MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

4 Things That Pissed Us Off in 2017

Serenity now.

Thomas Hawk/flickrThomas Hawk/flickrIf you like to rage, 2017 was the year for you. There was so much to be pissed off about and Reason was there every step of the way to chronicle what actually mattered.

1. The assault on free speech

No matter which major party presidential candidate was going to win the election last year, 2017 was going to be a bad year for free speech—both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton demonstrated a hearty disdain for it.

Since his inauguration, president Trump has reveled in needling the press and its "fake news." Many in the press have reacted with the kind of sloppy, mistake-laden work that has helped justify his criticism.

Trump's October tweet asking of NBC, "at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License," was nothing out of the ordinary for Trump, but acting on it might have actually violated the First Amendment, crossing a line from a complaint to government action.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai responded to calls to review the licenses of cable news network before Trump himself tweeted about it. "Setting aside the fact that the FCC doesn't license cable channels," Pai said, "these demands are fundamentally at odds with our legal and cultural traditions."

Trump continued an ignominious tradition of assaulting the First Amendment from the White House (his predecessor prosecuted more government whistleblowers than all his predecessors combined), but free speech also got short shrift in some surprising places.

More than 200 staffers at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization dedicated to protecting constitutional rights, signed an open letter decrying the group's First Amendment absolutism. "Our broader mission—which includes advancing the racial justice guarantees in the Constitution and elsewhere, not just the First Amendment—continues to be undermined by our rigid stance," the letter read.

Then there were the students affiliated with Black Lives Matter who shut down an ACLU-sponsored free speech event at the College of William & Mary because "liberalism is white supremacy." Apparently lost on the students was that the police officers they protest against would be responsible for enforcing hate speech laws.

That is not a theoretical point—hate crimes laws pushed by progressives are now being used to establish "blue lives matter" provisions that enhance sentences for crimes against cops if you say something mean to them. Louisiana already added police officers to the list of people who can be victims of hate crimes, and there's an effort to do the same on the federal level.

There's also the now-fashionable non-argument that because Nazis claim to be for free speech (anyone who takes them at face value is not a critical thinker), supporting free speech means supporting Nazism. The proposition is as preposterous as the suggestion that advocating for the constitutional rights of accused criminals means supporting criminals. Just because an argument is preposterous, unfortunately, doesn't mean it can't be popular, so vigilance about free speech will remain important.

SpringTrippReilly-Life's Elements PhotographySpringTrippReilly-Life's Elements Photography2. The war on "sex trafficking"

As much a failure as the war on drugs has been, and despite its increasing unpopularity, not only is the federal government not winding that war down, it's declaring new ones it can't possibly win.

Take the escalation of the war on so-called "sex trafficking." Reason's Elizabeth Nolan Brown has been at the forefront of reporting on this disturbing new trend.

Brown predicted it in a Reason magazine cover story two years ago, concluding that the results would be disastrous for "perpetrators" and "victims" alike. She was absolutely right. Government agencies have enthusiastically embraced the same failed strategies of the war on drugs to fight a "sex trafficking" threat they have severely overblown.

A pair of bills passed by Congress and signed into law earlier this year while most people were obsessed over whatever the outrage-of-the-week was that week, significantly expanded federal law enforcement powers.

Specifically, the FBI, ICE, and local and state police are allowed to wiretap suspected sex workers or their associates, along with any "consenting adults on any side of a commercial sexual exchange".

The bills also called for a national strategy to suppress demand for prostitution, to treat the sex trade as "gender-based violence," as well as expanding the definition of a gang to include groups of five or more sex workers traveling together, among other provisions Brown reported on.

This fall, the war on sex trafficking extended to a federal crackdown on illegal masseuses. Teen sexters can't be that far behind.

DOJDOJ3. Everything about Jeff Sessions

America's 84th attorney general is a true throwback to shitty times. Sessions still believes in the kind of "law and order" nonsense that's largely been debunked over the last two decades—and is committed to using the Department of Justice as a cudgel.

Sessions' master plan for dealing with an opioid crisis that's gained increased news attention in 2017 is to escalate the failing war on drugs. He revived a federal asset forfeiture program that made it easier for local agencies to seize property. He wants to maximize penalties for drug offenders. He ordered a review of all consent decrees, DOJ agreements with local police agencies on reform and oversight.

Sessions recruited local police to assist in immigration enforcement. He pushes the myth that marijuana is a "gateway drug." He continues to fearmonger about crime despite historically low, and declining, rates. He backed Trump's decision to resume sending military equipment to local police. He's tripled the number of investigations into leakers. He wants to bring back DARE.

And the worst part is, if Trump fires Sessions, it'll fuel...

sbluerock/flickrsbluerock/flickr4. The Trump-Russia obsession

No review of 2017 outrage would be complete without the hysteria over potential Trump-Russia collusion.

Democrats have developed many of the conspiracy theories, but it isn't all their fault. Trump spent a good chunk of 2017 making things worse. Terminating FBI Director James Comey, and Trump's subsequent statements about it, helped lead to the appointment of former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to investigate Trump-Russia collusion.

This has created the perception that there's something wrong with talking to Russia. Better relations with Russia should be welcomed, not feared. The prevailing anti-Russia mood in Washington makes this very difficult, encouraging the Trump administration to escalate the counterproductive, antagonistic policies of the Obama administration.

This has also led, unaccountably, to efforts to lionize the FBI as a friend of liberty and justice, a task belied by its long history. That has opened the door to the censorship of online speech in the guise of ferreting out enemies of the state, bringing us full circle and bringing us little comfort heading into 2018.

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.

  • SIV||

    One of these days you cucks will learn that progressives aren't your friends.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    But Russians can be our friends, at least on an individual level. And have you met many Russian women? Hoo boy.

    As for befriending progressives, I didn't see that recommended anywhere in the article.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Many alt-right don't know libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal since 1958.
    The brain EXPLODES, cuz EVERYONE must be forced into one of only two boxes. (See 1950s Loyalty Oaths)
    And only progtards, commies and "the left" would NOT display a raging hatred for Hillary.

    Fiscally conservative and socially conservative is .... conservative!
    Right and Left are obsolete.
    Right - Left = Zero

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Still, libertarians had an optimal opportunity to broaden their appeal in 2016.....and what happened? Pretty much an LP disaster. With high negatives for both Trump and Clinton, Johnson/Weld should have been able to siphon considerable votes from each. Instead of building on their governor credentials and finding achievable policies that could find some consensus, they generally came across as a-serious, unprepared, and a little whacky. The LP would have had very little natural constituency in the Congress, so they should have argued along the lines of a very narrow agenda...you know....show that they can govern within the constraint of having 535 Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

    You make it sound like Libertarians only take the liberty-loving aspects of both parties....but that's not really true. Most of the government's social welfare and regulatory state would fall under pure libertarianism....which makes it a non-starter for liberals. Pro-abortion, extremely small military, and open borders....kills the attraction for many conservatives. The key has to be to move a non-libertarian society toward less government incrementally. Johnson was not a great ambassador for that,

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Opposing initiating force against unborn individuals would be consistent with the non aggression principle.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Opposing initiating force against unborn individuals would be consistent with the non aggression principle.

    If one has been brainwashed or ignorant of Equal, Unalienable and/or God-given Rights.

    Short version. All unalienable rights are precisely equal. That means Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness .. and all the others. Check a dictionary,

    If NONE of them can EVER be denied or disparaged, for ANY reason. That makes them precisely equal -- to each other. So BOTH extremes on abortion are anti-liberty. One denies the woman's UNALIENABLE Right to Liberty. The other denies the fetal child's UNALIENABLE Right to Life .. and each tries to impose their own anti-liberty values by government force.

    "But the fetus has full rights at conception."
    "So did the woman! Are there any other God-given Rights that He suspend, which ones, for how long and on what authority?" (blankout)

    It's kinda pathetic. Equal Rights caused many brains to EXPLODE. Conflicting rights is taught in high school, but abandoned when one's own tribe says so.

    It's just this simple.
    Your right to swing your fist ends at the end of my nose.
    No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
    Both quite simple .. as principle .. unless a tribal agenda says otherwise.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    The Constitution is fairly silent on the question of abortion....implying that this is a health and moral question left to the states. Each state (as represented by its voting population) then has the right to balance the natural right of a woman to determine when to take a pregnancy to term with the moral imperative to treat even very nascent life with respect. You may imply that the woman's convenience outweighs the outrage of the neighbor....as it would with legalized meth or prostitution....but this implies no externalities. If the right to abortion....meth...or prostitution is not secured in the state constitution....then it becomes subject to democratic concerns and those who are most persuasive....and hopefully compromise.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Equal Rights caused many brains to EXPLODE

    I'm now proven correct!

    The Constitution is fairly silent on the question of abortion....implying that this is a health and moral question left to the states.

    Only to the Paulist Cult, the KKK and others who lie about our Constitution, or who have been brainwashed about it

    They THINK they can "amend" our Constitution by … closing their eyes … to make the 9th Amendment disappear … AND checks and balances … AND balance of power … AND the entire concept of delegated powers. Then troll their "amended" Constitution to the gullible.

    The Founders TRIED to protect us from whoever deceived you with the "states rights" atrocity created by the KKK and southern racists.
    You can BELIEVE Jefferson and the Founders were crackpots ... compared with Wallace, Maddox, Faubus, the KKK and Ron Paul. But good luck replacing our beloved Constitution.

    Each state (as represented by its voting population) then has the right to balance the natural right of a woman to determine when to take a pregnancy to term with the moral imperative to treat even very nascent life with respect.

    ALL lives are equal. How DARE you defy our most sacred rights ... in the name of liberty?

    You may imply that the woman's convenience outweighs the outrage of the neighbor

    Her liberty does. (sigh)

    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2 – defense of REAL liberty

    If the right to abortion....meth...or prostitution is not secured in the state constitution..

    The Federal Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land" … a supremacy granted and ratified by states. How DARE you, Ron Paul and others defy such simple words?

    ..then it becomes subject to democratic concerns and those who are most persuasive....and hopefully compromise.

    AARRRGGGGHH This is not a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic.

    Under the Constitution, conflicting rights may ONLY be resolved by SCOTUS, which is obliged to resolve the conflict in a manner that best defends BOTH rights.
    As a check against Legislative and Executive creating such conflicts.
    Because unalienable.

    But fascists, the left and right, both seeking to have THEIR preferred right be imposed by force. Both wrong.
    Because unalienable.

    The 9A incorporates Jefferson's unalienable rights into the Constitution, forbidding ALL levels of government to deny or disparage our most sacred rights … RATIFIED BY THE STATES.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    That includes, Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and …. ALL THE OTHERS!
    VERY simple English. Can you please LIST those other rights.
    I didn't think so. .

    Anything else, Faux Liberty?

  • AJ_Liberty||

    a. "subject to democratic concerns" has nothing to do with the country being a Constitutional Republic. When a state decides how it wants to legislate on matters, it polls the will of the people....usually through its representatives.....but in some states directly through the referendum process.

    b. I am generally sympathetic to inalienable rights but the problem becomes how does the Court identify such rights? And if the Court simply gets to choose these rights, how is it that we simply don't devolve to rule by a majority of 9 justices......who conveniently take positions in the culture war? It's better that contentious social issues get resolved at the ballot box by the people who must live with the results. Second, if the right to life is an inalienable right, would that not supercede the woman's right to terminate that life (except for the case where her life is in jeopardy by taking the pregnancy to term)?

    c. The Constitution is also enumerated...meaning that there are items not enumerated or in the purview of the federal government. Article III gives the Supreme Court no power to create or imagine new rights and remove those matters from the democratic voice of the states. Does the 10A mean nothing to you? You pretend to exalt liberty but it appears that you are OK with tyranny from the bench....sad.

  • Michael Hihn||

    When a state decides how it wants to legislate on matters, it polls the will of the people....usually through its representatives.....but in some states directly through the referendum process.

    This is not a democracy. Unaliemable rights cannot by denied by a STATE REFERENDUM.

    rights but the problem becomes how does the Court identify such rights?

    Technically it doesn't matter. IT'S THEIR JOB.
    Likewise, nobody can question a Presidential veto or pardon.

    It's better that contentious social issues get resolved at the ballot box by the people who must live with the results.

    To YOU, this is not a democracy ... except when it is.

    Second, if the right to life is an inalienable right, would that not supercede the woman's right to terminate that life (except for the case where her life is in jeopardy by taking the pregnancy to term)?

    Already answered. Her right to liberty is unalienable. And you REFUSE to list those rights.

    Article III gives the Supreme Court no power to create or imagine new rights and remove those matters from the democratic voice of the states.

    WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY

    Does the 10A mean nothing to you?

    You just SHIT on the 9th
    WHERE'S YOUR LIST?

    cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2
    I'll TRY to break it down
    a) Ours is a nation of delegated powers.
    b) 10A reserves unenumerated POWERS to the states
    c) 9A reserves unenumerated RIGHTS to the people.

    Why do YOU say government power is superior to the people's rights. GOOD GOD
    You REFUSE to list those rights reserved to the PEOPLE. Thus, by definition, you have no idea what you're talking about.

    One more time

    9th Amendment
    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    That includes, Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and …. ALL THE OTHERS!
    Please LIST those other rights.

    FAIL

  • AJ_Liberty||

    "You REFUSE to list those rights reserved to the PEOPLE"

    You are arguing that specific unenumerated rights are legally secured by the 9A.....so the onus is on you to list such rights....and describe how they are identified....but more importantly....show how the framers intended for the Supreme Court to over-rule States and find protections in the 9A. Unfortunately, there is no such history of rulings where the 9A is used, let alone rulings that go back to the 18th century. You are drowning in your own flawed normative reasoning. You cannot base all of your argument on a view of the 9A which no Court accepts.

  • Michael Hihn||

    GOTCHA!

    You REFUSE to list those rights reserved to the PEOPLE"

    You are arguing that specific unenumerated rights are legally secured by the 9A.

    GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY
    I NEVER said they are Specific. How can they be both "specific" and "unenumerated" AT THE SAME TIME?
    . That's like saying you got an email that was signed AND anonymous.

    LOOK AGAIN
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

    DO YOU SEE ANY RIGHTS LISTED FOR "OTHERS"retained by the people?

    MOAR

    "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    AMONG THEM?
    There are OTHER rights .... BEYOND .. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness .(gasp)
    You ADMIT having NO CLUE what fundamental rights are protected, in EITHER founding document

    They are INTENTIONALLY unenumerated ... INTENTIONALLY left to the Courts.
    They were concerned that not all rights had been tested in the English Common Law, which we had inherited..

    unfortunately, there is no such history of rulings where the 9A is used,

    Have you NO SHAME? You pulled that out of your … ear. One ruling involved '.... .
    ABORTION!!!
    Planned Parenthood v Casey.

    Cont'd

  • Michael Hihn||

    Part2

    TEXT:

    at the Ninth Amendment's reference to "othe[r]" rights is not a disclaimer, but a charter for action, ibid.; and that the function of this Court is to "speak before all others for [the people's] constitutional ideals"

    You're done.

    So hopelessly brainwashed that NOTHING is beneath you

  • AJ_Liberty||

    "Her right to liberty is unalienable."

    What do you even think this means? The Constitution is and was not a libertarian document. Throughout history, states have passes laws limiting what an individual is allowed to do. And guess what? The 9A has never stopped this from happening (unless you consider Roe's reasoning to be an outlier): we allow laws against possessing child pornography, we require helmets when individuals ride motorcycles, we compel children to attend school, we criminalize drugs and prostitution, we enforce zoning, we punish polluting and creating a disturbance, we make people get auto insurance, we make strippers wear pasties, and we punish public nudity......why? Because there is no such thing as an unfettered "right to liberty"

    "WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY"

    Still, you refuse to acknowledge how all of these state laws get passed....and survive Court challenge. Please google "democracy"....it does not appear that you know what it means.

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Her right to liberty is unalienable."

    What do you even think this means?

    For relevance it means precisely equal to all other fundamental rights

    "WE'RE NOT A DEMOCRACY"

    Still, you refuse to acknowledge how all of these state laws get passed....and survive Court challenge.

    IF THE COURT FINDS THEM CONSTITUTIONAL ... PER THE CHALLENGES YOU MENTION. (LOL)

    Please google "democracy"....it does not appear that you know what it means.

    NO COURT OVERSIGHT.

    You are SO rude. REFUSING to admit your rejection of the 9th Amendment THREE TIMES,

    9th Amendment
    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    That includes, Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness and …. ALL THE OTHERS!
    Please LIST those other rights.

    STILL FAIL
    You time has expired, because my patience has expired.

    You will be IGNORED -- as you ignore me -- until you supply that list - showing you DO NOT reject the 9th Amendment. Because you SHIT all over it.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Short version. All unalienable rights are precisely equal. That means Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness .. and all the others. Check a dictionary,

    So ... if your life is in the way of my pursuit of happiness, I guess it's a wash if it makes me happy to kill you.

  • Michael Hihn||

    On what basic can EITHER of us,. on our own, violate anyone's rights?
    You'd be guilty.

    Anything else

  • Azathoth!!||

    Short version. All unalienable rights are precisely equal. That means Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness .. and all the others.

    They can't be.

    Without the right to life, you don't get any of the others.

    It HAS to take precedence.

    If you exercising your right to liberty means that someone else loses their life--or, as Cloudbuster snarks--if his right to pursue his happiness includes your death--then his right to pursue that happiness can e abrogated.

    The right to life takes precedence. It is the right that all others proceed from..

  • Michael Hihn||

    I assumed Cloudbuster was joking. He has a right to kill me – because his Happiness and my Life are equal. He has a right BECAUSE he does not?

    Limiting GOVERNMENT was the intent of Jefferson and the Founders. And a dictionary, if needed. The Founders DID know what "unalienable" means!. NEVER be denied or restricted, for ANY reason.

    Here's the confusion. They are precisely equal, in that neither can TAKE AWAY the other. That does not deny the supremacy of Life.

    The equality matters because Fundamental rights can conflict (compete) with each other. Two hypotheticals
    1) No free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
    1) In "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" -- the nose tip is the boundary between two rights -- where they BOTH end (if competing)

    When such conflicts arise, only by SCOTUS. is empowered to establish a border … that MUST best defend BOTH rights. The legislative and executive branches can create conflicts. SCOTUS is the check on that power. As an EQUAL branch.

    The Founders intent is also clear in the Ninth Amendment.

    "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."We have rights beyond those listed in the Constitution, which NO levels may deny or disparage.

    Hence, Life Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness .. and all the others,

    Cont'd
  • Michael Hihn||

    Part 2

    Can YOU list those other rights, which the Founders did not list … intentionally … for the Judiciary to determine later? As Madison explained at the time, we need to block government from expanding EVER, in ways we cannot possibly predict NOW.

    Rights did not come before government. Rights evolved as a limit on government - which were defined AFTER government acted. "Should we allow them to do that?"

    New rights are defined ... in response to new government actions Just like our existing rights were "created" … as a right … when RECOGNIZED as God-given.

  • Flinch||

    Fair point Philadelphia, and I see you don't mind poking the bear. But, before we can arrive at your question: should the public be forced to pay for abortion in the first place? After all, a just government does not go around killing people, much less enshrining an artifice that ought to be called Planned Infanticide [complete with a statue of Margaret Sanger, where white racists can pay homage to the woman who saw to it that our government planted roughly 7 out of 8 "clinics" deep in minority neighborhoods].
    If there is a weakness in your point, it's that rights begin with citizenship - which is established only upon issuance of a birth certificate. I don't support a constitutional amendment to create a new space for rights, but I do recognize that abortion is part of the human condition and is not going to go away. Keep it private, keep it personal, but above all...keep it out of the hands of the ethical cripples that are embedded in congress.

  • Michael Hihn||

    should the public be forced to pay for abortion in the first place?

    They haven't done so in decades.(except health of the woman)

    that ought to be called Planned Infanticide [complete with a statue of Margaret Sanger,

    Who are you to deny the God-given rights which the woman had has since conception?.

    where white racists can pay homage to the woman who saw to it that our government planted roughly 7 out of 8 "clinics" deep in minority neighborhoods].

    Chill dude. Do you mean eugenics? That was an accepted belief at the time, taught at hundreds of colleges and universities. Eugenics was acceptable until Hitler applied it to Jews.(white!) And the same racists who babble about racial inferiority today ... are largely, of course, pro-abortion extremists. Hmm.

    Keep it private, keep it personal, but above all...keep it out of the hands of the ethical cripples that are embedded in congress.

    I wasn't expecting you to be so strongly anti-Christian! Good luck getting that into the law, or Constitution!

  • Deven||

    Right, and which side is good with limiting government?

    Here is a hint to Reason and Hihntard: Not Democrats.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Not the Republicans either. The truth is, divided, gridlocked government is best at limiting government.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Here is a hint to Reason and Hihntard:

    Hihntard knows what aggression is. And why we libertarians oppose it. And cyber-bullying

    And self-defense.. Hihntard is calling you out.
    Justify your infantile name-calling, so he can show exactly how low your standards are.
    Or apologize.

    Any questions?

  • Drake||

    LOL. Which side?? You act as if there *is* a side. THERE IS NO SIDE. None of those people support liberty. The Republicans don't give a fuck about freedom and they don't give a fuck about you. Grow the fuck up.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Well played, Drake.

    That's why God invented libertarians.
    Because Left-Right=Zero
    And Left and Right are Obsolete.

    Note the authoritarian mentality of Deven!

  • Flinch||

    No need for invective, Drake. It's not that you are right, but rather there is no need for the GOP any more in spite of the jaw dropping corruption of the DNC. Why? They abandoned any philosophy of governance the moment they sat on their hands to permit the savaging of Tom Delay by a rogue Texas prosecutor and handed the gavel to Hastert. The only reason to have a party in the first place is to promote/maintain a philosophy of governance, if it is to be a legitimate entity and a public service. So... we are currently operating under a de-facto one party system, regardless of who holds office as democrats [right or wrong] do in fact know where they want to go, and have penetrated enough of the media to shutout real discussion of issues.
    I subscribe to the notion that politics is a circle, and for that reason an automatic red flag goes up any time arguments are made as right vs. left. It ain't necessarily so... but you already knew that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    we are currently operating under a de-facto one party system

    With two tribes, red and blue.

    Left - Right = Zero
    BOTH sides are hopelessly corrupted.
    And a growing majority rejects loyalty to either.

  • mpercy||

    Whenever Gary said he agrees with Bernie 73% of the time, and bill weld signed up with Hillary's anti-gun views, they pretty much threw away my 30 years of voting libertarian.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Whenever Gary said he agrees with Bernie 73% of the time, and bill weld signed up with Hillary's anti-gun views, They pretty much threw away my 30 years of voting libertarian.

    All those years, and not knowing what libertarians are.
    Like so many having ZERO political sense

    You're bonkers on Weld, and apparently unaware that NO rights are absolute!
    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles.Per the SCOTUS Heller ruling by that crazy libtard, Antonin Scalia. To tribal wingers, we must take the Constitution LITERALLY, except when the word "militia" destroys their agenda.

    (cont;d)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Justice Scalia's ruling in Heller. (Supreme Court website)

    "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Scalia.
    Kinda destroys the living constitution, eh?

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll TRY to dumb this down

    Scalia's Heller Ruling cited a prior ruling, as precedent, which was already the Law of the Land.

    "'Miller'said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    It's one freaking sentence!

    (Unnited States v) Miller is the ruling.
    307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816 - is the Case Number
    The complete text is here...and dated (smirk)

    So The Laws Of The Land has protected ONLY weapons in common use at ratifacation ... since 1939. Anyone else confused by one simple sentence?
    (In bold, to see their brains EXPLODE again!)

    It's one freaking sentence

    Now, if you have some time to waste, do a quick scan for how many are ENRAGED ... at me ... for revealing 77 years of Constitutional practice ... cited by Antonin Scalia.

    Compare that with the assaults and oppression by the left, on college campuses,
    If you can see any REAL difference between the authoritarian right and authoritarian left, please email me to make your case.
    (same use of bold)

    And THAT is also why God invented libertarians!
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Flinch||

    Are you sure? As I read the 2nd, it's not about the weapons [except for citizens], it's about structure. So, at the time written, it was governors that needed to call out the militia in the event of invasion or insurrection. In that day, those were civilians and not a paid standing army. If follows that calling out unarmed citizenry is an act of extreme stupidity, therefore protecting the right of persons to keep and bear arms was in fact a preservation of value when it came to the power of calling them out in the first place. Absent that, it might as well have said 'plant daisies'. I submit that weapons in common use at the time is a footnote, in spite of the federal government being given powers to maintain a standing army - there is an implied division there: federal troops for foreign engagements, and militia to deal with internal matters or in support of federal troops mission on US soil. George Washington was quickly given powers to call out the militia [in response to foreign invasion] to bridge the gap, and we have been arguing ever since - mostly the last century. Bad case law and imbecile professors have been confusing the issue for a long time.
    Do we want to call out people with muzzle loaders in an age of 3,000 round per minute weapons? I think not.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Are you sure?

    Scalia is. And that's been the Law of the Land since 1939;

    I think not.

    Can Trump get you on the Supreme Court? With enough others to overturn 77 years of Constitutional precedent ... and Justice Scalia's Heller Ruling.?

    Or what sort Constitutional Amendment amendment do you propose?.

  • Drake||

    Wait a second, you actually think the 2A means you only have the right to own muskets? Seriously?? Goddamn, LOL...

  • Rat on a train||

    Yea. Next he will tell us the 1A doesn't protect electronic communications.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Wingers (lol

    Yea. Next he will tell us the 1A doesn't protect electronic communications.

    "He" (Antonin Scalia) is dead.

    Note how the cyber-bully goobers -- HUMILIATED by Antonin Scalia ... attack ME for SCALIA's ruling!

    Conservatives be like campus oppressors of free speech.
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Note that the Hihntard has cited this before but then pointedly ignores, every single time, what Scalia said because he was too fucking lazy to read past page 1 to point 3. on page 2:

    The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

    This is why he's earned the title of Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    RED ROCKS SAYS OUR FIRST MILITIA DID NOT POSSES ... HANDGUNS!
    So who is the retard? Antonin Scalia or Red Rocks White Privilege
    (sneer)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    RED ROCKS SAYS OUR FIRST MILITIA DID NOT POSSES ... HANDGUNS!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano makes shit up! (Not the first time)
    So who is the retard? Antonin Scalia or Dumbfuck Hinsano?
    (chortle)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Denying your own words again?

    The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

    (lol) "Hihntard" was YOUR childish aggression --implying retard.
    So I ridiculed you .. in defense of aggression (and MASSIVE screwup).
    And have just done so again!

    MOAR!!

    trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense)

    Ummm, trigger locks are NOT weapons! (gasp) And YOUR OWN CITE restricts that to "self-defense"

    Based on previous blunders, he may now beat his chest, snarl, deny his massive screwup, claim he won .. and hurl another assault. (Like our President!)

    Verbal aggressiveness is an assault on another's self concept, rather than his/her position. Individuals who rely on verbal aggressiveness are viewed as less credible, have less satisfying relationships, and resort to physical aggression more often.. [the same mentality]
    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening. [hahaha - MH]
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Ummm, trigger locks are NOT weapons!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns aren't weapons.

    So I ridiculed you .. in defense of aggression (and MASSIVE screwup).

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately doesn't want people to know he didn't read past page one of his citation.

    Based on previous blunders

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blunders by claiming the 2A only applies to hunting rifles, pretends he's caught someone else in blundering!

    [hahaha - RRWP]

  • Michael Hihn||

    Red Rocks goes off the rails ENTIRELY!

    Ummm, trigger locks are NOT weapons!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns aren't weapons.

    (snort) HE quiotes me. Then LIES about his own cite

    ..in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blunders by claiming the 2A only applies to hunting rifles,

    "equivalent to"

    Scalia. AGAIN

    "'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    SCALIA says that "Milller" established the constitutional precedent that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in use at the time. It has been the Law of The Land since .....wait for it ....
    1939!

    How are right-wing authoritarian the same as left-wing ones? Let me count the ways
    a) A "living constitution"
    b) Shout down and stifle views that differ ... from THEIR living constitution
    c) An authoritarian streak, both deep and wide
    d) Will Even publicly humiliate themselves for a "higher cause"
    e) "cause" defined by puppet masters programming their robotic minds.

    That's why God invented libertarians!
    Left-Right=Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (snort) HE quiotes me. Then LIES about his own cite

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one notices when he moves the goalposts.

    the equivalent of hunting rifles

    SCALIA says that "Milller" established the constitutional precedent that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in use at the time.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't just say hunting rifles.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll TRY to dumb this down

    Scalia's Heller Ruling cited a prior ruling, as precedent, which was already the Law of the Land.

    "'Miller'said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    It's one freaking sentence!

    (Unnited States v) Miller is the ruling.
    307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816 - is the Case Number
    The complete text is here...and dated (smirk)

    So The Laws Of The Land has protected ONLY weapons in common use at ratifacation ... since 1939. Anyone else confused by one simple sentence?
    (In bold, to see their brains EXPLODE again!)

    It's one freaking sentence

    Now, if you have some time to waste, do a quick scan for how many are ENRAGED ... at me ... for revealing 77 years of Constitutional practice ... cited by Antonin Scalia.

    Compare that with the assaults and oppression by the left, on college campuses,
    If you can see any REAL difference between the authoritarian right and authoritarian left, please email me to make your case.
    (same use of bold)

    And THAT is also why God invented libertarians!
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles.

  • damikesc||

    RED ROCKS SAYS OUR FIRST MILITIA DID NOT POSSES ... HANDGUNS!
    So who is the retard? Antonin Scalia or Red Rocks White Privilege
    (sneer)

    Our newspapers required presses to run.

    Using your logic, only presses have free speech. TV and radio (and, of course, the internet) do not.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Using your logic, only presses have free speech. TV and radio (and, of course, the internet) do not

    LOGIC? BWAAAAA HAAAAAA
    ARE THOSE RIGHTS LINKED TO "MILITIA"???

  • damikesc||

    LOGIC? BWAAAAA HAAAAAA
    ARE THOSE RIGHTS LINKED TO "MILITIA"???

    "Freedom of press", using your logic, only applies to actual presses.

    TV, radio, and internet do not qualify. Publishing without using a physical press also does not.

  • Michael Hihn||

    LOGIC? BWAAAAA HAAAAAA
    ARE THOSE RIGHTS LINKED TO "MILITIA"???

    "Freedom of press", using your logic, only applies to actual presses.

    MY logic???
    It's been the Law of the Land since 1939 ... recently affirmed by Justice Scalia's Heller ruling.
    Deal with it.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Deven
    Wait a second, you actually think the 2A means you only have the right to own muskets?

    (smirk) JUSTICE SCALIA SAID IT

    Seriously?? Goddamn, LOL...

    Rightwing troll or Antonin Scalia?

    REPEAT


    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077610

    Hihntard knows what aggression is. And why we libertarians oppose it. And cyber-bullying

    And self-defense.. Hihntard is calling you out.
    Justify your infantile name-calling, so he can show exactly how low your standards are.
    Or apologize.

    Now a PROVEN bully
    And sniiveling snowfflake

  • damikesc||

    Wait a second, you actually think the 2A means you only have the right to own muskets?

    (smirk) JUSTICE SCALIA SAID IT

    Didn't he vote to overturn a HANDGUN ban?

  • Michael Hihn||

    danikesc say Supreme Court Justice VOTE ON BILLs

    Accuses ME of restricting weapons protected by 2A
    I correct THAT error ... and he makes a BIGGER one!

    (smirk) JUSTICE SCALIA SAID IT

    Didn't he vote to overturn a HANDGUN ban?

    HE WAS A JUDGE.
    HANDGUNS WERE IN USE AT RATIFICATION. THUS PROTECTED.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles.

  • AJ_Liberty||

    A couple of thoughts:
    1. If the 2A is conditioned by militia service....and militias are effectively defunct.....aren't you arguing that the entire 2A is surplusage? Haven't you read it out of the Constitution? It is important to recognize that the prefatory statement does not qualify the right with terms like "so long as" or "being necessary for" or "only when".

    2. The operative clause says that the right to "keep and bear arms" is to be preserved by government, implying that it pre-existed the Constitution similar to the 1A. Does it make more sense to anchor this right in the right of self defense...say established by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights... or in a right to be part of a militia? If it is a broader right to self defense then it devolves to what is most practical to achieve that in this day and age.

    3. The Pennsylvania State constitution of the framing era tellingly calls out "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned". It appears that "to bear arms" has BOTH a soldiering and self defense connotation. Why read it narrowly to only apply to militias and to specific forms of self defense?

    4. To "keep arms" implies ownership or possession. The members of the militia were to be "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Are we to believe that the 2A was trying to draw out a distinction between private ownership and use, and ownership and use for militia purposes?

  • Michael Hihn||

    aj_Liberty
    A couple of thoughts:

    ANOTHER goober attacks ME ... for a ruling by SCALIA ... because SCALIA (not me) jammed it up his ass! hahahahahaha

    This is the same goober who also displays MASSIVE IGNORANCE of our Constitution!
    Denies our Constitution is "the Supreme Law od the Labnf:" .. as granted and ratified by the states
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077685

    THE GOOBERS ARE IN OPEN REVOLT

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Goober Michael Hihn displays massive ignorance of a hunting rifle and a handgun after I jammed his inability to read past page one up his ass here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077797

  • Michael Hihn||

    (connect spaces on Reason links

    Red Rocks
    I jammed his inability to read past page one up his ass here:

    http: /reason. com/blog/2017/12/31/4-things-that-pissed-us- off-in-2017#comment_7077685

    BWAAAAA HAAAAA .... YOU SCREWED UP YOUR OWN CITE!!!!
    http: //reason. com/blog/2017/12/31/4-things-that-pissed-us- off-in-2017#comment_7077860

    Verbal aggressiveness is an assault on another's self concept, rather than his/her position. Individuals who rely on verbal aggressiveness are viewed as less credible, have less satisfying relationships, and resort to physical aggression more often.. [the same mentality]
    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.
    [mh: Or they know it exists, but ... MOAR lies]
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    BWAAAAA HAAAAA .... YOU SCREWED UP YOUR OWN CITE!!!!

    BWAAAAA HAAAAA .... SO DID YOU!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077865

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll TRY to dumb this down

    Scalia's Heller Ruling cited a prior ruling, as precedent, which was already the Law of the Land.

    "'Miller'said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    It's one freaking sentence!

    (Unnited States v) Miller is the ruling.
    307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816 - is the Case Number
    The complete text is here...and dated (smirk)

    So The Laws Of The Land has protected ONLY weapons in common use at ratifacation ... since 1939. Anyone else confused by one simple sentence?
    (In bold, to see their brains EXPLODE again!)

    It's one freaking sentence

    Now, if you have some time to waste, do a quick scan for how many are ENRAGED ... at me ... for revealing 77 years of Constitutional practice ... cited by Antonin Scalia.

    Compare that with the assaults and oppression by the left, on college campuses,
    If you can see any REAL difference between the authoritarian right and authoritarian left, please email me to make your case.
    (same use of bold)

    And THAT is also why God invented libertarians!
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles

    Bitch, try reading past page 1 whenever you post this nonsense.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Is Red Rocks crazy enough to INSIST that the militia ... at our founding .. did not own HANDGUNS? ... and say it TWICE? O....M....F....G

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles

    Bitch, try reading past page 1 whenever you post this nonsense.

    See his EXACT wording here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077740

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns are hunting rifles are the same thing! O....M....F....G!

    See his EXACT wording here:

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077797

    Watch him act ass-blasted when his failure to read past page 1 was pointed out to him several months ago
    (chortle)

  • Michael Hihn||

    See his EXACT wording here:

    This one's funnier!

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077860

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    [Or they know it exists, but pretend/lie they haven't done it (MH)]
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    This one's funnier!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077860

    AHAHAHAHAHA-- you fucked up your own link again, dumbass.

  • Michael Hihn||

    MOAR LIES

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns are hunting rifles are the same thing! O....M....F....G!

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano claims handguns are the equivalent of hunting rifles after being shown his citation doesn't mention hunting rifles at all.

  • uunderstand||

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles.

    When you are willing to live within the medical capabilities in the time of the volunteer militia, with no anesthetics or antibiotics, come back and talk to me about this.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Now a FOURTH cyber-bully ,... the goober "understand" ... attacks ME ... for the ruling of SCALIA ... because SCALIA (not me) ... humiliated his tribal ignorance! (sneer)

    Or that the Second Amendment protects ONLY those weapons in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles.

    When you are willing to live within the medical capabilities in the time of the volunteer militia, with no anesthetics or antibiotics, come back and talk to me about this.

    When you can explain WHY the Second Amendment ... in your "living constitution" ... protects MEDICAL SUPPLIES ... come back and talk to me about this. (snort)

    ANOTHER ONE tries to shout down a humiliating truth
    Like a Berkeley student!!

    That's why God invented libertarians.
    Because only goobers remain in BOTH parties,
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Now a FOURTH cyber-bully ,... the goober "understand" ... attacks ME ... for the ruling of SCALIA ... because SCALIA (not me) ... humiliated his tribal ignorance! (sneer)

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his inability to read past page one constitutes "understanding."

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks his inability to read past page one constitutes "understanding."

    PROVED IT!!

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077860

    Verbal hostility, or in other words, verbal harassment or abuse is basically a negative defining statement told to or about you or withholding a response and pretending the abuse is not happening.

    [Or they know it exists, but pretend/lie they haven't done it. (MH)]
  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano proves the smartest part of him was shat out after a chemo session.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What kind of "person" ridicules a cancer patient ... for being a cancer patient?
    Red Rocks White Privilege
    Sick

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What kind of "person" thinks he can lie about his arguments and get away with it?
    Dumbfuck Hihsano
    Hormonal

  • Michael Hihn||

    LESSON OF THE DAY
    If you followed the link from my blog, "cyber-bully" category ... How much proof do you need? Right-wing tribalism is just as authoritarian as the blue tribe!

    Count'em, FOUR rightwing goobers ... so-called "constitutional conservatives" ... have attacked and ridiculed a ruling ... by Antonin Scalia ... THE acknowledged champion of originalism!

    How are they like progressives? Let me count the ways
    A "living constitution"
    Shout down and stifle views that differ ... from THEIR living constitution
    An authoritarian streak, both deep and wide
    Even publicly humiliating themselves for a "higher cause"
    A "cause" defined by puppet masters programming their robotic minds.

    Exaggerate?

    1) Red Rocks has stalked me for MONTHS, because (a) I cannot be bullied and (b) I ridicule his INSANE babbling (in defense of his aggression). Today, DESPERATE for a "win" (see Trump), he actually says that members of our founding militia did not own ... HANDGUNS!
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077740

    2)AJ-Liberty had earlier displayed total contempt and rejection of our Constitution (or ignorance), with memorized soundbites debunked decades ago

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077767

    (Join the discussion, linked in the next blog post, to further explore the moral and political superiority of pro-liberty libertarianism (vs the anti-government faction)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Today, DESPERATE for a "win" (see Trump), he actually says that members of our founding militia did not own ... HANDGUNS!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano stalks everyone on the board for MONTHS, because a) he's a sad sack of shit who's cancer ate up his remaining two brain cells, and b) I mock his INSANE shrieking (because he's a prissy little bitch). today, DESPERATE to have people think he didn't read past the first page of the Scalia opinion, and stupidly thinks the 2A only applies to hunting rifles, he links back to his own ass-blasting while claiming people said things they never said.

    Hihnny-poo, remember, you name is TOBY!

  • Michael Hihn||

    Red Rocks goes off the rails ENTIRELY!

    Ummm, trigger locks are NOT weapons!

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks handguns aren't weapons.

    (snort) HE quiotes me. Then LIES about his own cite

    ..in use at the time by the volunteer militia -- the equivalent of hunting rifles

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blunders by claiming the 2A only applies to hunting rifles,

    "equivalent to"

    Scalia. AGAIN

    "'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    SCALIA says that "Milller" established the constitutional precedent that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in use at the time. It has been the Law of The Land since .....wait for it ....
    1939!

    How are right-wing authoritarian the same as left-wing ones? Let me count the ways
    a) A "living constitution"
    b) Shout down and stifle views that differ ... from THEIR living constitution
    c) An authoritarian streak, both deep and wide
    d) Will Even publicly humiliate themselves for a "higher cause"
    e) "cause" defined by puppet masters programming their robotic minds.

    That's why God invented libertarians!
    Left-Right=Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    (snort) HE quiotes me. Then LIES about his own cite

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks no one notices when he moves the goalposts.

    the equivalent of hunting rifles

    SCALIA says that "Milller" established the constitutional precedent that the Second Amendment protects ONLY weapons in use at the time.

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends he didn't say hunting rifles because he's a dumbfuck who's Hihnsane.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that hunting rifles and handguns are the same thing, now that everyone knows he was too stupid to read past the first page of Scalia's ruling when he just mentioned hunting rifles (because only a dumbfuck believes handguns are the "equivalent" of hunting rifles).

  • Michael Hihn||

    *****I'll TRY to dumb this down*****

    Scalia's Heller Ruling cited a prior ruling, as precedent, which was already the Law of the Land.

    "'Miller'said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    It's one freaking sentence!

    (Unnited States v) Miller is the ruling.
    307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816 - is the Case Number
    The complete text is here...and dated (smirk)

    So The Laws Of The Land has protected ONLY weapons in common use at ratifacation ... since 1939. Anyone else confused by one simple sentence?
    (In bold, to see their brains EXPLODE again!)

    It's one freaking sentence

    Now, if you have some time to waste, do a quick scan for how many are ENRAGED ... at me ... for revealing 77 years of Constitutional practice ... cited by Antonin Scalia.

    Compare that with the assaults and oppression by the left, on college campuses,
    If you can see any REAL difference between the authoritarian right and authoritarian left, please email me to make your case.
    (same use of bold)

    And THAT is also why God invented libertarians!
    Left - Right = Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano pretends that hunting rifles and handguns are the same thing, now that everyone knows he was too stupid to read past the first page of Scalia's ruling when he just mentioned hunting rifles (because only a dumbfuck believes handguns are the "equivalent" of hunting rifles).

  • Michael Hihn||

    Blame the libertarian establishment, who has NO credible polices on an anything. And a few that are bat-shit crazy. -- Cato's Medicare Vouchers and 6,2 Plan for Medicare.

    Today's movement plasy to its base -- which is not mostly anti-gubmint (not pro-liberty) with any-gubmint slogans and soundbites.

  • Radioactive||

    there's a libertarian establishment? where it at?

  • Michael Hihn||

    You asked that in public?

    Is "the political establishment" a physical presence of its own?
    Does "anti-establishment" oppose a physical thing?
    Are "Medicare vouchers" created by a physical thing?
    ANY policies by a physical thing?
    Can your house create anything?
    Your car?

    I COULD be wrong. But I see your question as pure snark, by overwhelming odds, and would only lower myself by answering .. in detail.(in this context, it means a leadership)

    www.dictionary.com/browse/establishment

    Anything else?

  • FlameCCT||

    Johnson has always been a Progressive Republican that couldn't hack it so became a LINO.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Says somebody has no idea what a libertarians even is ... and has been since 1958.
    Fiscally conservative and socially liberal

    No sure which you are, a LINO or a RINO

    For those with a lack of political sense, what we saw in 2016 was the total and inevitable failure of goober libertarianism (anti-gummint instead of pro-liberty). Americans are ready for even radical change. The libertarian establishment had a half-century to prepare and had NOTHING ... not one single policy solution for taxes, health care, the economy or even fundamental reform.

    So now goobers MUST blame somebody else for their own spectacular FAILURE.

    "Johnson didn't need no steeenkeeng platform. He just had to snarl and bitch like a madman. (like Cruz or Ron Paul)"

    After all, the libertarians label s rejected by ONLY 91% of LIBERTARIANS (Cato)
    "Purity DEMANDS 100% rejection by libertarians.!! YEAH! And my dickn is bigger than the LINOs!"

    Too extreme for even Ayn Rand is VERY hard to achieve, but you did it!


    .

  • Azathoth!!||

    Libertarians are fiscally and socially libertarian. This means that they favor policies that accentuate individual liberty.

    They don't accept socially liberal positions because they tend to come coated in government control.

    They do tend to hold positions similar to fiscally conservative ones--but that's largely due to the fact that stated fiscally 'conservative' positions tend to favor individual liberty. It is just as valid to say that conservatives hold fiscally libertarian positions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    They don't accept socially liberal positions because they tend to come coated in government control.

    You deny the definition of libertarian since 1958? And of socially liberal since even earlier. Libertarian means NO government abuse in both personal AND fiscal matters. Well, the definition.

  • Finrod||

    No wonder this thread has 200+ comments, it's been Hihned on.

  • Michael Hihn||

    it's been Hihned on

    The BASTARD posts HATEFUL comments -- like the definition of libertarian.
    Which the, of course, justifies your aggression, which, uhhh, libertarians don't do
    So, you're not a libertarian, but you're pissed that Hihn is, and knows the definition.

    Here's another one

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/Snowflake
    Referring to someone, usually the Alt-Right, Yiannopoulos, And Nazi Sympathizers (A.K.A. ARYANS), whose immense white fragility causes a meltdown when confronted with the most minute deviation from orthodox White Supremacy. They often cry bloody murder when expected to give the most modest expression of basic human decency.

    This is all a continuation of how Snowflake historically refers to people who are against the abolition of slavery. [more at link]
  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    On the contrary, progressives and libertarians are natural allies. Progressives agree with us on our two most important issues: open borders and reproductive rights. Meanwhile the GOP has become a white nationalist anti-immigration party that wants to turn this country into The Handmaid's Tale.

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    I don't want our borders to be open to third-world imports from congested sewers.

    People on welfare should be sterilized so that they don't breed more burdens like themselves.

  • Michael Hihn||

    People on welfare should be sterilized so that they don't breed more burdens like themselves.

    Is that GREAT satire!. Or ....

    .... an entitlement mentality, DON"T TOUCH MY OWN MASSIVE SUBSIDY FROM THE RICH! (Who pay half the entire share of the personal income tax for the core middle class overall [$40k-100k])

    Average tax rates
    $50,000 = 8.3%
    Million+ = 28%

    So if we sterilize those on PURE welfare, there will be more milk in the teat HE OR SHE sucks at.
    For me, I DEMAND that Bill Gates mow my lawn and trim my shrubs. Because I'm NOT a welfare king.

    Libertarians, of course, would transition us back to the voluntary private charities that did more with less than government. REAL libertarians, pro-liberty. Not the anti-gubmint cult..

  • Michael Hihn||

    See! The duopoly mentality has never been so obvious.

    At the top, a conservative has no clue what a libertarian is. If we're conservative on fiscal issues, we MUST be conservative on personal issues.

    Now, a liberal (posturing as libertarian), shows even LESS a clue from the other side! If we're "liberal" on TWO issues, then we're "natural allies." (OMG) Even funnier .... wait for it ...
    open borders and reproductive rights are libertarians' two most important issues!!. If we're "liberal" on TWO social issues, we MUST be liberal on fiscal issues!

    Fiscally liberal and socially liberal is ... LIBERAL!
    Right and Left are obsolete.
    Right - Left = Zero

  • Careless||

    I'll give you a clue: he's not a liberal, and he's making fun of the Reason staff

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll give you a clue, I was ridiculing his wackiness. Now you say it's even WACKIER? He's a conservative posing as a libertarian?

    What kind of creature would attribute such views to "the Reason staff" - which is bigotry. Applying negative stereotypes to an entire group is the very definition of bigotry ... compounded if the stereotype is also blatantly false.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    When SIV tells "Serenity Now!," he is talking about his new Silkie breed acquisition.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    *yells

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Oh. I thought he had heard rumours of a Firefly return.

  • Flinch||

    If only news directors would heed your call, and stop their blind subservience to seeking their cocktail party invites.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Should they be blatant fascists, like Fox?

    Left - Right = Zero

    (and please spare us the "cocktail party" soundbite)

  • Michael Hihn||

    "Talking to Russia?"

    Interfering in our election is SOLID. And at least four known others
    Don Jr. ADMITS attempted collusion.
    Trump PUBLICLY hoped Russia would hack Hillary.
    Trump yelled FAKE NEWS that anyone on his campaign had ANY contact with Russia. Now 31 known contacts (so far)
    SEVEN in campaign, including Kushner, file false disclosure reports, forced to correct.
    What do they have on Flynn, forcing him to turn state's evidence.

    But Reason says "fake news."
    Will tomorrow see Uranium One, Obama's Birth and "we are no longer a Christian nation"?

    Oh, it's Ed.again.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Exactly. Seventeen intelligence agencies have concluded Russia hacked our election to install Drumpf. It's arguably the biggest scandal in our country's ...... no, our planet's history.

  • Jerryskids||

    Keep in mind that that's just seventeen American intelligence agencies that have verified proof Putin himself cast several million votes for Trump - there are millions of other intelligence agencies that have the same proof. That every single one of those agencies is keeping the documented evidence secret is proof of just how yuge this scandal is. Sad!

  • Michael Hihn||

    It was all triggered by those THOUSANDS of Muslims who cheered 9/11 in New Jersey.

    This just in. A CORE Trump supporter was arrested for emulating his idol, by .... grabbing a CAT.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Just remember to check your blood pressure everyday, Mikey.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Get some BALLS and just say "nigger"

  • Robert||

    In place of what? Here's hoping for another rage-filled yearnigger for you in 2018? Here's hoping for another nigger-filled year for you in 2018? Here's hoping for another rage-filled year for nigger in 2018? Here's nigger for another rage-filled year for you in 2018?

  • Michael Hihn||

    In place of what?

    Yomommatards

  • Deven||

    By begging he means soliciting.

  • Drake||

    HAHA! Nobody's trying to "bring you down", dude. We honestly don't care enough. Get over yourself. ;)

  • Eric||

    "Get some BALLS and just say "nigger""

    That would be overtly racist. The proper terminology in his circles is "those people".

  • Michael Hihn||

    I wanted an equivalent for Yomommatards. Considered Kike, Spick and a few others

  • hello.||

    Yes, we are aware that your vocabulary is severely limited by your low IQ. Take your medication and change your shitty Depends you retarded old cunt sack.

  • Michael Hihn||

    The musings of hello ... on the ONLY major political website, un-moderated

    change your shitty Depends you retarded old cunt sack.

    , isn't it sad that that big black bammy cock is all sucked dry now?

    you demented old piece of shit.

    You're so fucking demented that you think you're receiving coded messages from the CIA in your shitty Depends? TAKE YOUR MEDICATION YOU STUPID OLD MENTALLY ILL COCKSUCKER!

    still choking on that big black bammy cock a full fucking year after he left office.,,

    mentally ill demented rambling ,,, Fuck off you stupid old piece of shit.

    you stupid old piece of demented shit?

    WHEN WILL REASON STOP BEING THE ONLY POLITICAL WEBSITE THAT DEFENDS THIS -- NO MODERATION

    IT'S NOT FREE SPEECH .. YOU ARE NOT GOVERNMENT. AND WHY DON'T LIBERTARIANS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE?

    IT'S WHAT YOU CONVEY TO THE INTERNET ABOUT LIBERTARIANS. HELPS EXPLAIN THE LIBERTARIAN BRAND REJECTED BY 91% OF LIBERTARIANS (cato) ,,, IN A LIBERTARIAN MOMENT! (LOL)...

    Is it tribalism to deny libertarian tribalism?
    Left + Right + Lib -= Zero

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano and his persecution complex.

  • Michael Hihn||

    What kind of "person" ridicules a cancer patient ... for being a cancer patient?
    See for yourself
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7078010

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    What kind of "person" thinks he can lie about his arguments and get away with it?
    Dumbfuck Hihnsano
    Hormonal

  • Azathoth!!||

    Michael, there are plenty of websites that are severely moderated, places where people talking back to you could be crushed if you whined to moderators.

    If that is what you desire--and your endless prattling about 'cyber-bullying' and 'online/verbal aggression' suggests strongly that it is, then leave, and seek out places where no one will be allowed to speak back to you.

    We like it here. Just the way it is. Even when we have to deal with people like you.

    What you want is all over the internet. What WE want is, as you point out, pretty much only here.

    So leave, and get what you want--or, accept the loud, free and raucous consequences of liberty.

    Your choice, Michael.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Michael, there are plenty of websites that are severely moderated, places where people talking back to you could be crushed if you whined to moderators.

    (laughing)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Michael, there are plenty of websites that are severely moderated, places where people talking back to you could be crushed if you whined to moderators.

    Okay, you're right. Reason should end comments, like so many site are doing. Stop shaming us.

    This is what Azathoth just defended (guess why)

    popehat.com (a major site defending civil liberties)

    DOJ is targeting Reason.com, a leading libertarian website whose clever writing is eclipsed only by the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery.Why is the government using its vast power to identify these obnoxious asshats, and not the other tens of thousands who plague the internet? Because these twerps mouthed off about a judge.
    [partial]
    Its judges like these that should be taken out back and shot.

    It's judges like these that will be taken out back and shot. FTFY.

    [Cloudbuster] Why do it out back? Shoot them out front, on the steps of the courthouse

    Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first.

    Fuck that. I don't want to pay for that cunt's food, housing, and medical. Send her through the wood chipper.

    Now, NEW asshats add woodchipper to their handle. Pride or shame?

  • FlameCCT||

    Dude or Dudette (depending on how you self identify),

    Why are you using a story from June 2015?

  • Michael Hihn||

    To jam it up his ass. And, apparently, yours.

    I'll dumb it down.
    He ridiculed the very idea of moderated comments.
    I proved the opposite. Which ALWAYS pisses off alt-right hooligans
    You have a RIGHT to feed people into wood chippers. Because authoritarian.
    Tough enough wood chippers ... or, if murder is not possible .. childish insults.

    Dude or Dudette (depending on how you self identify),

    What does "Michael" suggest ... even to your type?

  • Drake||

    Happy New Year, you Trump-worshipping cocksucker. May his holy cock milk sustain your sniveling ass for another year of your worthless life. CHEERS!

  • hello.||

    Awwww, isn't it sad that that big black bammy cock is all sucked dry now?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Proof?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hundreds of news stories.
    All part of the conspiracy, of course.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hundreds of news stories.
    All part of the conspiracy, of course.

  • hello.||

    You can copy and paste the same thing hundreds of times on Democratic Underground and it still doesn't constitute a single "news story" you demented old piece of shit. Take your medication.

  • Michael Hihn||

    hello
    You can copy and paste the same thing hundreds of times on Democratic Underground

    Am I really a liberal? Decide for yourself.

    Visit the web archive of my political writing. The "archive" page has a short summary of each article. Look especially to Taxes, Health Care and Federalism. Think for yourself.

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    No American should ever complain about foreign influence in our elections. The USA has influenced more foreign elections than everybody in the world combined. When election influence fails, military coups are used. Chile comes to mind. Ukraine comes to mind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And whatabout Benghazi?

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    It was caused by a Youtube video. Hillary said so.

  • Michael Hihn||

    I mean he forgot to mention it. I thought that was mandatory.
    How does that equate with Trump's average of 5.5 lies per day for 300 or so days>

  • hello.||

    Does it count as a lie if you actually believe it because you're so fucking demented that you think you're receiving coded messages from the CIA in your shitty Depends?

    TAKE YOUR MEDICATION YOU STUPID OLD MENTALLY ILL COCKSUCKER!

  • damikesc||

    Obama had us fund Bibi's opponent in an Israeli election.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And conspired with Martians to create phony birth certificates fior his ENTIRE invasion army of Kenyans.

  • Michael Hihn||

    And conspired with Martians to create phony birth certificates fior his ENTIRE invasion army of Kenyans.

  • damikesc||

    Don Jr. ADMITS attempted collusion.

    Nope. But the woman he met who said she had dirt DID meet before and after with the man Hillary was laundering money to, Glenn Simpson and his Fusion GPS company.

    Also, and this is a bit of a technicality, there is literally no CRIME involved in collusion here.

    Which is also bolstered by the lack of evidence of collusion in the first place.

    It's been over a year and all evidence points to far more interaction between Hillary and her buddies in Russia than Trump.

    Trump PUBLICLY hoped Russia would hack Hillary.

    No, he assumed --- like most people also did who do not work for the FBI --- that she had already been hacked and that others had the info. He assumed Russia had the info. Russia didn't leak it to Wikileaks, but to assume they didn't have her info from the collection of idiots that were her IT team is foolish.

    Trump yelled FAKE NEWS that anyone on his campaign had ANY contact with Russia.

    Russian CITIZENS, BUSINESSES, or the GOVERNMENT?

    What do they have on Flynn, forcing him to turn state's evidence.

    Not much, given that they're charging him with lying, which tends to harm one's credibility as a witness.

  • Deflator Mouse||

    This thread got real dumb real fast.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, but we all gain when you joined.

  • Radioactive||

    if you'd stop the trolling, the collective IQ of this thread would rise to room temperature...

  • Michael Hihn||

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7077829

    Radioactive

    there's a libertarian establishment? where it at?

    Michael Hihn

    You asked that in public?
    Is "the political establishment" a physical presence of its own?

    Does "anti-establishment" oppose a physical thing?
    Are "Medicare vouchers" created by a physical thing?
    ANY policies by a physical thing?
    Can your house create anything?
    Your car?

    I COULD be wrong. But I see your question as pure snark, and would only lower myself by answering .. in detail.(in this context, it means a leadership)

    www.dictionary.com/browse/establishment

    Anything else?

    Revenge?

  • Longtobefree||

    room temperature before or after global warming?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Thanks, but I'd already ridiculed him or her.
    /sarc

    Are YOU looking foe the location of the libertarian establishment?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The bills also called for a national strategy to suppress demand for prostitution

    I fear this might be a call for castration.

  • Longtobefree||

    Best strategy would be legalization

  • ALWAYS RIGHT||

    This is the best REASON article that I can recall. Keep up the good work.

  • ||

    Trump's October tweet asking of NBC, "at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License," was nothing out of the ordinary for Trump, but acting on it might have actually violated the First Amendment

    At what point is it appropriate to recognize he is basically jerking members of the media around, yourselves included? Unless you want an 8-year Trump reign, something my retirement funds would relish at this point, you would do wise to stop taking his tweets so seriously. The man feeds off of impotent progressive rage.

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    So basically he's your average 2008 era /b/tard that idiots don't know how to ignore or not to pay any heed to his comments? Makes sense really.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Yeah, just ignore him. He's only the President. and Leader of the Free World.
    And he DID say his base would stand by him, even if he shot someone to death in broad daylight, with witnesses. We don't know about the murder yet. But they did stand with him when he publicly then said they are amoral a-holes and bobbleheads. (swoon of admiration).

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Didn't vote for Trump....and probably will never vote for Trump.....but the Chicken Little routine is getting a bit old. Trump is the troll in chief for sure......he is certainly changing Presidential norms of behavior for the worse.....but this great fear that his words...words... are going to shut down the news media or initiate the fourth reich just seem a bit loopy. If he starts trying to shut down CNN or replace judges or invade countries because of some personal slight, then let me know....otherwise....let's just figure out what in our culture actually spawned Trump and work to cap that sewer.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    I held my nose and voted Trump. Will gladly do it again.

  • Deven||

    Trump is the first heel Republican. In a party of babyfaces, Trump is Hulk Hogan.

  • Eric||

    You don't "gladly" hold your nose. Your first assertation belies the second. Just admit that you gladly voted for Trump and will do it again in 2020. The next step is admitting that you'll do it regardless of what happens over the next 3 years.

  • hello.||

    Not everyone has the firm principle to vote straight Democrat every single fucking year like you and the entire Reason staff.

  • Kivlor||

    Eric, I don't know about Philadelphia Collins, but I would describe my vote for Trump the same way. First vote was "hold my nose". After seeing him in office, I'd gladly vote a second time.

  • JuanQPublic||

    And let's not forget about CNN's doxxing of a young man who made an animated gif of Trump fighting a CNN logo.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Correction: CNN's threat of doxxing said individual.

  • Michael Hihn||

    .. what in our culture actually spawned Trump and work to cap that sewer.

    Same thing that destroyed the libertarian movement -- anti-gubmint shouted down pro-liberty types. And the libertarian establishment to have NO credible policies on ANY major issue.

    It's inevitable. All mass movements are eventually controlled buy zealots and fanatics, TRUE Believers (purists)

    Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers."
    -Eric Hoffer, "The True Believers" (1951)

    Throughout human history, the worst moral atrocitres have been committed by those manipulated to BELIEVE they are defending some "greater good" -- the Collective, the State, the Master Race, the Party or a God. Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.
    -Mike Hihn (1994)

    It's all there, hatred and all,.

    As a growing majority of Americans abandons loyalty to either party ... the zealots and fanatics assume more and more control. Filter that through partisan primaries and we're increasingly governed by a minority. Thus, Trump got the nomination with only 37% of the vote in a shrunken party -- roughly the same number that are Birthers. Then it was harte Hillary. He got the largest percentage of anti votes ever (against Hillary and NOT for him), and won the Electoral College by a tiny 75,000 votes in 3 states combined.. Almost ANY other Dem would have won in a landslide!

  • AJ_Liberty||

    I tend to agree with this......Trump shows you can play to the lowest common denominators of fear, hate, and anger.....and win. The question is how much of what he does is theater versus some sort of pathological thinking. We had whole groups of Talk Radio hosts, evangelical preachers, and Fox News commentators abandon rational thought at the altar of celebrity personality worship. This paints the path for a real dictator....just find another "Hillary" that we need to hate and fear more....this should scare the hell out of us!

  • FlameCCT||

    Hey AJ,

    Progressivism, which controls the DNC and GOPe, is what actually spawned Trump. I would note that the Progressive GOPe fought so hard against Cruz that they ignored Trump until it was too late. My $0.02!

  • FlameCCT||

    Should have added that the Progressives in the GOP also failed to keep their promises after being given the House, then Senate. So most of the base was disgusted and supported Cruz, who actually stood up to McConnell while those that were tired of the Progressive Dems supported Trump.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Cruz was crushed in the primaries, even worse than you'd be.
    Q. Who celebrates losers?
    A. Bigger losers

  • Lucius Fergeson||

    You realize that we've had Presidents like Andrew Jackson that would get wasted, trash bars, call people stupid niggers and shoot them in the same breath after they called his wife a bigamist or a Kennedy, and banging women left and right behind the scences right? Or Presidents that were like FDR and actually violated the Constitution for an entire group of people based on race? A President shitposting on Twitter, whether it be a tantrum or not, isn't really a concern of mine.

  • FlameCCT||

    Not to mention a President like FDR that placed Hugo KKK Black on SCOTUS or Wilson that segregated the federal government as well as many more Progressive racists.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Goober wants ONLY Republican Klansmen!

    Give it up, Sparky. Your time has expired. The world has moved on, left you behind.
    Your raging hatred is out of style

  • Rockabilly||

    This New Year's Eve menu for progressive marxists = Russian Tofu Nothing Burger smothered in Organic Antifa, with a side of BLM, and for dessert Free Range Illegal Aliens

  • Michael Hihn||

    This New Year's Eve menu for conservatards = pussyburgers, Trump's cock. (BOTH gender roles at birth)

    Right and Left are obsolete.
    Right - Left = Zero

  • Deven||

    Hihn, please go to Salon for a while, figure out that you agree with them more than you do libertarians, and stay there.

  • Eric||

    The same could be said of many here. Just because this commentariat often turns into a Republican circle jerk, doesn't mean that libertarians agree with Republicans.

  • Deven||

    No, libertarians often do not agree with Republians, however, to think that Democrats and Republicans are equally disdainful is retarded.

  • hello.||

    "Republican circle jerk" meaning when one person shows up who isn't still choking on that big black bammy cock a full fucking year after he left office. Some people think spying on journalists, using the IRS to target political enemies, murdering Americans overseas, and starting illegal wars are almost as serious as posting mean things on Twitter. Weird.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's the other way around. Republicans sometimes agree with libertarians.

    Because their ideologies have more in common with each other.

    Where they diverge, it is Republican statism that creates the rift--Republicans failing to live up to the ideals they profess.

    The libertarians peppered through the leftists that infest Reason understand that.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's the other way around. Republicans sometimes agree with libertarians.
    Because their ideologies have more in common with each other.

    Only on fiscal matters. Libertarians never agree with the Christian Taliban on social issues. (Ron Paul does, but he's alt-right)

    (Taliban seeks an oppressive theocracy of Isamic "fundamentalists," kill gays and oppress women. Look familiar?)

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hihn, please go to Salon for a while, figure out that you agree with them more than you do libertarians, and stay there.

    Wait fot it ....

    1) Libertarians have been fiscally conservative and socially liberal... only since 1958.

    2) As MY creds, visit the web archive of my published political writing -- especially Taxes, Health Care and New Federalism. ANYONE is invited to visit the link -- just read the article summaries ... and see for yourself which one is the dumbass on what libertarians are. http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

    I've also proven you have zero creds at all And your aggression is VERY anti-libertarian.

  • Deven||

    Yes, you're a legend in your own mind. We are all well aware, Hihn.

  • hello.||

    Reported for spam. Quit trying to force-feed people your shitty web 1.0 blog. We get get plenty enough of your mentally ill demented rambling without you trying to monetize the 5 extra hits of traffic. Fuck off you stupid old piece of shit.

  • Robert||

    Come on, guys, there's got to be a better pissing-off list than HyR came up w here. What about:

    1. How publicizing police brutality just seems to encourage them? Like, THEY got away w THAT, now's OUR turn!

    2. Publicizing sexting woes seems to encourage thinking of the phenomenon, rather than prosecution, as the problem?

    3. Diversity only where it's trivial, otherwise intolerance of, not only deviance, but even the normal?

  • AJ_Liberty||

    Yeah the Daniel Shaver shooting would have probably topped my list.

    I also agree that we are into each other's shit waaaayyy tooo much......reality tv and social media is making us less capable of self governance, let alone determining what is or is not our business

    Third, our news media is now dominated by news opinion and speculation.....where most news has a clear ideological bias....which forces most people to choose a side....maybe this is driven by our second point....don't know....but it too is killing our country's ability to self govern.....Trump's tweets are generally horrible but in the grand picture of life...maybe they are just a window into who we are becoming as a people

  • Mcgoo95||

    Agreed. The torture/murder of Daniel Shaver was certainly the most disturbing thing I saw this year. Also agree with your other points. Trump's tweets are certainly a window into out collective subconscious. In my opinion, we have become a country of assholes (on both sides of the political spectrum) and Trump is King Asshole....for now.

  • mpercy||

    Re item 3

    "Being exclusionary of trans women partners should be an outlier and marginal position for straight men, not some commonplace expectation. These angry declarations that they have some absolute right to not want to be with trans women are just misplaced and inappropriate." -- Zinnia Jones

    It's not enough th that tolerate trans folks, but cishetero men may need to be foreced to date trans women, lest they think they'd have a right not to.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    How mainstream is this position?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    psychotic

  • Kivlor||

    I'd give it 2 Hihns

  • Michael Hihn||

    I'll give you one aggression.
    And 53 conspiracy points.

  • Kivlor||

    I'll give you one aggression.
    Yes, but I'm an unwilling recipient.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Eager AND unwilling?

  • Kivlor||

    I suppose you could describe me as "eager" to avoid your aggression... but it's an odd choice of words

  • Michael Hihn||

    I suppose you could describe me as "eager" to avoid your aggression..

    I describe you as pathetic bulshitter. With the evidence undeniable. (Except by your own tribe)
    Your aggression was launched here,
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7078442

    My self-defense was afterward
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7078448

    I was not in the thread at all. Would you lie about year it is? The month?

    Since you believe that straight men should be required to date trans women, else the women feel rejected ... do you view that as a straight male, or as a trans woman? If the later, I apologize if I "triggered" you.)

    (His will now reply with another lie. Aggression is the only way they can feel manly. Well, and blustering)

  • Robert||

    Actually #2 shouldn't surprise me in that it seems to effectively bolster narcotics prohib'n.

    Maybe it's all part of the phenomenon of corruption breeding distrust, which breeds more controls, which breed more corruption. It's enough that sometimes I think we'd be better off w censorship or other form of suppression of nearly all news, & possibly the substitution of fake nx saying things are swell. Because the rxn vs. things being perceived as bad makes them worse. If only people didn't know about drugs or porn or prostitution or foreign wars or whatever, maybe there'd be no attempt to do anything about them.

    I even think we might be better off if we had total secret gov't: a few venal people ripping the rest of us off secretly, maybe even "disappearing" a few people they disliked. Since nobody'd know about it, nobody more would want to get in on the act. Limited gov't—not nice, but limited.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Here's a fifth: false equivalence between a sitting president exercising his constitutional right to criticize media and a former president actually wiretapping and using the apparatus of the state against the media. One is an actual assault against the first amendment; leave it to reason to fail to understand which.

    p.s. Remind me under which president reason was subpoenaed. Like Ed I'm struggling to recall...

  • Deven||

    Aye, Democrats have;

    Used the IRS to go after those they don't agree with.

    Used the DOJ to fund those they do agree with through plea deals.

    Used the FBI/NSA/CIA to fucking WIRETAP the opposition party's presidential candidate.

    Used dozens journalists to get heads up on everything from debate questions to upcoming leaks.

    Meanwhile, Trump talks on Twitter. I'm really getting sick of Reason's bullshit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai responded to calls to review the licenses of cable news network before Trump himself tweeted about it. "Setting aside the fact that the FCC doesn't license cable channels," Pai said, "these demands are fundamentally at odds with our legal and cultural traditions."

    Considering he literally and singlehandedly destroyed the internet this year, you're not doing yourselves any favors citing Pai's words.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    The online chimp-out over somebody reversing a useless Obama-era policy -- that was in effect for all of two years -- has been the most cringeworthy thing to watch this year.

    It boggles my mind how the whole goddamn internet got sucked into what was basically a bunch of sleazy negotiating tactics between NetFlix, Comcast, etc. as if it were some new global holy war.

    Granted the FCC shouldn't even exist, but this guy has done nothing to earn the public enemy status he's been given.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Agreed. But then again, this is how an increasingly insane, low-info public deals with things now, especially on the internet. If one doesn't fall lockstep with the prevailing assumptions, attempts to personally destroy that person will ensue. The most rabid attacks typically come from those who do t really know much about the issue.

  • Flinch||

    The FCC has on balance been a disgrace and a public disservice since its inception. It blocked FM radio technology for years at the service of fearful AM radio owners, and delayed cell phone technology for possibly decades by tying up spectrum in useless arcane rules. They need to start over with a clean sheet of paper, and not one soul who has ever worked there - the entire culture is rotted top to bottom. It should by rights be called the Federal Blackout Commission, and its charter read 'denying new technology to the public whenever possible'.

  • GILMORE™||

    There's also the now-fashionable non-argument that because Nazis claim to be for free speech supporting free speech means supporting Nazism.

    Hitler was a vegetarian
    Hitler wanted to exterminate the jews

    Gweneth Paltrow is a vegetarian
    Gweneth Paltrow obviously supports the extermination of the jews

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

    Noted: the source of the above twitter-linked Non-Argument has been frequently published in the pages of this magazine. Readers often had a field day pointing out his glaring logical failures.

  • SIV||

    I had no idea Berlatsky was such a prolificReason contributor. Weird 'cause I know the byline. That's pretty bad that he can't even draw my attention while working in the genre of "what wrong things does this asshole have to say about things I have knowledge of and strong opinions on?". Usually I eat that shit up.

  • JeremyR||

    That actually would not surprise me about Ms. Paltrow. She's pretty far left into the fascist side...

    And there is probably a correlation between vegetarianism and fascism.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "Hate" laws are arbitrary laws and run against the overall grain of individual liberty and the Constitution. The hate law proponent's position is diametrically opposed to equal treatment under the law, no matter how much they insist otherwise.

    Also very alarming is the group of ACLU members who voiced opposition to "free speech absolutism" by moving the goalposts on what that term refers to. Almost nobody is a free speech absolutist, and even the most principled free speech advocates do not include harassment, direct threats, fraud, etc as free speech. Essentially, that group of ACLU people wants to further limit free speech to only certain ideas.

  • Deven||

    The American Civil Liberties Union is now trashing both the 1st and 2nd Amendment. They are very close to joining a long line of organizations and ideas that have been subjugated by the left so they can use up all of its past credibility.

  • RightWingA**hole||

    By close, you mean that penetration has happened...

  • JuanQPublic||

    The actions of many ACLU people in the last year have not been encouraging, and yes, it's starting to look like they are indeed being ideologically co-opted. Not good at all.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Examples?

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    Support of Milo

  • Michael Hihn||

    (snort) MILO IS A LEFTY???

  • Rat on a train||

    Watch it or you will find yourself on the SPLC hate group list.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Uhhh, Deven,

    Antonin Scalia ruling in Heller. (Supreme Court website)

    "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. 'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"

    .... as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    Plus, as you learned in high school NO rights are absolute.
    This IS a libertarian web site

  • Deven||

    Fuck off, psychopath slaver.

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    You are still my bitch, Sevo

  • hello.||

    Why do you bother with the sockpuppet accounts you stupid old piece of demented shit? Do you really think you're fooling anyone?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Fuck off, psychopath slaver.

    GOOBERS ARE RAGING ALL ACROSS THE PAGE
    PUNISHING ME FOR A SCALIA RULING THAT EXPLODES THEIR "BRAINS"
    .... LAW OF THE LAND FOR 80 YEARS! (omfg)

    Pay attention.

    Scalia "'Miller' said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. "

    "Miller is the legal precedent. When was that ruling? (smirk)

    1939!

    How are right-wing authoritarian the same as left-wing ones? Let me count the ways
    a) A "living constitution"
    b) Shout down and stifle views that differ ... from THEIR living constitution
    c) An authoritarian streak, both deep and wide
    d) Will Even publicly humiliate themselves for a "higher cause"
    e) "cause" defined by puppet masters programming their robotic minds.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano claimed the 2A only applied to hunting rifles, then changes his claim when he realizes he was too stupid to read past page one.

  • Michael Hihn||

    1939!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano blurts out his age.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Note to anyone reading this that Dumbfuck Hihnsano is too lazy to read past page 1 of Scalia's ruling:

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
  • Michael Hihn||

    BECAUSE HANDGUNS WERE WEAPONS IN USE AT THE TIME ... AS SCALIA STATED

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    BECAUSE HANDGUNS WERE WEAPONS IN USE AT THE TIME ... AS SCALIA STATED

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano acts as if he didn't say "hunting rifles."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Here's one that should annoy the crap out of everyone... facebook admits to censoring and deleting accounts at the direction of the US and Israeli governments.

  • SIV||

    "facebook is a private corporation and their right to not host content trumps your right to criticize them for doing so"

    /derp

  • Deven||

    This is also known as fascism.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This is also known as fascism.

    Fascism is a type of GOVERNMENT. Not anyone you disagree with.
    Would it be fascism if your (private) employer fired you?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Perhaps you missed the part of the story where Facebook was acting at the direction of the government.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Perhaps you missed the part of the story where Facebook was acting at the direction of the government

    I caught the part that you lied about
    (me emphasis)

    Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked said Tel Aviv had submitted 158 requests to the social media giant over the previous four months asking it to remove content it deemed "incitement." She said Facebook had granted 95 percent of the requests.

    Have you NO shame

    Saying there was direction, instead of requests, is shameful. Direction implies an order. Request? Google the definition.

    Your own link proves you have slandered Facebook .. apparently for yet another ant-gummint rant. "THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

    Israel made "requests" to delete "incitement to violence" by Palestinians. Facebook apparently reviewed them, and made their own decision.

    Facebook announced several months ago, the a new department to review for dangerous content.

    There is no free speech right to incite violence.

    Zuckerberg has solid evidence to sue you for slander. But he's on the left, right? BENGHAZI, URANIUM ONE, KENYA

    Left - Right = Zero

  • lafe.long||

    Saying there was direction, instead of requests, is shameful. Direction implies an order. Request? Google the definition.

    From the article:

    But none of that dilutes how disturbing and dangerous Facebook's rationale for its deletion of his accounts is. A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that "Mr. Kadyrov's accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act."

    Facebook says that they were "legally obligated to act" because of a government sanctions list. Doesn't sound like a "request" to me. In fact it sounds like the very definition of "at the direction of the government". Exactly as Paul described.

    No slander...
    I won't wait for your apology to Paul, though.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Saying there was direction, instead of requests, is shameful. Direction implies an order. Request? Google the definition.

    Doesn't sound like a "request" to me.

    Umm, he uses the actual word fere
    http://reason.com/blog/2017/12.....nt_7078021
    And also says Facebook turned down many "requests
    Now you too are a documented liar,

    No slander...

    The slander was Diane's. (lol)

    I won't wait for your apology to Paul, though.

    I never said a word about him. (smirk)

    Proved him or her a liar. Moving on.

    Left - Right = Zero

  • lafe.long||

    Also from the article:

    Just as one might cheer the censorship of someone one dislikes without contemplating the long-term consequences of the principle being validated, one can cheer the disappearance from Facebook and Instagram of a Chechen monster. But Facebook is explicitly telling you that the reason for its actions is that it was obeying the decrees of the U.S. government about who must be shunned.

    So to recap:

    Diane Reynolds (Paul.)|1.1.18 @ 2:42PM

    Perhaps you missed the part of the story where Facebook was acting at the direction of the government.
  • Michael Hihn||

    Also from the article:

    No quote marks. (lol)

    lafe.long, in an apparent act of conscience, admitted lying three times to Hihn. Also asked Mike's forgiveness, because he was acting like a partisan asshole

    All the proof I need!

  • lafe.long||

    You accused Paul of slander saying that the article only mentioned "requests".

    I quoted directly from the article where it CLEARLY says that Facebook admitted to banning at the direction of the government.

    Here it is again. Read it slowly:

    Just as one might cheer the censorship of someone one dislikes without contemplating the long-term consequences of the principle being validated, one can cheer the disappearance from Facebook and Instagram of a Chechen monster. But Facebook is explicitly telling you that the reason for its actions is that it was obeying the decrees of the U.S. government about who must be shunned.

    Facebook SAID that they removed the account because the guy was on a sanctions list, not that they were "requested" to do so.:

    Here it is again DIRECTLY from the article:

    A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that "Mr. Kadyrov's accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act."

    Go back and read the WHOLE article.
    Again, your "slander" accusations are baseless.

  • Michael Hihn||

    HEY GOOBER hahahahahahahahahaha

    When I said "no quote marks" ....

    The author is describing, opinionating, or something -- who knows? ... NOT A QUOTE BY FACEBOOK

    STILL CONFUSED??

    You ...... quoted ...... the .... article ....not Facebook
    (sneer)

    YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A QUOTATION IS!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano sure doesn't know what a quotation is:

    the equivalent of hunting rifles

    That's why he now lies and says that handguns are included in that definition because someone pointed out to him that he didn't read past page two of Scalia's decision.

  • lafe.long||

    YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A QUOTATION IS!

    I don't? Like the direct quotation from the Facebook spokesperson to the NYT? WITH quotation marks? FROM the article?

    Here it is again for the third fucking time:

    A Facebook spokesperson told the New York Times that the company deleted these accounts not because Kadyrov is a mass murderer and tyrant, but that "Mr. Kadyrov's accounts were deactivated because he had just been added to a United States sanctions list and that the company was legally obligated to act."


    If you click on the linked NYT article, you can see the full quote from the Facebook spokesperson.

    Paul's original statement in this subthread was that perhaps you missed this actual quotation in the original article. No aggression. I provided proof that, yes, you might have missed it - with the quotation from the original article (three times, now). No aggression.

  • lafe.long||

    From the linked NYT article:

    Facebook, which also owns Instagram, defended its decision to remove the accounts, saying the government's sanctions against Mr. Kadyrov obligated it to do so.

    "We became aware and have now confirmed that the accounts appear to be maintained by or on behalf of parties who appear on the U.S. Specially Designated Nationals List and thus subject to U.S. trade sanctions," a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement emailed to The New York Times. "For this reason, Facebook has a legal obligation to disable these accounts."

    Ms. Granick, the ACLU attorney, said that raised serious issues. "It's not a law that appears to be written or designed to deal with the special situations where it's lawful or appropriate to repress speech," she said.

    The company does not appear to apply this policy to all people sanctioned by the United States. Several other people on sanctions list have active, and even verified, accounts.

    Direct. Quotation.

  • lafe.long||

    Your response?
    You accuse a commenter of slander (aggression) and me of lying (aggression) and resort to ad hominem (aggression) based entirely on your lack of reading comprehension or failing vision?

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    " your lack of reading comprehension or failing vision?"

    I am unaware how long these pages continue being read.
    For any others with an interest in privacy and security, I find nothing to support your savage assaults on Mr, Hihn

    For any others. Check for yourself, as I will doubtless also be attacked

    When I saw Mr. long had lied about quote marks in his first cite, I was prompted to check Mr. long's claims. Privacy is a serious matter. Are the claims against Facebook true? Mr. long's relevant claims are all are lies or misstatements, and quite obvious, so why do it unless to attck Mr. Hihn? Don't chose sides in a pissing match, If you share my privacy concerns, then see for yourself and think for yourself.

    I began with the following comment, which Mr. long falsely claims has a direct quote, with "".
    lafe.long|1.1.18 @ 5:02PM

    I have said there are only two possibilities for Mr long's deplorable behavior. A third has come to mind, and actually makes most sense. I searched all of Reason for his handle and found no prior comments. I conclude that lafe.long is a new account, created Ms. Reynold for the sole purpose of attacking Mr. Hihn, and have notified the web site of behavior which should not be tolerated, whatever the cause.

    Our entire society has been crippled by the hated and meanness of a few. Did our President create it? Or did it create him?

    May the Good Lord bless you and keep you in this fresh new year,

  • lafe.long||

    I really don't know what your issue is.
    I don't see any "savage assaults".
    Paul's link was to an article by Glen Greenwald at the Intercept. Greenwald's article was about Facebook deleting accounts at the direction of US govt - SPECIFICALLY because the user was on a US sanctions list. In the article, Greenwald quotes his source (the NYT) and provides a link to the New York Times. This link is in the paragraph above the one in my very first post on this thread. The NYT link clearly states that they received an e-mail from a Facebook spokesperson stating why they deleted the account. Instead of clicking the link to see for yourself what Facebook ACTUALLY said, you start shrieking about "requests" vs direction, calling Paul shameful and accusing him of slandering Facebook. When I point out you indeed missed something, you proceed to call me a liar and a goober.
    You are making a fool of yourself.

  • lafe.long||

    I've been posting here since 2007.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    "Direct. Quotation."

    That quote does not appear in the linked NYT article

    Youi in fact lied about what you cited, with no "quotation mark"s here,and you actually put it in bold here: lafe.long|1.1.18 @ 5:59PM

    Mr, Hihn has been way too kind. Only two conclusions are possible
    1) You are a Palestinian terrorist
    2) You need psychiatric help. Then get a life in the New Year.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    Here it is again for the third fucking time:Whoa. I can't find that anywhere else in the thread. Mr.. Hihn is making a fool of you.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're not fooling anyone with that sockpuppet, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

    Okay, you hate me. But which point do you challenge?
    I have only one minor quibble with Ellis

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano has a quibble with one of his multiple personalities.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I honestly don't know why I cam back to this thread, but I have to admit that the sockpuppet Elilis Wyatt nearly caused me to piss my pants with laughter. First he quotes himself (somewhere above, which I can't be bothered to find) and then he has his sock puppet come to his defence....Mr. Hihn, you are truly a piece of work. The sad part is I think you might actually have some good points if I could ever get past your personality.

  • Mcgoo95||

    *personalities*

  • Michael Hihn||

    I honestly don't know why I cam back to this thread

    It's quite obvious. More bullying and aggression, an authoritarian "mind" out of control,

    I do some things INTENTIONALLY
    It's far more effective when YOUR ilk SHOWS that you're more interested in the person ... than any ideas, issues or content.

    The very DEFINITION off ad hominem (personal attacks) and cyber-bullying.
    And PROUD to be a-holes!

    Bellowing blowhards, NOT the brightest bulbs in tree ... be dumb enough to get suckered ... over and over and over. (smirk)

    They even CELEBRATE each other's nastiness, publicly ... PROUD to be thugs!
    Because authoritarian.

    I don't have to say a word
    Just point them out and laugh.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I might actually be able to get to your ideas, issues and content if I could ever get past the fact that you're a condescending prick. That is my opinion of you. If that is bullying to you, than you need to grow up. I would be happy as well to tell it to your snickering, smirking, snorting face if I ever met you in person but I suspect you only act like a deranged child on the internet. Grow up and/or get a life.

  • Michael Hihn||

    you're a condescending prick.

    He's been ridiculed again.

    That is my opinion of you. If that is bullying to you

    Uhhh, THAT is verbal aggression ... not just to me ... the entire English language!

    Verbal aggressiveness is an assault on another's self concept, rather than his/her position. Individuals who rely on verbal aggressiveness are viewed as less credible, have less satisfying relationships, and resort to physical aggression more often.
    ... Verbal aggressiveness is viewed as a skill deficiency whereby an individual lacks the verbal skills required to deal with normal disagreements and everyday frustrations.

    The English language says your life is pathetic. AND severe denial

    Bullying (pay attention) is unprovoked aggression. Online is cyber-bullying

    Cyberbullying:The electronic posting of mean-spirited messages about a person ... often done anonymously

    Cyber-Bullying (Oxford Dictionary)The use of electronic communication to bully a person, typically by sending messages of an intimidating or threatening nature.

    but I suspect you only act like a deranged child on the internet

    Your ass gets kicked ... anywhere ... by anyone with a
    dictionary.
    (snort)

  • Sevo is my bitch||

    #Kochsuckerssaywut?

    2017, and you are indicting what Hillary would have done so as to excuse what Drumpf did.

  • JeremyR||

    Hillary would actually have had the government do stuff to Republicans/conservatives, not just stay stupid stuff on twitter (though I'm sure she would also do that, as she regularly does, albeit not in the braying manner Trump does)

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    One amusing aspect of 2017 is upper-class liberals and their representatives ending the year complaining that they'd have to pay more taxes.

  • John Galt is back||

    Far more amusing, you defending Republican tax increases! And $1.5 Trillion in new debt!
    Trump did say you'd defend him from even commiting murder in broad daylight, And you stood by that.
    But the Trump team was just destroyed by BANNON, in a stunning new book.
    Sorry.

  • hello.||

    1. The assault on free speech

    Did you consult Shika Dalmia on this one? She believes that violence against speakers she disagrees with is perfectly acceptable.

    Did you consult Elizabeth Nolan Brown? She doxed a man on Twitter and harangued his employer to try to get him fired for jokingly telling her to make him a sandwich.

    Did you consult Katherine Mangu-Ward who stood by those two individuals, endorsed their views, and continues to pay them as Reason staff members?

  • Kivlor||

    No, that's totally free speech. Dalmia doesn't advocate violence against "people she disagrees with". She advocates it against evil Nazis who everyone except Nazis disagree with.

    And ENB was only fighting back against oppression. That man deserved everything he got and worse because of his active support for Patriarchy.We need more standup women like this at Reason, and I intend to publish exactly that in 2018.

    Also, consider carefully whether or not you want to side with Nazis and cisheteropatriarchal scum. Nice IP address you have there...

    Regards,
    --Katherine Mangu-Ward

  • Mcgoo95||

    Ladies and Gentleman, the massive, over-inflated dirigible known as the Hihndenberg has ascended to a height of 10,000 feet over this comment thread and spewed self-aggrandizing, pedantic bullshit all over everyone who's participated in it....also known as anti-gubbmint goobers. Nothing to see here. Unless you want to be covered in it's bullshit and perhaps kill a few braincells in the process, i suggest you move along to more current articles.

  • Elilis Wyatt||

    What are your specific disagreements with Mr. or Ms. Hihndenberg? At this point, your behavior is far worse than what you accuse him or her of. I cannot find his or her name on this page. .

    Verbal aggression is legal. But it conveys the same mentality as physical aggression. We libertarians have a core principle, Non-Aggression, which causes me to report yours to Reason.

    May your tortured soul find peace, by the Grace of Almighty God.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Try the David Nolan sockpuppet instead, Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Dumbfuck Hihnsano.

    Okay, you hate me. Anything else?

  • Lester224||

    I read anti-free-speech blather from otherwise 'nice' people every time I open facebook. It's getting so I just can't stand to read any of those stories which mention free speech. They just don't get it. Perhaps we have to educate young people more effectively on the implications of restricting free speech, but even baby boomers are delusional on these points. The righties want to jail people for flag burning or failing to stand for the pledge of allegiance. The lefties want to outlaw insults to minorities.

  • Flinch||

    No surprise there. I read Fakebooks alleged policy, which contravenes its opening premise that your page is yours. No... it's not. Halfway through is language that effectively means policy is whatever they deem it to be at any given moment on a purely elastic basis, and they don't even need a real person outside the company to feign objection - they can imagineer their way to some objection allowing taking your page down at any moment, and you the "owner" of your page have zero recourse. That is what fascism looks like, attitudinally speaking.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Apparently, you've never read the find print of anything.
    Users get a page ... FREE ... which FACEBOOK owns .. so who are you to seize control of private property?

  • Michael Hihn||

    They're almost as crazy as the "institutional" right
    Neither of you has a clue what "free speech" even means.
    Or did Zuckerberg buy out the federal government?

  • Flinch||

    I can't believe political agitprop didn't make the 2017 list. Does anybody believe the 'incite the right' event in Virgina was anything but an inside operation to provide the excuse for the left to take to the streets? Yes, there are right wing loons out there, but WHO organized them? The unholy union of anarchists and fascists did, so they could commit arson with cans of hairspray, wield pillowcases loaded with bricks and more... as the AntiFa signs distracted the cameras and gave them political cover.
    In case you think otherwise, that event was a continuum of Ferguson, where an attorney general threatened an entire police force with federal review and a so called "civil rights" investigation if they dared to remove the anarchists from their streets and return law & order. You might recall that roughly 80% of those arrested during the feigned outrage had come in from out of town. The common link is suspected to be Soros money, but there are enough layers between him and the paid goons that plausible deniability is rock solid, and no jury will ever scratch the man.
    Count me as one American pissed off that our own DOJ sided with anarchists and attempted to set the nation on fire.

  • Longtobefree||

    Did you just try to say some one organized anarchists?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Chill out
    This video is undeniable proof that our President is a psycho liar, AND who launched the violence in Charlotesville.
    "Alt-Left" standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
    Alt-Right Facsists/Racists crash into them en massse, swinging clubs.
    Alt-Right Fascists wearing SHIELDS and helmets like cops in riot gear. They CAME for violence.
    Undeniable.

    So who are you supporting, the neo-nazis, the white supremacists or both
    Do you get paid much for this? Where can I apply?

  • Ned Netterville||

    According to the NYT on Dec. 30th:

    "During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia's top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton... two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians' role. (Note, NYT using unnamed sources, as usual). The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired."

    I doubt many Americans give a damn about whether the Russians colluded with Trump himself to defeat Hillary, or passed on hacked Hillary emails to the Trump campaign, but they sure as hell ought to be scared, BE REALLY SCARED, when the FBI begins investigating presidential candidates during an election on the basis of what some Australian spooks told them.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Shout down the evidence, authoritarian.
    Trump was an emperor already ... before being elected!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online