposes.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The NFL hasn't always been HIGHLY political.

    I have no idea if it's harming or helping their business. But I do know that it's none of my business and none of yours. Claiming that your position is due to the altruistic intent to encourage them to be profitable is just an excuse. The NFL's ratings and profits have literally nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    However, since you want to go down that road, it's worth pointing out that the NFL is more profitable now than they were back in the good ol' days. The fact that they're whining about profitability dropping is analogous to congress whining about spending cuts.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    My first line should read "has always been highly political." They have a long history of pledging to the gods of government, including all the emphasis they pay to their USA song, the soldier blowjobs, the false narrative that our "freedoms" are the result of foreign occupations, and the military shows of force which really have no relationship to sports. They just pander to conservatives because that's their viewership.

  • Mark P||

    The entertainment value of football is my business because I am a consumer, and I must decide whether or not to buy the product. Frankly, I love watching football games that exhibits the true love of football (which is why I prefer to watch college football); seeing the politicization of football in the NFL is a major turn-off for me personally, especially when these million dollar athletes are paid to play football, not engage in political controversies that they do not have the time to research. Colin Kaepernick praises Fidel Castro, and I am sure that he doesn't know much about the details of Castro's life (if he did, I would condemn him even more).

    Football players have a selfish interest in the profitability and success of the NFL. It is not an act of altruism for NFL players to want their league to be successful. Maybe their current contract is locked in and won't be affected. But what about the next contract?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Hard to say what the next CBA will look like. Given that this flag song issue has been so powerful, and given the owners' clear stance on the matter, I expect both sides will agree that it should be explicitly stated in the rules that players can choose to kneel. I also expect that owners will benefit from this "concession" (even though many of the owners already support the players on this matter). Every CBA negotiation has gone this way - the owners give up something in exchange for the players giving up something, even when both sides actually want the same thing. The perfect example of this is rookie pools, vet minimum salary, and even franchise/transition tags. These were all the result of a give and take; even when it wasn't too hard for the owners or players to "give", they gave the impression that it was.

    It's nothing more than the free negotiation between private actors. In the case of the flag song issue, it means that it's not really our business. It will work itself out in the free market. If people choose to stop watching football because of it, the owners may take a hard line stance. If it expands their entry into new markets (including merchandising, which seems to have benefited from this whole thing), then they probably won't.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Football players have a selfish interest in the profitability and success of the NFL

    Likewise, your own selfish interest in the profitability of your own employer requires that you forfeit your right of free speech, a small price for you to pay if we are to assure the superiority of the White Race. America Uber Alles!

  • Mark P||

    I am a libertarian working at a college staffed primarily by left-wing liberals. I never bring up my libertarian views at work because it would only put fellow employees against me and make my job more difficult. Not sure how this assures "the superiority of the white race" or why freedom of speech is a racial issue.

  • David Nolan||

    If you knew fuck-all about libertarianism, you could easily discuss social issues with them ... which would be forbidden by a student body of contards.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Mark P||

    I do discuss social issue with them, because libertarians and liberals largely agree on social issues. I also discuss the libertarian views on our corrupt banking system. But I do avoid their sacred cows in economics because they are closed-minded on these issues and I don't want to waste my time.

  • David Nolan||

    Thanks for your correction!

  • Tony||

    Our freedoms aren't good enough. Even millionaire football players get pulled over and roughed up by cops illegally, let alone poor black people.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Do you have any examples. Because micheal Bennett was lying.

  • Mark P||

    Did you support the gunman who shot several Dallas police officers on the grounds that they were racist and probably deserved it, and that their deaths prevented blacks from being roughed up by them in the future?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Some day media types will get what Americans are mad at.

    Paying for a seat at a football game and having to see some millionaire guy make some political statement because the game wont start until the _________ (insert political statement here) ends.

    Why don't football players make some political statement when they are interviewed by some ESPN chick in their locker rooms? They know that nobody watches or cares about them or what they say.

    Its the same as musicians not getting the music concert going until they can say blah blah about whatever political yaddah yaddah they FEELZ.

  • Tony||

    Are you suggesting that they are making their political statements when everyone is watching instead of when they aren't? How dare they attempt to be effective!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    What are you talking about Tony? Kaepernick's silly protest isn't going to do any good, and it's certainly not going to spark any conversation! [Yes, people actually said this after he began doing it]

  • David Nolan||

    What are you talking about Tony

    He's saying that nobody protests in a closet. Do you really not get it? Even you should be aware of he civil rights protests over a half-century ago, Ever hear of the 60s?

    [Yes, people actually said this after he began doing it]

    The same people said the same thing in the 50s ... and again in the 60s.
    You folks will NEVER get it,.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Whoosh

  • David Nolan||

    The same people said the same thing in the 50s ... and again in the 60s.
    You folks will NEVER get it.

    ,
    Whoosh

    See! He DOES deny the civil rights protests and NEVER HEARD OF THE 60S!
    My work here is done.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Yeah, those abusive cops are trembling in their jackboots now that sports players are dissing the National Anthem.

    I bet police-abuse rates will plummet now.

  • Tony||

    They'll probably go on the defensive and double down on their ethnic cleansing, but that's cops for you.

  • Sam Haysom||

    Tony stop improvising they pay you to bang the tribal war drums not bring up the fact that blue city mayors are openly cleansing their urban cores.

  • Tony||

    At the behest of suburban soccer moms though.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Paying for a seat at a football game and having to see some millionaire guy make some political statement because the game wont start until the _________ (insert political statement here) ends."

    You don't acknowledge that the constant blowjobs that are directed to the military is the same exact thing you're griping about? Can we have a middle ground, where you don't have to be subjected to the players' protests and I don't have to be subjected to the war party's incessant displays?

  • NYer||

    No you see spending billions of tax dollars on flyovers is good and patriotic. But quietly kneeling as a form of protest.....my God think of the children!!!

  • SKR||

    Paying for a seat at a football game and having to see some multi-million fighter jet remind us of the millions of people killed by our government in our name because the game wont start until the authoritarian display of power ends.

  • Sam Haysom||

    This guy knows that inside of a high school locker.

  • bishopcruz||

    Oooh La La! Somerbody's getting laid in college.

  • lafe.long||

    Its the same as musicians not getting the music concert going until they can say blah blah about whatever political yaddah yaddah they FEELZ.

    This reminds me.. what've the Dixie Chicks been up to lately?

  • David Nolan||

    Some day media types will get what Americans are mad at.

    All 35% of Americans?
    Unlike you, must of us revere and actually support our beloved Constittution.
    How many of our heroic soldiers have died, for over 200 years, to defend the rights that your ilk so eagerly shits upon?

  • Lily Bulero||

    This is a question of a company's employees making anti-American gestures with the boss's consent - and we've seen that the NFL *does* have rules against certain expression, just not this form of anti-American expression.

    So we get to reply to this bad speech with counter-speech.

    If I watched football I'd be boycotting it.

  • Zeb||

    Is it even an anti-American gesture? What's going on now seems to have only to do with Trump's comments and is mostly a show of solidarity with fellow players who were protesting something or other before. Basically "if you fire this guy, you have to fire all of us". It's really nothing to do with America or the flag as far as I can see.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Like I say, I don't know the exact "thought" process they're going through, but suppose they want to "protest political correctness" by mooning the audience during Martin Luther King, Jr. observances? Maybe they had convoluted reasons for it, but it's objectively disrespectful.

  • SKR||

    It's subjectively disrespectful.

  • David Nolan||

    but suppose they want to "protest political correctness" by mooning the audience during Martin Luther King, Jr. observances?

    It would be crackers to slip a rozzer, the dropsy in snide!

    My adding "mooning" you continue down the path of weackiness.

  • David Nolan||

    "wackiness"

  • David Nolan||

    FREE SPEECH IS NOT ANTI-AMERICAN (shudder)

    Once upon a time, when we still had real conservatives -- with actual brains -- they stood with us in pointing out that we never needed a constitutional guarantee to protect popular speech. Or speech YOU sanction.

    Likewise, I'm quite sure that NFL owners don't give a flying fig what you demand of them.

    So we get to reply to this bad speech with counter-speech.

    And nearly 70% of Americans already know you're full of beans on "anti-American."
    Maybe when you take US History ..

  • Lily Bulero||

    "FREE SPEECH IS NOT ANTI-AMERICAN (shudder)"

    I hope you're not the famous David Nolan, because a line like this would tend to dim the lustre of your reputation.

    I referred to "this form of anti-American expression." I didn't even come close to saying free speech as such wasn't American.

    Suppose that the bosses of NASCAR allowed their drivers to call black people "[n-word]" (by the way, I don't think NASCAR bosses would actually allow this, it's a hypothetical situation).

    So I say that "[n-word]" is racist and suggest "counter-speech" in the form of a boycott.

    Then you say "FREE SPEECH ISN'T RACIST!!!!!!!!!!"

    See how silly that is?

  • David Nolan||

    I hope you're not the famous David Nolan, because a line like this would tend to dim the lustre of your reputation

    He's dead. So you're just as confused on that..

    I referred to "this form of anti-American expression." I didn't even come close to saying free speech as such wasn't American.

    You said that in public!
    And you misstated my words after quoting them!
    The defense (of liberty) rests.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Let me know what I misstated so I can issue a correction (if needed).

  • David Nolan||

    Let me know what I misstated

    Are you serious? You only quoted a single sentence .... five words. But THIS was the major screwup

    I referred to "this form of anti-American expression." I didn't even come close to saying free speech as such wasn't American.

    Even crazier

    Then you say "FREE SPEECH ISN'T RACIST!!!!!!!!!!"
    See how silly that is?

    Actually it's dishonest, self-serving on several levels!
    You've got the two sides bass ackwards.
    In an HONEST analogy, I'd be defending the DRIVERS!!!
    You'd be ATTACKING them as un-American.
    And I'd say the exact same thing about your contempt for individual liberty -- FREE SPEECH IS NOT UN-AMERICAN.

    So, yes your "justification" was silly (and that's being kind).

  • Lily Bulero||

    NOLAN:

    I am David Nolan's spirit,
    Doom'd for a certain term to troll the Web,
    And and every day call everybody liars,
    Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
    Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
    To tell the secrets of my prison-house,
    I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
    Would maketh thee say WTF, OMG...

  • David Nolan||

    (yawn) Now Lily is punishing me for calling out her bullshit,.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6980497

    and

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6980557

    VERY dangerous, calling out a blowhard. Most are also bullies, with a flair for aggression, NAP be damned...

  • Lily Bulero||

    So brave.

  • David Nolan||

    Lily Bulero|9.28.17 @ 11:49PM|#
    So brave.

    Not bravery. Self-defense from a triple-bullshiting blowhard denying her own words which are still visible.

  • ace_m82||

    Hi Hihn. How's it going?

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/12.....nt_6652623

    Using 3 different handles, also uses his Hihn handle to respond to himself… 3 days after no one other than he or I were posting anymore.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....nt_6730841

    Says precisely the same thing using 2 different handles. Begins with a quote of mine "If the child is a living human".

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR AGGRESSION .... BY A CONFESSED STALKER .... WHO EVEN LINKS TO HIS OWN BULLYING!!!! OMFG

    Hi Hihn. How's it going?

    I'm always fine when you make an ass of yourself!
    Ad hominem (personal attack) is a FALLACY in LOGIC, when one attacks the person instead of their IDEAS .... Obviously INCOMPETENT to deal with ... ideas ... or ANYTHING of substance

    And by dumbfucks who ....

    3 days after no one other than he or I were posting anymore.

    YOU TOO! (sneer)
    YOU kept fucking a dead thread for days... launching personal attacks like this .... now you link PROUDLY to PROOF of your thuggery!!! .... ATTACKING my SELF-DEFENSE from your aggression THEN ...........with NEW aggression NOW!!!!
    (Thugs are COMPELLED to bully anyone who DARES to disagree with them)
    This is one sick fuck.

    No, I did NOT pay him to make a public fool of himself. I never have to. He does it ll the time, even posts links, PROUD of his thuggery!


    (Hihn pees his pants laughing so hard)

    (Posted in self-defense of REPEATED aggression .... by a serial stalker ... who REPEATEDLY SHITS ALL OVER NAP. Sad)

    ...."Obviously INCOMPETENT to deal with ... ideas ... or ANYTHING of substance"
    Non-Aggression Principle = STOP STALKING ME with REPEATED aggressions ... punishing me for humiliating your prior aggressions (like here)

  • ace_m82||

    Fascinating Hihn, that you are stalking posts made by this "David Nolan" character, now isn't it?

    Veritas Liberabit Vos, Hihn. The truth will set you free.

    Why do you continue to deny what is so obvious? Why lie?

    How did both handles reply using the same exact words within minutes of each other?

    Was your plan to try to change people's minds by changing your ways? Because you've utterly failed that as well.

    God Bless you, Hihn! He will forgive anyone anything, if they only accept it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    also uses his Hihn handle to respond to himself

    ascinating Hihn, that you are stalking posts made by this "David Nolan" character, now isn't it?

    You mentioned my name, dumbfuck, in your LATEST aggression.
    In your aggression above:
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6982091
    You actually link to PROOF of your stalking and bullying!.

  • ace_m82||

    Yes, Hihn, continue to deny the truth. But God loves you anyhow. He loves you enough to send his Son to die for the sins you even not commit!

    May the Lord bless you
    and protect you.
    May the Lord smile on you
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord show you his favor
    and give you his peace.

  • David Nolan||

    MORE stalking and aggression. More NAP violations


    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6982091
    You actually link to PROOF of your stalking and bullying


    Yes, Hihn, continue to deny the truth. But God loves you anyhow.

    COWARDLY DIVERSION.
    YOUR OWN LINK PROVES YOUR THUGGERY, STALKING AND AGGRESSION

    Cut your nonstop bullshit and self-righteous aggression
    WHICH words do your sick mind say are me denying ANYTHING. Be specific.
    And PLEASE stop the self-righteous slobbering over a God you disgrace daily.

    HINT: Ignoring IRRELEVANT attacks is NOT denial, bully. (sneer)

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn, God loves you even when you lie, cheat, and steal! He sent his Son to die for you regardless of what you've done.

    May the Lord bless you
    and protect you.
    May the Lord smile on you
    and be gracious to you.
    May the Lord show you his favor
    and give you his peace.

  • FreeRadical||

    Oh my God, Doherty, I normally expect better from you than this pitiful third paragraph:

    ...dividing the nation roughly between those who either agree that cops violently misbehave too often or that Americans should be able to peacefully ... and those who think public and presidential pressure should force everyone to "show respect for the flag"...

    So, the only reason that Doherty can come up with as to why people might be irritated by the players' actions is that they are presidential boot lickers.

    Doherty, fuck you. I'm irritated by the players' protest. Here are my non-bootlicking reasons:

  • FreeRadical||

    Compare and contrast the behavior of the football players and the protesters who shout f-you to prevent people from speaking to the heroic women from the movie Hidden Figures.

    Those women experienced real racial inequality and oppression. They quietly used excellence to overcome the evil that surrounded them. We have made giant strides since then.

    The players paint a picture of our current society of as consumed by racism and injustice. They are simply wrong. Society has never been perfect, but the vast majority of people have access to success if they make good decisions and strive for excellence instead of sitting back and saying "oh, woe is me".

    These current protests make a mockery of what those women experienced and overcame.

  • David Nolan||

    FreeRadical
    Doherty, fuck you. I'm irritated by the players' protest. Here are my non-bootlicking reasons:

    ONE DAY LATER ... TRASHMOUTH BULLY FAILS FAILS TO POST HIS REASONS.
    Blowhards gotta blow. Thugs gotta bully.

  • David Nolan||

    Oh my God, Doherty, I normally expect better from you than this pitiful third paragraph:

    Ridicule is generally unwise, if one goes on to make a public fool of one's self.

    So, the only reason that Doherty can come up with as to why people might be irritated by the players' actions is that they are presidential boot lickers.

    That's wacky on several levels.
    He did not say (or imply) "only" reason, and nobody literate could possibly assume otherwise.
    Tell us why he should list every possible reason, as you insist.

    So, the ONLY justification for your hissy fit would be to show that he has nor properly summarized the MAJOR motivations for each side. Instead, you go on to describe YOUR reason ... as if you'd been triggered, and your feelings hurt.

    But you screw up immediately with the favorite bullshit of Trumpsters ... whataboutism .... "but what about" (changing the subject) Granted, Brian is an asshole for not snarling "Benghazi" and "Birth Certificate."

    Your "Hidden Figures" story has NOTHING to do with the depiction of EITHER side here. Plus you're full of shit: on the RELEVANT issue!

    The players paint a picture of our current society of as consumed by racism and injustice

    Essentially you're PISSED that Brian FAILED to include a totally irrelevant topic ... that MAYBE 5% of Americans ever heard of. How many of OTHER irrelevant snowflakes should Brian have described?

  • FreeRadical||

    Yes, what he wrote made me mad. But given what you wrote, I find it odd that you call me out on ridicule. I didn't imply that Doherty was illiterate, as you did with me. I criticized something he wrote as "pitiful".

    By the way, naming binary choices with no qualifiers pretty much implies that those are what he thinks the two choices are.

    I asked the reader to compare and contrast the current situation to Hidden Figures. This is a very common practice to noodle out meaning and get perspective. I think perspective is sorely needed by the current crop of protesters, especially the ones on campus. They act like they are in a titanic struggle, but knowing a bit of history is a good way to figure out the magnitudes of things.

    And holy shit, I am disgusted by Trump. What, do you think that everyone who does not follow your proscribed vision of libertarianism is a Trumpster?

    Are you really David Nolan? Your posts seem to have no nuance at all.

  • FreeRadical||

    Oh, you're dead. Nevermind.

  • David Nolan||

    Oh, you're dead. Nevermind.

    Thanks for telling readers that a dead man whupped your ass.
    Twice.

    For a third time: dead men can't post!

    Gimme a chance for four or five.

  • David Nolan||

    I find it odd that you call me out on ridicule.

    YOU DENY THE RIDICULE!!!

    I didn't imply that Doherty was illiterate, as you did with me

    Wrong again. I said your ridicule was "wacky" – and supported it. And that you're full of shit on the relevant issue.

    I criticized something he wrote as "pitiful".

    You're a LIAR for denying your ridicule.
    "Oh my God, Doherty, I normally expect better from you than this pitiful third paragraph"

    … naming binary choices with no qualifiers pretty much implies that those are what he thinks the two choices are.

    Already demolished. (emphasis added)

    He did not say (or imply) "only" reason, and nobody literate could possibly assume otherwise. Tell us why he should list every possible reason, as you insist.

    the ONLY justification for your hissy fit would be to show that he has not properly summarized the MAJOR motivations for each side. Instead, you go on to describe YOUR reason ... as if you'd been triggered

    But you screw up immediately with the favorite bullshit of Trumpsters ... whataboutism .... "but what about" (changing the subject) "

    Get it NOW?

    Your posts seem to have no nuance at all.

    Bullshit and denial are not nuance..

    If anyone is still confused, he INSISTS that it's strange, to SUMMARIZE two or more sides of a dispute.

  • David Nolan||

    Is FreeRadfical a psycho liar? YOU decide.

    ORIGINAL: "Doherty, fuck you. I'm irritated by the players' protest. Here are my non-bootlicking reasons:"

    AFTER CALLED OUT AS A LIAR: "I asked the reader to compare and contrast the current situation to Hidden Figures"

    Does FUCK YOU DOHERTY equate with READERS PLEASE CONSIDER? (smirk))
    Did he EVER deliver on his THUGGISH "Fuck you" reasons? WHERE?

    Bullies gotta bully. Typical of Trump supporters on this issue
    "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

  • Tony||

    A bunch of white dudes telling black people when they should and shouldn't protest, I see. Keep loving freedom guys.

  • FreeRadical||

    Social criticism of a protest is not the same as attempting to deny someone the right to protest. Tony why are you so willfully disingenuous so often?

  • Tony||

    So as long as you guys don't actually endorse the jackboot of government crushing anyone's skull, everything's good. Yeah I hear that kind of thing a lot. I would have thought it was assumed in any conversation, though.

    As libertarians you should really be on the side of protesting police abuse. At least I would think. But then this is also a racial deal, and I don't think anyone's under any illusion about your guys' long-term struggle with that.

  • FreeRadical||

    It's possible to protest police abuse and be mad about it without painting our entire society as shot through with oppression and racism.

    In almost every protest I see, the activists intimate something along the lines of a completely corrupt and unjust society. All white people are actually racist because of white privilege. And a never-ending list of other grievances barely hanging on to moving goalposts.

    But that ignores massive improvements over the decades. We're most of the way there, but we will never actually hit the asymptote.

    My mom was just telling me that when she and dad were in college, women (regardless of race) were not allowed into the engineering school. Same with the vet school. Now the vet school has over 50% women and women are almost 50-50 in engineering.

    This stuff should be celebrated. There needs to be some perspective in these protests. But the protesters seem to be too immature have any.

  • Tony||

    All they're doing is taking a knee. You seem to be reading a lot into it. Also, why is it your business? If black people think society is shot through with racism, maybe the polite thing to do is believe them, since how would you know better than they?

    But you want to go further and instruct them to be satisfied with what we've gained, as if that's your place. Again, how would you know if you aren't black? And who are you to say they have it good enough? Looking at any metric suggests things aren't fine yet.

    Also there's the fact that the president of the United States seems to be taking an active position against them and playing on the hypersensitive emotions of his white followers who seem to be angry that black people are expressing thoughts at all instead of shutting up and dancing for them like the servants they are supposed to be.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Perspective? I don't think an improvement in an area means that you should switch from protest to celebration. To be clear, racism in this country went from horrific to just pretty bad. Sure, that constitutes a massive improvement, but the work is far from done.

    By analogy, if Congress reached out to libertarians and then agreed to slash federal spending by 20% (which would be a massive improvement), is the fight on the fiscal front over?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "As libertarians you should really be on the side of protesting police abuse. At least I would think."

    We are. But this is a conservative web site and comment board.

  • DesigNate||

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    Please tell me you don't actually believe that.

  • DesigNate||

    We've been protesting police abuse for as long as you've been arguing with the libertarians in your fever dreams.

    Most of the douchebag entertainers protesting didn't care about police abuse all that much last year when Kap kicked this whole thing off. They're just pissed that President Retard called them out on it.

    (The cynical side of me says that none of them really care that much, even Kap, and if Trump could keep his big mouth shut, the majority of players wouldn't be protesting.)

  • EscherEnigma||

    "As libertarians you should really be on the side of protesting police abuse. "
    Many people that protest the "protesting police abuse" aren't in support of police abuse, they just don't believe it happens as often as the protestors claim it does.

    It's like when a black person complains about being followed around a department store, or being repeatedly pulled over by cops. Most other folks hear that and say "it's just a fluke, that doesn't really happen", and so they dismiss the reasonable complaint.

  • Tony||

    Well libertarians are the experts at the black experience.

  • David Nolan||

    It's like when a black person complains about being followed around a department store, or being repeatedly pulled over by cops. Most other folks hear that and say "it's just a fluke, that doesn't really happen", and so they dismiss the reasonable complaint.

    Most other folks are racist bigots? How so?

  • David Nolan||

    Social criticism of a protest is not the same as attempting to deny someone the right to protest. Tony why are you so willfully disingenuous so often?

    Why do you lie so shamelessly about what he said?
    I mean VERY shameless ... as in "the exact opposite?"

  • FreeRadical||

    Tony said people were telling others what to do. Ok. Then he followed that up with "Keep loving freedom". Peacefully criticizing other people is one of the essences of freedom. The only way criticism is a threat to liberty is when the government is involved.

  • David Nolan||

    I'll TRY to clarify your confusion here, which may be difficult after your MASSIVE screwup and coverup lies here.

    He never said government. Yours is an excuse by rightwing thugs, to justify their authoritarian MENTALITY.

    It's about ethics.
    Libertarians never violate individual sovereignty, with or without government.
    Goobers demand the "right" to violate individual sovereignty. smirk, and say "It's okay, I'm not government!"

    It's also about respect for others, which you also lack.. As proven by your thuggery at the link above.

    For libertarians, and for any decent people, the limits on government, derive from the self-limits voluntarily adopted by freedom-living individuals. Why else would they even THINK of limiting government? This is NOT rocket science.

    Free speech allows the authoritarian mentality to speak. But it's still an authoritarian mentality.
    You are sucking off liberty, an entitlement created by others.
    A liberty queen, morally equivalent to a welfare queen.

    So take your self-righteous lectures and ... jam them.
    You're a documented bully and thug.

    .

  • Rynosaur||

    His comments about "cultural marxism" weren't about the protests, they are about the "anti-white movement". He even says right after mentioning that term, "if you narrow it down to the demonstrations on the football field", meaning that he wasn't talking about them specifically with that marxism remark. I think people are confusing how he feels about the anti-white movement, with how he feels about the demonstrations in the NFL.

  • David Nolan||

    His comments about "cultural marxism" weren't about the protests, they are about the "anti-white movement".

    (lol) Why do you believe Marx was anti-white? Do you think he was from Africa?

  • Tony||

    These players and owners are kneeling before any anthem is played, yet white fans are still getting pissed off. What are they pissed about? Can't be disrespect to the flag or anthem in these cases. Is it that they don't like the inconvenience of watching people make a short political statement when they came simply to stuff their faces with nachos and watch grown men grab-ass for their amusement? If that's enough to set you off, that's white privilege right there. Imagine if you were at constant risk of being pulled over or worse because of the color of your skin, even if you were a millionaire football player. Presumably that's somewhat more of an inconvenience than you not being able to avoid having to think uncomfortable thoughts for 5 seconds.

  • JeremyR||

    The thing is, he's not wrong, it's just you at Reason are on the same side of the cultural war as the Marxist Left. Thus why you are frequently derided as Cosmotarians, more interested in social issues than libertarian in general, and only social issues the left loves. Guns? Reason is always very quiet about those, even though being pro gun is one fo the few things all libertarians should agree on. See also climate change.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It's interesting to criticize someone's dedication to libertarianism while taking the government's side, especially a president with a track record of extreme anti-libertarian stances. That's not to say that libertarianism should always be opposed to what the US government or Trump says, but when you're a libertarian and you're in agreement with the government, it's fairly noteworthy and should at least make you stop and think for a moment.

    You're right about guns though. Climate change on the other hand is not a libertarian (or even partisan) issue at all.

  • FreeRadical||

    What are you talking about with this "government's side"? The government does not have a "side" on this.

  • David Nolan||

    The government does not have a "side" on this.

    Umm, in the English language, defending government means taking government's side -- the side you now defend.
    And what government does IS it's side!!!

  • FreeRadical||

    How the fuck am I defending the government? Trump disgusts me. But as hard as this might be for you to understand, those players irritate the hell out of me too. For reasons that I mention above.

  • David Nolan||

    How the fuck am I defending the government?

    How the fuck could lie about what I said. (You do it to everyone)

    When I said this (in its entirety)

    Umm, in the English language, defending government means taking government's side -- the side you now defend. And what government does IS it's side!!!

    I was correcting your error ... YOUR WORDS THAT I QUOTED!!!!!

    You do this a lot

  • retiredfire||

    Donald Trump occupies the office of the president of the United States.
    When he expresses his personal opinion it doesn't become the government's side.
    Government is force. No one is being forced to do anything in this situation.
    You're about as much of a moron as Tony is - and that ain't easy.

  • FreeRadical||

    And he uses the name "David Nolan". That's funny.

  • David Nolan||

    Donald Trump occupies the office of the president of the United States.
    When he expresses his personal opinion it doesn't become the government's side.

    (snort)
    Black is white. War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorarnce is strength.

    Government is force.

    Not always, Are you also crazy enough to say "all taxation is theft."

    No one is being forced to do anything in this situation.

    The tax code is not force either Only when it's enforced. Duh.

    You're about as much of a moron as Tony is Again do you claim all taxation is theft? If so, then why do you shit on "consent of the governed," sonny?

  • FreeRadical||

    I'm getting the feeling that you are impenetrable to good-faith argument. You never explain how my words are in error. You simply restate your words. That is not an argument.

    You said I "now defend" the government's side. The government has taken no action. This is a discussion about opinion. I cannot defend what doesn't exist.

  • David Nolan||

    I 'm getting the feeling that you are impenetrable to good-faith argument.

    Are you STILL stalking me because you were HUMILIATED here
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6982197

    And here
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6982254

    You never explain how my words are in error. You simply restate your words. That is not an argument.

    I repeated my correction because you were ALREADY lying about it.

    (boldface still in defense of serial aggression)

  • Joseph Mulroney||

    This is about athletes protesting people getting killed by the police. The police are the government's side.

  • FreeRadical||

    So simple-minded.

  • David Nolan||

    So simple-minded.

    Yes, you are. At least you didn't shamelessly lie about HIS correction to your error ... like you did about mine.

  • retiredfire||

    No, the majority of these athletes protested because of what Donald Trump said - they weren't doing it when Colin Kaepernick made his dumb claim, only after Trump weighed in.
    What Trump says is not the government's side. If it was, government would be taking action. It is not.

  • David Nolan||

    What Trump says is not the government's side. If it was, government would be taking action

    You actually said that in public?
    You don't know what "taking sides" means?
    Seriously?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    The president of the government has taken a very strong position on it. His (government) minions have universally supported his position.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    It's still absolutely a logical fallacy to claim that agreeing with President on a single opinion which holds zero legislative concerns is the same as supporting the entire government.

    It's deflection for non-thinkers and nothing more.

  • David Nolan||

    It's still absolutely a logical fallacy to claim that agreeing with President on a single opinion which holds zero legislative concerns is the same as supporting the entire government.

    Nobody said it was.

    It's deflection for non-thinkers

    I appreciate your confession

  • FreeRadical||

    What effluent spews from the mouth of the president on his twitter feed is not the "government's" position.

    Criticizing the protesting players is not the same as loving on Trump. What is so hard about that?

  • David Nolan||

    What effluent spews from the mouth of the president on his twitter feed is not the "government's" position.

    It's not true that the universe disappears, if you close your eyes and refuse to see it.

    Why else do 69% of Americans want him to STFU on Twitter?

    Instead of caring only about his base, a small sliver of Americans.
    (This is where you accuse me of denying he was elected, or similar whining).

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That's true. The government position is better reflected by the near unanimous opinion by the White House and its staff, an opinion we've learned through official press briefings and interviews.

    I didn't mean to suggest it was a consensus opinion among the entire US government and all it's employees. It's "only" a consensus opinion among the President and his staff. Oh, and much of the Republican establishment. Those guys who hold about half of the power in the legislative and judicial branches.

  • FreeRadical||

    The only way that "government" has a side, or even an opinion, is when laws are passed, courts make decisions, and rules are made by the executive branch.

    None of which is occurring at all.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You're right. As libertarians we should ignore it when the president and his minions defend a policy of police abuse by urging league owners to suppress protest about that very topic. No big deal. He didn't pass a new law.

    I really didn't think the stance by conservatives at Reason was about race until now. But I have a suspicion that if CK's protest was about police abuse re: drug laws, some of you would find it unfortunate that the president denounced the drug law protesters as "sons of bitches" and urged the owners to suppress the protesters.

  • FreeRadical||

    You have such imprecision in your thinking. Criticizing (not suppressing) a protest does not mean that you are "defend[ing] a policy of police abuse". What a sweeping leap of illogical thinking that is. I'm certainly not defending such a thing.

    Who knows what the president is doing? I don't think he thinks deeply enough to care about police abuse. I think what he's doing is trolling the American people purely to fan the flames and enjoy the heat. He wants us to be further divided. He's shitposting the entire US.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Please read what I wrote again. I didn't say the president suppressed. I said he urged the owners to suppress.

  • David Nolan||

    Relevance?
    Beat dead horses much?

  • David Nolan||

    It's not true that the universe disappears, if you close your eyes and refuse to see it.

  • David Nolan||

    Conservative says government's position is determined by the President's Press Secretary (and her equals).

  • Mark P||

    Climate change is a both a partisan issue and a libertarian issue. I believe that increased levels of CO2 do increase temperature modestly, but increased levels of CO2 also increase the vitality and productivity of plants. However, I also believe in diminishing returns from increased CO2, which can create more clouds: if you paint a white barn red, there is a drastic change in color at first, but if you add a second coat of red, the change is minimal. Moreover, CO2 was much more prevalent in the atmosphere before human beings even existed, and ice ages occurred with high levels of CO2. Libertarians are not against the science that says increased levels of CO2 may increase temperature modestly; they are against the globalists that use this problem as a way to gain power over people: they say people are the problem and so we need to take away their freedom and put the globalists in charge. Libertarians oppose the political implications of Climate Change, not the science (only the people who manipulate data in order to magnify the problem).

  • Heresiarch||

    It perennially amazes me how often Reason muffs it when it comes to political correctness and race. This article is the latest example. Are the players protesting "how often police kill black men" as the text suggests, or are they "protesting police crimes" as the subtitle says? Mr. Doherty seems first to elide the two, and then to ignore it. Those two things are quite different. Police don't kill black men very often. By and large, it's black men who kill black men. The football players are posturing, and posturing idiotically. Not only do they have some serious fantasy that it's necessarily criminal for a police officer to kill a black man, but they have one that of the tiny percentage of black people killed by police, the tiny percentage and tiny number that are criminal acts by police are a.) numerically worthy of major concern to a nation this large and b.) of major significance to whether black people get married, get and keep jobs, raise their families properly, and invest their money.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Police don't kill black men very often. By and large, it's black men who kill black men."

    You need to reconsider the relationship between these two sentences.

    1) How often non-police kill black men has absolutely nothing to do with how often police kill black men.
    2) The fact that black men kill black men more frequently than white men has nothing to do with police abuse of power, or even racism. Black people can (and often do) hold racist views against black people.

    The fact of the matter is that police abuse exceeds acceptable levels to just about every libertarian. The numbers skew toward suggesting there's a racial component, whether it's racial discrimination or some other source. The very laws that the police are prosecuting also have racial underpinnings.

  • dconlaw1||

    "The numbers skew toward [confirming cops are racist.]" Oh yeah. I wasn't convinced of the racism charge until you pointed out which way The Numbers skew. But now I'm a convert. Damn racist cops!

  • David Nolan||

    Are the players protesting "how often police kill black men" as the text suggests, or are they "protesting police crimes" as the subtitle says

    Add "unjustly" to clear up your own confusion.
    I'm quote sure you don't INTEND to sound like a raging racist -- so stop spreading their bullshit,.

  • David Nolan||

    Are the players protesting "how often police kill black men" as the text suggests, or are they "protesting police crimes" as the subtitle says?

    They're the same, and that's quite a strawman fallacy you created.
    You invent your own meaning of the text, then whine because your own invention is wrong.
    Police killing a black man is not in itself a crime. Doing it unjustly is.
    Anything else?

  • ||

    PART 1 of 2:
    You are missing the point that should be most important for people who actually want achieve a more libertarian society.

    Protesting police crimes is not the problem. We can all see with our own eyes from the videos that some police have been getting away with horrible behavior and that definitely needs to change.

    The problem is that when *some* people look at the same videos they see something different than horrible behavior that needs to be corrected. Instead the "Black Lives Matter" group sees only "racism" and then uses that judgment to justify all manner of messed up demands for reparations and whatnot thereby alienating everyone who agrees with them that dishonorable police behavior should not be tolerated.

    But the hard data is absolutely conclusive. There is NOT an epidemic of violence by police against black people.

    When large numbers of people refuse to acknowledge the evidence and choose to cling to their pattern of victimhood thinking to the point where it is actually destroying lives, that is a problem for everyone.

  • David Nolan||

    You have a real future in politics! You managed to take both sides, in two consecutive sentences.

  • ||

    Make no mistake. The habit of responding to pain by labeling the experience "oppression" fosters a victimhood mentality that can and does destroy lives. These sports stars are role models for millions of kids. That pattern of victimhood thinking needs to be destroyed for the benefit of those kids.

    PART 2 of 2:
    Make no mistake. Victimhood thinking is a barrier for a more libertarian society too. People who believe they are victims are unlikely to refrain from using the violence of the state against their neighbors to protect themselves from being victimized. They are more likely to seek to use the violence of the state to inflict their will on their neighbors to retaliate against perceived victimization. Thus the proliferation of laws against hate crimes, support for affirmative action, etc.

    It is heartening to see so many people in the black community finally taking a stand against this type of thinking for the good of their children. The world will be a much better place when victimhood thinking is destroyed. That can only happen if we do not shy away from going to war with it.

  • Freelancelot||

    And so "Reason" continues its leftist-liberal and (anti-white) racist rant.

    Hey, Brian Doherty, go check out Mark Levin's marvelous and well-spoken tirade against this childish, divisive, dangerously surreal protest nonsense on his radio show's "Audio Rewind" section for September 26th, 2017.

  • David Nolan||

    Umm, libertarians have been fiscally conservative socially liberal since 1969, chump .. which has always pissed off goobers like you and Levin, and Jones and Bannon and Ron Paul ,.. who believe that bellowing blowhards are more powerful than our Constitution,

    Stay with Breitbart, Infowars and WND, deep in your echo chamber of anti-liberty,

  • B.P.||

    "President Donald Trump has chosen to cynically and idiotically fan the flames of this phony controversy, dividing the nation roughly between those who either agree that cops violently misbehave too often or that Americans should be able to peacefully and symbolically express that opinion during the national anthem at a football game, and those who think public and presidential pressure should force everyone to "show respect for the flag" in one proscribed ritual way."

    This is an absurd analysis of two sides of a debate.

  • David Nolan||

    Why?

  • David Nolan||

    Is Brian finally seeking redemption? The libertarian Ron Paul sold out to power decades ago, when he became the original alt-righter. But anti-gubmint hatred long ago blinded libertarianism. Google how often he's on Infowars, suckers.

    Stop screaming and name anyone more demanding of States Rights --- KKK version, -- with his falsehoods about the 10th Amendment, straight from the playbook of Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, George Wallace, et al. How else does anyone get elected in South Texas?

    Ant-guv bobbleheads nodded -- witlessly -- when Ron attacked the federal government (in words) by shitting on the Constitution (in action). It was the KLAN who first claimed that states had powers that the "intrusive" federal courts could not interfere with, under Jim Crow. Ron later applied the same "anti-nigger" mentality to gays, claiming they had NO constitutional rights to defend. He BRAGS that he sponsored a bill to forbid SCOTUS from considering a challenge to DOMA. (The pathetic asshiole wanted tio deny an entire group ANY constitutional protection, the first such group since slavery. HELLO?)

    We once called the 9th Amendment the libertarian Amendment, because it LIMITS the 10th (ooops). It forbids ANY level of government to deny or disparage fundamental rights, even beyond rights enumerated in the Constitution.

    And ...pay attention ...unenumerated RIGHTS are superior to unenumerated powers, in a government of delegated powers. duh.

    Let the raging hatred begin ...

  • Lily Bulero||

    Do I have the honor of addressing David "Nolan Chart" Nolan?

  • Lily Bulero||

    Wait, Wikipedia says you died in 2010.

    Quick, get the Ghosthunters people on the line, we got a live one...I mean a not-live one...

  • David Nolan||

    Wait, Wikipedia says you died in 2010.

    I have already alluded to your ignorance here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6980557

    Where you falsely denied your own words .... distorted Nolan's values .. and misstated my words.after quoting them correctly!

    Emotional issues often lead to such things, by the emotionally driven

  • Lily Bulero||

    Alas, poor ghost!

  • David Nolan||

    I have already alluded to your (lily's) ignorance here.
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6980557
    Where you falsely denied your own words .... distorted Nolan's values .. and misstated my words.after quoting them correctly!


    Alas, poor ghost!

    But not a bully.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    You realize that impersonating someone online is a federal crime?

  • David Nolan||

    MOAR AGGRESSION BY MY STALKER.

    Liberty =Equality|9.28.17 @ 8:01PM|#
    You realize that impersonating someone online is a federal crime?
  • ace_m82||

    Hi, Hihn. How's it going?

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/02.....nt_6778904

    Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

  • David Nolan||

    Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

    YOUR OWN LINK SAYS YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT! and it gets crazier.
    He JAMMED it up your ass on THIS page and RIDICULED YOU for providing links to you BULLYING him ... for days ... on a dead thread.

    HE says yiou're a "serial stalker" so I did a page search for your name here.
    I see FIVE comments (so far) ... ALL unprovoked l aggression. That's UNDENIABLE PROOF of stalking, chump..

    Your own links to your PAST bullying are here

  • ace_m82||

    Veritas Liberabit Vos, Hihn. The truth will set you free.

    Why do you continue to deny what is so obvious? Why lie?

    How did both handles reply using the same exact words within minutes of each other?

    Was your plan to try to change people's minds by changing your ways? Because you've utterly failed that as well.

    God Bless you, Hihn! He will forgive anyone anything, if they only accept it.

  • Alec Rawls||

    "...protesting police crimes"? What a stinking lie. What half of the blacks in the NFL are now protesting is lawful self-defense against murderous black criminals.

    Black Lives Matter is a criminals' lobby. Most of the icons of this racist movement--Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Alton Sterling, Charleena Lyles, and many more--were shot while trying to murder somebody. BLM sides with murderers over the people they were trying to murder purely on the basis of race. Pure maximum racist evil.

    Doherty, what the HELL???? Ridiculous peabrain.

  • David Nolan||

    That's either the funniest satire in decades
    Or you are the scariest dude on the entire planet.

  • retiredfire||

    The truth scares you?
    That says a lot.

  • David Nolan||

    Read it again, chump.

  • chemjeff||

    Protesting a perceived injustice by involving the national anthem is not "anti-American". It is PRO-AMERICAN. It celebrates America's commitment to freedom of protest and freedom of expression. Those protestors would have been shot in a repressive regime. Instead they have the freedom to protest here using national symbols, and that is part of what makes America a better country than most.

    What is anti-American, IMO, is trying to reduce America to nothing more than just a collection of flags, symbols and songs. I really don't care what color the flag is or how difficult to sing the national anthem is. If those went away tomorrow it wouldn't change anything. Because those are just THINGS. Not ideas. Ideas of liberty and equality are what America great, not some stupid piece of cloth or some stupid song.

  • Alec Rawls||

    Isn't it also freedom of expression to boycott people who agitate for black murderers and against the police who try to stop them? Isn't it also freedom of expression for the leader of a political party to speak to his followers and the nation about such an issue?

  • David Nolan||

    You reveal your moral cowardice here

    the leader of a political party

    We all know (those with honor) why you didn't have the guts to say THE PRESIDENT.
    Shameful

  • chemjeff||

    Yes and yes. You are, and should be, free to boycott whomever you like. And Trump is free to say whatever he likes.

    I would add, however, that IMO individuals in positions of power, like Trump and others, should be more circumspect in how they exercise their rights. They have a lot bigger megaphones and more people will pay attention to their opinions than the opinions of you or I, even though we are all exercising our free speech rights equally. Because of this I think leaders generally speaking should exhibit a higher standard of decorum for when they choose to speak.

  • FreeRadical||

    chemjeff, I agree wholeheartedly. The president is a disgusting troll whose only goal is to fan the flames and get people even more divided into their teams.

    Decorum is a completely alien concept to Trump.

  • David Nolan||

    One of the best summaries I've seen.
    But this commentariat is dominated by goobers from the Alt-Right and the Paulista Cult (mostly the same people)

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Is this the LP founder David Nolan or some asswipe troll using his name?

  • David Nolan||

    ANOTHER aggression by the thug

    Is this the LP founder David Nolan or some asswipe troll using his name?

    He's been dead for several years. But what would a bully and socon (same thing) know about libertarianism?

  • chemjeff||

    Hihn, I appreciate your praise, but please, in general, lay off the insults for a little bit.

    Not everyone here is an alt-righter or a "Paulista Cult[ist]" and they certainly aren't the same people in any event. Inflammatory slander serves no constructive purpose.

  • FreeRadical||

    Yes, Hihn. Very good chance of that.

  • David Nolan||

    Not everyone here is an alt-righter or a "Paulista Cult[ist]"

    (lol) I never said they were, chump.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    It celebrates America's commitment to freedom of protest and freedom of expression.

    Which only protects from coercion. It does not force others to continue to associate with you if they do not like what you did.

    I really don't care what color the flag is or how difficult to sing the national anthem is. If those went away tomorrow it wouldn't change anything.

    Not inherently. But when social cohesion breaks down because the forces that separate us are stronger than those that bind us, you think liberty is going to survive? Naive in the extreme.

  • David Nolan||

    Which only protects from coercion. It does not force others to continue to associate with you if they do not like what you did.

    Who said otherwise?

  • chemjeff||

    Why does liberty depend on quasi-religious reverence for secular national symbols?

    Which is more affirmative of liberty: when people have the freedom, real freedom, to "deviate from the norm", or when people are pressured, either de jure or de facto, to all believe, act, think and talk the same way on a particular subject?

  • David Nolan||

    when people are pressured, either de jure or de facto, to all believe, act, think and talk the same way on a particular subject?

    Like when Trump does it? OOPS

    You defend his authoritarian mentality, because you don't understand libertarianism BEGINS with ethics, which are THEN applied to government.

    Libertarians never violate individual sovereignty, with or without government.
    Goobers violate individual sovereignty, then smirk, "It's okay, I'm not government!"

    It's also about respect for others.
    For libertarians, like all decent people, limits on government derive from values-based limits self-imposed voluntarily.

    That's why it's CALLED "natural" law. Some call it The Golden Rule. You'll see equivalents in the teachings of Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Buddha, every ethical system for millenia.

    So it's not just libertarian ethics being defied.

    Free speech allows the authoritarian mentality to speak. But it's still authoritarian. .
    Trump and the alt-right are, like many progs, sucking off liberty, an entitlement created and defended by others. They are Liberty queens, morally equivalent to welfare queens.

    Trumpkins even include good manners as Politically Correct! Precious snowflakes of the right.

    Opposing authoritarian rule BEGINS with opposing the authoritarian mind. -- the control-freak mentality that champions VERBAL aggression and bullying. Can you name ONE ethical system which has EVER condoned that?

    I didn't think so.

  • Alec Rawls||

    And then this from Doherty, thinking that President Trump is violating speech rights when he exercises his own rights of speech and association with his supporters and the American people:

    "Paul hits the correct note that President Trump should leave the NFL knee controversy alone, saying 'the president ought to be a lot less noisy about it' and should not be 'threatening people [like] they are committing some crime.' "

    Trump is not threatening people as if they are committing some crime. That is, he is not threatening anyone with the power of the state, and to suggest that he is is a monstrous perversion of libertarian logic. Does Doherty care about the most basic truth and principle or not?

    THE PRESIDENT HAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Pretending that his discussion of and/or advocacy of PRIVATE market response to the rotten pro-murder racism of the Black Lives dirtbags is a violation of BLM speech rights is nothing but a dishonest twisting of basic First Amendment principles in an effort to attack the PRESIDENT'S speech rights.

    Conservatives get their rights to speech and assembly attacked constantly by the Maoist Red Brigades of the left. Now we are going to get our speech rights attacked by supposed libertarian intellectuals? What a fraud. Doherty, YOU STINK. You rotten leftist. Calling yourself a libertarian. Go to Hell. You have NO belief in liberty.

  • David Nolan||

    And then this from Doherty, thinking that President Trump is violating speech rights when he exercises his own rights of speech and association with his supporters and the American people:

    He never said that, but you've been shamelessly bullshitting yourself down this entire page.

    For other neutral observers ... this is an example of Trump's base. And the alt-right in general.
    People only lie when the truth is in-con-veeeeeeeeen-yent to their tribal agenda.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    dividing the nation roughly between those who either agree that cops violently misbehave too often or that Americans should be able to peacefully and symbolically express that opinion during the national anthem at a football game, and those who think public and presidential pressure should force everyone to "show respect for the flag" in one proscribed ritual way.

    He doesn't come right out and say it, but that's what he intends the takeaway to be. Note the misuse of "force" here (in addition to the false dichotomy evident in the entire sentence)

  • David Nolan||

    Liberty=Equality (sic)
    He doesn't come right out and say it,

    He doesn't come close .. and you just made a fool of yourself AGAIN!

    PAY ATTENTION.
    a) In your ridiculous quote, he's describing two sides of the issue.
    b) THIS is the lie I called out

    And then this from Doherty, thinking that President Trump is violating speech rights when he exercises his own rights of speech and association with his supporters and the American people

    One more time for Trumpster thugs ... BRIAN DIDN'T SAY THAT!

    And why did you punish me here ... with aggression ... THUG?
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6980687

    a continuing disgrace to liberty and equality

  • chemjeff||

    No he doesn't come right out and say it, but I think that is a strong element of the populist nationalist right: a desire to enforce a patriotic version of PC that holds secular national symbols in religious-like devotion.

    The left and the right are turning more and more into mirror images of each other, it seems. The left wants to enforce a PC groupthink on issues of race, class, gender, and sexuality. The right wants to enforce a PC groupthink on issues of nationalism, patriotism, and submission to the state.

  • David Nolan||

    The left and the right are turning more and more into mirror images of each other, it seems.

    Somebody said this nearly a half-century ago: Left - Right = Zero

  • David Nolan||

    Trump is not threatening people as if they are committing some crime.

    Yes, Ron Paul is full of shit. Nothing new.

    What Trump's doing is ... fascism,.. literally ... SCREAMING that private employers should fire "sons of bitches" as determined by Herr Trump .... FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS.

    THE PRESIDENT HAS FREEDOM OF SPEECH

    Who are you screaming that to? And why? He's President, which YOU imply has no obligations at all ... not to the office, the Nation or the Constitution.. No personal accountability ... for anything.

    Aside from the President, your own words disgusting, shameful and totally racist (the ones in bold)

    PRIVATE market response to the rotten pro-murder racism of the Black Lives dirtbags is a violation of BLM speech rights is nothing but a dishonest twisting of basic First Amendment principles ...

    HATE-SPEWING TRUMPSTER EQUATES PRO FOOTBALL PLAYERS WITH BLM ... WHY? .... BECAUSE (most) ARE BLACK???? (vomit)

    TELL US WHEN TRUMP TRIED TO SUPPRESS BLM FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ... INSTEAD OF THE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS OF N\FL PLAYERS.

    You have every right to be a shameful, full-of-shit racist. Trump did say YOU would stand by him .. even if he murdered someone in broad daylight. He SAID his supporters were totally lacking in moral values. Thanks for adding more proof to the mountain.

  • ||

    Rights are sacrosanct, inalienable, not subject to wavier by contract or verbally. The argument by the violator of rights that the right was "wavied" misunderstands rights. When SCOTUS makes this argument it cannot be by mistake because rights are their business. Therefore it must be an intentional lie.

    No player contract can erase a right. A player may agree to forfeit freedom of conscience and worship a superstition by participating in a quasi-religious ritual, then renege. That's called "exercising a right".

    A fan may opt to refuse to support the player or team or NFL. That's the fan's right. It's win-win for everybody.

    America was the first society to recognize rights as the primary social value for everybody.

    The concept of "right" has not been explained properly in govt. schools because govt. sees rights as a threat to control by rulers. If rights are not concieved of by the populace, obedience and servitude is the norm. See the US Empire.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Baloney. Freedom of speech does not imply that others have a duty to continue to associate with you or employ you after you speak. It only protects you from coercion.

  • David Nolan||

    You're a disgrace to both Liberty and Equality. He never said that.

    Now ... redeem your shame by explaining how a contract can erase a right.
    Or ... how can Herr Trump demand that private employers fire "sons of bitches" the the Emperor does not like.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    There is no right in this case, so the answer is irrelevant.

  • David Nolan||

    Behold the raging fascist!

    Liberty = Equality|9.28.17 @ 8:37PM|#
    There is no right in this case, so the answer is irrelevant.

    FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT
    PLUS ... you are a THUG who initiates AGGRESSION on a libertarian website!

    It NEVER ends for his ilk.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Just so everyone is aware, David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party, died in 2010. The person using his name on this thread is a shitbag imposter.

  • David Nolan||

    Just so everyone is aware .... (psycho bullshit deleted)

    Just so everyone is aware ... THIS "SHITBAG IMPOSTER" SAID THAT DAVID NOLAN IS DEAD ... OVER AN HOUR BEFORE THE REAL IMPOSTER LAUNCHED HIS LATEST SHAMEFUL AGGRESSION (and perhaps over a dozen times on other pages)

    David Nolan|9.28.17 @ 6:53PM|#

    I hope you're not the famous David Nolan, because a line like this would tend to dim the lustre of your reputation
    He's dead. So you're just as confused on that..

    Typical rightwing aggression, by a disgrace to both liberty and equality (as just provern).

    P.S. Is HIS (or her) handle an alias?????????? (sneer)

  • 68W58||

    It's Hihn-just look at how often he talks about "aggression".

  • ace_m82||

    Proof of Hihn using "Nolan" name.

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/12.....nt_6652623

    Using 3 (!) different handles, also uses his Hihn handle to respond to himself… 3 days after no one other than he or I were posting anymore.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/01.....nt_6730841

    Says precisely the same thing using 2 different handles. Begins with a quote of mine "If the child is a living human".

  • ace_m82||

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/02.....nt_6778904

    Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

    Mary Stack/rectal did this during the White Indian days--basically just spammed the same catchphrases over and over.

  • David Nolan||

    Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

    YOUR OWN LINK SAYS YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT! and it gets crazier.
    He JAMMED it up your ass on THIS page and RIDICULED YOU for providing links to you BULLYING him ... for days ... on a dead thread.

    HE says yiou're a "serial stalker" so I did a page search for your name here.
    I see FIVE comments (so far) ... ALL unprovoked l aggression. That's UNDENIABLE PROOF of stalking, chump..

    Your own links to your PAST bullying are here

  • ace_m82||

    Veritas Liberabit Vos, Hihn. The truth will set you free.

    Why do you continue to deny what is so obvious? Why lie?

    How did both handles reply using the same exact words within minutes of each other?

    Was your plan to try to change people's minds by changing your ways? Because you've utterly failed that as well.

    God Bless you, Hihn! He will forgive anyone anything, if they only accept it.

  • David Nolan||

    Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

    YOUR OWN LINK SAYS YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT! and it gets crazier.
    He JAMMED it up your ass on THIS page and RIDICULED YOU for providing links to you BULLYING him ... for days ... on a dead thread.

    HE says yiou're a "serial stalker" so I did a page search for your name here.
    I see FIVE comments (so far) ... ALL unprovoked l aggression. That's UNDENIABLE PROOF of stalking, chump..

    Your own links to your PAST bullying are here

  • David Nolan||

    It's Hihn-just look at how often he talks about "aggression".

    The Non-Aggression Principle has been a core value of libertarianism for over a half-century. Educate yourself,

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    that campus officials are afraid to speak out against leftist agitation on campus

    They ARE afraid to speak out. Where the fuck have you been for the last year Doherty? Living under a goddamn rock, or did the AntiFa asswipes torching part of Berkeley not penetrate your consciousness?

  • David Nolan||

    Where the fuck have you been for the last year Doherty? Living under a goddamn rock, or did the AntiFa asswipes torching part of Berkeley not penetrate your consciousness?

    You pathetic piece-of-shit liar on what Brian said.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    So, which sock-puppet are you?

  • David Nolan||

    Which type of aggression are you pursuing?
    Do you have anything of substance on the issue here?
    Anything of relevance?
    Or just bullying?

  • FreeRadical||

    We have a new winner! The troll called David Nolan wins the prize for the most stridently dense and logic-free posts of the year.

  • David Nolan||

    FreeRadical, like all fucking bullies, is PUNISHING me for calling him out as a bullshitting bully!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6982197

    TWICE!! (OMG).
    Here's his promise .. in his psychotic attack on Doherty -- and how I jammed THAT up his ass (sneer).

    FreeRadical|9.28.17 @ 3:41P
    Doherty, fuck you. I'm irritated by the players' protest. Here are my non-bootlicking reasons:
    David Nolan
    ONE DAY LATER ... TRASHMOUTH BULLY FAILS TO POST HIS REASONS.
    Blowhards gotta blow. Thugs gotta bully.

    STILL WAITING!
    (Check the date and time of his FAILED promise -- which was actually a pathetic lie, per the first link)

    Are your parents proud of how you turned out? Or ashamed? Punk.

  • MikeP2||

    I think too many folks are missing the root cause of the whole issue. Its not the anti-patriotism, anti-nationalism, anti-whatever.

    But rather, that the last few years has seen any criticism of a black American characterized as racism alone.
    Many NFL viewers don't care what color the players are...far from it. But when Kapernick kneeled, any criticism was immediately denounced as "racism". No one could point out that he was a showboating hack trying to gain publicity to stem the downward spiral of his career. Nope...that was just racism, straight up.
    Tie this into how any disagreement with Obama policies = racism, the how pointing out that "all lives matter" is the height of racism, and people are just fed up with it all.

    The kneeling is spitting in the face of middle America. Kneeling = "you have no right to criticize me, no right to complain, no right to express any opinion on this matter at all. This is a black thing and you don't count"

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    If Kaepernick's goal was, as you say, to gain publicity, then he failed miserably. There's no reason to explain his unemployment aside from the protest. His performance last year was objectively better than many other starting QBs (including his replacement), let alone backups around the league. A 16-4 TD/INT ratio gets you a job, period. I can't imagine he thought this whole kneeling thing would play favorably among potential GMs.

    Given that many, many players around the league consider it important to support their community in some way -- whether it's through charity, outreach, or political advocacy -- I think it's more likely that his intention was to fuel discussion about the topic. And I can't think of anyone in recent memory who has been more successful than him.

    I know this wasn't your main point, but I don't think it's useful to suggest that Kaepernick's actions were a sham, even if you don't agree what he stood for (pardon the pun).

  • David Nolan||

    JunkScienceIsJunk|9.29.17 @ 2:10PM|#
    If Kaepernick's goal was, as you say, to gain publicity, then he failed miserably

    THE craziest comment of the 21st Century!

  • Lucius Junius Brutus||

    "some football players aren't happy with how often police kill black men and choose to express this by kneeling rather than standing when the national anthem is played before football games"

    The point isn't that they did this. It's that kneeling by players protesting something not sanctioned by the Leftist Establishment would not be allowed. If players knelt, say, in the name of aborted babies, would they be celebrated by the media or attacked? The same way Curt Schilling was fired by ESPN for opposing same-sex bathrooms, but jemele hill is not for making anti-Trump statements. The same way they show the kneeling players, but not booing fans. The same way it was ok for obama to praise Kaepernick but not ok for Trump to criticize. It's all about the hammerlock the Left has on public discourse - if you follow the party line you're right as rain, if not you're a racist.

    We're in a war. Time to get your hands dirty. We may have to fight the enemy on grounds we may may not like 100%. It's going to get worse, far worse. Throat-cuttingly worse. We either fight or get herded into camps by the Stalinists. The best we can hope for is an India-Pakistan solution and divide the country.

  • David Nolan||

    Raging psycho?

    We may have to fight the enemy on grounds we may may not like 100%. It's going to get worse, far worse. Throat-cuttingly worse. We either fight or get herded into camps by the Stalinists. The best we can hope for is an India-Pakistan solution and divide the country.

    SLIT THEIR THROATS. WE HAVE NO CHOICE!
    -ISIS .... errr ... Brutus (same thing)

  • Mark P||

    I agree with Ron Paul 100% on this issue. Cultural Marxism is not "an obsession" but a reality due to the fact that Marxism has been preached in universities for the past 50 years. Most people are aware only of the Marxist connection with socialism and communism. However, Marxism also preaches materialism, that is, the philosophical position that matter is primary, and the mind is either secondary or unreal. Materialism is the basis of racism; for if material is primary, the human body is primary, and the skin color of that body is primary, and that should be our sole focus in evaluating other people. Marx himself believed in epiphenomenalism, the view that ALL IDEAS are merely the effect of bodily processes beyond our control. In contrast, most conservatives preach idealism, that is, the philosophical position that mind is primary, and the body is either secondary or unreal. Martin Luther King was an idealist who believed that people should be judged on the content of their character, not their skin color (similar ideas can unify people regardless of skin color). In contrast, Malcolm X believed in materialism when a white woman asked him if there is anything she could do to help his cause--Malcolm X said no, implying ideas themselves cannot be the basis for unity.

  • David Nolan||

    Cultural Marxism is not "an obsession" but a reality So ... like the REAL Marx ... that's your excuse to SQUAT AND SHIT on our Constitution. If you're serious, you're among the first I'd kill.

  • Mark P||

    Brian Doherty needs to study the history of ideas, and learn that modern liberalism (and the Democratic Party) stems from the ideas of Marx and Rousseau. From Marx, they were persuaded to believe in government control over the economy and materialism; from Rousseau, they were persuaded to attack the ideas of society and high culture, and instead focus on our natural instincts (the noble savage) and mother earth (environmentalism). The Democratic party is responsible for racism (the Democrats were slave owners, KKK members, authors of Jim Crow laws, & most opposed the civil rights laws of the 60s); the attacks on American Indians (Andrew Jackson was a Democrat), and the interment of the Japanese during World War II (FDR). Most say Democrats have changed their ways now; but they still believe in materialism, and still argue that our thoughts are determined by our bodies (white bodies determine white thought, black bodies determine black thought, male bodies determine male thought, female bodies determine female thought) and there is no basis by which we can even understand other bodies. Such a philosophy is destructive at its root, and will lead to a war of all against all in a world in which no one cannot escape his own body's determinism. Doherty is ignorant of the actual basis for our cultural divide, and because of this, offers no meaningful solution.

  • David Nolan||

    modern liberalism (and the Democratic Party) stems from the ideas of Marx

    And modern conservatism stems from Genghis Kahn and the (un)Holy Inquisition. (Goldwater and Reagan were correct to oppose them. Now too late)

    Left - Right = Zero
    Over 60% of Americans would self-describe as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
    Your Tribe is walking zombies, just like the Blue Tribe -- would be TOTALLY gone if not for partisan primaries, since a growing majority rejects loyalty to BOTH corrupt statists.

  • Marco Roberts||

    Honestly, the first few paragraphs of this piece were so idiotic, I could not stomach slogging through the rest. Do you really not understand the simple and basic difference between criticizing an act or opinion, and actively preventing it? Where did Ron Paul say he intended to do the latter? What happened to the Reason magazine I subscribed to for considered insight? When was it replaced by this shallow click-bait hog? You talk about "fear" of those kneeling. If that is "fear," then by the same standard you must have "fear" of Ron Paul's criticism of the kneeling. Absolutely ridiculous.

  • David Nolan||

    I'll TRY to address your confusion. It seems too late for you, but perhaps others.
    You may have never understood that libertarianism BEGINS with ethics, which are THEN applied to government.

    Libertarians never violate individual sovereignty, with or without government.
    Goobers violate individual sovereignty, then smirk, "It's okay, I'm not government!"

    That includes honoring everyone's sovereignty - the price for a free society..
    For libertarians, like all decent people, limits on government derive from values-based limits self-imposed voluntarily.
    That's why it's CALLED "natural" law. Some call it The Golden Rule. You'll see equivalents in the teachings of Jesus Christ, Mohamed, Buddha, every ethical system for millennia.

    So it's not just libertarian ethics being defied.

    Free speech allows the authoritarian mentality to speak. But it's still authoritarian. .
    Trump and the alt-right are, like many progs, sucking off liberty, an entitlement created and defended by others. They are Liberty queens, morally equivalent to welfare queens.

    Trumpkins even include good manners as Politically Correct! Precious snowflakes of the right.

    Opposing authoritarian rule BEGINS with opposing the authoritarian mind. -- the control-freak mentality that champions VERBAL aggression and bullying. Can you name ONE ethical system which has EVER condoned that?

    I didn't think so.

  • Jr12||

    Why should obsession with "cultural Marxism" mean one should fear protesting police crimes?…because, Brian, you idiot, cultural Marxism is the reason that the high criminality of blacks is perpetuated; by excusing it as the police crimes of a dominate white racist culture, not black crimes.

    So here are the beneficiaries of a tax funded welfare state with its tax funded stadiums, making it possible for these lucky few players to do nothing but play games for million dollar salaries; wealthy players entertaining only the wealthy, because the tax and regulation exploited average wage earner can't afford tickets. The least they could do is stand up for the American anthem, if for no other reason than utter awe at the monumental stupidity it represents.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Jr12,
    I'd like to interview you on Infowars, live. Conspiracies are the heart and soul of our ratings, and yours is in the same league as Roswell space aliens, Obama's birthplace, autistic vaccines and those damn liberals turning male frogs gay.

    I'm sure my viewers will be as enraptured as I am by your honesty and courage..It's dangerous to post my email address here. You'll find it on my website: https://www.infowars.com/contact/

  • seahorsedan||

    Ah ha: The NFL protest from 2016 got Trump elected. Everything is clear to me now.
    Well one My Yahoo article about how the Russian influenced FB adds to promote BLM vs. FB adds by the Trump campaign ($1.5 mil. worth) and another article about Nick Sabin's remarks about NFL protests starting during the 2016 election season about black lives snuffed out by police officers in conjunction with Trumps adds dealing with Hillary Clintons televised anti "Super Predator" remarks helped put Donald Trump in the Whitehouse. Funny how two seemingly unrelated negative incidents can sometimes produce unexpected inadvertently positive results. Who'da thunk? It was the NFL, BLM and FACEBOOK we can thank for President Donald J. Trump, yet he still doesn't approve the NFL protests. Go figure.

  • Alex Jones, Infowars.com||

    Damn wiseguy.

  • seahorsedan||

    Alex: I am humbled ... BUT.
    A select group of top Democratic Party strategists have used new data about last year's presidential election to reach a startling conclusion about why Hillary Clinton lost. Now they just need to persuade the rest of the party they're right. ...
    ." Democrats are quick to acknowledge that even if voters switching allegiance had been Clinton's biggest problem, in such a close election she still could have defeated Trump with better turnout. She could have won, for instance, if African-American turnout in Michigan and Florida matched 2012 levels.
    I could go on but What's the point? Diehard pigeons will call reasons "exactly why Clinton lost" DEFLECTION.
    Beware the 5th Column, they never sleep.
    P.S.: Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/new.....rylink=cpy

  • James Solbakken||

    It's stupid to assume that because people say they are protesting the police and their misconduct that they are telling the truth. It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the "Cultural Marxists," love police brutality and use it to further their nefarious political cause, which sure as hell ain't libertarian, that's for damned sure. The truth about the Kneelers movement is found in the actions of the Oakland Raiders offensive line, who retaliated against their white quarterback who didn't kneel with them by allowing him to be otherwise inexplicably sacked several times in their game against the Redskins. There were also some strange looking dropped passes. The Kneeler movement is just criminals identifying with criminals. Colon Kaepernick it turns out is a friend of terrorists.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ailymailus

  • David Nolan||

    It's stupid to assume that because people say they are protesting the police and their misconduct that they are telling the truth.

    No more stupid than assuming the opposite ... without a shred of evidence... to support a tribal narrative laced with hysteria, lies and hatred.

    It's obvious to anyone with a brain that the "Cultural Marxists," love police brutality

    YOUR brain says they oppose police brutality ... because they love it? OMFG
    That's like saying Jesus Christ loved sin!. (Not just the sinners) (lol)

    How are the "Cultural Marxists" any larger threat than the Christian Taliban, for state oppression?

    Left - Right Zero

    Colon Kaepernick it turns out is a friend of terrorists.
    (link to bullshit)

    I did say hysteria (lol).

    Are the 49ers co-conspirators in his foundation to fund terrorists? (lol)

    NFL owners' failure to recognize Colin Kaepernick's charity work is disgraceful

    Google has more ridicule. Lots more. Search: colin kaepernick million dollar pledge

    He's donating a million dollars, $100,000 a month to dozens of support organization, and your slime lies about even THAT.
    Unemployed and STILL supporting the disadvantaged with a million bucks. What are YOU doing. other than trolling hatred and lies. Shameful.

  • seahorsedan||

    This blowback is not about free speech. It is about protocol and courtesy.
    Does anyone remember why these hypocritical TV producers quit highlighting streakers for purely sensational appeal? It promotes and encourages discourteous behavior and interferes with fans right to see the game they paid to enjoy. The NFL brought our countries flag into this discussion when they put it and our National Anthem on worldwide television. Protocol: Universally accepted customs and regulations that govern the formality and etiquette practiced in a civilized society. Protocol is the body of accepted rules of social behavior practiced by thoughtful and considerate people.
    Courtesy is the key to successful human relationships (with courtesy goes respect). Courtesy is proper consideration for the feelings and rights of others.
    I recently posted the forgoing about a related topic about societies rules of social behavior. ( Sitting During Pledge Of Allegiance) The forgoing got short shrift from liberals with a multitude of attitude. So kindly post the source of your authority to condemn anti-social behavior. Without some point of consensus we are stuck with chaos and survival of the fittest. So kindly post the source of your authority to condemn anti-social behavior. Without some point of consensus we are stuck with chaos and survival of the fittest.

  • David Nolan||

    This blowback is not about free speech. It is about protocol and courtesy.

    You would suspend my fundamental rights .. for not saying Please or Thank You???

    I recently posted the forgoing

    How can you overthrow the United States Constition by ...,. POSTING SOMETHINHG?
    Unless posted to Reddit int the first five minutes of a New Year.

    So kindly post the source of your authority

    Here's mine https://usconstitution.net/
    Where's yours?

    P.S. When will YOU show courtesy to Colin Koepernik?

  • seahorsedan||

    This blowback is not about free speech. It is about protocol and courtesy.
    Courtesy is the key to successful human relationships (with courtesy goes respect). Courtesy is proper consideration for the feelings and rights of others. You must be courteous and respectful to get courtesy and respect. It is akin to joining a line from the tail end and not the middle. If "key to successful human relationships" is beyond your ability to understand and people don't seem to like you it is probably not racism. You are a jerk and so is Krapnicker. Good day.

  • David Nolan||

    What happens when you call out a bully? Especially a self-righteous lecturer on "courtesy"?

    How can you overthrow the United States Constitution by ...,. POSTING SOMETHING?

    NO ANSWER, Cowardly evasion.

    So kindly post the source of your authority
    Here's mine https://usconstitution.net/
    Where's yours?

    No answer Cowardly evasion.

    P.S. When will YOU show courtesy to Colin Koepernik?

    NO ANSWER. Cowardly evasion.

    And the self-righteous FRAUD closes with ..

    You are a jerk and so is Krapnicker

    The defense (of liberty) rests his case.
    Sneering

  • commentguy||

    Honoring the flag only has any meaning if it is done with a true heart. If you coerce people into treating it a certain way, that's not veneration, it's obedience. And quite how the flag/nation became inseparable from the military escapes me. They do a great job but they are only one aspect of the nation. This is just politicians using the military as a shield: "if you criticize the system that's in place, you must be disrespecting our armed forces".

    No thanks. I'll continue to respect the valor of servicemen and women while holding politicians and the worst aspects of law enforcement in the lowest esteem. Maybe there are actually ways to improve the justice system, so that everyone in the country does feel like standing for the flag?

  • David Nolan||

    Honoring the flag only has any meaning if it is done with a true heart. If you coerce people into treating it a certain way, that's not veneration, it's obedience

    (loud cheering, whistling and applauding, all at once)
    It's not just the servicemen and women you mention, not to minimize them. Also, I genuinely pity anyone who has reverence for the flag .. but contempt for what it represents. If not pity, then revulsion.

  • vek||

    First things first: Ron Paul is a far better man than anybody who writes here at Reason. I've been following him since before he even ran for president (as a Republican anyway, not since the 80s when he was an L!), and I have almost never had cause to disagree with him. I even got to meet him once. One of the best things about him is that he often takes the position of "This isn't the governments place to be involved, although personally I believe in XYZ."

    I think that's what he's doing here. I don't think it is the governments place to force the players to do anything. I think it WOULD be acceptable for the NFL to force them to do whatever as a precondition of employment, whether that was stand or even FORCE them to protest should the NFL try to go that route. I also personally don't like what these douche bag players are doing. Ron is on the same page.

    I support cops being punished when they've actually been bad. However if you really look at the facts on racial bias in the US, they basically say it more or less doesn't exist. Blacks commit more crimes, therefore have more police interactions... More of them have negative interactions... Shocking! I'm not going to quote all the multitude of stats, but it's essentially a made up argument when one parses through all the data.

  • vek||

    I used to not get the culture war aspect of the GOP, but as I've aged I've actually come to appreciate that the Judeo-Christian moral values, and many other related odds and ends, are actually required to have a non shithole country. Keep in mind I'm an agnostic who has zero problems with gays, etc, but many of the values that we've lost have contributed to the country falling apart. Weak families create weak societies with weak citizens who have to rely on the government.

    Also, non uniform societies are inherently weak. I think a free society can really only exist if everybody is 90% on the same page. You don't need laws to enforce things that everybody agrees is okay or not okay to begin with do you? That's why America is fucked. Too many too many competing religions, ethnicities, political viewpoints, etc. We're never going to piece it back together again. Secession is the best answer at this point. Give California to the Commies, then after self segregation by politics occurs libertarians and old school conservatives can duke it out in the rest of the country, which is exactly where I'd LOVE to see the 50 yard line moved to.

  • seahorsedan||

    The best news to come out of Charlottesville is: Regardless of weather or not the last civil war was originally instigated around race and slavery as precursors to secession our sovereign nation survived because the Union prevailed. If the next civil war is over sanctuary states, immigration and the first amendment at universities or Globalization are the as a precursor to secession I believe sovereignty will Trump the Globalists, they have no confederate army. And all these dissident Democrats will be summarily scrubbed from U.S. history. Their names tarnished and images destroyed and obliterated forever. I am betting on your our basic silver lining. There will no Pelosi or Jerry Brown statues in the parks here in 20 years or ever.

  • David Nolan||

    There will no Pelosi or Jerry Brown statues in the parks here in 20 years or ever.

    Nor any for Trump, Rand/Ron Paul, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Tucker Carlson, etc.
    Because Left - Right= Zero

  • vek||

    Well, if it comes to a shootin' war I have almost no doubt that some flavor of right wing party will win. Who owns guns? What sterotype is more of a "manly man" the left wing journalist, ooor the guy who works construction and goes shooting every weekend with his buddies? Who is tougher, the 6 color haired feminist studies student, or the farm hand who works manual labor 10 hours a day?

    Most left leaning folks are just pussies. I'm not some super manly man myself honestly, but I own a couple guns and can shoot alright. I don't think a single one of my lefty buddies owns a gun. So if it gets to shooting, the right is going to win.

    I still think letting California split off is the best way though. I'm encouraging anyone I talk to about politics to get behind the idea. Whether your a lefty or a right winger it is a great solution. I don't know why people are so against the concept anyway. It is the best, least violent way to solve disputes. It's like an amicable divorce where you split things up fairly versus drag it out for 5 years in court. Why bother? It's easier to just be cool and part ways on good terms.

  • David Nolan||

    What sterotype is more of a "manly man" the left wing journalist, ooor the guy who works construction and goes shooting every weekend with his buddies? Who is tougher, the 6 color haired feminist studies student, or the farm hand who works manual labor 10 hours a day?

    Do you still compare dicks with other guys, like when you were 12?
    Since you still live in the Old Testament, where rights are based on "manliness?"
    Power-worshippers are always kinda scary.

  • David Nolan||

    Part 1 of 2

    I used to not get the culture war aspect of the GOP, but as I've aged I've actually come to appreciate that the Judeo-Christian moral values, and many other related odds and ends, are actually required to have a non shithole country.

    There are two sides to that, and the FACTS support only one.

    You've no doubt heard that the words "Wall of Separation between church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. FACT: They don't have to!

    The words were Jefferson's,. when asked what the founders intended. Danbury (CT) Baptists asked, because they feared the type of persecution and discrimination that Christians denominations had long suffered ... from each other. SOME Christian leaders dismiss Jefferson ,... ON NO AUTHORITY BUT THEIR OWN. Some exploit the faith of their followers, equating faith in THEM with faith in GOD. But they literally have NO credible source on what the Founders intended. None at all. Zilch.

    I have the first three Presidents -- and the UNANIMOUS US Senate in the 9th year of our founding (still prox half Founders). Treaties are the Law of the Land, equal to the Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated in Washington's final year, signed by Adams, after UNANIMOUS ratification by the Senate. THOSE words are unmistakable.

    "The United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

    Now the lies and denial

    Cont'd

  • David Nolan||

    Part 2 of 2

    The funniest lie is that those words are a bad translation. To swallow THAT crap, one must believe that the Treaty was both negotiated and ratified … IN ARABIC! (lol)

    "But the Founders were Christians." Yes but you know that many came here to escape religious persecution in Europe. We'd suffered the Salem Witchcraft Trials here. And the biggie.

    The "Holy" Inquisition was still committing moral atrocities in Europe – church and state united. Check it out. The State performed punishments decreed by the Church. It had many years to go, until roughly our Civil War.

    Today, church/state is invoked as "justification" to abuse individual liberties, originally y bigots. Consider marriage equality. Yes, the Holy Bible looks harsh on gays. But it also commands immediate death to all infidels (the Quran does not), even to killing your own brother, spouse, child or friend. (Deut 13) You must also stone to death all women who were not virgins when they married. Men okay, of course! (Deut 22)

    If you have a personal Savior, do you pick and choose which of God's laws to follow and which to ignore – for your own convenience? Or might you accept that many practices were acceptable thousands of years ago, that we later began seeing as wrong. Was The Enlightenment driven by atheists? Or by enlightened Christians? Will you start killing non-Christians? Stoning non-virginal brides?

  • vek||

    You missed my point. I never said that we were a "Christian Nation" per se. We were not officially a Christian nation. However we really were. Almost everybody here was one flavor or another of mostly protestant, it didn't have to be official to have the same effect on society.

    But even that is irrelevant to my point. My point is that many of those values are objectively good values. Many were harshly imposed on people (arguably a mean thing), but in fact created good societal outcomes. I didn't wait for marriage to have sex, if I had I'd still be a virgin! But forcing the marriage thing on everybody created good outcomes for society as a whole. We can see the flip side of that in all the trouble caused by single parent households, especially single mothers. Children do worse in school, get arrested more, do more drugs, have kids out of wedlock themselves, and on and on. Basically every stat you can think of is worse with single parent raised kids, not to mention single mothers are responsible for most of the welfare spending in the entire country. Go down the list of other imposed values that created social good and there ya go. We had a fairly "good" and moral society that didn't need much actual legal policing, because public opinion just forced people to be relatively decent.

  • David Nolan||

    You missed my point.

    I nailed it.

    I never said that we were a "Christian Nation" per se.

    You defended the theocratic side of the "culture war" ... and do so AGAIN!

    We were not officially a Christian nation. However we really were.

    (laughing)

    ... it didn't have to be official to have the same effect on society.

    There was no culture war, except Salem and the open beating of Catholics.

    But even that is irrelevant to my point.

    Or mine. You're --- as Christ said -- "babbling like pagans"

    My point is that many of those values are objectively good values

    NOT your point. NOBODY says the values aren't good. YOU attack the values of individual liberty. Now you go off the rails even worse
    .

    Many were harshly imposed on people (arguably a mean thing),

    ARGUABLY mean? (shudder) Back to the cultural fascism you shamelessly deny.

    but in fact created good societal outcomes.

    Force people to follow YOUR values ... because it's good for them!
    I indeed nailed you.

    Jesus Christ, in his Sermon on the Mount, said to never make a public spectacle of your faith, in very harsh words ... "like the hypocrites" .... "babble like pagans."

  • vek||

    Dude, many people DO say those values aren't good. Tons of people are actively against marriage, and a thousand other nuances of traditional values. Furthermore, they WILL NOT tolerate ANYBODY daring to publicly state that THEIR values might possibly be bad.

    I never said I think any of these things should be enforced through state force. That I am against. However nowadays I am not as much against the idea of social shaming. Social pressure is what did most of the heavy lifting in the old days, and it is exactly what the left has used to essentially disintegrate the fabric of society. If not for social acceptability standards, then there are no rules. Some group wants to fuck 8 year old kids? That's fine! Their social standards say it's okay, so why not? The kids will probably be mind warped into thinking it's a good thing in that society anyway. That's cool with you right?

    For MANY subjects there are no clear right or wrong answers, only what our guts tell us is right or wrong. Enough people share an opinion, and then it becomes enforced through social shaming. That's how rules are formed. Some codes of conduct produce better results statistically than others. Right now one would be socially shamed for saying they don't like gay people. Not even that anything should happen to gay people, just that they don't like the idea. THAT is shaming somebody for thought every bit as much as saying that sex before marriage is bad.

  • David Nolan||

    I never said I think any of these things should be enforced through state force

    You you certainly did.

    You do have a severe honesty problem, as proven here,

    Regarding Christian values (your version)

    YOU: Many were harshly imposed on people (arguably a mean thing),

    ARGUABLY mean? (shudder) Back to the cultural fascism you shamelessly deny.

    YOU: but in fact created good societal outcomes.

    Force people to follow YOUR values ... because it's good for them!Are you totally dishonest, or not able to express whatever it is you're trying to say,.
  • vek||

    In that instance I wasn't talking about government laws, I was talking about social pressure. It is harsh to "slut shame" women for sleeping around or men for sleeping around being cads and not settling down and starting a family like one is "supposed to do."

    At least I get what you mean now that I see that you took that as me implying state force is acceptable. I don't think it is. I think social norms need to change, and willingly of course. If you want to call shaming people for bad/self destructive behavior "cultural fascism" then fine. I'm actually pretty relaxed on all this stuff personally... I just think that we need a higher percentage of people to adhere to more traditional values to improve society.

    There's always room for some weirdos and deviants in society, and I don't think they should be looked down on too badly... The problem is when weirdo/deviant subcultures become THE main culture. Imagine if the entire country were crust punks or hitch hiking itinerant musicians... Not going to be a super successful society.

    The main thrust of my general idea is that TOO MANY people have taken on bad habits overall. I don't think a few weirdos is a problem, but the western world of the last couple decades has crossed some lines to the point where it has had serious negative consequences in terms of welfare spending, and other social ills.

  • vek||

    By your logic both are horrible. Social shaming always exists, and always will on account of human nature. I've simply come to appreciate that some things produced better real world results than other things. Like stable families are good for society. I don't think there should be a law against pre marital sex... But I don't think encouraging maximum promiscuity has done society or individuals any favors. Hence I "get" the trad con culture war thing more than I did when I was younger. I still don't agree on many particular issues (like gays), but I appreciate their line of thinking more now.

    I don't think we need to go back to being as harsh as a southern Baptist in the 1950s would have been on some of this stuff, but we surely need to head back that direction a smidge from where we're at now. And in fact younger people seem to be showing this exact trend after having seen the broken marriages of their parents, drug use, etc. I'm way more straight and narrow than my parents, and statistics show a lot of millennials (what I technically am) and Gen Z (the even younger generation) are. I personally wish that more people would WILLINGLY choose this path, as they seem to be. But social shaming always exists, so if you're going to shame people one direction or another it might as well be towards a productive end.

  • David Nolan||

    By your logic both are horrible.

    That's NOT logical.

    Social shaming always exists,

    Personally, which in no way justifies the force, which you say is ONLY ... "arguably" mean.

    I've simply come to appreciate that some things produced better real world results than other things.

    To YOU, so you SAY you want to impose them... then deny what you said.

    Like stable families are good for society.

    Perhaps. So?

    I "get" the trad con culture war thing more than I did when I was younger

    The culture war is force ... or there'd be no war.

  • vek||

    Wrong. See above. If you want to consider social pressure evil, wrong, blah blah blah then fine. But it's natural human behavior to create social norms on things that aren't objectively able to be considered entirely good or entirely bad.

    I don't have a problem with ALL drugs being legalized. I think it is definitely the best way to deal with drugs. However, it would obviously not be a good idea if 90% of the population became addicted to heroin or cocaine. Social pressure is part of what would help that not happen in a world with legal drugs. The other would be education about the problems associated with being a drug addict.

    One could make a similar case for some traditional values, like marriage. One could show the horrible real world results of single parent households on children, the massive expense on taxpayers, married couples are more financially successful, and on and on.

    Again, this is all coming from an agnostic who has no children and has never been married. I hope to find a woman who is marriage material someday, but haven't yet. Saying that things should not be illegal is not to say that some things aren't better in certain respects to other things, or that one can't have a personal opinion. I like redheads, that doesn't mean I think blondes should be made illegal!

  • David Nolan||

    If you want to consider social pressure evil, wrong, blah blah blah then fine

    I said the exact opposite blah blah blah blah

  • David Nolan||

    I don't think we need to go back to being as harsh as a southern Baptist in the 1950s would have been on some of this stuff, but we surely need to head back that direction a smidge from where we're at now.
  • vek||

    Besides that many of the generic Christian values are useful in holding society together, it doesn't even REALLY matter what many of the values are in particular. It's that there ARE values that are commonly shared. Social cohesion is good for people's sense of happiness. Nobody likes constant struggle and fighting in their society. The fact that we've lost many objectively good values, and totally lost social cohesion, has created a lot of problems. Hence I think we need to divide the country so the different parties in the new countries are closer to each other in opinions to stop all the fighting. The divide between a reconquista Hispanic person who is also a Marxist atheist CAN NEVER be bridged with a white hardcore southern Baptist who is a fervent small government constitutionalist. If they don't get put into different countries one of them is going to shoot the other one eventually. That's how human nature works.

  • David Nolan||

    Besides that many of the generic Christian values are useful in holding society together,

    FORCE them to conform .,.. for their own good!

    The divide between a reconquista Hispanic person who is also a Marxist atheist CAN NEVER be bridged with a white hardcore southern Baptist who is a fervent small government constitutionalist

    THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIVES ARE THEIR OWN BUSINESS. ... not the self-righteous Taliban Christians ... imposing a broader segregation ... through force ... "because it's good for them.".

    Christian fascism. Or a libertarian social contract?

    "I may disagree with how you live, but I will defend to the death you right to do so. In return, I ask only that you defend my right to do likewise … to live my life, my way, without threatening you in any way."

    In a free society, Galt's Gulch exists right next to a Marxist commune … lesbians up the street from a community of Christian Fundies …. retired Catholic priests across the field from Wiccans. Each community would be voluntarily populated. And that statue would be Voltaire, inscribed: "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

    You can't FORCE people to be free … only ALLOW it.

    The best security for YOUR liberty is ... everyone else defending it.
    Liberty is the ONLY universal value.

    It's also called the Golden Rule.
    Start LIVING the Word of God.

  • vek||

    s for this chunk of ranting, again THERE IS ALWAYS SOCIAL SHAMING. I'm not encouraging government laws. But social conduct is always dictated by what most people consider acceptable behavior. There's nothing wrong with taking a leak in public on a tree is there? So people should just do this everywhere all the time. No harm no foul. Except it would be gross and annoying. So people socially shame such behavior, and indeed did ultimately make it illegal too. Same could be said for having sex in public. Nobody else is being hurt, so why not?

    You may draw your lines differently than I do, or some satanist does, or where a bible thumper does... But the reality is that many things cannot be objectively categorized as right or wrong. Yet a huge percentage of the population would agree pissing on every tree or fucking in a public park is not acceptable behavior.

    I'm all for letting people do their own thing, provided they actually DO let me do mine. Problem is that they usually don't. It's always "My way, or fuck off!" If it can be socially acceptable for people to talk ill of people who don't like people speaking against pre-marital sex, then surely it should be acceptable for those people to talk ill right back... Right? Well that's the real world. Fight fire with fire and all that good shit.

  • David Nolan||

    You may draw your lines differently than I do,

    My right, but seen as a THREAT by culture warriors.

    But the reality is that many things cannot be objectively categorized as right or wrong.

    If "objectively" means for others

    I'm all for letting people do their own thing, provided they actually DO let me do mine.

    Which is libertarian, the opposite of the culture war. I'm sensing a theory I've been evolving which MAY be close to where you are now. Let's see.

    I see you're agnostic. You MAY be under 25, definitely under 30, or perhaps a late start on the values thing. I'm an atheist, but I evolved off from a value SYSTEM, that I taught in Sunday School as a teen. Theory is that we all need a value SYSTEM. We ain't Plato so must adopt one, if only as a secure foundation. From that, we evolve individual PIECES as life demands. Some evolve a little, others a lot, is how others have described. Including my son!

    You MAY have recently adopted "traditional values" – CALL it the culture war, because the values overlap and they're who's talking. Most Christians are anonymous. If so, that original reluctance MAY have been the intolerance, then you (perhaps) looked beyond that to the bedrock values. EUREKA. A base.

    It's just that you SAID culture war, then went elsewhere. Theory. No offense intended!.

  • vek||

    I think we're about on the same page. I think you're totally correct in that people need a basis for their system of morals. This was traditionally religion. Almost all world religions share most of the common sense moral values I believe in.

    I'm 31 actually! I was always kind of naturally inclined to being nice, and somewhat conservative minded, but wasn't really raised religious. I always more or less practiced most of the good behavior values myself, but didn't appreciate that it was important to encourage this type of behavior in others until recently. I was more laissez faire, but now I think it is important that most (not all, there's room for weirdoes!) people have these good values, or else society falls into discord. I still disagree with certain PIECES of Judeo-Christian rules, but as with most other major religions the bedrock stuff makes a lot of sense.

    Nietzsche of course talked of this problem long before it arose, what to do after God is dead... He was somewhat opposed to a lot of the "petty virtues" but I think they're important for most people in society to have, or else it falls into chaos. Not everybody is an ubermensch who can make up their own rules!

  • vek||

    I think we're working our way through the period of "lawlessness" right now. People lost god, so they went hog wild, but eventually I think many will come back around to realizing that half of the values of traditional culture were there for a reason... Because they work in practice. Hopefully we can be more tolerant of weirdoes this time around, while still encouraging most to be virtuous. That'd be the best outcome IMO.

    As far as calling it the culture war, I guess I just don't think of that phrase in the same way you do. I don't think it automatically implies government action. But yeah, on some of that stuff, the individual issues where I agree, I will generally "side" with bible thumpers I guess. Although when explaining it from scratch I usually will use my objective scientific data that I mostly used to come to those conclusions over quoting bible verses I don't know!

  • vek||

    And let us be honest here. The reason all these traditional religious rules exist is obvious... A large percentage of the population is fucking stupid. It's a fact. It was to control the masses. Look at an IQ bell curve. All those people much below center on the lower half of that bell make bad decisions without being directed. The simple answer back in the day way to threaten stupid behavior with harsh real world punishment and/or burning in hell. So that's what society did to keep the idiots in line and productive members of society. It worked too! It wasn't nice, but it worked.

    Smart people tend to make better choices, and know when it is acceptable to bend the rules. Idiots don't. Hence religion and its dogma. Don't try to pretend it isn't true. In a free society I think everybody is better off overall being legally free to do as they want... But don't pretend many won't use their freedom to fuck up big time. In old timey society they decided to just force them to do the better things, and also some random things that aren't better or worse that the people in charge preferred. Like gay bashing. Doesn't really matter either way, but almost every society in history was against gays. A negative byproduct of the authoritarian system that held shit together in other ways.

  • David Nolan||

    shudder

    A large percentage of the population is fucking stupid. It's a fact. It was to control the masses. Look at an IQ bell curve. All those people much below center on the lower half of that bell make bad decisions without being directed. The simple answer back in the day way to threaten stupid behavior with harsh real world punishment and/or burning in hell So that's what society did to keep the idiots in line and productive members of society. It worked too! It wasn't nice, but it worked.

    The fucking inquisition WORKED!
    So, let's piss away the Enlightenment too!! Because people are too fucking stupid to be free.
    THIS is the American Taliban.

  • vek||

    But I'm not saying we should pass laws... I was just pointing out that in the past they acknowledged that idiots needed to be kept in line, and chose to do it that way. I'm saying we should convince them to do the right thing with social pressure, which was in fact more or less how it worked post enlightenment.

    There is a good percentage of the population that is sensible and can run their own life with no outside influence. Then there is a good percentage that is dumb. In the past social pressure kept the dumb in line. After breaking those social systems they've been running hog wild. It hasn't been in their best interest, or anybody elses. Hence we need to bring back a sense of morality to society for the less intelligent amongst us.

    No government force. Just instead of progtard SJW stuff being in vogue, being a responsible human being needs to be in vogue again. People are sheep, it'll work :)

  • David Nolan||

    And let us be honest here

    When will you start? http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6985566

  • vek||

    As an agnostic I think we should hopefully come to the conclusion that the good behaviors should be encouraged on their own merits, without threats. And that the pointless tenants can be left behind. Sell people on the idea instead of force it on them. We're in a weird in between period. Religion is dead, but secular morality hasn't come back around to encouraging some of the better parts of traditional religious doctrine. I think younger generations are in fact coming to appreciate some of it without threat of hell fire though, so there's that to look forward to.

  • David Nolan||

    First things first: Ron Paul is a far better man than anybody who writes here at Reason

    To the theocratic far-right, but this is a libertarian website.

    He defends the States Rights invented by the KKK – the LIE that States Rights are superior to Constitutional rights, that we're DEFENSELESS against abuses of state-level power. He also LIES by rejecting 9th Amendment limits on ALL levels of government ... REJECTS balance of power between THREE co-equal branches ... AND SAYS STATES HAVE POWERS NEVER DELEGATED.

    He says "rogue judges" overturned DOMA, DENYING that SCOTUS has ANY power to defend fundamental constitutional rights. If not SCOTUS then WHO? ... NOBODY according to Ron Paul He brags of sponsoring a bill that would have forbidden SCOTUS to hear ANY challenges to DOMA. Homosexuals would have been the ONLY group denied ANY protection on constitutional rights ... since slavery. SHAMEFUL

    He LIES that the 10th Amendment allows states to do … anything. This is the 9th

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    In a nation of delegated powers, unenumerated rights trump unenumerated powers.

    YOU cannot list those powers because the founders declined to. ONLY the judiciary can define those powers (when challenged) because ONLY the other two branches can deny or disparage them. Or ... list those powers.

  • vek||

    Ugh. I never said the guy is perfect. But I still agree with him more than any writer on this site! Except MAYBE Stossel. Because he's awesome. And he has a great mustache. LOL

    95% of the time Ron Paul has decided NOT to push his social views via legal means. On a few occasions he has. Oh well. He's better than any other politician I have ever seen or heard of within my entire lifetime, and in fact long before. I'm sure there were some others back in the day I don't know much about, but I honestly have to go back to founding fathers before I can even think of anyone that I have ever has so few intellectual disagreements with. Jefferson in particular of course.

    As far as the whole states rights thing... It's an area for debate. Nullification has some stuff behind it, some stuff not. Nobody has ever said that a single state can declare anything to be null across the country, but within their own state... I dunno. I'm not a lawyer, and have never read into the nuts and bolts of that question too much before, just read a few things in passing. Whatever the case I am all for nullification on principle. Even when the particulars are results I disagree with (sanctuary cities for one) I say let 'em have at it. If the feds want to go to proverbial war with the states that's fine too. Our system was supposed to have the different branches warring with each other, that was part of how they all got kept in check.

  • David Nolan||

    But I still agree with him more than any writer on this site!

    You AGREE with initiating state force in blatant defiance of our Constitution and individual liberty.

    95% of the time Ron Paul has decided NOT to push his social views via legal means.

    He BELIEVES in it, for every waking minute. But his cult will excuse any moral atrocity, any blatant lie.

    I can even think of anyone that I have ever has so few intellectual disagreements with. Jefferson in particular of course

    OMG! It was Jefferson who clarified the Wall of Separation ,..in a letter to Baptists ... Taliban Ron, ever the bullshitter, says no founder even WROTE about separation. It was CLEARLY expressed by the first three Presidents and the unanimous Senate in the 9th year of the Republic.

    As far as the whole states rights thing... It's an area for debate

    NINTH AMENDMENT IS LAW OF THE LAND.

    You, Ron and his Cult are authoritarians. This is a libertarian website.

  • vek||

    I DO NOT agree with using state force. But there is a difference between using state force to push your view, and being willing to say out loud to somebody in the public forum "You sir are a piece of shit, and I disagree with your point of view." Totally different things. Paul usually did not try to use state force. Sometimes he did. But it is in no way unlibertarian to voice ones opinions for or against anything if one is not trying to use force. That's just exercising freedom of speech

    You are clearly of the super nut balls variety of libertarian. I'm basically a "keep government really small, and let people do what they want 99% of the time" type of libertarian. You can't even stand the fact that anyone would have a personal opinion on a subject that isn't "Yeah whatever man, anything is cool!" or whatever. I'm not an anarchist, you may well be. Which is fine. But don't expect the vast majority of the population to ever agree with you.

  • David Nolan||

    Paul usually did not try to use state force. Sometimes he did. But it is in no way unlibertarian to voice ones opinions for or against anything if one is not trying to use force. That's just exercising freedom of speech

    YOU CALL ME A LIAR! Bend over, snowflake, this will go up your ass easier.
    REPEAT: FROM HERE http://reason.com/blog/2017/09.....nt_6983181

    Ron Paul BRAGS of sponsoring a bill that would have FORBIDDEN SCOTUS to even consider any challenges to DOMA, Homosexuals would have been DENIED any defense of their fundamental liberties. No court would have ANY jurisdiction.

    THE FIRST GROUP DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE SINCE ,.. SLAVERY,
    YOU CALL THAT FREEDOM OF SPEECH! Shame on you,

    You CALL me a liar I PROVE you a liar.,
    The ACTUAL bill that you REFUSE to accept.
    HR 313 (108th Congress) Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (as introduced)

    The same imposing by law you've defended from the start .. because harshly imposing values is only ... "ARGUABLY" mean. What scum would argue it was not mean? The American Taliban.

    Thanks for giving me a deeper look into your movement. Trolling for the anti-Christ The militant self-righteous

    (boldface in defense of aggression lies and personal attacks)

  • vek||

    Yeah, and AS I SAID, he USUALLY didn't try to pass laws that were horrible. He did a couple times. I never said he didn't. I also never said I was in support of those efforts! Because I'm not. But nobody is perfect, and looking at his overall record he's the best politician we've had in this country in a looooooooooooooooooooooong time. I may disagree with him on some things, but until I see somebody who is better actually make it anywhere he's still going to be one of my political "heroes."

    Again, I'm for changing social norms, not legislating morality. I also don't have any problem with gays at all. I've had gay friends since high school when I was friends with the only openly gay kid in school in a small town... So not exactly a homophobe here.

  • dconlaw1||

    I am sickened to see the "Ron Paul is racist" slander perpetuated in a Reason article.

  • David Nolan||

    1) Liar.
    2) He's even worse ... and you're either a fool or a goober.

    See my details DIRECTLY above your trolling.

  • PatGo||

    A few problems with this article:

    1. football shouldn't be receiving any government funds at all under any circumstances.
    2. the problem is taking care of itself, as people are choosing to boycott the NFL, and this isn't mentioned. Government action not required, comments by public officials likewise not required.
    3. there is absolutely nothing wrong with persuading other people to join in a boycott.

    I haven't had a lot of respect for Ron Paul for a very long time. And I have even less respect for Alex Jones.

  • David Nolan||

    I haven't had a lot of respect for Ron Paul for a very long time. And I have even less respect for Alex Jones.

    Then you agree with the actual point of the article!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online