Texas Tea Party Candidate for Congress does Reddit “AMA” – Brutal Hilarity Ensues

matt-mccallThere are a lot of funny things that happen on social media, but perhaps none so droll, tongue-in-cheek and even sometimes esoteric as you find daily on Reddit. Yesterday, a Tea Party candidate by the name of Matt McCall who is hoping to primary the incumbent conservative Congressman Lamar Smith (TX-21) decided to do an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit with the title “I am (SOPA-Opponent) Matt McCall, I am Running against Lamar Smith in the Republican Primary in TX-21. AMA!

While it would seem politically smart for you to introduce yourself as being an opponent of something most Reddit users hate, it would have also perhaps been smart for your campaign manager to research what they were about to get you into. People on Reddit tend to be pretty left-libertarian from my experiences and although they may not be be fans of SOPA (a bill his primary opponent introduced) or CISPA, they damn sure do not like fundamentalist Christians posing in libertarian clothing – which if you look at his website, it’s pretty obvious that he is. There are a few references to things a lot of Progressives, Liberals, Libertarians and even some conservatives despise on the page that states where he stands on the issues. Dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, auditing the Federal Reserve (a big one for the Ron Paul crowd) and repealing the Patriot Act – they’re all there in the “Issues” section of his site.

Here’s Mr. McCall on a couple of issues where he contradicts himself on tyranny. He claims that guns are to protect us from tyranny, and then supports tyranny when it comes to taking away women’s reproductive rights:

Second Amendment

We must work to expand gun rights at every turn. I believe in the constancy of the human nature and the Second Amendment was meant to arm WE THE PEOPLE to defend against the Tyranny of the majority. The second Amendment is not about hunting or protecting your family from robbers.  It is about tyranny and its avoidance.  So far it has worked out pretty well for us.


Life starts at conception and should be protected under the law. I will fight for the rights of the unborn at every given opportunity. Not every citizen in America is a Christian.  Yet as one, I am struck with the fact that to be one is to be a sinner in need of mercy, which I am in the particular.  I believe that the Republican Party should be the party of mercy on this subject.  I am completely against abortion and would like to eliminate it.  While working in that direction we should have mercy, not only on the unborn, but on the women as well. And we should work to protect them from those who would scar them emotionally and physically for the rest of their lives.

Now you can see why other Redditors unleashed hell on him with comments like these:

“Matt McCall,

In a previous comment, you said you wanted to keep the government “out of our bedrooms.” Yet immediately following that statement, within the same comment you said marriage is between a man and a woman.

Would you like to take a moment to explain this comment and defend your position?”

“Do we have any verification on this guy? This looks like it’s all a carefully orchestrated ruse. Some of the grammar on here is just so bad that I can’t believe an actual campaign is behind this.”

“This is a TERRIFIC AMA. “The kids on Reddit, they hate SOPA! They hate Obama! Matt, it’ll be a cakewalk!””

“Oh my god, watching this AMA crash and burn has made my crappy day so much better.”

You won’t be able to see his name next to his replies other than “deleted” where the username was, because one of his staffers (Chase Mitchell) ended up deleting his Reddit account as shown here in a Facebook exchange.

However, you can find all of the comments (including the ones I was not able to publish in this article) in the highlights here in /r/subredditdrama on Reddit. Feel free to enjoy. Oh and Mr. McCall also has an open “Endorse Me” section on his site, and a Facebook page that’s open for comments. I’m sure he’d love to hear from you!


Facebook comments

  • mcquestion5000

    Another old white guy trying to expand freedoms for things he loves (guns), and severely constrict them for things he doesn’t like and things he could never understand, like a woman’s uterus. All while preaching that the government should never get involved in our lives… except when it’s something he doesn’t like. The worst sort of hypocrisy. Not exactly surprising. In fact, it’s practically a punch line now.

  • Ralph Hickok

    I’m definitely a liberal, but I certainly support dismantling Homeland Security and repealing the Patriot Act.

    • Amy Moon River

      Most liberals do

      • Robyn Kern

        We were not for the patriot act when it was passed in 2003, or 2002 when ever it was passed. It has taken the GOP that long to figure it out!!!!! Keith Olbermann signed off every night with how many days it had been since the death of the constitution. Funny how it now effects the GOP and they are all over it as not being the right direction. Maybe should have thought about it when you passed it!

    • Richard

      Amen to that

  • davidsherr

    A friend of mine knew a band leader who called himself Manny Schevitz when he played a bar mitzvah and Manny Chavez when he played a Latin gig. I get the joke, assuming there is one.

  • Tom

    Another proud member of the KKK. Too bad Lamar Smith needs to go…but not with this idiot.

    • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

      Let’s hope he leaves by replacing him with a Democrat!

  • ElRonbo

    These morons claim the second amendment has protected us from tyranny. So explain the freedom enjoyed by the many countries that don’t allow widespread gun ownership. Or the tyranny that existed in Saddam’s Iraq (where huge numbers owned rifles and shotguns), or Nazi Germany (contrary to gun lovers’ myths, the Nazis didn’t impose strict gun control on the general population, in fact they relaxed existing laws).

  • jdubhub68

    Teapublicans want government small enough to act as an index finger so they can wag their fingers at us to “shame” our behaviors or to point at us and blame us for the consequences of their actions.

  • George Jetsohn

    If he truly believes life begins at conception then that’s not a contradiction, since he thinks the fetus is a person with rights. OTOH in the pro abortion world view the fetus is human if the mother wants it but not human if she doesn’t, which is just as odd to me.

    Bottom line it’s a complicated issue that you over simplified because you have a narrow and prejudiced point of view.

    • marciamaria

      Not true George. The pro “choice”, not pro abortion, views do not believe what you just said. Don’t be ridiculous.

      • George Jetsohn

        Sure they do, if a women gets an abortion it’s choice, if a man punches her in the stomach killing the baby it’s manslaughter or murder in many places. The fetus is just as dead, in one case the woman wants it that way, in the other case she doesn’t.

      • Sheva Bree

        It is usually only a crime if the infant is past viability, which means it could have survived outside the womb. It is a sticky situation and as horrid as it must be for anyone to lose a wanted pregnancy I disagree with any prosecution of anyone for killing a fetus before viability. Prosecutors who charge people for killing a fetus are just going for the heart strings vote with juries.

      • George Jetsohn

        But in many places you can kill the fetus after viability, and I believe you can always do it if you get a doctor to sign off on “health of the mother”. Either way you end up with circumstances where the personhood of the fetus is purely dependant on the mother’s desire that the child be wanted or not. How does it make any sense that a person is human if wanted and not human if not wanted?

      • Glenna Jones-Kachtik

        George, there aren’t very many women who carry a baby for 7 or 8 months & then decide they want an abortion now. 99% of late term abortions ARE just that – for the life of the mother. Something goes wrong or there is a fetal abnormality that will make the fetus suffer for a short time after birth…At any rate, that is a decision that the people whose lives that birth would affect should be the only people who should make the choice. You seem to try to present things in terms of black or white but abortion is neither.

      • George Jetsohn

        No I’m not presenting it in black or white, I am asking “when does life begin”, that should be the question. Not “woman’s right to choose” or “Life begins at conception”. Although I will say “Life begins at conception” is at least consistent, where the “woman’s choice” side seems to see babies as human if the mother is in one state of mind and less than human otherwise.

        BTW: I’ll wager that I can find a shrink just about anywhere in the country to declare that an eight month pregnant woman is in danger of postpartum depression due to an unwanted pregnancy and as such the fetus is a danger to the mother.

      • AnnaMossity

        The question is never if a fetus is or is not HUMAN, but if it is “alive.” My personal opinion, backed up by certain Biblical passages? It is the first breath of air drawn into one’s lungs, on one’s own, that embues one with “life.”

      • George Jetsohn

        So abortion is fine 30 seconds before birth? I don’t agree with that. Nor do I agree with “the Bible says” as an authority.

      • AnnaMossity

        You claim to not be looking for a black-and-white answer, and then ask a silly question like that! I don’t claim to know absolutely what is and isn’t “fine” for all people in all circumstances; Life, as you well know, is far, FAR from always being considered ‘sacred’ in U.S. culture/society. Many people believe that it is just fine for The State to murder a fully grown adult human being as punishment for… um…. killing another fully grown adult human being.
        Personally, I think abortion is “icky” and very sad, but Thank Imaginary GOD I don’t have to try to impose my own ethics upon the rest of the country.

      • George Jetsohn

        So there can’t be any standard for the beginning of life? How can anyone decide when it is acceptable to end life support?

        Capital punishment is an odd thing to bring up, someone who is executed has been found guilty of a crime. You may not agree with it but it’s a bad analogy. what crime has an unborn baby committed?

        But now that I closely read your comment I realize you are not opposed to capital punishment, after all to do so would be an attempt to “impose your own ethics upon the rest of the country”.

      • Maggie Alcantara

        dude quit being an ass abortion is a sticky topic as they told you there is no direct answer for your dumb questions so enough of your nonsense it is what it is if the mother wants to abort it that is her choice your not the one dealing with the pain

      • George Jetsohn

        Sorry, but I think there is a question of when human life begins,and once it begins I don’t think you can end it on the grounds the live person is inconvenient.

        The same discussion takes place about the end of life and there are standards for judging when a person is no longer alive, why not for when a person begins to be alive?

        Do you feel there is any point before birth that an unborn child is a human being? How about five minutes before birth? Could a woman change her mind and get an abortion during labor?

        Since I’ve never been able to get a straight answer from an abortion supporter I’m not sure,but it seems like the child exists in a philosophical quantum state based on the whim of the mother. At some point it’s a live human with rights if the mother wants it, but a non human having no rights if the mother does not.

        It doesn’t seem right to me that a helpless and powerless person should exist only at the whim of others.

      • Amy Moon River

        And in 31 states, the rapist has paternal rights to a child. Your logic is as fucked up as that fact.

      • George Jetsohn

        Sorry I don’t think in ideas that will fill fit on protest signs for you, as I am sure you are accustomed. Could you give me an example of a state with these laws, I’m curious as to what they really say?

        Either way one bad thing does not excuse another bad thing. How does it make sense that whether a fetus is human or not depends on the mother’s attitude towards it? Shouldn’t it be a scientific/medical question as to when life begins? When life ends is, why should the beginning be any different?

      • Chomper Lomper Tawee

        I cannot believe how ignorant you are.

      • George Jetsohn

        Yes, I know, I actually have an opinion that’s too long to be printed on a protest sign and too nuanced to be shouted through a bullhorn. Not only that there is no major group that shares it, I actually came to a conclusion on my own, scary isn’t how such ignorant behavior can be allowed.

        So please feel free to intelligently waive a Bible or coat hanger as you shout “woman’s right to choose” or “baby killer”.

      • marciamaria

        Okay, once you rephrase it like that…. but it’s always a fetus whether the mother wants it or not. You make it sound like we call it something one way and then something else another way. Whether you’re pro life or pro choice, we all call it a fetus.

      • George Jetsohn

        I haven’t checked who calls an what by what name. My point was, call it what you will, a fetus has human in some circumstances and does not have human rights in other circumstances based solely on the mindset of the mother. Which makes no sense to me.

        I don’t agree with the statement “life begins at conception” but at least it has an internally consistent logic.

      • Duncan McNeil

        If only you actually addressed the comments made. herpderp

      • George Jetsohn

        Like you did by saying “herpderp”?

      • Duncan McNeil

        The difference, of course, is that I more than adequately addressed your comments with “herpderp.”

      • George Jetsohn

        Yeah silly me I think the underlying issue is that of “when does life begin”, and further I think people are neglecting to discuss that issue and instead speaking in slogans based on their loyalty to one tribal like group or another.

        “herpderp” is certainly a reasoned and intelligent rejoinder. Do you have any other insightful commentary? “LOL”, “WTF”, or perhaps “OMG”?

      • Duncan McNeil

        The issue isn’t when life begins the issue is when the fetus is viable without the mother. Silly me for thinking that a mother’s safety or a baby’s viability is relevant. I don’t speak in slogans but you clearly speak in stupid.

        Herpderp is a reasonably unintelligent response to you covering your ears and yelling blah blah blah. My comment was ridiculously insightful.

      • George Jetsohn

        Really, so if a human being isn’t viable it can be killed, even if with time and treatment it can be made viable? That seems like a very odd standard that would allow you to kill almost anyone under medical care.

        For instance someone is injured in an accident, their prognosis is good but they are, for the time being on life support. Since the patient is not currently viable you can kill them with impunity?

      • Duncan McNeil

        If time and treatment would work then they wouldn’t be not viable. It seems like an odd statement because you didn’t understand what the word meant. Someone already made this comment days ago, and you chose to ignore it. Please leave me alone if you’re going to be too stupid to not understand simple concepts thus herpderp.

      • George Jetsohn

        Actually “viable” has multiple definitions, a fetus capable of life outside the womb is viable, an adult “fit for life” is also viable. A human who is not currently capable of sustaining life is in the same position as a fetus that has not reached viability. They are not currently viable, but will be in the future. I don’t think you really understood the concept yourself.

        So a human incapable of life is not viable as is a fetus at some point of development. But again it leaves the question why should that be the standard of someone having human rights? Many sentient adult people are not viable, you aren’t allowed to kill them.

        Or what of a child with a birth defect that will never be viable on it’s own without medical intervention after birth? Can you abort it five minutes before birth? What about five minutes after it’s born? Can you deny it simple treatment that would allow it to live (be viable) on the grounds that since it’s not viable without such treatment it has no human rights?

      • Duncan McNeil

        What can I say, I like killing babies.

      • George Jetsohn

        Not so intellectually superior when someone asks you to defend your position logically, are we Mr. Derp?

      • Duncan McNeil

        you got me, you’re way smarter than me. but satan is on my side

      • George Jetsohn

        Obviously I’m smarter than you, I know that Satan should be capitalized for instance.

        It is supposed to be cute though, your cookie cutter answers don’t work, probably because you have never really thought about them in any depth and thus can’t defend them, so you’re going to get edgy.

        You said “killing babies” and “Satan is on my side”, you so don’t care about society’s tired old boundaries. I’ll bet Mom and Dad would lose it if they read your posts!

      • Duncan McNeil

        no u

      • Duncan McNeil

        Aw come on back, we need to adhere by YOUR morality, quick, the social fabric

      • lestye

        Non-fetus individuals…newborns, children and adults…who are brain damaged and are not viable (not able to live/breathe on their own) are allowed to die every day.

        And there is nothing “simple” about the monumental efforts required to TRY to keep a fetus alive.

        I’m not sure what you mean by “sentient”. Many cultures consider non-humans to be sentient beings as well as humans, but I’m assuming you’re not saying every heroic effort should be used to keep animals alive as well.
        You seem to be looking for black and white, when there is none. Life is messy. You write about “human rights”, but what are they exactly? As well as a right to “life”, do they also include an individual’s decision to end their life, or refuse heroic measures to keep them alive when they are facing a life of pain?
        And for a child…do they include a right to a certain level of parenting…and if so, how will our human society decide what that one standard is, and then guarantee every parent meets it?

      • George Jetsohn

        No I’m not actually looking for what I would consider black and white. What I would consider black and white would be the “two” current sides of the issue, which aren’t really thought out points of view but slogans meant to protect someone’s prejudices. “Woman’s right to choose” and “Life begins at conception”.

        The issue is a medical and moral question, at what point does human life begin.We have medical standards for when it ends, why not for when it begins? Once human life begins then that person has human rights. My instinct would be that would be measured by brain function since I believe the lack of it is usually the deciding factor for when life has ended.

        What I find really astounding about this is the same arguments have persisted for decades despite advances in medical science.

        A complex system already exists to provide your last paragraph BTW.

      • lestye

        The traditional answer to “when does life begin?”, has been upon birth, because for the vast majority of human existence there’s been nothing else.
        Now, just recently, advances in medical technology have made the “at conception” argument possible. And the argument has begun. Is a cluster of human cells more valuable to our culture than the life of a girl or woman?

        But that same technology has brought other possibilities as well, including creating “ideal” new human fetuses in petrie dishes, choosing the sex and all the desired qualities, and none of the less desirable. And what about cloning human beings?

        There are a lot of arguments ahead…just because we CAN do something, SHOULD we? Life is messy, and there are going to be inconsistencies.

        Oh, and I disagree there’s a “system” to guarantee all children receive a “standard level” of parenting, much less education, medical care, nutrition…and the list goes on.

      • lestye

        Oh, and if it were males who were the child bearers and caregivers, would there even be a discussion?

      • lestye

        Oh, and if it were males who were the child bearers and caregivers, would there even be a discussion?

      • George Jetsohn

        So the choice is either “at birth” or “at conception”, no thanks. I don’t believe the sperm and egg are a baby the moment they meet. But OTOH if birth is the point why stop there? Why not five minutes after birth? What if the head is out but the feet are still in, does that count?

        Those are both incredibly simplistic viewpoints based on…..well I don’t know what the heck they are based on other than personal prejudice.

        Most of what you said has nothing to do with the subject, but on the matter of ‘life of the mother’. A: The vast majority of abortions are done as a form of birth control. B: Since abortion can be argued to be statistically safer than childbirth all abortions can be justified as protecting the life of the mother. Even those of complication free pregnancies with healthy fetuses.

  • terry

    I did some looking on Independent Institute… They are really a LIBERTARIAN think tank. I have been getting on them about the deceit of calling themselves Independent when it should read Libertarian Institute, if they were proud of being libertarian, and not HIDE behind the Independent Institute name… Libertarian Is Not Independent!

  • A P

    I’m glad Reddit or anyone nailed this guy, but can we not pretend that the site is an ally to any progressive movement when it is an infamous and unapologetic harbor for aggressive misogyny?

  • A P

    “(The Second Amendment) is about tyranny and its avoidance. So far it has worked pretty well for us.” Yeah, remember all those times the government tried to get all tyrannical and citizens with guns rose up against it to protect our freedom? (I can only think of this sort of happening once, and I don’t think “pretty well” is how I would describe it.) People who take this view are hilariously naive — they envision a newspaper headline saying “TYRANNY HAPPENED” and We The People congregating in the town square, guns in hand, and forming ranks. If our government was anything approaching tyrannical, there would be little agreement on that fact (as now,) let alone on what should be done and when and how and by whom, and many of those most loudly averse to “tyranny” would be cheering it on and condemning its critics as unpatriotic terrorists. Most of them don’t want liberty and justice for all; they just want tyranny in their side’s favor. This is why those with the most power don’t fear a public armed with weapons — they fear a public armed with good educations; there is no fighting tyranny no matter how many guns you have if you cannot recognize and identify it in the proper social and historical context and communicate, two-way, with the people around you about it. And I think we know where the Tea Party stands on education…

  • atsme

    Progressives, both Dems & Repubs, clearly have their heads up their butts if they oppose a Fed Reserve audit, dismantling of the DHS, and repeal of the Patriot Act – and NDAA. When you start sacrificing your own freedoms in the name of national security, you are falling prey to authoritarian rule which is exactly what Obama has proven over and over again during his term as dictator. Don’t forget, he has a pen and a phone.