Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Did Matt Walsh Go Too Far?

  1. #1

    Did Matt Walsh Go Too Far?

    I don't agree with Matt Walsh about a lot of things, but he's exactly right about the basic ideas he presents here.



    On the other hand, Larken Rose was advocating similar strategy and tactics, for similar reasons YEARS AGO, but he was roundly criticized for "being mean to statists" and the majority of the "liberty movement" just ignored him, to wit:



    IMO, this is one of the big reasons why the so-called "liberty movement" has, historically, consistently suffered one crushing defeat after another for as long as I can remember. You can't be "nice" to people who are determined to oppress or kill you, whether they just want to oppress you a little, or they want to dump you in a mass grave.
    Last edited by CCTelander; 03-12-2023 at 09:47 AM.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    And here, L. Neil Smith was saying the same kind of thing all the way back in 2000:

    Murder by Gun Control
    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@lneilsmith.org

    Special to TLE

    Why is everybody being so damned polite?

    No sane individual living in the last days of the 20th century would knowingly welcome Nazis, the KGB, the Khmer Rouge, the ATF, or the FBI into their homes. We've learned too much from what happened to Jews in Germany, Kulaks in Russia, "landlords" in China, everybody in Cambodia, and victims of state terrorism at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

    But let the Jackbooted Thugs' Ladies' Auxiliary slap on makeup and broomstick skirts, let them prattle in squeaky little girl voices and breathe their vegetarian breath all over us, and for some reason we think we have to ask them in and offer them chamomile tea.

    Well, to hell with that. I used to give a lecture at the local university that began like this: "Until this morning you could plead ignorance for positions you take or fail to take on the moral and political issues of the day. When you leave this classroom an hour from now, having heard the facts I'm about to present, it'll either be as a brand new libertarian, or as a fully self-aware fascist monster."

    Today I say the same to politicians, bureaucrats, cops, Handgun Control, Inc., Colorado Governor Bill Owens, and those so miserably lacking in originality that they had to plagiarize Louis Farrakan (of all people) and launch a "Million Moms March". Also, anybody else who thinks it's morally acceptable to use the hired guns of government to take everybody else's guns away.

    Gun control may have felt like a nice, warm, fuzzy idea to its advocates back in the 1960s. However today, owing to a great deal of serious legal and historical scholarship -- and a series of horrifying but highly educational events -- anyone who wishes to violate the fundamental covenant on which this nation is based, by attempting to outlaw personal weapons, has to get past three extremely inconvenient but absolutely incontrovertible facts.

    (1) Every year, in this nation of more than a quarter billion individuals, a few thousand (three quarters of them suicides) are killed with firearms, while _millions_ of Americans successfully use personal weapons to save themselves and others from injury or death. Guns save many, many times more lives than they take.

    (2) In every jurisdiction that has made it even microscopically easier for individuals to carry weapons, violent crime rates have plummeted by double-digit percentages. Vermont, where no permission of any kind is required to carry a gun, is named in many respectable surveys as the safest state to live in.

    (3) More telling and urgent, every episode of genocidal mass murder in history has been preceded by a period of intense disarming of the civil population, usually with "public safety" or "national security" as an excuse. According to Amnesty International -- hardly a gang of right wing crazies -- in the 20th century alone (in events entirely separate from war), governments have slaughtered more than a hundred million people, usually their own citizens.

    The U.S. is far from immune. Look up "Operation Keelhaul".

    Clearly, if those millions had been armed, they couldn't have been murdered by their own governments. And if the governments hadn't known where all the weapons were and who possessed them, the people couldn't have been disarmed. It follows, then, that no amount of gun control -- especially "soft" measures like registering guns or gun owners -- is reasonable or safe. Those who tremble at the idea of personal weapons -- "hoplophobes" is the diagnostic term -- are fond of saying that guns are made for only one purpose. Well, gun control serves only one purpose, too -- the incapacitation and extermination of whole peoples.

    That's why we call it by its right name: "victim disarmament".

    If you think it can't happen here, ask Donald Scott (look him up, too). Ask Vicky and Sammy Weaver. Ask 82 innocent men, women, and children (two dozen beautiful, harmless, helpless little children) from the Seventh Day Adventist church at Mount Carmel near Waco, Texas. Oops, you can't ask them, can you? Because they're all dead -- murdered in cold blood by government terrorists who have yet to be brought to justice.

    Let's ask some questions that everybody on my side's been too polite -- too damned polite -- to ask before.

    What kind of mind would sacrifice millions for the sake of a few thousands, especially when it's been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that victim disarmament can't save even those thousands?

    What kind of mind wants a return to mean streets and ever-soaring crime rates?

    What kind of mind collaborates with agents of mass murder and genocide?

    Make no mistake: you victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, in the words of T.D. Melrose, who'd rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.

    You're people, down deep in your blackened, shriveled souls, who wait like vultures, secretly delighted whenever atrocities like the Columbine shootings occur -- atrocities whose only significance to you is their usefulness in advancing your political agenda. Dancing in the blood of innocents, just like the lying, thieving, murdering rapist you've sent to the White House twice in a row.

    You're people who, like German voters in the 1930s, have empowered and unleashed on your decent and unsuspecting neighbors the most evil and violent terrorist bureaucracy in American history.

    You're people, in short, who must be stupid, insane, or evil to continue arguing -- in the face of indisputable facts and irrefutable logic -- that others must be forced into a state of helplessness and victimized by individual criminals or the state.

    Stupid, insane, or evil.

    You are morally responsible for what happened at Waco. It was undertaken (bad choice of words, probably) by your favorite agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, at your behest, in your name, in pursuance of the policies you've always advocated. The blood of those babies, of their mommies and daddies, is on your head. You did it. You killed them as surely as if it were your hands at the controls of those tanks.

    Stupid, insane, or evil.

    Harsh words, but what's the point in being polite to advocates of mass murder and genocide? Those are the alernatives: stupid, insane, or evil. Smart people, sane people, good people know, in the words of Robert A. Heinlein, that "An armed society is a polite society."

    If you were interested in saving lives -- even one life -- you'd join me in demanding that the Bill of Rights be stringently enforced, that the 25,000 gun laws on he books (each and every one illegal, each and every one responsible for the injury or death of countless individuals) be repealed, nullified, or otherwise disposed of.

    Immediately.

    For the children.

    You'd agree that, as long as we permit the public school system to continue to exist, it has an obligation to instruct children, starting in kindergarten, in the safe and effective use of firearms.

    Allow me to repeat that: "safe and effective use".

    Emphasis on "effective".

    Now don't go all soft and skooshy on me. I can see the razor wire and bayonets behind your New Age gobbledegook. I can hear the tramp, tramp, tramp as you goose-step to the Horst Wessel Song. I can smell the first faint traces of gas seeping from your chambers of death.

    Let's make it clear for the dimmest bulbs among you: the kids at Columbine High didn't die from too many guns, they died from too few. I'm not suggesting that the teachers should have carried guns -- not as franchised agents of the state. They should have carried guns as ordinary individuals, exercising a sacred right, and in performance of a solemn duty to protect the young lives that were placed -- very foolishly, as it turned out -- in their hands.

    What's more, those young lives needed weapons, too. Instead, they were forbidden the means of self-defense -- even, in effct, the knowledge of self-defense -- and like millions of victims before them, their numbers were added to the ongoing Gun Control Holocaust.

    And you killed them.

    Stupid, insane, or evil.

    You killed them all.

    How many more helpless individuals will have to die for you -- be sacrificed on the altar of your nice, warm, fuzzy idea -- before you see what you've done? Don Kates, Gary Kleck, Sandford Levinson, John Lott, all were card-carrying liberal college professors who somehow forced themselves to look at the facts instead of the lint in their bellybuttons. All (and others) have reached the conclusion that the Second Amendment says exactly what we "gun nuts" always claimed it did, and that society is better off if its members have personal weapons handy. " More Guns, Less Crime" is how Lott puts it.

    "Million Moms March", indeed. When you came to my town of 100,000, all you could attract was four deluded idiots. There were 16 times that number out in the parking lot, picketing your meeting!

    Measly, Miniscule March.

    Stupid, insane, or evil. Those are the choices. Be honest. Call yourselves "Mush Minded Morons" if you decide that stupid is the least intolerable of the options available. If you choose insane, how about "Mentally Mangled Messes"? If you want to go straight to evil, "Mass Murdering Monsters". They're alliterative as hell, and truthful.

    Stupid, insane, or evil. Like it or not, after today, those three words are going to start hanging around your necks like the fabled rotting albatross until, no matter where you go, no matter what you try to say, the first association your presence calls up in people's minds will be "mass murdering genocides".

    Stupid, insane, or evil.

    Or all of the above.

    Your choice.

    L. Neil Smith is publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise and author of 24 books including The Probability Broach, The Lando Calrissian Adventures, Forge of the Elders (forthcoming in April, 2000) and The Mitzvah, with JPFO founder and executive director Aaron Zelman. Order these books at: http://www.lneilsmith.org//lnsbooks.html
    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2000/libe68-20000331-07.html
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  4. #3
    The difference here is that Matt Walsh, on the clip above, is indisputably right.

    Larken is very often wrong. His error is usually either an overclassification of calling people "statists", or a complete lack of understanding of legitimate nuance.

    What Larken refers to being "mean to statists", may sometimes be more accurately described as Larken being wrong - not mean.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 03-12-2023 at 12:48 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    The difference here is that Matt Walsh, on the clip above, is indisputably right.

    Larken is very often wrong. His error is usually either an overclassification of calling people "statists", or a complete lack of understanding of legitimate nuance.

    What Larken refers to being "mean to statists", may sometimes be more accurately described as Larken being wrong - not mean.

    Without. concrete examples of where you allege Larken to be wrong, to be engaging in an “overclassification of calling people statists,” ( not even quite sure what you exactly mean there) or exhibiting “a complete lack of understanding of legitimate nuance,” nothing you’ve said above amounts to much more than your own completely unsupported assertions.

    In my own experience, typically when people accuse Larken of being wrong, it’s not because he actually IS wrong, but because they actually ARE supporting or advocating for some level of statism, want to keep on doing so, and yet want also to be considered morally correct in the process. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it too. Most of the time they simply don’t like him because he shines an uncomfortable light on their own cognative dissonance.

    Larken is mostly right. This stuff isn’t particularly difficult or complicated to figure out. Most people want to make it difficult or complicated in order to maintain their own pet statist ideas and policies while at the same time maintaining their own view of themselves as one of the “good guys.”
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    In my own experience, typically when people accuse Larken of being wrong, it’s not because he actually IS wrong, but because they actually ARE supporting or advocating for some level of statism, want to keep on doing so, and yet want also to be considered morally correct in the process.
    Well then you tell me if I'm a statist.

    I self identify as a voluntaryist but maybe I'm in fact just a statist in denial.

    My views:
    - I don't think taxes are necessary and I would prefer to live in a region without taxes
    - Taxation in the current political climate is theft, but that's only because secession is forcefully opposed
    - Minarchism, Communism, Fascism, are all compatible with the NAP as long as the individual right of voluntary association is respected

    Am I statist?

    If yes - then shrug, I guess am statist.
    If no - then Larken Rose is wrong or at minimum, lacking the requisite nuance.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Well then you tell me if I'm a statist.

    I self identify as a voluntaryist but maybe I'm in fact just a statist in denial.

    My views:
    - I don't think taxes are necessary and I would prefer to live in a region without taxes
    - Taxation in the current political climate is theft, but that's only because secession is forcefully opposed
    - Minarchism, Communism, Fascism, are all compatible with the NAP as long as the individual right of voluntary association is respected

    Am I statist?

    If yes - then shrug, I guess am statist.
    If no - then Larken Rose is wrong or at minimum, lacking the requisite nuance.

    You're still not providing anything concrete to judge by, just a few vague, ambiguous statements about your beliefs that don't provide enough info to determine much of anything. Despite the fact that it appears to me that we might be about to start playing the definition game, let me try to help you out here.

    Let's say that I own and work on a farm. This farm was legitimately homesteaded by my ancestors and has been in my family for several generations.

    Let's also say that my farm is situated in a region in your hypothetical world that imposes taxes but does not "forcefully oppose" secession.

    How do I go about seceding so as to not pay the taxes? What does that look like?

    Another scenario: Suppose my farm is situated in a region where the people are fascist. Again, I want NOTHING to do with their fascism. How do I "opt out"?

    And finally, what does any of this have to do with Larken being wrong about something?
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    You're still not providing anything concrete to judge by, just a few vague, ambiguous statements about your beliefs that don't provide enough info to determine much of anything. Despite the fact that it appears to me that we might be about to start playing the definition game, let me try to help you out here.
    I don't think you're really even trying to understand any of my points. But I will proceed assuming you are at least making the effort. As with most things related to anarchist theory, these concepts tend to fall on the side of the abstract.


    Let's say that I own and work on a farm. This farm was legitimately homesteaded by my ancestors and has been in my family for several generations.

    Let's also say that my farm is situated in a region in your hypothetical world that imposes taxes but does not "forcefully oppose" secession.

    How do I go about seceding so as to not pay the taxes? What does that look like?
    The average farm scenario is fairly straight forward. If you want to secede, you stop paying taxes. That's what that would look like.

    I say "average farm scenario" because this can get complicated quickly and I'm happy to get into the edge cases with concrete examples if you prefer but that could of course be a lengthy discussion.

    Another scenario: Suppose my farm is situated in a region where the people are fascist. Again, I want NOTHING to do with their fascism. How do I "opt out"?
    The bottom line is this, whoever you are seceding from has an ethical obligation to make a good faith effort to allow you to secede. And yes this is "vague" and "ambiguous" and that is highly intentional because ethics itself is vague and ambiguous. If you take the view that there is an absolute truth to ethics you are likely to disagree with everything I've said in this post.

    As an example, I live currently in a region that is fascist (the city), and I "own" the property I live on.

    In an ethical world, if I were to decide to secede, the fascist government would have an obligation to negotiate with me on good faith to make the arrangement work for both parties.

    If I wanted to put a 20 foot concrete wall around the borders of my property, it would probably be reasonable for the government to demand that I relinquish the sidewalk of my property so it remains available for use by the other residents of the neighborhood (e.g., they have a right to travel).

    They would be expected to pay me a fair market rate for that portion of my property.

    If that arrangement does not work for me, and I want to put a 20 foot concrete wall around all of my property - sidewalk included - I should be allowed to do so. However, the government could expect me to pay compensation for any construction work to modify the roads and sidewalk around my property so that the other resident's right to travel is not impeded by my decision.

    Basically, people have an absolute right to secede, but they also have an obligation to negotiate with the people they're seceding from, to address any legitimate damages caused by the secession. Whether you think the above is a "legitimate damage" is largely irrelevant, as the point is, people should make good faith efforts to allow people to secede. And what that looks like, precisely, will vary from person to person, region to region.

    What is not a legitimate damage, is protection rackets. The claim that "you're getting free protection from our military" is absolutely bogus, and I don't think it should ever be considered a "legitimate" damage. Perhaps in some absurd edge cases it could be legitimate, but I don't have the imagination to conjure such a scenario.

    And finally, what does any of this have to do with Larken being wrong about something?
    Larken calls everyone a statist. He'd probably call me a statist, for simply disagreeing with him.

    He's wrong that taxation and minarchism necessarily requires supporting the initiation of violence (e.g., "statism"). If most people who support minarchism appear to be statists, it's because most people are statists.

    Minarchists are probably less likely to be statist than the average person. Definitely less likely to be statist than globalists. (Globalism is by definition a statist ideology, as it cannot accomodate more than 1 jurisdiction)

    Larken - and the anarchist movement in general - would do well to try to understand how minarchism can be compatible with the NAP. Minarchism is a very popular view, and if anarchism were understood in the context of minarchism, maybe more people would be more open to the concepts of the NAP, anarchism, etc.

    But just automatically labeling every minarchist a "statist" (even if most are), does not do anybody any good.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  9. #8
    Random rant tangentially related to this thread:

    Anarchists (myself included) should really find better a better word to use than the "state" when what is really meant is "an involuntary political system".

    Using "the state" in this sense conflates the idea of having a central government, with involuntary membership in that government.

    Classically, some anarchists truly are against "the state" (having a central government of any kind) but I don't think that's what most anarchists here (and Larken) intend to mean when they use that word.

    Not intending to get into a semantic circle jerk, just an observation.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Walsh was right, but I think better points would have been not on how pretty or not the guy looks, but on the reality of it all. Reality is that if you have XX chromosomes, you are a woman; if you have XY, you are a man. It has nothing to do with how you feel or how you dress, or even what body parts you modify. The woke seems to parrot the word, science, well, the science is defined by your chromosomes.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Random rant tangentially related to this thread:

    Anarchists (myself included) should really find better a better word to use than the "state" when what is really meant is "an involuntary political system".

    Using "the state" in this sense conflates the idea of having a central government, with involuntary membership in that government.

    Classically, some anarchists truly are against "the state" (having a central government of any kind) but I don't think that's what most anarchists here (and Larken) intend to mean when they use that word.

    Not intending to get into a semantic circle jerk, just an observation.
    I've said a number of times over my years at RPFs that if a genuinely libertarian society (whatever that might look like) is ever actually achieved, many (most ?) anarchists and minarchists will proceed to argue vehemently over whether it's "really" an anarchy or a minarchy. I lost interest in debating the matter after I came to that realization. Such debates overwhelmingly tend to become exercises in definitional wheel-spinning.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 03-19-2023 at 01:30 PM. Reason: "exercises is" --> "exercises in"
    The Bastiat Collection ˇ FREE PDF ˇ FREE EPUB ˇ PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    ˇ tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ˇ

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I've said a number of times over my years at RPFs that if a genuinely libertarian society (whatever that might look like) is ever actually achieved, many (most ?) anarchists and minarchists will proceed to argue vehemently over whether it's "really" an anarchy or a minarchy. I lost interest in debating the matter after I came to that realization. Such debates overwhelmingly tend to become exercises is definitional wheel-spinning.
    Normally I would agree, and I recalled you saying that as I was writing the post.

    But I do think it's worthwhile to try to find an alternative to "state" and "statism", in the context of "non aggression".

    Most normal people (rightfully so) equate "state" with "government",

    whereas the anarchist community equates "state" with "aggression",

    which only tends to exacerbate the public image that "anarchy" = "no government"
    Last edited by TheTexan; 03-16-2023 at 09:46 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  14. #12

  15. #13
    The problem is that we (the people who lean "right" compared to modern day statists) are actually much kinder than people on the left.
    It's because of us (the people who lean "right") that this madness took hold: we decided to sit back and "live and let live." We let the morons take over and now they're running everything while we're on the defensive. Meanwhile, the older generations are dying off and the utterly brainwashed youth are taking over everything. This isn't going away any time soon, I'm afraid.

    Well, do you see what ended up happening? I was laughing at the oldies and Christians telling everyone "gay marriage will lead to increases in pedophilia" or "gay marriage will lead to bestiality."

    I'm now standing back and saying "oh, they were right..."

    Buckle up, it's going to be a long ride. But don't sit back and do nothing... That's exactly how we got here.


    Matt Walsh is just calling a spade a spade. The "right" needs more people like him willing to be mean in public instead of being afraid of being cancelled.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    I've said a number of times over my years at RPFs that if a genuinely libertarian society (whatever that might look like) is ever actually achieved, many (most ?) anarchists and minarchists will proceed to argue vehemently over whether it's "really" an anarchy or a minarchy. I lost interest in debating the matter after I came to that realization. Such debates overwhelmingly tend to become exercises is definitional wheel-spinning.
    Yes... I think most of us have had this exact same "epiphany," we'll call it.

    Now, I'll stray a little bit here because I know you and I have had previous conversations about the LP, etc. but my path is taking me a little bit away from whatever we can define libertarianism as now. I believe society does need structure and law and it needs to be put in place by what I personally (and there's the rub living in a society - my definitions won't match other peoples) believe needs to be "righteous" people.

    The experiments we've been witnessing these last several years are proof enough for me that this path we're on is unsustainable and scary, to be frank. I say this as a father of young children. My decisions are no longer just for me.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!



Similar Threads

  1. Matt Walsh school board
    By tod evans in forum Coronavirus SARS-CoV2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-14-2021, 07:02 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-23-2020, 03:28 PM
  3. Matt Walsh: The Pros & Cons of Being Murdered by the President
    By Occam's Banana in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-27-2014, 04:19 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-04-2013, 11:28 PM
  5. Rand Paul on The Matt Walsh Show 9/12/13
    By jct74 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-12-2013, 07:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •