No Need To Take Reason Magazine Seriously
Tweet
Reason Magazine has, for some time, been an outlet with a libertarian point of view that has from time to time gained some sort of traction in the world of politics. I personally happen to not agree with Reason on anything, and find the libertarian solution to problems to largely be the sort of giddily unrealistic things an immature teenager comes up with (We don’t need government, man, the market will solve EVERYTHING!). But otherwise Reason was just kind of there.
No longer. Reason’s online editor and chief Nick Gillespie took part in Friday’s telecast on the Glenn Beck show. This wasn’t the usual hour of stupidity from Beck, but a propaganda film in the style of Leni Riefenstahl that sought to connect modern liberalism and the Democratic party to Stalin and Hitler. Gillespie’s segment was about Che Guevara and the historical blindness of those wearing Che t-shirts. I don’t disagree that this is a silly fashion practice, but to be a muppet for a deranged propagandist like Glenn Beck is to proclaim loudly and proudly that nobody should take anything you say seriously anymore.
19 Responses to “No Need To Take Reason Magazine Seriously”
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
John Mackey funds them so you know they’re ready to dial up the crazy
Once again, Oliver, and as a largely irrelevant side remark, I love your visuals.
I love John Cole’s name for Nick Gillespie: The Fonzi of Freedom.
The only time I have ever heard Che, Mao, or Marx mentioned on any liberal blog, was when some wingnut brought it up.
A typical argument with a libertarian.
Libn: Market competition is more efficient than government involvement.
t: What about health care insurance corporations which dominate a single state, or who are acting in concert as a collective trust?
Libn: Well they made a deal with the government. See! Government involvement is bad.
t: So why don’t you push eliminating that “legal” trust as a conservative plan for fixing the system?
Libn: HA! Typical liberal! Not only do you want the government to fix everything for you, you hate corporations too! YAAA-HOO! KOOK–KADOODLE-DOO…
t: POW! (*knocks Libn out with a right cross*)
Two things, timmeh:
#1 Eliminating those trusts was and is part of the Libertarian (and now Republican) plan for health care reform (you might want to start actually reading the signs instead of letting Oliver “decode” them for you).
#2 You have some pent up anger. May I suggest that you not be angry at yourself for being ignorant and instead just learn a few facts.
Radley Balko does some good stuff on civil rights abuses and the expansion of the police/surveillance state and I’m pretty sure Reason’s for “small government” stuff like gay marriage and drug legalization (or at least think the government shouldn’t be involved in preventing either) but otherwise you’re correct; they’re neocons in “small government” clothing. I want to say they were much better 5+ years ago, but maybe I’m just covering for my own stupidity in having read them fairly regularly.
Why is it that typical libertarians NEVER provid links supporting their case? Oliver provided links which showed that elected Republican officials supported nutjob birthers, deathers, and islamophobes. Can you do the same with your case?
HA!
You’d think that a black man would give a little more consideration to a magazine which opposes the militarization and overuse of police against poor, mostly black, people.
For all of Mr. Willis’ other positives, he really does have a soft, or blind, spot when it comes to allowing the government a whole lot of unaccountable power.
At least when it’s not wielded by a Republican.
“Why is it that typical libertarians NEVER provid links supporting their case? Oliver provided links which showed that elected Republican officials supported nutjob birthers, deathers, and islamophobes.”
LOL,
Oliver is a professional propagandista. It’s his dayjob. His boss is a professional political hitman, that’s his business, that’s been his career.
He used to be a rightwing hitman now he’s an out of the closet liberal hitman, a creature of George Soros. But no matter which team he is currently batting for his role has been the same.
Oliver coninually posts ledes that at very best are lies of ommission. Red meat is his bread and butter.
As long as this “Pundit A said X, therefore no one should ever take pundit A seriously again” argument has been used, and as long as it has never itself been taken particularly seriously, I wonder why you still use it?
Does the fact that you use this ridiculous argument to feebly attempt to discredit people mean we shouldn’t take you seriously anymore?
Lotta accusations there and no examples or evidence to support them. But a lotta accusations.
Typical.
Oliver is a professional propagandista. It’s his dayjob. His boss is a professional political hitman, that’s his business, that’s been his career.
He used to be a rightwing hitman now he’s an out of the closet liberal hitman, a creature of George Soros. But no matter which team he is currently batting for his role has been the same.
Oliver coninually posts ledes that at very best are lies of ommission. Red meat is his bread and butter.
So, you’re saying that Oliver has destroyed the libertarians ability to provide assertion backing links?
Well, Olvier obviously is in cahoots with Superman, so it makes sense that he’d have some mighty powers all his own. Watch how he single-handedly makes libertarians look like juvenile nincompoops! BANG! POW! ZOOM!
… okay, it wasn’t really hard or anything. Maybe he’ll get cooler powers next time. You can hope.
tick tick tick…
Tired of waiting. Is it…
Here comes my man Phil, with… The Links.
Links! Linkety linkety links. La Links!
Phil-links. Phillinkety phlinkety links. Phillllllllllllllinks!
I say, uh I want, uh I want, uh I want… da links.
………………zzz
Whaddaya bet Phil dropped the links off at the wrong blog?
Maybe a Christian porn blog, where they have videos of girls wearing high heels stomping on balloons.
Libertarianism. Puh!
Repack,
If your accusation thread is aimed at me what is it you don’t think is true?
That Ollie doesn’t work for a professional propaganda outfit or that his boss isn’t a political hit man who’s played both sides of the fence.
Links, please?
Let’s start with everything you’ve ever said ever.