Libertarian Fail

Republican Governor Matt Bevin has conceded the Governor's race

 

Clint has directed some good ones. But Richard Jewell is a libertarian fail at the box office.

Slimes AJC female reporter not around to defend herself:

In Richard Jewell, the entire 24-hour news apparatus is represented in the form of one ambitious, unethical slut: Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs, played by Olivia Wilde. In her first scene, Scruggs storms into the paper’s office in a flouncy minidress and gold choker that says “KATHY,” calling her fellow lady reporters jealous bitches and asking a male colleague whether she should get implants for the good of her career. “I’m thinking D-cups,” she growls, cupping her own boobs as a visual aid. Subtle!

This woman uses sex to get what she wants and must be humbled, the movie all but shouts. After a bombing sequence that, to Eastwood’s credit, is brilliantly staged and lands with a bang, the FBI, through a strange series of screwups, coincidences, and legitimate observations about Jewell, comes to focus their investigation on Jewell. In the film’s telling, when Scruggs first hears about the bombing, she says a prayer — not for the people injured, but that the murderer will be interesting enough for a juicy story. Such a ghoul!

The real anti-gay, anti-government, anti-abortion bomber Rudolph is barely mentioned:

How did the FBI miss him? Because they were busy working on a theory that “Richard Jewell was an enraged homosexual cop-hater who had been aided in the bombing by his lover.” Surely there’s some interesting irony there, of Jewell not wanting the FBI to think he’s gay (played for laughs in the film) while the real killer was out bombing queer-themed bars. Again, not covered in this movie.

Clint clearly doesn’t care about these things. He cares about the evil FAKE NEWS media’s cruel mistreatment of this nice, white good ol’ boy who loved guns, police, and the military (as did the protagonists of American Sniper, Sully, 15:17 to Paris, and Gran Torino come to think of it…) And, a few steps down from that, a tyrannical federal government (grrr, the deep state!) and uppity women. The saga of Richard Jewell is a fascinating story. It deserves a more competent teller than this (though admittedly the acting is hard to beat).

Richard Jewell is ultimately a character assassination that rests on hackneyed narratives and lazy assumptions. Which makes it exactly the kind of thing it thinks it’s railing against.

https://uproxx.com/movies/richard-jewell-review/

 

F*cking lol, 100% a dude wrote this dialogue. It's so cute how dudes think D-cups are all big.

 

Still not sure why Libertarians side with Republicans

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) fired back at Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) after the South Carolina Republican accused him of emboldening Iran, saying Graham "insults the Constitution" and is making a "low, gutter type of response."

Graham told reporters on Wednesday that he thought Paul and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) were "overreacting" by criticizing comments made during a closed-door Iran briefing.

"They're libertarians," Graham said. "I think they're overreacting, quite frankly. Go debate all you want to. I'm going to debate you. Trust me, I'm going to let people know that at this moment in time to play this game with the war powers act ... whether you mean to or not, you're empowering the enemy."

Paul, asked about the comments during an interview with CNN, argued that Graham isn't familiar with the Constitution and was invoking a "fake sort of drape of patriotism."

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...ran-criticism-he-insults-the-constitution?amp

 

Because the alternative is siding with the Democrats and the Hitler Youth? (Note: I hate Nazi comparisons but in this case it works).

 

Who could forget the Nazi youths chanting "Healthcare is a right" or "We will work for $15"

 

Taxes.



But they do (Libertarians do) talk shit about conservatives once in a while, the people at reason were having a field day with the 'war on porn' that conservative law makers are trying to re start once again.

 

Nah, can't be it. They've been fine with 'Merican Nazis. Keep going

 

Does Randy really understand the Constitution, though?

MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle confronted Republican Senator Rand Paul with President Donald Trump's own children's foreign business deals after the congressman suggested Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine should be investigated.

"Hunter Biden made $600,000 from a Ukrainian company," Paul said, after he was asked by Ruhle about Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani being paid $500,000 to work for the company of Ukrainian-American businessman Lev Parnas, who was arrested last week over alleged campaign finance violations. "So, if we want to investigate Rudy Giuliani's financial dealings, by all means do it. But at the same time, you should, if you want to be fair, investigate Hunter Biden's economic dealings in Ukraine as well," he argued.

Ruhle jumped on Paul's point and asked the senator if Trump's children's foreign business deals should also be investigated thoroughly.

"Does that mean we should be looking deeper into how Jared Kushner's family got foreign money for 666 Fifth Avenue? How Ivanka Trump got 13 trademarks from the Chinese government, how she was able to expand her brand since the president took office?" the MSNBC anchor said. "I mean, giddy-up, let's do it."

...Legal experts have argued that foreign governments paying to host events or to stay at Trump's properties violates the Constitution's Emoluments Clauses, which stipulate that the president cannot accept gifts from foreign countries or use their office to enrich themselves. Additionally, ethics experts have raised their eyebrows as Ivanka Trump, who serves as a senior adviser to her father, has been granted numerous trademarks in China as the White House remains embroiled in a trade dispute with the Asian superpower.

Critics have also questioned how Ivanka Trump's husband, Jared Kushner, was able to secure funding from a real estate company owned partly by the Qatar Investment Authority, for his family's struggling 666 Fifth Avenue development. Former Trump administration officials reportedly raised significant concerns about Kushner's and his wife's actions on multiple occasions, which they saw as mixing personal business and diplomacy.

https://www.newsweek.com/msnbc-anchor-rand-paul-trump-children-foreign-business-hunter-biden-1465449

 

They can do that and still be Republicans...

 

Denny Hastert even became speaker

 

Here's a libertarian win. I know you guys don't like Amah. I do, a lot.

 

He's been OK lately due to hating Trump. He's clearly not as mendacious as Randy.

And everything Donnie does is a business transaction. Even with government resources and people. A f#cking pig.

 

I like Amash for his position on Trump lately. Having said that his voting record is as atrocious and despicable as the next tea party/conservative/ rightwing nut. If it was for him, I would not have HC coverage now!

 

Yeah, I get it. My view is that every principled, consistent politician who believes in democracy is better than one who is not, regardless of policy beliefs. That's why I have Amash high. Those who are more willing to deal with the devil will rank him lower.

To put the matter another way, he would be near the very bottom of my list if all politicians were honorable. That of course is a very large "if."

 

Don't get me wrong.....he is still better than the other 198 (ex) republican colleagues. I would vote for Amash every day of the week over El Douche (and that is what differentiates me from the IC posters here) lol.

 

What if the choices were Warren/Sanders, Amash (with no chance of getting elected) or Trump? I'm sure you can see the dilemma faced by people that do not ascribe to two-party politics.

I mean, if only the Dems could chose someone they could agree with, like Stayer or Bloomberg...

 

Or become religious leaders.

 

Probably not when he was complaining about budget deficits and how he wanted to cut government spending.

 

It wouldn't be a dilemma for me. If the Democrats ran the moral equivalent of Trump, and the Republicans ran the moral equivalent of Warren/Sanders, then I would vote Republican, no questions asked. I wouldn't vote third party even if I liked that candidate's policies because the goal would be to defeat the devil.

 

Yes, it very much does.

 

He voted for the Trump Tax Giveaway to Those Who Defintiely Dont Need It

 

He tried to holdout for a while, but at the end like a good libertarian, he prefers lower taxes to a balanced budget.

But had he had his way, many here would be fvcking pissed at Amash for cutting spending on social programs and the military to pay for the tax cuts.

 

That is a given. Trump was considered a democrat back in the days and would he had run and won the Democratic nomination, no way in hell I would vote for that scumbag. i would vote for a Romney as a Republican everyday over him.