Joe Biden: "Fuck"


From Politico (Alex Thompson & Tina Sfondeles):

Behind closed doors, the former Catholic school boy is quite profane, according to several current and former aides.

"When he gets going he definitely gets going," said one White House official.

In meetings with aides, Biden's vulgarities include but are not limited too: "Fuck them," "What the fuck are we doing?" "Why the fuck isn't this happening?" "bullshit," "dammit," or just simply: "fuck," according to several current and former aides….

By contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris' favorite swear word is "motherfuck-ah," [emphasis on the ahhhhh] according to someone who worked closely with her

Well, if that were the top story about the President, I expect that would actually endear him to many voters.

NEXT: Never Took That Libertarian Loyalty Oath

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What a bizarre post to this blog.

      1. Let's go fuck Joe Brandon.

        1. You got me to finally look up the mysterious phrase. LOL!

      2. Not even with your dick.

        1. Not even with Kirkland's

    1. Perhaps you missed the punch line.

      Also this blog isn't just legal reasoning and observation, but anything that catches their eye.

      1. It's still strange. Why would the fact that Biden curses when out of public view catch anyone's eye?

      2. Ah, I see. You're right. The reference of the meme was unknown on me, so I had no idea that the headline was the backwards-coded punchline.

      3. "Also this blog isn’t just legal reasoning and observation, but anything that catches their eye."

        I agree. And what catches their eye is quite telling.

    2. No kidding. Who cares.

      1. It seems to have brought "Let's go Brandon!" to many minds, and now that I've looked the phrase up I think it's possible that EV was referencing the meme in an oblique way.

        1. ...and, looking again at the headline, I'm now convinced of it.

  2. Why do we care if POTUS Biden and VP Harris are pottymouths?! Are you f'ing kidding me? This is what passes for important news these days.

    None of them hold a candle to POTUS Harry Truman. Not...Even...Close.

    1. Sorry, but this reference is obligatory. It is George Carlin discussing the various ways you can use the word fuck in a sentence.

      Enjoy, fellow VC Conspirators. 🙂

      1. Best treatise on the word I've seen:

        1. It's quite good, particularly the familiar-sounding voicing, but the mis-spelling is a flaw.

    2. Some DC dowager once approached Bess Truman and asked if she could get her husband the President to stop saying "manure." She replied: "You don't know how hard it was to get him to say 'manure' in the first place."

      1. POTUS Truman was in a class by himself. Any guy who can artfully and accurately use 'cat bastard' and 'rat bastard' in a single sentence claims the title (the story I read was he allegedly did while in Korea waiting to meet MacArthur, and got progressively more colorful as he waited).

  3. We have restored decency and civility. That’s a BFD.

    1. Congrats on being just about the only person in this tread who is enough of a blind partisan to pretend offense.

    2. Only Sarcastr0 is allowed to make jokes or be sarcastic!

      Shame on you KevinP.

      And now back to Sarcastr0 being a sanctimonious twit.

      1. The sarcasm is in service of it being bad for Biden to swear.

        That’s just dumb as hell. No one else - and there are lots of other Trump supporters here finding things to argue about - went in for that ridiculous thesis,

        1. I figured it was just for the ironic humor of saying that restoring decency was a big fuckin' deal.

  4. If it weren't for double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.

    People were all over Trump due to his supposed "crudeness", yet give Mr. Mashed Potato Head a pass.

    1. I assume the usual suspects are all over Dementia Joe, but why here?

      Anyway, after putting Fuck in a headline, I take it that policing our language is dead forever, if it ever was the thing that that asshole Kookland claims it was.

      1. Kirkland is wrong about everything.

        Reason doesn't give a fucking fuck about our pottymouths.

        1. I'll just have to settle for being part of the winning cause in the American culture war, and dancing on the political grave of vanquished, embittered conservatism for sport.

      2. Gandydancer: While I doubt that I've ever actually used "fuck" as an epithet (in whatever form) on the blog, we have long quoted it and other vulgarities when they were part of the facts being discussed (see, e.g., the results of this quick query). In fact, one reason we moved from the Washington Post to Reason was precisely that they had started barring us from doing so.

        1. Bless Reason. Bless Prof. Volokh. Bless America and its freedom.

        2. "While I doubt that I’ve ever actually used “fuck” as an epithet..."

          Well, why the fuck not?

          Just because it's a meaningless intensifier doesn't mean it can't have utility in some circumstances.

          1. What the hell else can I say when I'm really fucking mad?

        3. one reason we moved from the Washington Post to Reason

          Your mention of WaPo in this context invites an observation about that rag and, after 4 years not caring a fig about the repetition of "Fuck Trump" and calls for his death (and often that of those who supported/voted for him)...not to mention the things many on the left said about prominent Republicans like Bush Jr. and Sarah Palin...its sudden clutching of pearls over "vulgar taunts" directed at a POTUS.

          The hypocrisy is so thick you could build a bridge for heavy artillery from it.

        4. Thanks for the explanation. I would not be coming here if I had to pay the WaPo to do so, not b/c I couldn't afford it but b/c I would not knowingly resource my enemies.

          The downside is Reason's execrable posting software though, since I eschew the Post I don't know that its is any better.

          Given my reference to that asshole Kookland, you missed an opportunity to turn some random (or even appropriate) words into a link to an irrelevant music video. I've explained elsewhere why "that asshole Kookland" is a unitary phrase that should become a meme like "Let's go Brandon!", but you might have missed it: His calling the put-upon University of Oklahoma vollyball player a racist was the final straw. His going on about us clingers was endlessly tiresome, but that crossed a line for me.

    2. No, nobody was over Trump over his use of curse words generally. They were upset about his use of them in inappropriate settings, his of them to refer to other countries (particularly ones filled with people of another race), or use of crude comments when talking about other people or bad acts.

      He didn't get in trouble for the "grab them by the pussies" comment because he used a bad word when describing his sexual assault. He was criticized for the sexual assault itself.

      1. Thus demonstrating that you're not familiar with the context of the remark: Contact isn't assault if it's voluntary.

        "And when you're a star they let you do it."

        Thus, not assault.

        Still rather tasteless, if you ask me.

        1. Precís.

          Trump's comment is a (very) crude meditation on the power of celebrity, and what "being a star" gets you because of people's attitudes toward celebrity.

          That people insist on pretending it's, as I've seen it boiled down to, "a gleeful admission of sexual assault" tells me more about them (and the headlines they read, or articles they skim, or memes they blindly inhale) than it did about him.

          (There were so many things a Liberal could have complained about Trump doing that it would be surprising - if one had not met human beings and believed them to be reasonable, rational, or not operating wholly on team-affiliation - that there was so much focus on his being a ... slimy, crude salesman.

          He was openly that his entire career, after all. None of that was a surprise.

          But, then, plenty of people still somehow try to think the man was some sort of arch-Conservative rather than a muddled centrist, policy-wise.)

          1. The best you could say of him was that he's a pragmatic narcissist, (Everyone who runs for President is a narcissist, most are not pragmatic.) who understands that his best hope of going down in history with a reputation to match his own self image is to be a really kick-ass President. And since he lacked ideological reasons to screw over the people who elected him, he sought to 'dance with the one what brung him', govern as the conservative he'd run as.

            The Democrats going nuts, conveniently, foreclosed any option he'd had to pivot to the center.

            Too many Republican Presidents enter office with ideological commitments that drive them to betray their own voters. Trump doesn't have that, but actually does have enough of a working grasp of economics to understand that the way we're running things in Washington isn't remotely sustainable.

            1. 'The Democrats going nuts, conveniently, foreclosed any option he’d had to pivot to the center.'

              Wow. If pivoting to the centre would have won him love adulation and cash he'd have slid there on a wave of slime, but pivoting to the centre would first and foremost have sent his base into a frenzy. More of a frenzy. Stop trying to blame Democrat's for Trump's frenzied base.

              1. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that he would have pivoted to the center in a heartbeat if it would have made him more popular. I'm saying that the Democrats going nuts over him beating Hillary closed off that possibility.

                Thankfully closed it off.

                1. No, it was definitely more to do with a having a base who hate liberals with such overwhelming ferocity that... they elected Trump.

                  1. No. People voting for President Trump, wanted someone who didn't talk like a lawyer. He tried to keep his campaign promises. He forced the Government to control illegal immigration and, had Mexico hold those claiming asylum until their hearings. 78% of Americans want the Borders closed to illegals. Try catering to the vast majority, for once. We are supposed to be a Democratic Republic, after all.

                    1. I knew Trump was a trashy centrist as soon as "They all must go!" from Coulter's book turned into Pence's touchback immigration absurdity, but since Team Stupid was protraying him as an immigration realist I thought it would be educational to nominate someone declared to be such, to move the Overton window. But then he got elected and we had to deal with the reality of him pivoting to the center and away from those who voted for him. But, yes, luckily the (D)s and the lagacy (R)s would have none of that.

                      But I hope we have a better choice in '24.

                    2. This may have been true in 2016. Polling indicates it was certainly not the case in 2020.

                    3. They voted for someone who talked like an idiot.

            2. " working grasp of economics"

              He missed the seminar on tariffs.

              1. He wasn't trying to economically optimize things. He was trying to push the US towards economic self-sufficiency before our inevitable fiscal crash forced us into it without warning.

                That's the thing: Our trade deficit is, at some point, without much warning, going to be forced to close to zero, when people stop being willing to extend us loans. It's worth some suffering now to minimize how disruptive that is.

                1. "He was trying to push the US towards economic self-sufficiency "

                  Tariffs aren't a way to accomplish that.

                  1. China paid without complaint. What's your problem?

                    1. No, American consumers paid with higher prices on a wide array of finished goods produced in America from the tariffs on raw materials, as well as higher prices on finished goods produced in China (which is everything from iPhones to t-shirts.

                      It's almost like you don't understand how tariffs work (or, more specifically, don't work).

                  2. Thinking that tariffs don't contribute to autarchy displays a grasp of economics far worse than Trump's.

                2. Our trade deficit is, at some point, without much warning, going to be forced to close to zero,

                  That’s not how it works. Our trade deficit does not ever have to be forced to close to zero. Trade deficits are just accounting entries, not actual losses.

                  1. Next you're gonna tell me that I haven't been losing the trade war to my gardener for years. All the money was only going one way! I must have been getting hosed!

                    1. I must have been getting hosed!


        2. Not bringing a lawsuit or pressing charges because you don't want to deal with the pushback that the celebrity and all his money will bring isn't the same thing as consenting to the act itself.

          It's amazing that Trump cultists have their nose that far up his rear that they can't see that. I mean, imagine he did that to your wife.

          1. The comment was a claim about the benefits of being a celebrity.
            That you persist in claiming that it was anything else is evidence of brain damage.

            1. And to him, the "benefit" of being a celebrity was that he could commit sexual assault and not have to worry about a lawsuit or criminal charges. That you persist to ignore this is evidence that your nose is planted far up this self-aggrandizing narcissist.

              1. You seem to have a persistent problem here: You can't seem to accept that it's not assault if they're OK with you doing it.

        3. Brett, you may think it isn't assault unless the victim stops you, but I suggest you don't try out that theory in your local supermarket.

          1. The "they" in Trump's sentence didn't refer to randiom strangers in a supermarket.

            Like the claim that Trump invited the Russians to hack servers already in FBI cutody (or, very recently, that he was telling GOP voters not to vote) the excited chattering by Team Stupid about their idiot takes on Trump's words merely proves that thay are un-self-aware morons.

      2. These wenches worked hard to seek out Trump. They implied consent.

        1. Not how consent works, you weirdo.

          1. It does, in Clinton-ville and Biden-town.

            1. Then why is this comment from Trumpville?

          2. You think it requires a notarized affidavit, you weirdo?

            Have you ever got any?

            1. For you and David Behar, I'm starting to think it might.

      3. Trump was describing willing pussy-grabbees, which is called sex-play, not sexual assault.

        And Haiti is indeed a shithole country, just like that admiral is a tranny, not a woman.

        Un-bunch your panties.

        1. My panties aren't covered with tiny script defending sexual assault public boorishness and racism that I have to bend over and read off every time someone is mean about Trump.

    3. If you want to call out Joe Biden for saying fuck but give Trump a pass for his grabbing women comments, than nobody would be surprised.

      1. If you want to call out Joe Biden for saying fuck

        Which of course nobody here is doing, and the blindingly obvious point of the post you're responding to has clearly sailed a mile over your head.

        1. SOMEbody didn't read the post I was replying to. A mile isn't in it.

          1. Reason makes it hard to see what post you were responding to, and it becomes even harder when your "reply" is so-off point.

            But neither EV nor BB is in fact not ~"calling out Biden for saying 'fuck'".

            I will leave you mired in your ignorance.

            1. Wuz luvs it when people make honest mistakes so he can be a dick about it so fuck 'im.

              You didn't get it either, huh? Sad.

              1. Wuz luvs it when people make honest mistakes

                I'd wager that you haven't an honest anything your entire life.

                1. You'd wager on how many crows land in a field, so that doesn't mean much.

          2. SOMEbody didn’t read the post I was replying to.

            That somebody being you, obviously.

            1. You don't even read the posts YOU write.

              1. Here's the post you responded to, in its entirety:

                "If it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.

                People were all over Trump due to his supposed “crudeness”, yet give Mr. Mashed Potato Head a pass."

                No giving a pass to Trump nor calling out of Biden. What he did do was point out what he sees as hypocrisy by some. That you're unable to discern the difference is not at all surprising.

                Also, you're a dishonest piece of shit.

                1. Look it's not my fault that you have to triple and quadruple down on your dumb take on my comment, it's you're own fault because you're an insecure idiot who's pathetically desperate for safe cheap shots but can't handle anything that isn't completely linear and literal.

                  1. Look it’s not my fault that you have to triple and quadruple down on your dumb take on my comment


                    "Look, it's not my fault that people are paying enough attention to call me on my weak bullshit, quoting my own words back to me verbatim and expecting me to acknowledge what I actually said. They know what a lying asshole I am."

                    1. I'm never not impressed by the towering rage and hostility you bring to bear when trying to win trivial points, but I stand by what I said, verbatim, for what it is, and as a response to the original comment. Sorry it went miles over your head.

  5. Occasionally the giggling freshman in Josh emerges.

    1. In this case, Prof. Volokh appears to be slipping into Blackman Mode.

      Perhaps after observing these results from the field, Peter Thiel will have Elon Musk pull the software and restore Prof. Volokh to standard (Movement Conservative with Faux Libertarian enhancement) mode.

      1. We understand why those who rage around might get upset at a humorous post about the president raging.

        1. Humor? Do you mean the Gutfeld!-Foxworthy-Last Man Standing-Red Eye "humor" for which some people settle, or the strong mainstream comedy that some disaffected Americans can't stand or understand?

          1. Revolting and louche Kirkland: Name a liberal who is actually funny. That people will willingly pay money to see. I'll wait.

            1. Lol that you think any list of the funniest comedians wouldn't be predominantly liberal.

              1. Comedians. Musicians. Actors. Journalists. Professors. Movies. Television shows. Newspapers. Teaching and research institutions.

                Exceptions: Downscale AM radio. The Left Behind movies. Fox properties. Sinclair (backwater) television stations. Regent, Liberty, Ave Maria.

                Oops, almost forgot: Chachi.

      2. Hi, Boomer. Stop your lawyer nitpicking idiocy.

    2. Um, you did notice the byline on this, right?

      1. Wow! I assumed it was Josh. He must be contagious.

        1. Wow! I assumed...

          An easily avoided mistake, and a bad habit that you seem incapable of breaking.

    3. It's a wry reference which you missed (which is excusable -- so did I).

      But, anyway, your pet hate object, Blackman, had nothing to do with it.

  6. Not all that unusual for people raised Catholic.

    My favorite part of the article was where the Politico reporters wrote, "He doesn’t use the f-word as a verb, for instance." When only 6 or 7 paragraphs before the reporters wrote that the President would say "F** k them."

    1. There's a difference between a generic "F**k" (generic dismissal, e.g. F**k that guy, I don't care what he thinks) vs. using "F**k" as a heightened term for intercourse (e.g. "and then I f**ked her"), which is presumably what they mean when they say he doesn't use it as a verb.

      1. JJJSSS: I agree that there is a difference; indeed, I don't think I've ever used "fuck" as a term for intercourse, even in my private life, though I have on occasion used "fuck" in the other senses. But I took WillDD's point to be simply that "use the f-word as a verb" is an incorrect way of drawing that distinction.

        1. In polite company, someone might say "to hell with" them.

        2. "Polite company" today, in any event.

  7. Obligatory Fuck Joe Biden.

  8. "the former Catholic school boy is quite profane"

    Catholics would tend to interpret that as more of a former Catholic, than former school boy.

    1. Brett, my friend, as with all living organisms, the Catholic church must evolve or die. It's evolving. It looks very little like what it looked like 500 years ago, and if it's still around in another 500 years, you'll hardly recognize it at all. It's how natural selection and survival of the fittest look when applied to religion. (Reminds me of the old joke about Jesus and the apostles showing up for church one Sunday morning; the only thing they recognized was the preacher's jokes.)

      As far as Biden being a potty mouth, at least he does his behind closed doors, unlike his immediate predecessor.

      1. I was thinking more in terms of his support for abortion, actually, which has resulted in an ongoing debate within the Church; It's basically only on account of a Papal intercession that he's still able to take Communion.

        Profanity, aside from taking the Lord's name in vain, is not, so far as I know, a sin as such, except maybe contextually.

        1. A lot of American Catholics support abortion, as well as gay marriage. And as far as contraception is concerned, well, good luck getting any Catholics to pay attention to that one. Like I said, the church is evolving. In time the Vatican will catch up.

          1. Actually, given the Church's growth in conservative 2nd and 3rd world countries, I wouldn't rule out a resurgence of tradition.

            1. That's possible, but please recall the catalyst for this conversation was your comment that Catholics would consider Biden a former Catholic. His views may not sit well with third world Catholics, but as far as American Catholics are concerned, he fits right in. The most heavily Catholic states in the US are Massachusetts and Rhode Island but you sure wouldn't know it from their social policy.

              1. Looking at the polls, perhaps my assessment is skewed by being an observant, not cultural, Catholic.

              2. So they believe there's an omnipotent God, capable of creating universes, and who will decide their eternal fate. But this God nevertheless has to obey legislation from a parish committee or a Council of Bishops, and can be ordered to "catch up" with society.

                I'm with them on the social policy but don't have quite have what it takes to believe there's a supreme being who's always willing to second my shifting political opinions. I suppose it's fine if you just view Mass and the church as social traditions like Thanksgiving dinner without any literal belief in a deity.

                1. There have been centuries of conflict in the UK and Ireland over what I assume are in many cases sincerely held religious beliefs but basically originate from Henry VIII's desire to get a divorce and the Catholic church's refusal to allow him to do so. Think the linkage between cultural trends and religious ideology is hardly a new thing.

                  1. I feel the need to point out that Henry's Church was essentially Catholic but replaced the Pope with the monarch. No other changes occurred at that time. The divergent religious beliefs were first established by his son Edward, a Protestant. There have been other "Catholic" churches that reject the current line of Popes; though they are obviously not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church they are no less "Catholic" as they have a largely similar structure and shared beliefs.

                    1. That's basically the definition of any non-Catholic Christian denomination. Starting with the creation of Protestantism, Christianity has done nothing but diverge from Catholicism. And after the creation of Lutheranism, Prtestantism has done nothing but diverge from Lutheranism. Continue on for hundreds of years and you end up with frauds like Jerry Falwell Jr.

            2. "Actually, given the Church’s growth in conservative 2nd and 3rd world countries, I wouldn’t rule out a resurgence of tradition."

              Brett is absolutely right about this. As the number of 1st world Catholics continue to dwindle, the church will soon be dominated by priests from very socially conservative regions, which will in turn accelerate the exodus in the not so socially conservative regions. A Pew poll from 2015 has about 13% of the US population self-identifying as "former Catholic".

              We are looking at the historic peak of "liberal" Catholicism; in a generation or so it will be far more socially conservative. The demographic trajectory is quite clear.

              1. Sorry for the thread-jack. Getting back to the topic at hand: Fuck!

                1. The actual topic is "Let's go, Brandon!!"

                  At first I didn't realize that either.

              2. A significant problem the Church in America has, is that actual Church going Catholics, (As opposed to those who just show up for Christmas mass for the music...) tend to be rather more conservative than the general population. While the clergy, increasingly so as you go up the hierarchy, are more liberal.

                But I expect this to change over time, because America isn't producing enough clergy, so is importing them from those more conservative countries. As they work their way up the hierarchy, the Church should start to revert towards traditional stances.

                1. "...because America isn’t producing enough clergy, so is importing them from those more conservative countries. As they work their way up the hierarchy, the Church should start to revert towards traditional stances."

                  Yes. And alienate even more young people who leave the church, and when they have children don't indoctrinate them into the church. At least in western first world countries. The center of Catholicism is shifting from the historical regions (i.e. southern Europe) and towards more socially conservative regions.

                  We both seem to think that this is a positive development, but for very different reasons.

              3. We are recovering Catholics, not former Catholics. The indoctrination is strong and you are always one Mass away from falling back into bad habits.

          2. "the church is evolving. In time the Vatican will catch up."

            That's not how the Catholic Church is structured.

      2. the Catholic church must evolve or die. It’s evolving. It looks very little like what it looked like 500 years ago, and if it’s still around in another 500 years, you’ll hardly recognize it at all.

        Pssst! It already transformed. Anthropologists long noted that the Church was dying out in Europe, as government took over more and more of its roles. Feeding poor and elderly, helping the sick, helping orphans.

        Some of the very earliest non-Biblical writings about the church mention how their caring for the sick without concern for themselves was seen as noble and was attracting many new followers rapidly.

        So, there's your new church: government. Worship The People instead of God, and your life will be better, not in the next life, but after my 5 year plan.

        Or disobey us, and you will go to Hell after you die. I mean in 10 or 20 years.

        Which is why it suffers the problems of religious control of government but without the word "God". It isn't just a similar phenomenon but the exact same one.

        1. Krayt, I've heard that argument and I don't buy it. There are a great many things that my parents used to do for me that I now do for myself, but it doesn't mean I see myself in a parenting role for myself. Rather, it means I've grown up.

          You don't need to worship the state to recognize that it is capable of doing good, and then it becomes a simple policy question of whether any given good can be done more efficiently at the governmental level.

          1. It's not just efficiency that's at stake here, there are second order issues. As Reagan used to say, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.“

            Government is dangerous. Insanely so. The majority of people killed by governments in the 20th century were killed by their own government. Even our own has conducted slaughters and atrocities like Waco in living memory.

            It's kind of like having a monster wrapped up in chains, and forcing it to work for you. It keeps whispering to you, "Take these chains off, and I could do more work."

            Maybe it could, but you'd be mad to take those chains off.

            1. Brett, do you apply the same standard to the Catholic church, which gave us the Inquisition, witch burnings, priestly pedophiles, General Franco and abuse of Native American children in orphanages?

              An institution is only as good as the people that run it. But because better checks on the bad things it can do haven't always been there is not a reason to not allow it to do good things. We just need tighter checks against the bad stuff.

              1. The Catholic church is, thankfully, very thoroughly wrapped up in chains, and thankfully so. As you point out, exercising actual worldly power was wildly corrupting.

                "We just need tighter checks against the bad stuff."

                And the biggest check against the bad stuff is to not allot government any more reach and power than is needed to do the absolute minimum that must be done, and can't be accomplished by any institution less dangerous.

                1. OK, do you apply the same standard to fathers? Some fathers come home drunk and beat their wives and kids. Some of them commit incest with their daughters. Some of them have substance abuse problems that scar their children for life. Then there are the ones who abandon their children. So should we maybe not allow fathers any more power than that needed to do the minimum that must be done, and can't be done by some other less dangerous institution?

                  What about major corporations? Been representing them and their insurance companies for decades; oh, the stories I could tell about corporate abuses. Maybe they could use some chaining too.

                  I don't disagree with you that power corrupts and sometimes leads to abuse. But I want you to apply the same standard, evenhandedly, to all institutions of authority. All authority figures in all institutions come from the same pool of imperfect humans. So why are you assuming that government is somehow in a special class?

                  1. Your line of argumentation suggests that you don't quite grasp the basis of my own argument. The only thing government brings to the table is force. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and coercion is the government's hammer.

                    My position is that, because of that, government should be in charge of the absolute minimum possible. Anything that can be done without that hammer, even at reduced efficiency, should be.

                    The Church, fathers, major corporations, they all bring things to the table even without coercion. But, government?

                    It's just an evolved protection racket, with a nasty tendency to devolve any time you're stupid enough to trust it. Keep it as small as possible.

                    1. Government, like the church, has certainly evolved over time; the divine right of kings has very little support these days. And one direction in which it has evolved, at least in the United States, is the idea that it serves the people rather than the other way around. And that's a good thing.

                      But limiting it to the "absolute minimum possible" would simply create a power vacuum that would soon be filled by other corrupt, greedy and evil people. And who don't have to run for re-election. One important function that government serves is to counter-balance all those other malevolent institutions.

                      Besides which, if government can do something more efficiently than the market, why shouldn't it? Especially something like public works projects, where the likelihood of it devolving into tyranny is minor.

                  2. I think the difference between government and the other examples you cited are only government has to power to seize all of you possessions, imprison you, and in certain circumstances, even take your life.

                    That certainly puts them in a very different position than a mere church or company.

                    1. It does, and increases the need for safety mechanisms and checks on power. On the other hand, a major corporation can financially destroy you; if you can't feed your children, that's fairly coercive as well.

                      And, step back a minute. This is, in principle, the same conversation as we have about guns. You've got one side saying guns can and do kill people so regulate the hell out of them. You've got others saying the problem isn't with the guns but with the individuals using the guns, and besides, guns do an awful lot of good. Same conversation, different application.

                    2. That would be a good analogy if about a quarter of all gun owners committed murder...

                    3. Brett, it's not an analogy at all. I'm not saying that guns are like government. I'm saying the arguments made for and against are the same. Which they are.

            2. Our governmentt has conducted excused murder much more recently and clearly than at Waco. On Jan. 6, 2021, for example.

              1. Ashli Babbitt got exactly what she deserved. If you are a law enforcement officer charged with protecting the Capitol and Congress members, what should you do when someone tries to breach your barricade inside the Capitol?

                The easiest way for her to not get killed was to not smash her way into a building protected by armed defenders.

                1. Sadly, I have to agree. While the cop who shot her over-reacted in the apparent opinion of the other officers there, that was indeed the easiest way for her to not get shot, and I'd have expected to have been shot if I'd done anything that stupid, too.

      3. You think the College of Cardinals engage in "natural selection"?

        Your religious beliefs sound even weirder than theirs.

    2. Thanks for speaking for Catholics.
      As a real former Catholic and product of Catholic K-12, I can say with firm conviction that my fellow students were masters at profanity before most of them even knew the full meaning of the words they were using. None of which required confession (we normally all went on Wednesdays) and none of which was ever uttered the presence of a nun or priest.

      The vast majority of my fellow students are likely still Catholic. I gave up Catholicism for lent. 😉

  9. Well [expletive deleted] !

  10. zOMFG! This is WAY WAY WAY WORSE than wearing a tan suit or putting Dijon mustard on a hot dog.

    Please fetch my fainting couch.

  11. I find the office of president dangerous and one step away from dictatorial. I support making it nothing more than the head of state with the power to nominate judges, grant pardons and bestow honors. So discussions of how rotten or crude or foul mouthed the office holder is are irrelevant to the greater danger of the office itself.

    1. The post is a joke about its headline.

  12. Definitely a Blackmanesque post.

    1. Not even a little bit. Although Prof. Volokh did use the word "I" once, it was just as part of a wry observation; he wasn't actually talking about himself. Prof. Blackman's posts are ultimately always about himself.

      Prof. Blackman reminds me of the old joke: the guy spends half an hour talking about himself, and then winds down, saying, "But enough about me; let's talk about you. What do you think about me?"

      1. You are to Blackman like anti-semites are to Jews. He lives rent-free in your head and you can't help yourself from bringing him up.

        1. Um, I didn't bring him up.

          Also, you screwed up your analogy (aside from it being stupid); you meant that Blackman was to me as Jews are to anti-semites.

  13. “ Well, if that were the top story about the President, I expect that would actually endear him to many voters.


  14. As much as I admire Biden's verbal acuity, I oppose most of his policies, and question his ability to execute the ones I don't oppose.

  15. Does anyone remember the book, "The Rape of A.P.E.?

    (Wiki) The Rape of the A*P*E* is a book by Allan Sherman, published in July 1973 by Playboy Press,[1] regarding sex and its historical repression and resurgence in the United States.[2][3] The "A.P.E." on the title is a play on the words "ape" and the "American Puritan Ethic".

    The book was the subject of much publicity, when it appeared, due to both its subject and author. Despite his ill health at the time, Sherman went on a two-week media tour to promote The Rape and appeared on many radio shows.[3] He died on November 20, 1973, just four months after the book was published.

    It had the world's short chapter (Fuck*) but the world's longest footnote.

    1. I remember it. Quite a good book. I didn't realize he died so soon afterward.

  16. After what took place during the Afghanistan withdrawal, it’s hard to imagine him not using the word at least once.

  17. Like they do everything else, progressives have even ruined the f-word.

    1. You people will whine about literally anything.

  18. The Nixon tapes were filled with profanity. This is not news.

    1. And you know what? My mother, a lifelong conservative Republican, cared more that Nixon said fuck than she did that he tried to cover up a criminal investigation. It was those expletives that finally cost him her support.

      1. Different times, different standards, I suppose. I remember having a friend in Jr. High who's mom was from Scotland. She'd have an absolute conniption whenever he used the word "Bloody", which he used quite liberally just to push her buttons.

        1. One of the subtleties of "My Fair Lady"/"Pygmalion" is that Henry Higgins, despite his upper class background, is always using "blasted" and "bloody" and other locutions that would have been considered very vulgar in Edwardian England, especially for someone of the professional class. George Bernard Shaw was deliberately subverting his own thesis, which is one of the reasons he was such a great writer.

  19. Who really gives a fuck about this kind of shit? I'm not knocking the fact this story was posted; it's news after all. I just don't understand why anyone would give two shits what kind of language the President uses in private.

    1. Well, for the parents of young kids....remember the Bush 41 answer to the eternal battle for brussel sprouts: When your kids are President of the US, they can curse too.

      1. I object! It was broccoli! (Though he may have hated brussels sprouts too.)

        1. My mistake...

    2. TBH I don't give two fucks through a rolling doughnut if he or any other President uses it in public, let alone private.

    3. EV doesn't. The headline is a joking reference to "Let's go Brandon!"

  20. Maybe his handlers should introduce him to the phrase, "Let's Go, Brandon". He can use that instead. He should also speak with WaPo since they are so concerned with the vulgarity that has suddenly, just in the past few months, become a part of the political lexicon!

    Oh, and by the way, FJB!

    Let's Go, Brandon!

    1. Cindy,
      Fuck Josh Blackman???
      (While 90% of VC's readership might agree in general with the disapproving message; isn't it a bit extreme. Josh, after all, is just doing Josh. And although most of his writing is silly or weak; it's not overtly hostile or aggressive...maybe SJB [screw Josh Blackman] instead would be a bit more gentle and gentile???)

    2. " Oh, and by the way, FJB! "

      Watching your stale, bigoted thinking getting stomped into political irrelevance in modern America by your betters seems to have made your quite cranky, CindyF.

      Why not try to ditch the right-wing intolerance and backwardness and become part of the modern American mainstream, rather than just being another bitter clinger awaiting replacement?

      1. Right-wing intolerance and incivility... you can continue to suck your own cop.

        1. “suck your own cop”

          This blog’s Board of Censors will allow that formulation . . . because it was written by a right-winger. This does not remove “c_p succ_r from the list of words banned by this blog . . . when used by a liberal or libertarian to describe a conservative.

          Feel free to explain any error in that observation, Prof. Volokh.

          You brought this on yourself.

  21. Ironically enough, isn't the Libertarian Loyalty Oath just the word 'Fuck' repeated over and over again?

    1. If not, it should be.

  22. Why hasn't anyone on this blog denounced the retaliation that Virginia Tech recently took against students who chanted "Fuck Biden" at their game? I realize it technically might not be unconstitutional retaliation because of the forum, but still it is morally suspect if not just outright petty.

      1. Don't read gateway pundit; they lie.

        Look for another source.

          1. So not really retaliation, then.

    1. What would make the university's behavior constitutional content-based discrimination in that case? They're not fighting words, and Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) says adults -- which includes all the 18+ students -- cannot be prohibited from saying that kind of thing.

  23. Ah it's now long ago and far away. But I was representing a businessman in a construction damage case in the early mid 70s. The Nixon tapes had just come out, and ol Tricky Dick was known to let loose an obscenity or three in Oval Office conversations.
    The businessman was profoundly and sincerely shocked that the President of the United States would use such language--in the Oval Office at least. He might have cut Nixon a pass if Dick had uttered an oath on a shanked putt.

Please to post comments