MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump Just Backed Out of the Nuclear Summit With North Korea: Reason Roundup

Plus: Obamacare premiums rise, Trump praises NFL anthem policy.

REUTERS FILE PHOTO/REUTERS/NewscomREUTERS FILE PHOTO/REUTERS/NewscomSetting up a high-stakes nuclear summit turns out to be more difficult than you might think.

President Donald Trump recently announced that he would hold denuclearization talks with North Korean leaders. But he said this morning that because of "the tremendous anger and open hostility" in a recent statement from the country, the meeting would not go ahead as scheduled. It looks like the whole thing is off.

The summit has shown signs of trouble all week. Yesterday North Korea said that it might not consider denuclearization at all. And a senior envoy for the closed-off country threatened to back out of the meeting, while warning that the United States might end up facing off with North Korea in a "nuclear-to-nuclear showdown," according to The Wall Street Journal.

In the statement, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Choe Son Hui also called Trump's Vice President Mike Pence a "political dummy."

Trump, meanwhile, had previously indicated that the meeting may not happen has planned. He did, however, give some ground on his initial push for immediate denuclearization, indicating that it might be acceptable for North Korea to dismantle its weapons program in phases.

Even more welcoming gestures have been looked at with skepticism. North Korean officials invited American news media to witness the explosion of some tunnels the country claimed were connected to its nuclear tests, saying that because it had built functioning nuclear weapons already it could wind down its test program. However, it's not entirely clear whether the demolition represented a real commitment or something staged for the cameras. According to CNN, "There were no international experts in the invited group and no one was present who was able to assess the explosions in order to tell if they were deep enough to destroy the tunnels."

Trump's full statement:

(This item has been updated.)

FREE MINDS

President Trump is pleased with the NFL's new national anthem rules. The NFL will now fine players on the field who refuse to stand for for the anthem. Trump thinks that's a good idea. He also suggested that players who don't follow the new rules "shouldn't be in the country." NPR reports:

President Trump praised the NFL's decision to mandate that players either stand for the national anthem or stay in the locker room in a TV interview that aired Thursday.

And he questioned whether players who choose not to stand "proudly" should be in the country at all.

"Well, I think that's good," Trump said in an interview with Fox News. "I don't think people should be staying in locker rooms, but still I think it's good. You have to stand, proudly, for the national anthem or you shouldn't be playing, you shouldn't be there, maybe you shouldn't be in the country."

FREE MARKETS

Health insurance premiums under Obamacare to keep rising. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that typical health insurance premiums under Obamacare will rise by about 15 percent next year—and 10 percent each year after that through 2023. The new CBO estimate also dramatically slashed the number of people it expects to go without health insurance because of the elimination of the individual mandate penalty, dropping the figure from about 13 milllion to 8.6 million.

QUICK HITS

  • President Trump is still tweeting about "Spygate" this morning.
  • You may be getting a bunch of privacy-related emails from web companies. That's a response to the European Union's new General Data Protection Regulation rules, which go into effect this week.
  • Disney has been attempting to acquire large parts of 21st Century Fox (which owns, among other things, movie rights to some Marvel comics characters that Disney doesn't). Now Comcast may be trying to buy Fox too.
  • Trump's son in law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, got his security clearance revoked. Now he's got it back.
  • On Trump's orders, the Commerce Department has begun an investigation into imported vehicles that could lead to new tariffs on foreign cars.
  • Nate Boulton, a Democratic candidate for governor in Iowa, has been accused by three women of sexual misconduct.
  • Looks like California will take an aggressive approach to regulating self-driving cars.

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.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Looks like California will take an aggressive approach to regulating self-driving cars.

    Requiring a union driver for each one.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Is there any other kind of regulation?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Just force the cars to unionize. They don't care about the people in the unions, just that they collect all those sweet sweet dues.

  • JWatts||

    No you got the precedent wrong. You require a Union driver paying dues and you tax the car's activities. Why single dip when you can double dip?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Tax the manufacturer of the car too

  • ||

    Hello.

    "You may be getting a bunch of privacy-related emails from web companies. That's a response to the European Union's new General Data Protection Regulation rules, which go into effect this week."

    No shit. Europeans are a collective bunch of pains in the asses.

    And it's all in tech lingo-ese I don't understand. Plus it's all threatening 'it's your responsibility'....My responsibility to what exactly?

    I have no idea if I'm 'complying'. It's not like Google has a 1-800 #. Shitheads.

  • Rhywun||

    The upshot seems to be "do nothing and you'll get fewer emails".

  • ||

    I just don't want getting up in the morning and find out Google suspended me because of the fags (wink) in Europe.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Plus it's all threatening 'it's your responsibility'....My responsibility to what exactly?

    I have no idea if I'm 'complying'. It's not like Google has a 1-800 #. Shitheads.

    You're completely, irretrievably retarded.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Did your handler let you out of the strait jacket to let you shitpost again?

  • ||

    Who is this moron anyway?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Scott Adams untangles the spin on #SPYGATE in four easy steps
    Four things to understand about SPYGATE: 1) There was no spy in the Trump campaign. 2) The spying that did NOT happen was totally justified. 3) It would be bad for national security to identify the spy who doesn't exist. 4) His name is Stefan. #SPYGATE

    — Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) May 23, 2018

  • Tom Bombadil||

    First class sarcasm.
    A+

  • John||

    Sadly, what he said was an entirely fair description of the media's claims on this issue.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    lol

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Amazingly, we still have left wing media-type assholes here in our comments claiming the spying never happened even though their bible, the New York Times, just admitted that they were lying all along and it actually did happen.

    When it comes to lying through your teeth, you can't get much more brazen than these Weigelian scumbags.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    The first rule of SPYGATE is you do not talk about SPYGATE. The second rule of SPYGATE is you DO NOT talk about SPYGATE. Third rule of SPYGATE someone tweets stop, goes limp, taps out, the spying is over.

  • John||

    My favorite spin on this is the claim that the FBI was spying on Trump to protect him. Journalists are actually saying that with a straight face.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    If this is what it appears to be, this is a bigger scandal than Watergate and #RussianMeddling combined.

  • John||

    Yes. And the thing that would make it different than any other scandal in my lifetime is that the media seems to have been an active participant in the abuse of power. They didn't just spy on Trump, they leaked information to a supportive media who then uncritically repeated it to the public. Avoiding that truth and accountability for it is I think the biggest reason why the media is trying so hard to kill this story. They are part of the scandal many of them.

  • Sevo||

    "If this is what it appears to be, this is a bigger scandal than Watergate and #RussianMeddling combined."

    The mess in my closet is bigger than #RussianMeddling, since there's still no evidence of anything other than some lame gifs.

  • BYODB||

    I'm not really convinced that it is what people say it is, but it's hard to ignore that Trump and his campaign have been investigated to the hilt whereas the Clinton campaign, that literally financed FusionGPS who received information directly from the Kremlin, has not been investigated at all. That's been suspicious the entire time, and I haven't heard a peep from the media on that point.

    I'm still not even sure why people are screaming about collusion, when frankly that isn't a crime. What's even more bizarre is that Obama wasn't strung up for treason for literally giving a nation that is known to finance terrorism a huge amount of cash without congressional or senate approval. Aiding and abetting enemies of the state is the literal condition for treason. If it turns out Trump did anything half as bad, string him up too but thus far all we have are smoke and some mirrors.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""whereas the Clinton campaign, that literally financed FusionGPS who received information directly from the Kremlin, has not been investigated at all"'

    Well the last time they investigated Clinton they needed her permission. So perhaps she's not willing to give it this time.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Trump's son in law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, got his security clearance revoked. Now he's got it back.

    POLITICIZING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, IS THERE ANYTHING THE DEEP STATE WON'T DO?

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • Mickey Rat||

    We are going to protect you from being compromised by an ex by asking you to compromise yourself to us, total strangers, first.

  • lap83||

    Facebook and I have something special. They would never take advantage. Well maybe with my data and the NSA. But it was my fault, I wouldn't listen.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Is your contact at Facebook "Nigerian Prince", by any chance?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Some kind of joke about rules with teeth to it, but it just wouldn't come together.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Neither do British teeth.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    President Trump is pleased with the NFL's new national anthem rules.

    Who would have thought Trump would ultimately win this war he couldn't possibly lose.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Democratic platform for 2018: MS-13 good, Hamas good, tax hikes good, flag bad.

  • Rhywun||

    I gotta hand it to the NFL, the media, and Trump.

    This is quite possibly the stoopidest story to emerge in recent Kulturkampf history. Oh and it gets better. The Jets said they'll pay the fines of any of their unpatriotic players.

  • John||

    You have to hand it to NFL players. I honestly think they believe they get paid because they are good at football and not because people want to pay to see them play football. They are entertainers. If you are an entertainer and your doing something pisses off a decent portion of your fan base, you stop doing it. The players' salaries are determined by the salary cap. The salary cap is calculated by a set share of overall league revenues. When revenues go down, player salaries go down. These guys have cost themselves and every other player in the league a lot of money. You would think that would cause them to want to stop doing it. But not so apparently.

  • Mickey Rat||

    There are an awful lot of people who believe they are paid because they work and not because of how much other people value their work. It is really the whole driving principle of the Living Wage movement.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    It is and all I hope for is that because of this rule, SCOTUS determines it is illegal to fund NFL stadiums w/ taxpayer money.

  • Nardz||

    That's a local issue.
    San Diego, Oakland, and St. Louis decided they didn't want to fund stadiums with (enough) local money.
    LA took 2 of them and Vegas grabbed the other.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The problem is that the protesters have dealt their supposed cause (one that I generally agree with) a huge blow by alienating a large chunk of the people they needed to convince. The only thing more stupid than this story are the people in it.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    But ain't that always the way?

  • lap83||

    It's a stupid and ineffective form of protest like you said. Hey, so I just decided I'm not going to set off fireworks on the 4th to protest slavery. Oh you're still going to do it? I guess you think child sex slavery is cool you racist hillbilly

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Trump at his dumbest.

  • Rhywun||

    Except saying stupid stuff that at least half the country agrees with is his job.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I guess I should be surprised that the owners took it to this level, but I'm really not. The best solution would have been to go back to what it was before, and how it's still done in college and high school--let the players out on the field for warm-ups, take them back to the locker room during the anthem, then bring them back out for introductions and start the game after the anthem is over.

    This is such a self-defeating, unself-aware tactic on the part of the owners and the league. Ultimately, this isn't about patriotism or whatever else they're saying to justify it--the owners and Goodell don't want to give up the taxpayer lucre the Pentagon's giving them to do these displays, and they're basically telling the players, "Don't like it? FYTW." It's going to be interesting to see how the players react to all this, and my feeling is that they're either going to mostly suck it up and go along (at which point the players will probably chip in to pay the fines for those who do kneel), or you'll see mass protests out of spite, which will both piss off a sizeable portion of your fan base and make the owners look impotent.

    And I say this as someone who finds the kneeling to largely be the product of a self-indulgent brat who was pissed off that he lost his starting job and is basically a puppet for his goofy-ass Muslima thot.

  • John||

    I guess I should be surprised that the owners took it to this level, but I'm really not. The best solution would have been to go back to what it was before, and how it's still done in college and high school--let the players out on the field for warm-ups, take them back to the locker room during the anthem, then bring them back out for introductions and start the game after the anthem is over.

    That is really what they are doing. Players don't have to come out for the anthem if they don't want to. I really don't understand why that is a bad compromise. They are not saying players have to stand for the anthem. They are saying if they choose to be on the field when its played, they should stand. That is not the same as requiring them to be there and stand. I really don't see why that is a bad compromise.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    If the coaches are smart, they'll just tell the players, "I don't care if you want to stand or kneel, no one goes out on the field during the anthem" and fine those who do.

  • JWatts||

    How is that significantly different than telling them if you aren't going to stand, then don't come out? About the only difference is that the stands get to see the players that are patriotic.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    That's not the point. The point is that the NFL and the owners thought this kind of policy was even necessary in the first place, because they don't want to give up the cash they're getting from the government to do the anthem displays. They could just tell the Pentagon that they're not going to take the money anymore, and go back to having the players in the locker room during the anthem--the way it was for *decades* and the way it's still done in college and high schools--instead of this passive-aggressive charade that the players have a "choice."

    They're basically revealing that it's not about patriotism, it's about the money.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    So the owners are maximizing their profits by catering to their customers and advertisers, as well as requiring of their employees to not jeopardize those relationships?

    Seems odd to be upset by logical, forseeable, and fiduciarily sound actions of NFL owners, but here we are.

  • ||

    ...the stands get to see the players that are patriotic.



    No, it's more like the stands get to see the players that feel a need to make a public display of patriotism. A display, I might add, looks more like chauvinism or jingoism.

    Like the hypocrites that Jesus calls out in Matthew Chapter 6 for ostentatious public displays of alms-giving and praying these are people who make public displays of patriotism to impress others not because they truly love the country and their countrymen.

  • John||

    Then don't watch it Iscaac.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Didn't even try to discuss his point, huh?

  • ||

    BUCS, he's discussed it by dismissing it. We know where we stand and that's fine by me.

  • ||

    I don't, actually. I don't actually care for watching sports at all. But I do find the grotesque displays of chauvinism and jingoism as well as the displays of religiosity and piety quite sickening.

    But, since, as you say, I can avoid them by not watching them, I don't actually care what they NFL does or does not do. But I still reserve the right to have opinion on it, and I have stated it.

  • ||

    The 2:56PM comment was a reply for John, in case it was not perfectly obvious.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    New York man, 30, is ordered to vacate parents' home after refusing to leave for months
    State Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood praised the son for doing his legal research and citing a "common law requirement" that required family members to give a six-month notice before eviction.

    However, Greenwood called it a simple internet search and said the six-month demand was "outrageous." Michael, in turn, called the eviction order "outrageous." He continued to slam the judge's order outside the courtroom, the report stated.

    The eviction drama began on Feb. 2 when the parents left their first note, saying Michael had two weeks to vacate his room at the family's Camillus home, CNYCentral reported.

    "Michael, After a decision with your Mother, we have decided you must leave this house immediately. You have 14 days to vacate. You will not be allowed to return. We will take whatever actions are necessary to enforce this decision," the note read.

  • Citizen X||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Health insurance premiums under Obamacare to keep rising.

    As does its popularity. Who knew?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...the Commerce Department has begun an investigation into imported vehicles that could lead to new tariffs on foreign cars.

    Take that, rice burners. Learn how to do planned obsolescence or GET OUT.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Trump Vows to Cut Foreign Aid Over Illegal Immigration
    President Donald Trump announced a plan Wednesday to withhold American foreign aid from countries that do not sufficiently cooperate with the United States on immigration matters.

    Speaking at a roundtable on New York's Long Island to discuss the violent MS-13 gang, Trump said he is putting millions of dollars' worth of foreign aid in the crosshairs.

    "Despite all of the reports I hear, I don't believe they're helping us one bit," Trump said. He said his plan is in the works and calls for deducting "a rather large amount of money" given to countries in Central America.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Any bets on which federal judge will rule this illegal?

    The Constitution gives the President and in some part Congress great latitude in conducting foreign affairs. It will some riot to see how legally contorted some judge makes this policy.

  • Rhywun||

    Gosh, it's almost like it's to their advantage to kick back and receive "aid" while doing nothing to solve their own problems at home.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    He's half right. Cut all foreign aid... period.

  • John||

    Other than the odd case where we send arms to people enabling them to defend themselves so we don't have to do it for them, what has foreign aid ever gotten the country? Nothing as far as I can see. But it does give a lot of people nice livings in what I call the "international do gooder industrial complex". And those people are important and that is why we do it.

  • sarcasmic||

    Foreign aid: taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Foreign aid: taking money from the children of poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.

    FTFY

    Honestly, until the budget is balanced, cutting foreign aid shouldn't even be debated.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The whole "foreign aid" idea is an outdated relic of the Cold War presumption that if you didn't give money to various third-world post-colonial shitholes, the Soviets would swoop in and do it themselves. They've always been bribes to ensure that we maintain "positive relations" with these countries so that they'd follow our lead on our international policies rather than the Soviets.

    Like the UN in general, foreign aid is an idea that's outlived its usefulness and should be abandoned.

  • ||

    The best "foreign aid" is foreign investment.

    The headline of the linked article, "Foreign aid is good, but foreign investment is better", is not actually demonstrated by the writer. He should, perhaps, actually headlined it "Foreign aid is bad, but foreign investment is good."

    The fact is that there is a plethora of work that demonstrates that it is not just government transfers that are harmful but that giving by NGOs, foundations and private charities also do great harm to local sustainable* market economies.

    *It is a shame that Greens and enviros have been able to coopt the word "sustainable".

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Setting up a high-stakes nuclear summit turns out to be more difficult than you might think.

    If it was easy, a president's Nobel Prize wouldn't be worth much, would it?

  • Citizen X||

    warning that the United States might end up facing off with North Korea in a "nuclear-to-nuclear showdown,"

    -1 North Korea and .5 Guam

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    I would imagine Trump has some Bugs Bunny-esque rouse up his sleeve. Could you imagine Kim's face when he realizes his nukes are weighed down by anvils on the launch pad? UH-OH!

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I'd totally watch that cartoon if it also included a bit with Kim padding a rowboat in a circle at x2 speed.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    RUH-ROH?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Guam is a tiny target in the Pacific to hit when a country like North Korea does not have very accurate missiles. With nukes you still have to be accurate within miles to cause explosive damage.

  • JWatts||

    Sure, but North Korea could just air burst a dirty nuke up wind of Guam. The US would be forced to deal with the massive fallout. Granted, if it was Obama , Korea might get away with not getting a nuclear retaliation. With Trump, the US would probably have a nuclear retaliation strike on the way before the fallout reached Guam. But does Kim understand that?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I think Kim is well aware that Trump wouldn't have any problem with launching an ICBM or ten in his direction within 15 minutes of him attacking US assets in the Pacific.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "Health insurance premiums under Obamacare to keep rising. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that typical health insurance premiums under Obamacare will rise by about 15 percent next year—and 10 percent each year after that through 2023"

    Just raise the minimum wage to $20. Do I have to think of everything?

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    You're going to have to tax the rich too. It is known.

  • End Child Unemployment||

    They're just asking the rich to contribute a little more. You know, asking and then they jail you if you don't comply.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|9.7.17 @ 4:43PM|#
    "I don't consider taxing and redistribution to be either forced or charity."

    Some gems are worth saving...

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I guess Tony has never heard of Wesley Snipes.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Clapper has now admitted that there was Spying in my campaign. Large dollars were paid to the Spy, far beyond normal. Starting to look like one of the biggest political scandals in U.S. history. SPYGATE - a terrible thing!
    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 24, 2018

    Kudos to the president. I can't summon the energy when typing on my phone to capitalize when it doesn't automatically do it for me, but President Trump takes the care to change case all on his own.

  • Libertymike||

    Well, maybe not 100% kudos.

    Why not? You, of all people, should be insisting that the President call the scandal SPYGATE II.

    He should not hesitate to call it SPYGATE II notwithstanding his friendship with Robert.

  • John||

    How about those Capitals? It must be a sad day for Pens fans.

  • Libertymike||

    You really want to rub it in to him?

    Last night, I thought of FoE as Tampa was being shut out.

    Well, he's a big boy. I'm sure he'll have plenty of company with him rooting for Las Vegas. If the Caps win, and Ovechkin plays well at all, that would be fine with me because I like to see great players who finally break through and win a championship after years and years of coming up short - like Elway and Paul Pierce.

  • John||

    Pens fans and Crosby fanboys have been rubbing it in for years. They deserve some payback.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We'll see, maybe not. Fleury has shut Ovechkin down before. And now when the Caps get desperate and Wilson delivers a dirty headshot, he better hope that Reaves isn't on the ice at the time.

  • John||

    I have been assured that the Caps will lose every round this year.

  • Citizen X||

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that typical health insurance premiums under Obamacare will rise by about 15 percent next year—and 10 percent each year after that through 2023.

    If only somebody had pointed out that this would be the inevitable result!

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Forcing insurance companies to take on clients requiring extensive medical care, in a system where no price transparency exists, will result in exponentially higher health insurance costs? Who could have seen that coming?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We need more experts so we don't make these mistakes again.

  • BYODB||

    The best part? They blame removing the mandate for fewer people being insured. Oh, so you mean people that didn't want this shit stopped buying it when you weren't threatening to break their legs? What a shocker.

    What's bizarre is they report this as if these people are being injured somehow by no longer forcing them to do something they clearly do not want to do. Straight up Orwellian.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""They blame removing the mandate for fewer people being insured."'

    The mandate no one wanted to enforce. It would have made the ACA very unpopular if the gov started keeping your tax return.

  • loveconstitution1789||

  • BYODB||

    Well, in all fairness Ken Starr was apparently shitty at his job. I can't say Mueller is any better, he just has more fan boys.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Mueller has the benefit of more haters in regards to the target.

    A lot of people liked Bill Clinton. A lot of people hate Trump.

    It's principals, not principles.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    "Large dollars were paid to the Spy, far beyond normal."

    These dollars are obviously counterfeit, sir. They're 5x biglier than normal.

  • Citizen X||

    I'm picturing one of those giant novelty cardboard checks.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    After a protracted search effort, we finally found the spy.

  • Aloysious||

    Suderman does Roundup?

    I'm gonna start drinking right now. Irish coffee.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It was Suderman not Moynihan.

  • Tony||

    The president said people who don't make sufficiently patriotic gestures should get out of the country. Underlying this obviously insincere flag stroking is his support for... police brutality. Libertarians: "Meh."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Tony, tell me about how you defend spying on GOP presidential candidates.

  • Tony||

    Maybe we should try it considering what destructive parasitic traitors they are. Alas, you're regurgitating in a FOX News lie.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    "Maybe we should try it" is Tony about to pivot from it never happened to it is justified.

  • Tony||

    It's so incredibly sad watching someone buy a hunk of FOX News-Trump bullshit so thoroughly when it's so incredibly easy to learn why it's bullshit.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I still cant believe you are one of the few people on here to watch FOX news.

  • Tony||

    Look if you think FOX News reports the truth, I don't understand why you'd feel ashamed admitting you watch it.

    That's what I don't get.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I don't watch FOX which makes you even funnier.

    I think all major media skews the truth, including FOX.

    Its super funny that you think Libertarians need to get their talking points from FOX, CNN, NYT, or any other lying media group.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Enjoy the blowback when an obviously guilty Obama skates because laws don't apply to the left. Have fun collecting the taxes your socialism requires.

  • BYODB||

    Tony, you are aware that Fox News isn't the one that broke this story right?

  • Tony||

    What story? That the FBI was investigating Russian interference with the Trump campaign?

    The only reason you think it's a story about the DEEP STATE undermining our dear innocent sweet Trump is because he's FUCKING GUILTY AS FUCK.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""What story? That the FBI was investigating Russian interference with the Trump campaign?""

    LOL,

    Isn't interference the opposite of collusion?

  • MarkLastname||

    Whatever you say, pal, whatever you say.

  • ||

    They did it.

    Why, the Caps actually did it!

    They were the better team.

    I wonder if Ken is still naked and drunk.

    Hey Ken, Wilson didn't beat Coburn down. He got the better end of it I'll grant that. But it wasn't a beating.

  • John||

    Fun fact; historically NHL teams that go up 2-0 in a best of seven series win that series 73% of the time. Going into last night, the Capitals were a lifetime 3-5 in best of seven series in which they lead 2-0. It is just astounding the amount of misery they have inflicted on their fans over the years.

    I defer to your knowledge on this stuff, but I find it hard to believe that they won't kill Vegas. Beating Columbus, Pittsburgh and Tampa is a hell of a nice run. Pittsburgh and Tamp both are significantly better than Vegas and Columbus might be as well.

  • ||

    'Knowledge' is a strong word. It's really a hard one to gauge but Vegas is damn fricken good. They have wicked speed and are ruthlessly opportunistic. And their puck pursuit is relentless. They don't give space. I get exhausted watching them. The Caps will have to basically be perfect on not turning the puck over particularly in the neutral ice where the Knights have enough speed and skill to punish you. Washington will have to play to death on every shift.

    Think about it. The Jets - a team loaded with offensive fire power and speed and likely a future Cup winner - were taken out in 5. The second they would get any kind of momentum - BANG! Vegas responded with a deflating goal.

    Trotz is a great coach as is Gallant. Ovie is playing a like a beast and the Caps are on a mission. Should be interesting for sure.

  • John||

    It would be full on Capitals move to make it this far only to lose to an expansion team run by their old GM. Oh God. I just think this is the Capitals year. They took out the Pens in six. And the Pens may be claiming this was a weak team now, but the general consensus before the series was that they were an unstoppable machine.

    Vegas is quick but so was Tampa. The Capitals are so physical that they should be able to check Vegas' speed. Capitals are just going to have to beat the hell out of them and dominate them physically to win.

  • ||

    The Pens were beatable and anyone who watched this year knew this. So not sure who these experts are. But they were the champs and Washington's bogey man. They overcame it. The path was through Pittsburgh.

    Tampa was the team to beat and they did it. Kucherov and Stamkos flopped and Ovie rose to the occasion.

    Now Holtby has to match Fleury who is red piping hot.

  • John||

    Holtby shutting out the Ning in games six and seven was pretty impressive. For once, the Capitals seem to have the hot goalie.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Talking about sports lowers your IQ and those within hearing range.

  • Libertymike||

    Actually, you are wrong. Do you think you could hang intellectually with Matt Patricia?

  • Libertymike||

    Or Frank Ryan?

    Or Marv Levy?

    Or the late John Wooden?

    Or the late Paul Brown?

    Or Bill Walton?

  • sarcasmic||

    All people who would have been so much more intelligent had they not talked about sports.

  • Don't look at me.||

    I see you aren't on the list.

  • Libertymike||

    That's cuz my kinfolk raised me to be humble.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Hey Ken, Wilson didn't beat Coburn down. He got the better end of it I'll grant that. But it wasn't a beating."

    Wilson hit Coburn in the side of the head so hard, it knocked Coburn's helmet off.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyn8pSjYu-0

    How many blows to the head did Wilson land in that fight?

    And that fight may have been as important to the Caps' win last night than any one play..

    No, we will not take your disrespect of our team lying down! Doing that with Kutz's sweater may have been the worst decision of the night!

    It's amazing that we're in it for the big one. Oh God, we need that monkey off our back.

    I feel really good about our chances--and opening for two games on the road is probably a good thing for us. Not looking forward to Fleury, but we just got past a goalie that got hot.

    The whole team went into beast mode and stayed there afterwards.

  • John||

    The FBI got a former national security adviser to plead guilty to lying to it and now won't turn over the records which would show whether and how Flynn lied to them. That is outrageous. I don't care what Flynn said in court. Everyone knows that people will plead to things they didn't do as a way to end long and financially ruinous criminal litigation. The public has a right to know exactly what happened. And the fact that the FBI refuses to show them, is pretty irrefutable evidence that Flynn isn't guilty of anything. I don't see any way to believe that if the interviews and wiretaps showed that Flynn lied, they would still refuse to release them. That makes no sense.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The FBI got a former national security adviser to plead guilty to lying"'

    Now he's on par with Martha Stewart.

    A new cooking show coming to TV?

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Nate Boulton, a Democratic candidate for governor in Iowa, has been accused by three women of sexual misconduct.

    Damn it, another Democrat?! When I embraced #MeToo and #TimesUp I expected 95+ percent of male politicians the movement took down to be Republicans. Because, obviously, Republicans are misogynists and Democrats are feminists. I'm still trying to get over Schneiderman from a couple weeks ago, and now another Democratic man fails to live up to his party's ideals. It's shocking.

  • Tony||

    Maybe they should make sexual predation their "brand" like the president.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I'm still disgusted that, according to exit polls, a majority of white women voted for Mr. "Grab Them by the P***y"!

  • Don't look at me.||

    It's as if they can't decide anything correctly.

  • FreeRadical||

    A-

  • Mickey Rat||

    HIstory says they have, the Kennedys, Bill Clinton, Spitzer, etc.

    There Is a rather large list.

  • Tony||

    Do you actually hear a sizzling sound inside your head at all times, or is is the process of a brain being fried by partisan horseshit silent?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    However loud the sizzling sound in Mickey's head is, it's probably not as loud as the wind howling through yours.

  • MarkLastname||

    I don't think any commenter has ever so unironically displayed such an abject lack of self awareness in a single comment as you have here. I am truly in awe of you.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The Rev has. He's really Tony without personality.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Maybe they should make sexual predation their "brand" like the president."'

    Bill Clinton already has a trademark on the sexual predation brand.

  • Tony||

    If he had an (R) after your name you'd say Monica was the predator.

    But you're a mindless partisan zombie.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Frustrating when the narrative succumbs to the truth. How will you ever get the serfs to behave at this rate?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""But you're a mindless partisan zombie."'

    Except I'm not. It shows that you are willing to make shit up about people and then try to appeal to personal attack based on the bullshit you made up.

  • Tony||

    Next time don't bring up Bill Clinton randomly then. He hasn't been president in like a century.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    So you think me bringing up the Bill Clinton precedence of sex abuse for a president is partisan politics?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    And yet you think me bringing it up is ok for you to appeal to personal attack.

    That is not conduct of a thoughtful and critical thinker. Which no one has accused you of btw.

  • MarkLastname||

    You, on the other hand... well, donthe exact same thing. But you're faithful to the right party, dammit, so it's ok!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I guess when someone is very invested in partisan politics, they think everyone else is too.

  • Nardz||

    ^bingo

  • Tom Bombadil||

    OBL, this is a poor effert.

    A good liberal parody would find a way to make Boulton a victim and find an oppressor who is white/straight/Republican/toxic/etc.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    'effert''? sheesh.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

  • ||

    They're despicable the SPLC. Awful degenerates.

    And this is who Spotify teamed up with no less. Idiots.

  • Tony||

    Someone owes me money. Whom did I bet the NK summit thing wouldn't happen? Honor system!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    It hasnt been cancelled...yet.

    Don't you have an outstanding bet after Hillary lost?

  • Don't look at me.||

    It didn't not happen yet.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    The summit was scheduled for May 23?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Planned for June 12, 2018 in Singapore.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Yes, I know. Don't step on the joke, again, and again.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    What joke?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Trump pulled out. Terrible birth control method.

  • Brian||

    I remember a retarded progressive that bet me $300k that Trump wouldn't be inaugurated...

    after Trump has already won the election.

    He was sure voting irregularities in Wisconsin or some shot would flip the election results to Hillary.

    I'm sure he got that from Faux News.

    Anyway, of course he didn't pay: part of the fun of being progressive is never taking responsibility: asymmetric idiocy isn't fair.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""part of the fun of being progressive is never taking responsibility""

    If that wasn't true, many liberals would have left the country like they said they would.

  • MarkLastname||

    Are you upset that he pulled out?

  • LynchPin1477||

    TRUMP pulls out of the meeting with NK

    Goddamit. Real progress with N. Korea may have been the best thing Trump could have done. I hope it still remains a possibility, but...goddamit.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Any relationship you aren't willing to walk away from is a relationship you will lose in.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    His letter should include the lyrics: If you love somebody, set them free.

  • gormadoc||

    So this is what winning looks like?

  • Jordan||

    Ten dimensional chess, son. Everything is winning.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Worked well in 93 and again in 2015.

  • Jerryskids||

    Trump *says* he's pulling out of the meeting. I'm not going to be at all surprised when the news leaks this afternoon that the Norks sent Trump a message last night that the meeting was off.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    More evidence Wikileaks is evil, right-wing, and possibly controlled by Russian intelligence:

    Harvard has announced that Hillary Clinton will receive a medal for "transformative impact on society". But there is only one society she truly transformed. Libya--from the most developed society in Africa, into a smoking, ISIS-infested ruin

    Such a disgraceful smear of the most qualified presidential candidate ever. DON'T TRUST WIKILEAKS

    #StillWithHer

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Losing to Trump was a truly transformative event. She deserves this medal. Congrats Hillary on a job poorly done.

  • Sevo||

    Well, she did manage to get Trump elected, so she's due something...

  • Juice||

    The most developed society in Africa? Um, yeah, no.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Not to be outdone by his boss, Mike Pence tweeted:

    http://twitter.com/VP/status/999411045730013184

    "Today's decision by the @NFL is a win for the fans, a win for @POTUS, and a win for America."

    That's right, people - forcing employees to engage in fake public displays of patriotism under penalty of sanction is what makes America great! USA! USA! USA!

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    They aren't being forced to, you stupid fuck.

  • John||

    Yes, employers expecting their employees to do what is asked of them in return for a paycheck is what America is all about. Your anger over this is quite entertaining. You don't seem to be handling being on the other end of the culture war for once very well.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You know who are the real losers in all of this?

    ACTUAL PATRIOTS.

    Because you all have reduced their sincere commitment and their real sacrifices for this country to nothing more than just standing up when a certain song is played. Real patriotism is adherence to the principles and ideas of this country, not just veneration of a stupid piece of cloth. So yeah, "congratulations" on devaluing and debasing a concept that your tribe claims to love so much. Hope you enjoy your "victory".

  • John||

    Yeah, you care so much about patriotism and the flag and all that. yeah, that is the ticket. Look doofus, having respect for symbols and ritual does not diminish someone's respect for something. If it did, wearing black to a funeral or observing a moment of silence or flying the flag at half-staff after a tragedy would reduce the tragedy to a symbol.

    You really have no idea how transparent you are, do you? By your logic, if teams decided to have a moment of silence to honor MLK and a bunch of white players refused to honor it, the people who would be rightfully offended by that would be in the wrong because they are reducing respect for MLK to a meaningless gesture.

    Your opinion of this is entirely the result of your opinion of the politics on either side. Principles and respect have nothing to do with it. Your politics lost for once and you just can't handle it. Grow up and work on understanding that other people don't always agree with you and you don't always get your way.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure which would be better, you actually being a simple-minded retard who thinks patriotism means mindlessly gesturing at the flag, or you being a cynical cunt using idiotic wedge issues to try to push the interests of your team, which obviously has no interest whatsoever in the well-being of America. I suppose I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you're just a psychopath.

  • John||

    Shorter Tony, My side lost and I am angry about it!!!!!!

  • Tony||

    When your side loses in November you'll take it with zen-like equanimity, I'm sure.

  • John||

    Sure Tony. And when it doesn't?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    When Democrats lose so many seats that the Republicans get a super majority... what then Tony?

  • Norman Bates' Butler||

    At least you've finally come around enough to admit the year long post election tantrum you've been having is because you lost, Tony.

    That's actual progress.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    John, everyone knows the NFL can run their league as the wish.

    The idiocy is Trump sticking his nose in it. Libertarians know the best government is the smallest government that concerns itself with its core functions and stays out of private lives, and private enterprise.

  • Sevo||

    "The idiocy is Trump sticking his nose in it. Libertarians know the best government is the smallest government that concerns itself with its core functions and stays out of private lives, and private enterprise."

    Man, I'm on the side of 'no anthem at all', but Trump did nothing other than voice an opinion; he took no governmental action at all.

  • Tony||

    He said people who don't sufficiently display patriotism in a way he approves of should leave the country. It doesn't have to be a fucking law before it's wrong and anti-libertarian. And you don't have to defend that stupid fat clown just because of the (R) after his name, you know.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.24.18 @ 10:42AM|#
    "It doesn't have to be a fucking law before it's wrong and anti-libertarian."

    Thereby proving you don't know shit.

  • MarkLastname||

    And yet it's not unlibertarian for the state itself to force someone to bake a cake or cater a wedding?

    Some people have the moral right to object to this NFL policy. You, Tony, are not one of them.

  • John||

    No, Trump is jumping on the bandwagon. The response to these protests and the anger over them started well before Trump said anything about them. If you want to criticize Trump for cynically taking advantage of something that was already happening, go ahead. But, don't pretend that this is the result of Trump. It isn't. This is the result of a good number of NFL fans walking away because they didn't like the protests. It is the market in action and exactly the thing that Libertarians constantly say should happen only for once it worked for something they don't like. Well too bad.

  • sarcasmic||

    But, don't pretend that this is the result of Trump. It isn't.

    Nobody said it was. Jesus.

    In my opinion they shouldn't have rituals of government worship before each game. I don't see the point in that. Take away the ritual and the problem would be solved. It's like the whole marriage thing. Get government out of marriage and the debate goes away. Get government worship out of football and the debate goes away.

  • John||

    Nobody said it was. Jesus.

    Tom seems to be saying that. Otherwise, why bring up Trump? If he didn't cause it, what does he have to do with it?

  • sarcasmic||

    Tom seems to be saying that. Otherwise, why bring up Trump? If he didn't cause it, what does he have to do with it?

    Now you're being obtuse.

  • Tony||

    These are not libertarians or government skeptics. They are Team R footsoldiers. They don't give the slightest shit about the flag or America. They care about sticking a finger in the eye of libruls, especially the ones with brown skin.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.24.18 @ 10:55AM|#
    "These are not libertarians or government skeptics."

    Our resident authority on lib'ism and small gov't tells us this.
    BTW, you steaming pile of shit, the gov't had nothing to do with this.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Your opinion of this is entirely the result of your opinion of the politics on either side.

    No, that is you projecting. Because that is CLEARLY how *you* see things.

    having respect for symbols and ritual does not diminish someone's respect for something.

    It does when the NFL resorts to FORCING "respect" for symbols, ESPECIALLY when those symbols are supposed to stand for concepts like freedom of conscience. Your tribe has completely thrown away what those symbols are supposed to stand for and have decided to worship the symbols themselves instead as a sign of True Patriotism(tm). You are the one who is trashing America in your zeal to "win" a culture war fight.

    By your logic, if teams decided to have a moment of silence to honor MLK and a bunch of white players refused to honor it, the people who would be rightfully offended by that would be in the wrong because they are reducing respect for MLK to a meaningless gesture.

    No, a better analogy would be if teams wanted to "honor" the legacy of MLK by forcing black players and white players to segregate and treat each other unequally. Objecting to this plan is not disrespecting MLK, it is criticizing the absurd idea of coercing a commitment to color-blindness by acting in racially segregated ways.

  • Sevo||

    "It does when the NFL resorts to FORCING "respect" for symbols, ESPECIALLY when those symbols are supposed to stand for concepts like freedom of conscience."

    Your Hihn impersonation needs more bolding, but the stupidity is there:
    Please explain how the NFL is FORCING anyone to do anything.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Under threat of sanction.

  • Sevo||

    chemjeff radical individualist|5.24.18 @ 10:46AM|#
    "Under threat of sanction."

    If that was an answer to me, it was as stupid as your comment.

  • John||

    No, that is you projecting. Because that is CLEARLY how *you* see things.

    Yes, because if the protests were against something you liked you would totally have the same opinion. Who are you trying to kid here?

    It does when the NFL resorts to FORCING "respect" for symbols,

    So when the NFL has a moment of silence for the victims of some shootings or 9-11 or anything else, how is that any different? And the NFL isn't forcing anyone to do anything. They are insisting that their employees not do things that antagonize their customers. They are no more "forcing" their employees to stand for the anthem than Macy's is forcing their employees to dress well and show up on time to work. You don't have a problem with Macy's doing it because it doesn't involve politics you like. But the principle is the same here. You just are pissed off that people don't want to hear politics you like and the NFL is catering to those people.

    No, a better analogy would be if teams wanted to "honor" the legacy of MLK by forcing black players and white players to segregate and treat each other unequally.

    So telling players that they can either go to the lockerroom during the anthem but if they stay they have to stand is the same as demanding they discriminate against each other? That is idiotic even for you. The more you scream and cry about this, the more obvious you make it that you are just mad your side lost.

  • sarcasmic||

    The more you scream and cry about this, the more obvious you make it that you are just mad your side lost.

    It's not a matter of sides and winning. It's like forcing people to go to church. Only instead of worshiping God they must worship Government. It's creepy.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You must have been a defense lawyer, John, because all you are doing now is trying to attack the credibility of the speaker rather than attempting to refute the claims made therein.

    I've never said anything critical about anyone exercising their legitimate rights to protest, REGARDLESS of the subject matter. When the Parkland kids staged their walkout on behalf of gun control, while you were demanding they be punished for truancy, I never said a critical word about the protest itself, EVEN THOUGH I object to the substance of their protest. Same deal for the kids who staged the school walkout in favor of the Second Amendment. I applaud their standing up and exercising their rights to speak out. Can you say the same? No. So screw off with your baseless assertions that this is only about the subject matter of the protest itself.

    I object fundamentally to the creepy and (dare I say it) un-American decision to coerce fake respect for national symbols. You have no problem with it, as long as "your side wins", despite the long-term damage this type of tactic does for the cause of real patriotism.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yay, more pearl clutching. Facebook and google are actively censoring opinions they don't like. Are you up in arms about it? That's ok because they're private companies, right? Well guess what the NFL is...

  • Norman Bates' Butler||

    Shush, he's emoting.

  • John||

    I've never said anything critical about anyone exercising their legitimate rights to protest, REGARDLESS of the subject matter. When the Parkland kids staged their walkout on behalf of gun control, while you were demanding they be punished for truancy,

    I never said you did. And yes, I said the school should apply the rules to them. Just like the NFL has a right to apply rules to its employees. How in the world do you think that I said you attacked protestors? Are you dense?

    The bottom line here is that you seem to think employers and schools ower people a platform to protest. And they do not. And their customers certainly do not owe businesses tolerating political views that they don't like. The players had a right to protest and the fans had a right to say "screw this" and the NFL has a right to tell the players to knock it off. It is really that simple. What you are angry about seems to be the idea that fans don't want to hear about protests and in fact protested themselves by not watching the game. Well that is their right. You can't seem to grasp that people don't have to listen to you if they don't want to and that businesses don't have to alienate their customers just so you can shoot your mouth off.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    An employer can respect your right to protest. But that doesn't mean you get to do it while on the clock. I don't think that's a hard concept to grasp.

    You can get disciplined for doing non work related things when on the clock.

    I think getting disciplined for things you do off the clock is BS. If a NFL player is protesting on their own time and the NFL goes after them, I'd call BS on that. Same when students get suspended for something they do not at school.

  • sarcasmic||

    Fining employees who don't display fake patriotism is what America is all about! Fuck yeah! Worship that fucking flag you fuckers!

  • John||

    If that is what the customer wants, yes. Why is it the NFL's job to lose money so you can do something?

  • sarcasmic||

    My understanding was that this started as a BLM thing. That they were protesting police brutality. That they saw these rituals as showing support for the government, and they were pissed about their government's enforcers killing people. So from their perspective, maybe forcing them to join in the ritual is like forcing them to support police brutality.

    Why do you support the cops killing innocent people?

  • John||

    I don't. And that makes me loathe these players even more. They took a legitimate issue and turned it into a stupid emotional argument over the flag and allowed the people defending the cops to say anyone who criticizes cops hates the whole country. You couldn't have come up with a more stupid and counterproductive thing to do if you tried. If the cop unions were not paying and encouraging these guys to do this, they should have been.

    Beyond that, what you or I think of it is irrelevant. The NFL was losing money over it and have every right to tell them to knock it off. The NFL is not obligated to lose money so their employees can antagonize the customers. Think of it this way, if the WNBA had "pride night" and some player refused to go along because they objected to homosexuals, wouldn't the WNBA have every right and duty to tell them to knock it off? Absolutely they would. If you don't like marketing yourself to lesbians, don't own an WNBA team or play for one. Same with the NFL. If you don't like cowtowing to people who expect you to stand for the anthem, don't go to work for the NFL.

  • sarcasmic||

    I get what you're saying. And being that I don't give a shit about sports I really don't give a shit.

    However I do see both points of view. And forcing people to engage in a ritual that they feel is showing support for cops who are murdering their friends seems, well, like something an asshole would do.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It's not just 'being an asshole". It is downright creepy and Orwellian. Effusive obeisance to the state appears to be the order of the day here.

  • lap83||

    NFL is the state now? That makes sense

    I don't care about football but to me this is just an employer- employee thing. NFL has decided that the anthem is part of the job description of the players. People are focusing on the politics aspect of it but that isn't behind the NFLs decision. They care about the bottom line and that is their right

  • Tony||

    And isn't it all the more creepy when it's private citizens being forced into it? Nobody really cares if members of the military engage in patriotic rituals.

  • Sevo||

    "And forcing people to engage in a ritual that they feel is showing support for cops who are murdering their friends seems, well, like something an asshole would do."

    And claiming "force" where none exists seems like something an idiot would do.

  • Tony||

    Asshole, this wouldn't be a thing if the president of the United States didn't stick his fat orange face into it. He is the head of government. That is government involvement. It's literally government coercion.

    You don't have to defend him all the time you know.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.24.18 @ 11:16AM|#
    "Asshole, this wouldn't be a thing if the president of the United States didn't stick his fat orange face into it. He is the head of government. That is government involvement. It's literally government coercion."

    You normally post lies and stupidity; that's expected.
    You just outdid yourself, shitbag.

  • Tony||

    U mad because now this ridiculous wedge issue is off the table now?

    Your team is gonna have to find some other racially divisive bit of pointless bullshit in time for the election, huh?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Is that you Maxine?

  • Norman Bates' Butler||

    Tony actually legit melted down there. I would like to buy you a beer Sevo, that was worth it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But is it a "victory for America" for companies to coerce faux-patriotism in their employees? ESPECIALLY when those same companies are directly subsidized by the military for their effusive public displays of showy patriotism?

  • Sevo||

    "...to coerce..."

    Before you keep making an ass of yourself, you should learn what words mean.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    You mean the way those companies coerce diversity? Or invented pronouns? Or gun bans?

  • Norman Bates' Butler||

    Shush, he's still emoting.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    None of the players have to "display fake patriotism" as you call it if they don't want to.

    Are you guys missing this point on purpose, or do you really not understand this?

  • sarcasmic||

    None of the players have to "display fake patriotism" as you call it if they don't want to.

    No they don't. But if they don't they'll get hit in the wallet.

    Worship government or we'll fine you!

    So American.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    No they don't. But if they don't they'll get hit in the wallet.

    Either you don't know the details of the new compromise policy, or you are ignoring them on purpose.

    It's true that they cannot sit or take a knee during the anthem, and can be fined if they do that.
    However, every single player in the league WILL have the option of staying off the field entirely until the conclusion of the ceremonies, and they cannot and will not be fined or punished for doing so.

  • lap83||

    That compromise seems more than fair. I can't figure out what is so controversial about it

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's absolutely 100% fair and reasonable, and not controversial at all to anyone who is sane.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Protest is worthless if nobody sees you doing it. I don't give a shit one way or the other, but there it is.

  • Sevo||

    "Protest is worthless if nobody sees you doing it. I don't give a shit one way or the other, but there it is."

    And no one is stopping anyone from protesting.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    And no one is stopping anyone from protesting.

    Oh, I know. I was just responding to lap about why this is controversial. It's like the bathroom case, it's mostly controversial because neither side is interested in anything that even approaches compromise. One side or the other has to submit completely.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Protest is worthless if nobody sees you doing it.

    And the players have every right to take part in visible public protests... on their own time, not on their employers' time.

    Nobody on earth, with the exception of George Soros and a couple of others like him, are paying their employees to protest on the job.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I think it's how it used to be until very recently. Does anyone remember when the Anthem started to have players on the field at all? 2008?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What will be your opinion if people raise a stink over those who do?

  • General_Tso||

    These people protesting are celebrities. They are 'in demand'.

    If they approached espn or fox sports (or any networks for that matter) about an interview or a forum discussing the issues important to them, do you think for one second that the networks wouldn't jump at that?

    They have that option approximately 165 hours a week. They are visibly on duty for the company that employs them for 3 hours a week. I don't see why, if the issues are that important to them, that they can't protest on their own time.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Personally, I say that the NFL's decision was the absolute best and fairest possible compromise they could make in terms of balancing out the freedom of their players with protecting their brand.

    Of course, it's to be expected that the compromise doesn't make a hard core left wing shithead like Suderman happy. He either pretends that he doesn't understand, or he is actually too fucking stupid to understand, that no employees anywhere in the world have total and unfettered rights to say or do what they want when they're at work and on the job. ESPECIALLY if what they are doing or saying is having a clear adverse effect on the employer and his business.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Hell, even ESPN took Jemele Hill to the woodshed when she said the wrong thing about the Cowboys, because that is the sort of thing that impacts cash flow.

  • John||

    Someone needs to write a book chronicling ESPN's self-destruction. I would love to know just how removed from reality the executives who thought going full left-wing political was a good idea were.

  • ||

    Personally, the schadenfreudiest part is that for a couple years now, they've been cross-featuring athletes and highlights on The Disney Channel followed by some shitty commercial or short (NSFW or anywhere else) which causes my kids to see pro-athletes and then convinces them their time would be better spent outside.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Great point. Media companies more than anyone are in the "free speech" business, and yet even their employees can and do get fired for crossing the line. It wasn't that long ago that ESPN fired Curt Schilling because of something he said on Twitter that his left wing employers at Disney decided they simply couldn't tolerate.

    Of course, neither Welch, Gillespie, Suderman, or any of the friends in the JournoList said a word about that, because they don't give a fuck about Curt Schilling, and they're all a bunch of completely shamless and unprincipled liars.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    neontaster

    I think many of the people happy over the NFL's anthem thing are less fascist/racist and more hellbent on scoring a painful blow in the culture war. They want crossing them to be as personally costly as crossing the left has become. Just my take judging by some of the reactions.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yes, that is right, and they don't mind destroying the entire concept of patriotism in the process. It is stupid tribal groupthink. And Reason is supposed to applaud this?

  • Norman Bates' Butler||

    'and they don't mind destroying the entire concept of patriotism"

    Stupidly hyperventilate more, it's worked so far.

  • John||

    That is exactly what it is. And rather than see that, Welch and Ken White are all butthurt that the other side managed to win one. Yet, somehow both of them expect people to believe they are neutral in the culture war. The left uses boycotts and social media mobs to ruin businesses and careers whenever they can. The right stands one time and does nothing but stop watching the NFL and suddenly it is proof that the Right is just as PC as the left. In Welch's view, anything other than absolute surrender to the left on every culture war issue makes you just as bad as they are. Ah no. If the left doesn't like these kinds of things, they should have thought about that before they made these tactics standard practice.

  • Tom Bombadil||

    What does the Federal Government have to do with it? Trump, Pence, etc.

  • John||

    Nothing. Trump and Pence didn't start this. They just latched onto it, which is what politicians do. Why can't they give an opinion on it? You don't have to agree with it. They are not trying to use government power to make it happen. By your logic, what can Trump and Pence say? Are they no longer allowed to voice any opinion on anything except matters of the federal government? Really? If so, then every single President in history is guilty of the exact same thing.

  • Tony||

    Why can't people say their opinion is terrible and has the odor of fascism?

    The joke here is that you think anybody believes you give two shits about the fucking flag.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony, YOU don't give a fuck about the flag, the Constitution, or the USA.

    You probably don't even know that at sporting events people usually clap and holler praise after the anthem is sang.

    The majority of Americans like the pledge and national anthem.

  • Tony||

    Nobody is actually protesting those things, not that you'd understand.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The majority of Americans like the pledge and national anthem.""

    Yeah, but they seem confused if you sing more than one verse.

    National Anthem

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    The looks on peoples' faces in that video is pretty funny.

  • John||

    I can't say that because it doesn't. Fascism would be them telling people to murder Kapernick or terrorize him into submission. Saying "I think Kpernick is a dick and don't blame people for not wanting to watch him play football" is not fascism.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

  • Tom Bombadil||

    Too funny. What a maroon.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    He's backed himself into an interesting position. If he drops the charges because he doesn't want to go to court, it looks like he had nothing from the beginning. If he refuses to abide by the speedy trial law, then he's breaking the law and that's lawful grounds for his removal.

  • BYODB||


    A "district court can, on its own motion or at the request of a party, grant an excludable continuance if 'the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,'" Mueller wrote.


    Oh, so the rights of the defendant are less than the 'public interest' huh. That's an interesting take. I suppose the same could be said of little things like habeas corpus? I had no idea there was something in the constitution that gave exceptions to the requirement for a speedy trial.


    Of course, plenty of people are fucked over by the government pretending there are exceptions when none exist. Trump and his campaign are just a more visible example of this type of shit.

  • BYODB||


    "Speedy trial rights belong to the defendant, and if the defendant pushes for a trial within the 70 days, the government has little cause to complain," McCarthy said. "If the case was too complex, the government had the option of holding off on seeking an indictment until it was ready to proceed to trial. When a prosecutor files an indictment, it is tantamount to saying, 'We are ready to go.'"


    Jesus, a judge that isn't a complete retard. Who'da thunk it, huh? Mueller is a cunt, and this was a transparent move for the sake of the cameras and the continuing bullshit narrative without evidence.

  • John||

    The rule in a criminal case is that the government gets to choose when to file charges but once it does, the judge and the defendant own the timeline. Mueller is an idiot who had his bluff called. He is not going to be able to delay this trial over the defendant's objection.

  • BYODB||

    Absolutely agree, and I like that the judge literally told him that. It's obvious Mueller didn't think anyone would show, and that he would get his dog and pony show. It sounds like the judge might slap his ass down for his bullshit file dump to drag out discovery too, but we'll see.

    It's obvious that Mueller's trying to delay, delay, delay and the obvious question is 'why' and none of the answers look good for him.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I don't think Mueller is an idiot, he's a prosecutor and they have no morals about how they treat people in their sights. I do think he's been playing poker and now his bluff has been called. It will be interesting to see how it plays out, and I don't think he's going to play well for him. Mueller's behavior is an example of why I would like to see prosecutorial reform. Liberals and the left once talked about that kind of reform but now they support Mueller's conduct which means they now support the conduct they were once hoping to change.

  • sarcasmic||

    "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."

    -Mark Twain

    I imagine that he wouldn't be welcome at a football game.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No no no. Haven't you heard? Patriotism is veneration of a piece of cloth. I know this because the Real Patriots(tm) told me so!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Thankfully we have the pearl clutcher to tell us what true patriotism is.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Sarcasmic and Jeff: List the things YOU think are patriotic.

  • sarcasmic||

    Apple pie. Cooking meat over flame. Carrying a gun. Killing things and eating them. Speaking your mind without fear of government retribution. Being able to travel within the country freely. Free enterprise. Stuff like that.

    Ritual praising of the government? Not so much.

  • BYODB||

    Good ol' Sammy Clements, one of my personal heroes right up there with C.S. Lewis.

    That said, I'm not sure how the flag represents the government and not the country. That's an interesting takeaway that I wouldn't agree with, although it's probably splitting hairs.

  • sarcasmic||

    The government could change the flag tomorrow if they wanted. The country would remain.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Trump Just Backed Out of the Nuclear Summit With North Korea

    Awwwww Shit!

    That sucks.

    We had a lot more to gain from a summit than Kim had to lose.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Better to be the dumper than the dumpee.

    If there was anything there, Trump just gained power over it.

  • Jordan||

    Funny how all the Flag Fuckers who rushed to James Damore's defense hate Kaepernik with a passion for doing the exact same thing.

  • Tony||

    This is why I asked John to confirm that he'd never bitched about too much PC in a private-sector environment before. That's when he goes into "I'm just an inconsistent lunatic trolling you!" mode.

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Pretty much this. Tribalism at its best.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Funny how all the cosmos are suddenly convinced private sector interactions are government coercion.

  • JWatts||

    You're a moron.

    Kaepernik wasn't critizing the NFL's politically correct policies on an internal message board. He was protesting police brutality by kneeling during the Anthem. Neither the NFL nor the Anthem have jack to do with police brutality. Kaepernik was performing a public stunt in an NFL paid venue during a publicized event.

    These are not remotely similar events.

  • John||

    I don't hate Kappernick. I just don't think the NFL owes him a platform if it costs them money. Danmore's actions didn't cost Google any money at all. It was an internal memo. Firing Danmore did nothing for Google's bottom line. If Google's customers had been demanding he be fired, I could not have blamed them for doing it. But that is not what happened.

    And if you want to pretend that you have any principles or point here beyond being pissed off the other side one a culture war battle for once, you might try to avoid using terms like "flag fuckers". All that is going on here is that the wrong side won in your view. Well, tough shit. The market spoke and the NFL is under no obligation to lose money to make people like you happy. The only reason you can't see that is because you are an asshole who thinks they do.

  • Mickey Rat||

    At best, Kaepernick was performing an inchoate gesture publicly that annoyed the customers (he was more likely pouting over his looming demotion to backup status). Danmore put a well researched memo gor improving hiring practices in a designated internal comment box that his coworkers got the vapors over and made public without context

  • Libertymike||

    Years ago, I lost a good client because of one of my employees crossed the line with her proselytizing.

    The employee was a paralegal who was a former motorcycle chick turned full blown born again retard. She was about 5'3 and three bills and sported numerous tats. But, she was good with legal research and she was a better writer than the second year law student who worked in my office at the same time. My office manager had counseled against hiring the motorcycle born-again.

    The client was also a born-again Clinton lover. He and I really hit it off. He thought my libertarianism was kooky, but he appreciated my work.

    Well, one day, I had to send the three hundred pound evangelizer to the client's house in order to sign some docs. The client was there with his wife along with one of their daughters and a friend of the daughter. After the docs had been signed, my paralegal began with her evangelizing. She told the client that Jesus does not accept luke warm Christians and she accuse him of falling short of truly accepting Jesus and the literal word of God.

    The client called me the next day and chewed my ass off and told me that I had just lost his business.

    What a fucking moron I was.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are you implying that taking a knee during a ritual of government worship is equivalent to evangelizing?

  • Tom Bombadil||

    "No fat chicks" is not an ambiguous message.

  • Sevo||

    "Are you implying that taking a knee during a ritual of government worship is equivalent to evangelizing?"

    That 'wooshing' sound you just heard?

  • Libertymike||

    sarc, you know me better than that.

    The point is don't hire short, obese, tatted biker chicks turned Jesus freak.

  • sarcasmic||

    I get it. It's kinda like assault weapons. If a woman has two or more of these features, don't hire her...

  • Libertymike||

    Who knows for sure, but her evangelism probably cost me thousands and thousands of dollars.

    The client told me while he was chewing me out that it was my stupidity that was driving his decision, not the paralegal's proselytizing.

    Yes, employers do have a right to control what their employees say or do in connection with business.

    Do I like what the NFL is doing? Of course not.

    You may not remember this, but years ago, on a faraway thread, you disagreed with my defense of employees who kept guns in their car while at work where the company had a policy prohibiting employees of keeping guns in their cars while at work.

  • sarcasmic||

    you disagreed with my defense of employees who kept guns in their car while at work where the company had a policy prohibiting employees of keeping guns in their cars while at work.

    I don't remember that. It must have been a long time ago, because I can't see myself disagreeing with that now.

  • Libertymike||

    Circa 2012.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ah. I didn't become a gun nut until 2014. So that makes sense.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    I like how you made sure to note that the employee was a fat ugly chick with tats.

  • Libertymike||

    Sparky, I didn't say she was ugly....but, she was HUGE.

    Besides, do you have anything against descriptive prose?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    If the point of your piece is that fat ugly chicks with tats will ruin your business, then it would be appropriate. If the point is that you've gotta be careful who you employ, then it seems unnecessary to point out that you need to be extra careful with fat ugly chicks.

  • Libertymike||

    What is up with you this morning?

    Did the attendant at the Dunkin Donuts drive through screw up your order?

    Did you have the Cavs last night?

    Did you have the over on the Cavs / Celts?

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    What is up with you this morning?

    Nothing. Celebrated my anniversary last night and I'm looking forward to an extra long weekend starting tomorrow.

    Did the attendant at the Dunkin Donuts drive through screw up your order?

    I rarely ever go to DD and then it's just for donuts.

    Did you have the Cavs last night?

    Did you have the over on the Cavs / Celts?

    I can't think of a single reason why I'd care in the least what's going on in the basketball world.

  • Libertymike||

    Congrats on your anniversary!

    Hope you have a good weekend.

    And, for the record, while in my second year at law school, I got into an argument with several people regarding whether any law firm would hire a 500 pound woman who was then in her third year of law school.

    I posited that if she could argue and write well, I would hire her. Everybody else summarily rejected my position and they all claimed that I was just taking that position to be the contrarian as nobody would hire someone like this 500 pound woman no matter how qualified.

    Well, I put my money where my mouth had been about 10 years earlier. If the paralegal had been 5'11, slim with emerald eyes and legs for days, and had recently become a PETA fanatic, I would have provided those details in recounting the lesson I learned.

    BTW, now that I think of it, the paralegal did have a nice smile.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Mike, it added to the story no matter what Sparky says.

    Big dykie biker chicks are not known for being preachers. You took a chance and it backfired.

    It wasnt the biker part of her personality that was the problem. Its was the preaching part.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Big dykie biker chicks

    But at least you're not a racist, right?

  • John||

    You had every right to fire her or at least tell her to knock it off as you patched things up with the client. If it turned out that players having prayer circles after games pissed off a large portion of the NFL's fan base and the NFL told them to knock it off, people like Chemjeff and Jordan would be on here talking about how freedom doesn't mean you have a right to cost your employer money and all that. And they would be right. The fact that they suddenly have forgotten all that shows that they don't really mean it when they say such things in other circumstances. They just say it as a rationalization for getting what they want. It is just pathetic and sad they think anyone can't see that.

  • BYODB||

    This is a great anecdote that perfectly describes the issue at hand, well done once again Mike. I may not always agree with you, but god damn I appreciate someone that can reason.

  • Tony||

    I've never read a better description of John and his fellow assholes here:

    "The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That sounds like more of an assessment of you Tony.

    We are against the political bourgeoisie, and for genuine nationalism!
    We are against Marxism, but for true socialism!
    We are for the first German national state of a socialist nature!
    We are for the National Socialist German Workers' Party!

    Here some propaganda from the Nazis that describe how you socialists and Nazis are tight.

  • Tony||

    And dammit, I was really looking forward to you people's childlike anticipation of Trump winning the Nobel Peace Prize which just a few days ago was a useless piece of crap.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Trump should have never won a nobel peace prize for arranging peace with NK just like Obama should not have been awarded the nobel peace prize for bombing so many people.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    BREAKING: TRUMP pulls out of the meeting with NK: "It's inappropriate, at this time, to have this long planned meeting"

    Well, there goes the whole Nobel Peace Prize thing for Trump.

  • BYODB||

    Is anyone still pretending that the Nobel means something? I mean, Obama wasn't even the first person that committee honored that absolutely was the reverse of what the award is supposed to be about.

    There is no way the Nobel committee would ever award Trump with anything, he's not a globalist in the ways they like.

  • Ecoli||

    Sadly, you are correct.

    The noble Nobel committee has no other choice than to award a second peace prize to Nutella Jesus: Barak Hussein Obama.

  • Sevo||

    It's wonderful how the lefty assholes here were not at all interested in a Trump/Kim meeting, which had nothing to do with Trump's policies, no indeed, until it looks like it's not going to happen, and that's all Trump's fault, right, you fucking hypocrites?

  • Tony||

    Trump is above all lazy. He didn't put any actual diplomatic effort into this. That's why I put real money on this never happening the day it was announced. Sometimes the world works as expected.

    Now imagine all this had gone down but Obama was president. Say what you'd say then. Go on. Let me get you started: "Black Obummer is such a loser teehee *fart*..."

  • Libertymike||

    Orange Donald and Black Obummer are both such losers.

    Tony, you know that there are some of us here who are equal opportunity critics of statists.

  • Tony||

    Obama never said private citizens should salute the flag or get out of the country, so maybe you're a bit too equal opportunity.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    He just said that "they didn't build that" and claimed that anyone who disagreed with him was unamerican and "not who we are." Then again, maybe he was just using the royal we.

  • Tony||

    But they didn't fucking build that!

    Using the Fox & Friends deliberate misinterpretation of Obama's words but giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on the actual insane shit he says is not "equal opportunity." It's affirmative action for the retard.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|5.24.18 @ 11:45AM|#
    "But they didn't fucking build that!"

    Keep digging Tony, I'm not going to take the shovel out of you hands, you fucking hypocrite.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Even using your Pravda-inspired interpretation of king Barry's remarks, he's STILL wrong, dumbass.The tax dollars that paid for those roads came from the very private sector that you and barry want to enslave to your literally fascist state.

  • Tony||

    Forcing citizens to salute the flag or be deported is literally fascist.

    Pointing out that civilization doesn't exist to serve the elites alone is fucking American.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Telling the big lie is the hallmark of a fascist, Tony. And you've perfected it in what you just posted.

  • Tony||

    Is Spygate a big lie or just a stupid little one, relatively speaking?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    We have evidence of spygate. #RUSSIA not so much. But you've never let the truth stop you before.

  • Tony||

    Well you're gone. Anyone here who doesn't see Sean Hannity as today's Edward R. Murrow?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Coming from own walter duranty.

  • sarcasmic||

    Pointing out that civilization doesn't exist to serve the elites alone is fucking American.

    By elites do you mean those who get wealthy by serving civilization? You know, businesses that employ people and provide goods and services. Those elites?

    This whole notion of "giving back" bothers me. It implies something was taken. If someone gets rich by, say, owning a restaurant that serves hundreds of meals a day, what have they taken? If anything, everyone who ate their is a little bit richer for the experience and the food. The employees are a little bit richer because they got paid. The owner has nothing to give back because nothing was taken.

  • Tony||

    Their workers are educated with public dollars, the roads to their factories are bought with public dollars, they themselves were raised with clean water and healthy food and an education all paid for with public dollars. That's the point and any kindergartner could understand it if they tried.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Every single one of those public dollars was taken from a private individual. Yes, a kindergartner could understand this. What does that say about you?

  • Tony||

    Do you think you're making some kind of point? Obviously... that's what taxes are.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do you think you're making some kind of point? Obviously... that's what taxes are.

    Yeah, the point is that these people who "didn't build that" are the ones who paid for it. So they really did build that.

  • Tony||

    Not them exclusively. Or at all, if we're talking about stuff that already existed.

    No wonder you people think the way you do.

  • sarcasmic||

    The "elites" bear a disproportionate share of the tax burden as it is. So they've paid for those schools and water treatment plants and roads. Or at least they're paying the bulk of the maintenance and replacement costs.

    There are no such things a public dollars. Only dollars that were taken away from the public to be spent by the true elites, government bureaucrats.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    What was taken was their obligation to obey tony. Upitty serfs cannot be tolerated.

  • sarcasmic||

    Or by "elites" do you mean people like Obama, Clinton (not George) and others who have never created anything of value for society, but have achieved great wealth anyway? If that's the case then I totally agree.

  • Shirley Knott||

    No, he said he, as president, could kill anyone anywhere any time without judicial review.
    And then proceeded to do so.

  • Nardz||

    "Pyongyang is "still willing to resolve issues with the United States," the official said, holding onto the hope that the meeting could still be rescheduled.

    "Our goal and will to do everything for peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and mankind remains unchanged, and we are always willing to give time and opportunity to the US side with an open mind," Kim Kye-gwan said."

    Ouch, Tony. Ouch.

  • TxJack 112||

    The NFL changed the rule because the protests impacted their bottom line. Goodell let his progressive ideals dictate how the league responded last season and the owners lost lots of money which they do not like. Millionaires kneeling in "protest" pissed a lot of people off because for them to pretend they have something to whine about it idiotic.

  • Jerryskids||

    The strangest thing about Trump's statement is that line "We were informed that the meeting was requested by North Korea, but that to us is totally irrelevant." WTF does that mean? "We were informed", by who? FOX News, some random guy on Twitter, the voices in your head? Are you suggesting this whole summit thing was based on the idea that somebody told you the Norks wanted a meeting but you never actually verified this with the Norks?

  • John||

    They were informed by either the Chinese or the South Koreans. These are multilateral talks. And both the Chinese and the South Koreans have better communication links with the North Koreans than the US. So, it should not surprise you that the North requested the talks through an intermediary, likely one of those two countries.

    To the extent that is strange, it is because North Korea is so strange and its relationships with the rest of the world so unconventional.

  • John||

    When the Boy Scouts were pressured into allowing gays, Libertarians told those who objected that this is how a free society works and if you don' t like it, start your own scouting organization. That was a reasonable response. Now, the NFL is pressured into telling their players to stop protesting the anthem, and reason and many of its readers are having a stroke. A free society is great just so long as it results in people doing things they like apparently. If you don't like the NFL's anthem policy, don't watch it or go start your own league. That is the advice you gave to the Boy Scouts and anyone who complained about any number of other organizations bowing to public pressure on issues. Why can't you take your own advice now? You sure as hell were happy to give it when the shoe was on the other foot.

  • Tony||

    By anyone who complained about it you mean you, correct? You bitched and moaned about this private organization deciding to treat gay people as full humans, yes?

  • John||

    I really don't care if the Boy Scouts allow gays. But unlike you, I think others have a right to have a different opinion. And gays are human beings. It is you that is not a human being. Fortunately, you are not a typical gay.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Gay people can be human and be rejected from a private organization.

  • Brian||

    I don't see why gays can't be Scout Masters.

    It's not like they're priests.

  • John||

    Good for you. And the Scouts agree with you. The people who do not had to go form their own scouting organization. And they did. That is how this stuff is supposed to work. Except that, people on here can't seem to accept it when it results in something they don't like.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Sarcasm meter needs recalibrating.

  • John||

    It always does.

  • ||

    You bitched and moaned about this private organization deciding to treat gay people as full humans, yes?

    As I said below, it wasn't necessarily or exactly about treating them as full humans as much as special humans. It's not like they had a policy of stoning homosexuals or refusing to sell them popcorn. Nowhere on the application is or was there a question "Have you ever slept with a member of the same sex?" Pretty much, as long as you didn't have a criminal conviction, you passed. Even among heterosexual couples/leaders/individuals sexual behavior in and among scouts is/was discouraged.

    IMO, it's pretty clearly gone from what was a past time-oriented club or group of like-minded volunteers to something more representative of a cult. Not that the cult status was entirely null and void before, but the people joining on going forward are answering "Yes we will associate with [insert deplorable out-group]." when the leadership says, "You're going to accept [insert deplorable out-group]."

  • ||

    When the Boy Scouts were pressured into allowing gays, Libertarians told those who objected that this is how a free society works and if you don' t like it, start your own scouting organization.

    To be fair, plenty of those who bemoaned the Boy Scouts allowing gays didn't so much lament the fact that gays were allowed as leaders as much as it was a tacit endorsement for the sexualization *and* genderization of children and a toe-first buy-in to the larger SJW clap trap as well as the rather overt top-down "You'll associate with who we tell you to associate with." policy. Which, from here looking back, history has proven to be true.

    Our pack never excluded girls from any activity so getting the edict "You'll allow girls into your pack!" came off more as the head-up-your-ass bureaucratic edict that it is rather than any sort of gesture of inclusion.

    At this point, it looks like it will have killed Scouting as boys and families are leaving at a rate which girls and transgendered whatevers couldn't possibly offset. It's notable that all of this is happening against a background of our State and National Parks being generally overrun with visitors. It'll be interesting to see if anyone notices that there's a Boy Scouts of America monument in D.C. and whether it should be torn down.

  • Ecoli||

    Football is entertainment, hence it depends on paying customers who want to be entertained. It is not entertaining to watch a bunch of muscled-up, intellectually challenged millionaires pretend that they understand social problems beyond how to get laid on Tinder.

    Some Americans, quite a few actually, are offended by these ungrateful douche-bags. The very best response is to stop watching football. America will be improved as a result. Imagine all the traumatic brain injuries that will be prevented.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm disappointed that we weren't able to work out a denuclearization deal with the North Koreans, but Trump deserves credit for one thing . . .

    Recent presidents might have conceded everything important to the North Koreans--and then they would have told everybody it was an historic victory.

    It is far better to accept a failure in negotiations rather than capitulate in order to get any deal and then call it a success. Obama for instance knew that ObamaCare was a failure but decided he'd rather wreck the healthcare system than admit that his reform efforts had been for nothing. If he'd been willing to pull the plug and admit failure rather than fake success, the country would be better off today.

  • Nardz||

    Pyongyang is "still willing to resolve issues with the United States," the official said, holding onto the hope that the meeting could still be rescheduled.

    "Our goal and will to do everything for peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and mankind remains unchanged, and we are always willing to give time and opportunity to the US side with an open mind," Kim Kye-gwan said.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Reports I'm reading suggest that the North Koreans were willing to commit to slowly denuclearizing 1) without weapons inspections and 2) assuming immediate sanctions relief.

    The Trump administration wanted them to denuclearize immediately with sanctions relief tied to verification by weapons inspectors.

    Summits are generally held to announce deals. If North Korea had no intentions of actually denuclearizing with verification by inspectors, then there's no need for the photo-op.

    I think that North Korea became accustomed to seeing the U.S. capitulate--especially to declare victory for the president ahead of elections--and they thought they could bait us into doing a bad deal like Obama did with the Iranians. Trump could declare victory for selling the farm ahead of the midterms, and everyone would be happy, right?

    Um . . . no.

    Trump was wise to work with the North Koreans in the hope that pressure from China and the new Kim in charge might mean things had changed. He's also wise to walk away if they aren't serious about denuclearizing and verification with weapons inspectors. If they get serious about that now that they see Trump isn't a push over or susceptible to the ol' bait and switch routine--and I hope they do get serious--then the State Department should still return their calls.

  • Ken Shultz||

    In the meantime, if North Korea won't make the necessary concessions until they've exhausted the possibility that Trump won't accept anything less than verifiable denuclearization, then making that clear to them by canceling the summit may be a necessary step to getting there.

    Reagan walked away from Gorbachev in Reykjavik, too.

    I think this was all an example of competent leadership.

  • Tony||

    Good God Ken, have some dignity.

  • Nardz||

    Good take, Ken

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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