How Margaret Thatcher Advanced Women’s Liberation

Feminists should celebrate the iconic British leader.

As Margaret Thatcher is laid to rest and the world continues to take stock of her life, the inevitable questions arise that would have no counterpart for a male leader: What did Thatcher and her legacy mean for women and for feminism? There was little love lost between the Iron Lady and the “Women’s Libbers,” as she called them. But if liberation means pursuing one’s own path regardless of others’ notions of what women should be, then Britain’s former Prime Minister was one of the great liberated women of the 20th century—one who defied both traditional and feminist prescriptions.

Some feminist commentators have dismissed Thatcher as the type of high-achieving woman who has no interest in challenging gender inequality but sees herself as an exception, an honorary man. But that is simply not true. In February 1952, Thatcher—then a 26-year-old aspiring politician—wrote an article for a popular tabloid, The Sunday Graphic, expressing the hope that Elizabeth II’s recent ascension as Queen of England would “help to remove the last shreds of prejudice against women aspiring to the highest places” and usher in a new era for women. Deploring the “mistaken” idea that the family suffers when women combine marriage and motherhood with careers outside the home, she cited the inspiring examples of outstanding women in various fields—and warned that unless female success becomes more common, “we shall have betrayed the tremendous work of those who fought for equal rights.”  This call to action was titled, “Wake Up, Women.”

Other little-known facts in Thatcher’s biography also demonstrate that she did not avoid identifying with women. At Oxford, where she studied chemistry, she spent a year doing lab work under a trailblazing female scientist—Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin, future Nobel Prize winner. Despite their political differences, Thatcher regarded Hodgkin as her mentor and later had her portrait installed at 10 Downing Street.

As a politician, Thatcher did not focus on “women’s issues”—partly because, notes historian Amanda Foreman, she had to avoid being pigeonholed into a female political ghetto. (Because of that, Foreman says, she gave up her early effort while in Parliament to change the tax code to incorporate the costs of child care.) However, she always supported abortion rights, saying that “one of the worst things anyone can do in this world is to bring an unwanted child into it,” and generally strongly believed that the government should not play Big Brother on social issues. In 1988, angering traditionalists in the Anglican Church, she spoke out in favor of women’s ordination to the priesthood. She also angered feminists by warning against a generation of “crèche” (day care) children; her issue, however, was not with working mothers but with government programs that she was convinced had grown so large as to threaten liberty.

Left-wing British journalist Fiona Millar asserts that it was the Labor Party, not the conservative Thatcher, that advanced women’s cause by promoting government-mandated paid maternity leave. Yet there is evidence that overly generous “family-friendly” policies can trap women on the mommy track and make them less desirable employees, and thus be less conducive to dismantling gender inequality in the marketplace than the American-style individualism Thatcher championed. Another leftist female journalist who makes no secret of “hating” Thatcher even while conceding that she broadened horizons for women, Zoe Williams, concedes that Thatcher’s relentless assault on the power of labor unions—bastions of traditional working-class manhood—likely facilitated and sped up women’s entry into the labor force.

Williams also cavils that Thatcher “had no interest in peace, or sundry other matters that might be considered ‘feminine.’” The irony, of course, is that such definitions of “the feminine” rest on the very stereotypes the women’s movement ostensibly challenged. Yet even as Thatcher set an unprecedented example of female leadership, many feminists were taking the view that women in politics should bring “feminine” values and qualities into the public sphere. That meant stressing mutual care rather than self-reliance, emphasizing “need” rather than justice, and seeking peace and compromise rather than asserting strength. 

Thatcher’s refusal to conform to such neo-traditional stereotypes would likely have earned her the wrath of the sisterhood even if she had been more outspoken on behalf of women’s rights. Member of Parliament and former actress Glenda Jackson caused a stir recently when, during a tribute to Thatcher in the House of Commons, she not only assailed the late premier’s “heinous” legacy but questioned her female identity, saying that women of the World War II generation would not have seen their ideas of “womanliness” in Thatcher: “The first Prime Minister of female gender, OK. But a woman? Not on my terms.”

This suggestion that conservative women are somehow “not real women” is not a new thing on the left. It is a bizarre permutation of the more old-fashioned misogyny that denies a woman’s femaleness if she is too ambitious or outspoken, or insufficiently maternal.

Meanwhile, conservatives who salute Thatcher often downplay the extent to which she broke traditional molds of femininity. She was a woman who wrote, all the way back in 1952, that a woman could have children and resume her career after a short break. In 1991, six months after leaving office, she was quoted as saying, “Home is where you come to when you've got nothing better to do.” 

Margaret Thatcher refused to be the angel of the hearth; she also refused to be the angel of the giant nursery of the welfare state. In the end, she is being judged by her ideas and achievements that mattered for all humanity regardless of gender. That’s women’s liberation.

This article originally appeared at RealClearPolitics.

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

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Women's libbers, like many advocate groups invested heavily in identity politics, don't want equality, they want special treatment. Earning achievement on their own merit, or making choices and living with the consequences, aren't the goal. The goal is to force the state to force everyone else to make them comfortable.

    Feminists aren't going to like the Thatchers of the world because the achievements of those types of women aren't accomplished for or by the notion of special treatment of the gender.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Fist's real name is Brody, that's fucking hilarious.

  • ||

    Does everybody agree we should call Fist "Brody" from here on out?

  • diabla4ever||

    Women's libbers? How old are you, 90? Thatcher was ronald reagan in drag. Women "libbers" do not ask for special treatment. They have fought for the right of women to vote, the right to an education, the right to not be classified as property and the right to leave their "masters." Many of these courageous women were and still are, jailed, tortured and killed. Special rights? The right to be treated like human beings? stfu!

  • Milton Devotee||

    Nice article. Maggie was awesome.

    Who's the biggest douche?

    Pick a Bush [neither attended her service]or Barry the Commie [sent a rep to the Hugo Chavez service, but none to Thatcher's]

  • 21044||

    I partially agree with you Milton, Obama should have gone to Thatcher's funeral or sent an official representative. Stuff like this is what the position of vice president is for. One or more of the ex-presidents would have been good too.

    However, I don't agree at laying any blame at Bush I, Bush II, Carter or Clinton's feet. If one of the ex-prezs were to go, they need to go as official representatives of the whole country. The fault lies with Obama and his State Department. While often noisily complaining, the Brits are our greatest ally and we need them as much as they need us.

  • Xenocles||

    Bush I might have been expected to go as a contemporary, but his son had no reason as far as I can see other than as an ex-president, which as you say would carry a sort of official quality to it.

  • John||

    Bush I would have been an excellent choice as an official representative. It would have been respectful and made Obama look reasonable and bi-partisan. There really wouldn't have been any downside to doing it. And ex Presidents love to do that kind of shit. Hell, if Bush I's health wasn't up to it, Bubba would have happily gone.

    The fact that Obama didn't do such a simple gesture that caused no downside for him and would have made him look statesman and bi-partisan just shows what a complete and total jackass he is. He is without doubt the biggest jackass President in my life time. Even Nixon would have managed to get this right.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I wholeheartedly agree. A slap in the face of our biggest NATO ally.

  • Xenocles||

    I think my biggest surprise from Obama has been his uniform failure to get this sort of thing right. I expected him to at least be able to look good politically.

  • John||

    I think it shows him to be a very petty and nasty person. He is willing to cut off his own nose to stick it to his enemies.

  • From the Tundra||

    Come on. Any halfwit could get this right. He's had a history of these seemingly obvious diplomatic fuck-ups, so clearly it's some sort of bizarre strategy. I wish some of our allies would stop trying to be tactful and just call him a dick. It would be fun to watch the media try to ignore it

  • John||

    And it seems to involve the Brits a lot. He really does seem to have a daddy complex and take that out on the Brits. Daddy was a Kenyan Communist who hated the Brits, so hating the Brits is one way of living up to daddy's legacy and getting over the fact that daddy abandoned him.

  • John Galt||

    Surely, that about sums it up.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think my biggest surprise from Obama has been his uniform failure to get this sort of thing right. I expected him to at least be able to look good politically.

    I know, right? For someone who has had such a world-wide, multicultural upbringing, Obama really is a dumb, ignorant, provincial little twat. From obsequiously bowing in front of sultans and emperors, to various blunders in diplomatic protocol, and to the petty and petulant slights against long-standing allies, Obama, in his role as Head of State, has continually embarrassed the nation by exporting himself as the stereotype of the Ugly American.

  • John||

    That is the thing HM. The circles that Obama ran in, academia, media, social justice types, are the most providential. ignorant twats on earth. They have rarely been anywhere outside the US and Europe and when they do go somewhere they learn nothing.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ngolandia deserves investigation, and not the kind of free pass it has heretofore received. These "new imperialists" -- the American law students brightly spending their summers refashioning the world -- eight weeks here in Moscow, or 4 weeks in Cambodia, or 5 weeks over here

    Moldburg had a long riff (that I'm too lazy to look up) saying that the NGOs are today's imperial foot soldier and petty bureaucrats. It was pretty convincing.

  • jem||

    what Patrick said I'm shocked that a mom able to get paid $5552 in four weeks on the internet. did you read this site link wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • diabla4ever||

    Right, what we need are more dumb leaders like bush, jr.?

  • PapayaSF||

    I came here to say something like that, HM. Obama seems like a mixture of clueless and arrogant when it come to diplomacy (and other things).

  • Irish||

    I read an article in the Scotsman that said Obama is a geopolitical dunce that makes Jimmy Carter look like Otto Von Bismark.

    That's probably my favorite insult regarding Obama's total lack of foreign policy competence.

  • diabla4ever||

    The world has far more respect for him than they did either of the bush nuggets.

  • diabla4ever||

    yeah, the scots aren't racist and politically stupid, are they?

  • diabla4ever||

    guess the mass murderer bush was better?

  • Mike M.||

    You're surprised, seriously? Block Yomomma detests Great Britain with every fiber of his being. This has been common knowledge for about five years now.

  • Xenocles||

    He was sold so heavily on his flash and statesmanship, so yes. I didn't expect him to use those purported abilities for any good purpose, but I expected him to have them.

  • diabla4ever||

    hmmm....is it because blair, thatcher, etc...are as ethically challenged as reagan, bush 1 and 2?

  • jdkchem||

    People who've had real jobs don't make theses kind of fuck-ups. Chocolate Jesus' failures should be no surprise to anyone.

  • diabla4ever||

    Macy's is having a white sheet sale. Thought you might want to look crisp and clean for your cross burning this weekend.

  • Virginian||

    Dude, Bush was the guy who betrayed the Reagan movement. He was the American John Major. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Thatcher explicitly banned him from her funeral.

    The biggest mistake Ronnie and Maggie made was turning over power to weakling squishes who were eager as hell to reach across the aisle, and so threw away the gains that had been made.

  • John||

    I don't see that. What did Bush I do? He passed what in retrospect was a very mild budget bill that in fact set the table for the slow down in spending that happened the rest of the decade and he cleaned up t he S&L crisis he inherited (properly I might ad by closing banks, sending people to jail, liquidating assets and making good on deposits). Otherwise, he mostly just vetoed shit the Democratic Congress sent him. Go back and look. Bush I vetoed more bills in one term than any President in the 20th Century.

    Bush I's only real sin was not vetoing the ADA. But that monstrosity was bi-Partisan and due mostly to Bob Dole.

  • Virginian||

    Raised taxes. Executive order banning assault weapon imports. Not to mention that kindler genteler nation bullshit, cedeing the argument that conservatism is mean and nasty, and liberalism is kind and nice.

    Fuck him, hes a Yankee Ivy League statist fuck.

  • John||

    He hardly raised taxes and got real control on spending in return. And the EO on importing weapons, while not good made about zero difference to the availability of guns in this country.

    He was the most competent President we have had since Reagan and one of the more competent of the 20th Century. I would take Bush I over the three that followed him in a heartbeat.

    And calling someone a "statist" is not an argument. I wish that word would be banished from the lexicon. It has been raped enough.

  • From the Tundra||

    I'm OK with Yankee Ivy League Fuck though. Has a nice ring...

  • Virginian||

    He hardly raised taxes and got real control on spending in return.

    Hey shriek says that about Obama.

    Dude, why do you think that Bush I is the left's favorite Republican president? He raised taxes, banned guns, and gave a wonderful concession speech.

    Being better then the three that followed him is dammning with faint praise.

  • John||

    They only like him because he lost. At the time they hated his guts because he wasn't what they wanted.

  • Virginian||

    Dude they hated W even when he signed Ted Kennedy's education bill, Russ Feingold's Campaign Finance Reform, and a new healthcare entitlement into law.

    Watch out for "W was really a lot more moderate and reasonable then Rand Paul is...why can't Republicans learn from his wise statemanship." stories in 2016.

  • ||

    Watch out for "W was really a lot more moderate and reasonable then Rand Paul is

    I gotta ask. Is this some kind of meme that I missed, or do you really not know the difference between then and than?

    /pedant

  • John||

    And W was more reasonable than Paul. Isn't Paul supposed to be some crazy conservative while Bush was America's biggest liberal? Can you fuckers keep your stories straight once in a while?

  • diabla4ever||

    do you all climax when you lie? Just wondering, you do it so often and with such zeal!

  • diabla4ever||

    yeah, a human being.

  • Calidissident||

    Define real control on spending? It increased in real and nominal terms while he was in office, barely slipped as a % of GDP, and the deficit increased (even with the tax increases). And any "spending controls" passed by Congress during his term are meaningless as they can be just as easily repealed once he left office.

  • John||

    Calidissident,

    There was this thing called the S&L collapse which drove up spending under Bush I. But unlike TARP it was a one time thing and was budgeted that way. So when Clinton took over, it was done and went away. That and the cuts in defense spending after the cold war set Clinton up, even though he tried his best to spend it all during the first two years in office.

    It amazes me how people never remember anything. That was only 20 years ago. And people still look at the raw numbers and have no clue what they meant in context.

  • Calidissident||

    "There was this thing called the S&L collapse which drove up spending under Bush I."

    How much? Burden of proof is on you to prove how significant that was

    "But unlike TARP it was a one time thing and was budgeted that way."

    What does this even mean? Considering we haven't passed a budget in how many years, I'm not sure how you can compare the budgeting to TARP, since there hasn't been any budgeting

    "That and the cuts in defense spending after the cold war set Clinton up, even though he tried his best to spend it all during the first two years in office."

    Nominal cuts in defense spending were very minor, as shown by this chart

    http://static3.businessinsider.....e-2001.jpg

    And nominal spending increases per year weren't significantly different in Clinton's first two years than his last 6.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

  • diabla4ever||

    Believe the S&L collapse started under reagan and it was due to deregulation. When that parasite was president, everything went to sh..! Homelessness rose, mental patients were put on the street, AIDS was God's punishment against homosexuals, until reagan's friends were dying, union busting and the ethically challenged ceo's got rich! Wait, forgot about Iran Contra and their source of funding. CIA selling drugs to finance an illegal war. God Bless what?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nope. He built his business and political career in Texas. You can call him a carpetbagger if you want, but we wash our hands of him.

  • ||

    I'm happy to call the Bushes carpetbaggers.

  • diabla4ever||

    Amen to that.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    What did Bush I do?

    Raised taxes.

    Pushed and signed ADA which has cost trillions of dollars in the last twenty years.

    Pushed and signed an expansion of the CAA and CWA which have also cost trillions.

    Further federalized education through various machinations.

  • diabla4ever||

    part of Iran Contra and helped cover it up. Dessert Storm...an idiotic move with horrible consequences for our soldiers. Decided to lay in bed with the immoral majority, banged his secretary while talking family values, helped get one of the dumbest pathological liars in office...his son. How much has that jackal's lie about weapons of mass destruction cost us and Iraq?

  • diabla4ever||

    bush 1 the drunk riding a wheelchair? yea, he is so respected. Like the way, you leave out that awful thing he sowed, bush jr. who cannot travel because he is afraid. What was it he is afraid of?

  • Copernicus||

    "However, I don't agree at laying any blame at Bush I, Bush II, Carter or Clinton's feet"

    Nobody could go coz the Treasury gave the last visas to Beyonce and Jay Z.

  • Calidissident||

    What exactly do we *need* the British for?

  • mr simple||

    To have someone to go along with our crazy schemes?

  • diabla4ever||

    Obama did the "right" thing. She was a toxic and amoral leader who doesn't deserve a presidential farewell. Nelson Mandela refused to go to Ronald Reagan's funeral for many of the same reasons. Their war on the poor and bigotry.

  • diabla4ever||

    hmmm.....was it because she was a racist tyrant?

  • 21044||

    Good article Cathy
    I lived in the UK, Scotland specifically, from a few years before and through all the Thatcher years. Thank heavens for Maggie. She took a UK stuck in the fifties kicking and screaming into the sixties.

    They were still mining coal in Ayrshire with pick and shovel in 1980, for the pit was of such low quality that it did not warrant modernization. The Labour pols wailed on about "social contract," but the real reason the pits were open was to keep the miner's union membership up. That this miner's union subsidy was at the expense of productive business, we'll that wasn't any of Arthur Scargill's (mine union leader; self-styled king) concern.

    My now ex-laws all lived in what the Brits call council housing. We'd call these complexes the projects. All of my ex-laws, save one very hard working one, probably did not have a positive net worth. Under Thatcher the council house residence became eligible to purchase their council houses under a sliding pricing scheme related to how long they have been renting. My ex-laws now die with positive net worths.

  • John||

    Labor Britain was just awful.

  • diabla4ever||

    You obviously know nothing about the 50's or the 60's. Her policies were typical of the 50's.

  • John||

    I was thinking this morning about the Boston bombings and how liberals love to call everything rightwing violence before they have any evidence. Liberals call anything and everything regarding race a "dog whistle". Yet, they think nothing of calling all of their political opponents "right wing" in one breath and then referring every act of terrorism as "right wing" until proven otherwise. Is it that they really don't know what a dog whistle is or that they know full well and loving doing it themselves?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    or that they know full well and loving doing it themselves?

    The Big Lie works.

  • Virginian||

    I've had conversations with people where racism, greed, and other negative human things are rightwing. So FDR becomes a rightwinger, because of internment.

    It's a really impressive "heads I win, tails you lose" thing.

  • John||

    Best of the Web made a great point yesterday. The liberals can't enforce their will on a constitutional republic as evenly divided as the US is right now. So their solution is to make their opponents enemies of the state. The idea is to link being "right wing" to being violent and thus being an enemy of the state, thus preventing their opponents from speaking.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Which is likely to erode popular support for the state.

  • diabla4ever||

    hogwash!

  • ||

    Outright lying in the media (both sides) has become the norm. They have become nearly as bad as the politicians themselves.

    I often wonder if there is a market for the truth? I would love to start a televised 24 hour news network that shot straight. Just the facts. And since there is no way possible to fill a 24 hour period with real news, instead of filling the gaps with fluff as the current assholes do, I'd use the time to dismantle the lies/spin/bias of the stories being presented by other sources.

    It would be controversial, so it would attract the idiots who watch the news for controversy, but instead of attacking the opposing political party, it would attack the media.

  • Virginian||

    Eh you could do a 24 hour news channel with just straight news. There are plenty of stories going on in the world.

  • John||

    The biggest problem with bias is not so much how they report, although there is plenty of bias in that too, but what they report. The media is biased more than anything because they refuse to report stories that don't fit their preconceived prejudices or that they think will hurt their pet causes. This is why Trayvon Martin, an unremarkable shooting in Florida, becomes a national media obsession and the Gosnell case, one of the most horrific murder cases in US history is a local crime story that the national media has to be shamed into covering at all.

    So I don't know how you get around that. As soon as you start making honest news judgements and reporting on stories the media doesn't want covered, you will immediately be told you are biased and have an agenda and are just another "faux news" and so forth.

  • ||

    Probably so, but the average Joe won't really care about who was elected in Chile. And I would love a platform from which to call out the media. You not only compete with them, but directly attack your competition. And who knows, they may be forced to change their ways using the good old free market.

  • John||

    The problem Francisco is that media outlets are becoming vanity projects funded by leftists. What you are describing should have happened after the emergence of Fox News. Fox News getting such great ratings should have caused the rest of the media to figure out that their biases were driving off a huge portion of the market. Instead they just went more left and were content to lose money in the name of the cause.

  • From the Tundra||

    There are other (better) places to find news, though. We never have any of the big MSM outlets on at home (with the obvious exception of the NHL Network).

    Despite this, my 13 year old son consistently surprises me his awareness of events. He came downstairs this morning pissed off about a story he found about that soldier in Temple, TX arrested while open carrying his rifle. Source? YouTube

    I wonder if the young'uns will force change on the dinosaur media.

  • John||

    They will change it by killing it. People like your son are unlikely ever to get their news from one of the big News networks or a major newspaper. Andrew Breitbart said that in a few years the media as we know it would be gone. And I think he was probably right about that. Hell, the big TV networks are dying. I never dreamed I would see that.

  • ||

    the big TV networks are dying. I never dreamed I would see that.

    Why? Is it that people prefer the new medium or is it the shit content on the old? I prefer watching/listening to news on teh teeee veeee. I can multitask. The problem, for me, is I can't find an outlet that is reliable. It's cheerleading and sensationalism all the way down.

  • ||

    FOX is as bad or worse. They do exactly the same shit, just for the other Team. Instead of rejecting the practices of Team politics they embraced them. (How they captured the market share WAS, however, pure genius.)

    I want to call them all out as liars. Like Reason, but on teh teee veee.

    Nick, Matt, get on this. You could invite members of the commentariat on as guests.

  • John||

    You miss the point. The point is Fox News made a fortune by appealing to the audience that the major media had been ignoring. If the market worked the way it should, the rest of the media should have moved more to the center in an effort to win back the viewers Fox News took. But they didn't do that. They just went more left and didn't seem to care when their ratings got worse.

    And Fox News is not conservative. The only people who think that are people who have never watched it. It is tabloid. They spend most of their time talking about missing white girls or celebrities or whatever else they think will sell. And to the extent that it was conservative, that ended when Murdoch got in all of the trouble in the UK. Right now, it is really not much better than CNN. The only difference is that Fox at least tries sometimes to be professional and CNN and MSNBC seem to really be just a video blog of the typical DU poster.

  • ||

    And Fox News is not conservative.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Gasp

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • John||

    It is not. Turn it on. Watch it sometime. You tell me what is "conservative" about the latest missing white girl or Bill O'Reilly.

    Let me guess, you haven't watched the network and years and only know it by its reputation.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, but their competition explicitly gives a media soapbox to folks like Melissa Harris-Perry. If we're judging by norms and not standards, FdA wins.

  • John||

    Seriously Fransisco,

    You need to turn it on and watch it sometime. The idea that it is some Republican conservative network is really a lot of horseshit. It is only "conservative" if you consider CNN to be unbiased.

  • ||

    Dude, I watch it all the time. I watch all three. CNN, MSNBC and FOX. FOX is as much Team Red as MSNBC is Team Blue. Of the three, CNN is the least biased, although they still suck ass.

  • John||

    FOX is as much Team Red as MSNBC is Team Blue.

    So who does FOX News employ that is even close to Melissa Harris Perry or Special Ed or Crazy Larry? Sean Hannity? Not even close. The people on MSNBC are deranged.

    And if it sucks so bad, why do you watch it all of the time? That doesn't make sense. Hell, I rarely watch it. But watch it enough to know it is tabloid not conservative.

  • ||

    Actually, O'Reilly and Hannity ARE just as bad as Crazy Eddie and Matthews.

    I suspect you don't see it because you lean right and agree with them more. Now, I'll agree with FOX over MSNBC maybe 60-40, because republicans are slightly closer to libertarians than democrats are.

    Why do I watch it all the time? Lack of better options in that medium. Like I said, I prefer news from the television. I'll usually bounce back and forth between the three, watching until I find myself yelling at the screen, which is my cue to switch channels. When I get to the point that can't watch any of it without yelling, I turn it off.

  • Smilin' Joe Fission||

    There is an anchor from Fox19 in Cincinnati, Ben Swann, who was great at reporting facts during the election and continuously pointed out the bias and straight up lying the MSM was reporting. He has a segment on about once a week called "Reality Check" which was 5-10 minutes.

    He still does Reality Check but he is now doing his own YouTube program called "Full Disclosure".

    I recommend checking out some of his segments on YouTube if you get a chance. He posts all his videos on his Facebook page too.

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    FdA is right, CNN is the least biased of the three. It was quite apparent during the 2012 primaries.

  • ||

    I agree if I wanted to turn on a channel to watch election results come in or something I would generally turn on CNN but recently they've just had completely shitty reporting. Their coverage of the bombing and manhunt were atrocious. Plus they have that piece of excrement Piers Morgan now. Really all the editorial shows on all the channels are biased and awful.

    I think Fox's regular news reporting isn't bad though. Shepard Smith isn't half bad.

  • ||

    Their coverage of the bombing and manhunt were atrocious.

    Yeah, I was bouncing around yesterday as it was all coming to a head. CNN was AWFUL! FOX and MSNBC were talking about the flash-bangs and gunshots for 10 minutes before CNN mentioned them and CNN was almost a full 5 minutes behind on reporting the capture.

    I think the whole "have the anchor at the scene" thing is a bad move. Used to be the anchor was at the studio and had access to a lot more resources than they have on location. AND I CANNOT BELIEVE these networks don't have people watching the other networks to make sure they aren't missing something.

    The fact that Anderson Cooper is standing 4 blocks away from where it's all going down brings nothing to the coverage IMO. He'd be more comprehensive reporting from the studio.

  • John||

    Shepherd Smith is better than anyone on CNN or MSNBC. Fransisco is just wrong about this.

  • John||

    O'Reilly is just as crazy. But he is also a fucking populist liberal. There is nothing conservative about O'Reilly.

  • Calidissident||

    Red Tony strikes again

  • VG Zaytsev||

    O'Reilly would have beeen a conservative democrat before the socialist took over that party from 70s-90s, and drove out large groups of semi-sane people.

  • diabla4ever||

    who are you? glen beck?

  • diabla4ever||

    and conservatives throw a racist slant or better yet, point their middle fingers at Muslims, try to deny their right to a place of worhip or community center, while crying freedom of religion. think at the beginning of this it was the conservative talking heads who described the suspects as "dark skinned."

  • Virginian||

    Thanks to nicole, the ad for the top of the page was for Astroglide. Let's all take a moment to recognize this achievement.

  • phandaal||

    I usually get Christian dating site advertisements.

  • AlmightyJB||

    All hail the anal queen!

  • Copernicus||

    Maggie's contribution to the Women's movement was disproving the old adage you needed to be young and sexy to make it in life.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    When she was young, she was sexy.

  • John Galt||

    And as if that wasn't enough, she was also a chemist.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    In England, a "chemist" is basically a pharmacist, which Thatcher wasn't (as far as I know).

  • Xenocles||

    Went to Oxford for chemistry or chemical engineering or something chemical (in the US sense).

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I was just being a pedant.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Never go full pedant.

  • diabla4ever||

    she was definitely toxic waste.

  • John||

    I have read she was quite flirty and really knew how to use her sex appeal. Maggie apparently was quite the woman back in the day.

  • diabla4ever||

    this article sounds like she made up a bunch of excuses for NOT doing what she could. She was a good ol' boy in the worst sense.

  • Underzog||

    Hey Ekaterina! Is the apprehension of that Islamic fellow who blew up my Boston Marathon an example of your jihad against Muslims? Is this young fellow a misunderstander of Islam? Perhaps "Reason Magazine" and the many anti-Semites here are an important weapon in the Islamic holy war and its violent attempts to establish a world wide caliphate.

    Ekaterina! Appeasement and writing in effect please don't hurt me won't work with the Muslims. Stop being a seditious, appeasing fool!

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

    "And thou shalt call him Ishmael and he will be a wildman. His hand against everyman and everyman's hand against him."

    Genesis 16:22


    "Rights are not involved in those primative societies.They make a deal with us. They want to bring us in to develop their oil and then they try to exploit and literally murder us by means of that oil. That is an unforgivable crime."

    Ayn Rand's last appearance on the Phil Donahue show

    Jihad Watch

  • From the Tundra||

    Um, John? Got that screeching monkey video handy?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You think reposting this drek somehow makes you right, you grosser meeskeit foss? By taking the time to post, isn't your stomach growling now? How can you stand taking a break from fress-ing vi a chazzer? If you're so concerned about an Islamic caliphate, why don't you go on the front lines and volunteer with the Mahal? Oh, that's right, even the IDF doesn't want a useless, ugly, fat coward like you.

    So, allow me to repost:

    Listen you grosser foss meeskeit, shut the fuck up and shove more food down your pie hole. You are an embarassment to the Jewish people, and may G-d use the righteous hand of his vengeance, the destroying angel, the Melech ha-Movitz, to strike a virulent and painful bone cancer upon you, your senile alter kaker of a mother, Fanny, your faygeleh brother Chaim, your kurvah niece Tzipporah and her schmendrick of a husband, and anyone else associated with you. And may you die scared and alone, alienated from all who loved you. And may your neshama be torn apart after your death and cast into oblivion.

    Amen.

  • jdkchem||

    Is there a shortage of xanax?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    you could do a 24 hour news channel with just straight news. There are plenty of stories going on in the world.

    Seriously. We have 24/7 "news" channels which probably provide less substantive coverage than the antediluvian Walter Cronkite model. They just repeat the same ten minutes' worth of headline scare stories over and over and over.

    "Why did that happen? Who cares?" And on to that plane crash footage.

  • From the Tundra||

    Yesterday was the worst. There was literally nothing happening and they went wall to wall on the search. "Ok Bill, now I see a couple trucks moving very fast..."

    People were gathered around the fucking tv in our office all day until I finally shut it off.

    60 people missing in Texas isn't newsworthy? Not even for a quick update?

    By the way Brooks, "antediluvian" is a spectacular choice.

  • John||

    They are really as much or more provential fuckwads than they are leftists. The man hunt in Boston was in Boston. You know an important place. Why would anyone want to report about a bunch of rednecks getting blown up in some town in Texas no reporter would ever live in? The West explosion might as well have happened in Uganda as far as the national media is concerned.

  • ||

    Accidents aren't as sexy as a running gunfight. The accident was over and didn't have the same potential to make money.

    Give us dirty laundry.

  • Generic Stranger||

    We can do "The Innuendo"
    We can dance and sing
    When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
    We all know that Crap is King
    Give us dirty laundry!

  • ||

    That song was insightful and ahead of its time.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Insightful yes, but not ahead of its time.

  • jdkchem||

    Uganda would have been important because not reporting Uganda would be racist.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "More than 100 dead after earthquake strikes China's Sichuan region"

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2.....an-region/

  • John||

    To your typical dip shit Washington/New York living journalist, an earthquake in China is about as important as the explosion in Texas.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Small Earthquake in Chile, Not many dead"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....e_and_work

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You're just being grumpy, John. If I were a business owner in America with a factory in Sichuan, I'd want to know a lot of details about the earthquake. Just as if I were a large-scale farmer in China, I would be interested in the details of a factory that might have supplied my fertilizer.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    But Texas is flyover country. Who gives a shit about those rednecks when we have sophisticated city folk cowering in fear of a single 19 year old boy?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You have things mixed up.

    In reality they had more to fear from the hundreds of amped up cops armed to the teeth. But what they were in fear of was a 19 year old boy.

    Here in KY, we would have all been sitting on our porches with various firearms flanking us, not locking ourselves inside hoping that the mean teenager wouldn't choose my house.

  • ||

    Yes, the pussification of the urban parts of the nation is nearly complete.

    All that's left to do is vilify the rural.

  • jdkchem||

    The very reason for the existence of the Boy Scouts. Now being a reasonably self sufficient boy of 10 is considered mentally ill.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Here in KY, we would have all been sitting on our porches with various firearms flanking us

    Maybe some Bostonians wanted to do that, but were afraid of defying the orders to stay indoors of the FBI/SWAT/Cops, and, thusly, having their dog shot?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Maybe some Bostonians wanted to do that, but were afraid of defying the orders to stay indoors of the FBI/SWAT/Cops, and, thusly, having their dog shot?

    This is almost a certainty. Anyone trying to actively protect their home would have definitely run afoul of the constabulary, and would have been punished for it without question.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Who could be afraid of these guys?

  • Mike M.||

    Truly covering the news in a timely fashion, especially internationally, costs a shitload of money, and the overwhelming majority of people really just don't give a shit about what's going over on in Bumfuckistan. Televised hard news has been a money loser pretty much forever.

  • John Galt||

    Had no idea the Iron Lady was a chemist.

  • ||

    Isn't the story that she helped to create soft-serve ice cream? I remember reading something about that a while back.

  • John||

    While the University of Wisconsin has been raising tuition and clamoring for more taxpayer support they have been stockpiling hundreds of millions of dollars in unspent tuition and federal grant monies.

    Sources in Madison familiar with the discovery tell RightWisconsin that the total of non earmarked funds in the massive UW Slush Fund is at least $450 million.

    http://www.rightwisconsin.com/.....82191.html

    It is just a matter of time before the universities go the way of the medieval monasteries.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You mean the government will seize theirp property and consign the poor people who relied on their charity to the tender mercies of the Poor Law and the vagrancy statutes?

  • John||

    No. I mean they are going to become so corrupt and go so far from their original mission and alienated from the population at large, a group of opportunistic political leaders are going to be able to loot them.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I get your point, but (a) medieval monasticism wasn't as bad as Protestant historiography indicates, (b) in any case, the corruption in the monasteries was much less than the corruption of the governments which seized their property and distributed it to rich, greedy people who lacked the monks' sense of social responsibility to the poor, and (c) there continue to be monasteries to this very day - where do you think Thomas Merton lived?

    I just have a bit of a thing about casual dismissal of medieval monasticism, which is a very complex phenomenon.

    The early Benedictine monasteries played a key role in Europe's economic development, for example.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    At no time did the monasteries become as corrupt as modern academic institutions. For instance, I am not aware of any monks who advocated either the eugenic sterilization of the poor or the normalization of fatherless households in poor communities.

  • John||

    Sure they were never as bad. And Henry VIII was a thieving tyrant and most of his closest followers common criminals. But they were able to get away with looting the monasteries because the monasteries had become so disliked. If even the worst and most tyrannical medieval English king had tried that, the country would have rebelled. But Henry VIII got away with it because people no longer cared to defend the monasteries.

    At some point, there is going to be a populist leader who is going to look at Harvard's $28 billion endowment and the other hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in university endowments and take it all just like Henry VIII did the monasteries.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    At the risk of being pedantic, there *was* a rebellion against Henry VIII (the Pilgrimage of Grace, motivated in part by the dissolution of the monasteries), but it was (regrettably) unsuccessful.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrimage_of_grace

  • John||

    It is a shame that the Tudors benefit from having Shakespeare to write their historical propaganda. I would never give up Shakespeare. But the Tudors were fucking awful. Murderous tyrants every single one of them. Henry VIII was a worst tyrant than even the worst of the Plantagenet kings.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It is just a matter of time before the universities go the way of the medieval monasteries.

    That is an apt analogy and higher education already has gone the way of the medieval church (not just monasteries).

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum will be dedicated Thursday at Southern Methodist University, an event that will draw all of the nation’s living presidents to Dallas. Despite the coming fanfare, many Americans consider Bush’s presidency a failure. There is little evidence that scholars, including the influential historians who pronounce the success or failure of an administration, are having second thoughts about their assessment of Bush as a failed chief executive. Unfortunately, far too many scholars revealed partisan bias and abandoned any pretense of objectivity in their rush to condemn the Bush presidency.

    Give it up, WaPo. The stench of Bush will never fade. Iraq will always be a disaster and "worst ever" is apt.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....inions_pop

  • John||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjL5aAMk1xE

    BUSHPIG!!!!! BUSHPIG!!!

    Needs more CHRISTFAG shreek.

  • From the Tundra||

    Wow! Underzog and now this! The best 420 EVAH!

  • Mike M.||

    Aww, Weigel is lashing out against his employer under the cover of his sockpuppet handle. How adorable.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Well, gosh!

    Upthread it seems a few True Libertarians upset that the US Govt. had no official response to Thatcher's death/funeral?

    When Koran-thumpers get all 'splodey across the world, the US's official position should be: "What? Huh? Don't matter to us unless it's inside our borders." It's either that or risk being called a Warmonger by some nitwit who's seen too many Futurama episodes.

    But break out the smelling salts. A politician has died! The time to act is upon us!

    Hey, what about those car bombs in Baghdad? Oh, fuck those people!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Let me guess, you're posting while high.

  • Irish||

    I don't even know what to make of this. This guy gets crazier and crazier every time his crazy ass shows up.

  • MJGreen||

    There's no such thing as seeing too many Futurama episodes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Sources in Madison familiar with the discovery tell RightWisconsin that the total of non earmarked funds in the massive UW Slush Fund is at least $450 million.

    You don't suppose they spent any of that money on political lobbying, do you?

  • John||

    Never. Next you are going to tell me that they laundered some of it to various pet lefty causes.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Building up "Gender and Privilege Studies" Departments don't really qualify as "laundering" the money. Just wasting it.

  • John||

    Yeah, but hiring Wisconsin Feminist and Transgendered Rights Now Organization to conduct a series of gender awareness seminars across the UW system for the small fee $10,000 an hour does count as laundering or leftist loser employment program however you like to call it.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Flanking maneuver detected.

    Ralph Demicco has watched the surveillance footage of a man shopping around his store, leaning on the counter and calmly chatting with the clerk before buying the gun he used to take his own life later that day. The man was one of three people, who in the span of a week purchased firearms from Demicco's gun shop and used them to commit suicide.

    ----------

    "When you put suicide prevention in firearm safety terms, it makes it something that's already part of these businesses' mission," said Granger Brown, outreach coordinator for the Tennessee Suicide Prevention Network. "It changes something that could sound like gun control to being about firearm safety."

    "We need to be sure you aren't a danger to yourself; take this form to a Mental Health Professional and bring it back completed and signed."

    Firstly, if I were going to check myself out, I can think of several ways better than a gun.

    Secondly, aside from the legitimate interests of friends and family, why the fuck is it any random merchant's business how I intend to use the products I buy from him (assuming I'm not going to pull an Arnold at the counter)? What's next?

    "Say, you're not going to exceed the speed limit if I sell you this Mustang, are you?"

  • mad libertarian guy||

    There is always a flanking maneuver.

  • John||

    They will never give up. Also, they want to be able to treat suicides just like murder for the purpose of making all those scary "gun death" statistics.

  • jdkchem||

    We've decided to no longer sell soap to the prison system.

  • Jordan||

    I guess Wal-Mart should make me sign one of those forms before I buy a rope, or a kitchen knife, or sleeping pills. Let's ignore the 55 countries with higher suicide rates and almost non-existent rates of gun ownership. DEEERRRRPPP.

  • John||

    It is mostly men who kill themselves with a firearm. Women tend to use pills or slit their wrists or such.

  • From the Tundra||

    Helium, according to a coroner friend, is the way to go. Apparently an effective, neat and orderly way to check out.

  • Jordan||

    A medical student recently killed herself with helium around here.

  • John||

    Wow. I had never heard of that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Plus your last words will come out sounding really funny.

  • BigT||

    Nitrous!!

  • OldMexican||

    In the end, she is being judged by her ideas and achievements that mattered for all humanity regardless of gender. That’s women’s liberation.


    And by the level of vituperation and scorn that this stateswoman received in her lifetime and even in death, it tells you that "women's lib" as understood by the modern feminists has NOTHING to do with judging a woman by her deeds but by the political correctness of her deeds, which ipso facto divides the concept into a "good feminist-bad feminist" dichotomy.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "conservative women are somehow “not real women”

    This is really what it boils down to with the left. Only women have the right to discuss women's issues and laws effecting women. Women who disagree with them are "not really" women so their voices can be ignored in these matters (lalalalala). Exact same thing with blacks or gays or any other "minority" group who don't tow the liberal line. All of their argumants really involve redefining words and people to mean something they don't. Then they say look we won the argument. I guess that's how you win an argument without logic, sense, truth or the decency to recognize those who disagree with you as even human.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Precious

    I want my money back.

    Last October, I gave $2,500 to support Heidi Heitkamp’s campaign to become North Dakota’s junior senator. A few weeks later, she won a surprise victory.

    I have had a long career in government and politics, but I don’t donate heavily to political campaigns. When I contribute, it’s because I know the candidate well or am really impressed with the person. Heidi Heitkamp was one of the latter: She struck me as strong-willed, principled and an independent thinker.

    But this week, Heitkamp betrayed those hopes.

    She voted to block legislation to make gun background checks more comprehensive. Her vote — along with those of 41 Republicans and three other Democrats — was a key reason the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

    Polling has shown that nine in 10 Americans and eight in 10 gun owners support a law to require every buyer to go through a background check on every gun sale. In North Dakota, the support was even higher: 94 percent. Yet in explaining her vote, Heitkamp had the gall to say that she “heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota” and had to listen to them and vote no. It seems more likely that she heard from the gun lobby and chose to listen to it instead.

    Another heaping helping of butthurt from the reasonable adults.

  • John||

    Or a heaping helping of trolling. Ever notice how half of the comenters on any leftist or mainstream board are Republicans who are perpetually just so angry about how the Republican party has just left them behind? Funny that. Kind of like how every single gun owner who ever coments "owns a gun but supports gun control".

  • AlmightyJB||

    Remember that's "common sense" gun control John. It's important to memorize the whole talking point. Someone else put a lot of time and effort into thinking for these people, the least they can do is to remember what to parrot.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Their tears are so yummy. What makes me want to wretch is how all these peoples whining is so close in parroting the standard left talking points. Why not just copy/paste from the moonbat websites. Why pretend at all that they actually think about the issues themselves. Or that they're even capable of it.

  • John||

    Hey JB. I am a gun owning former Reagan voter. I voted Republican all my life. But not since the tea party came along and the Republicans went radical right. They have left me. I am voting Democrat!!

    That about cover it?

  • From the Tundra||

    tea "baggers", John. Other than that, 1 gold star. Well done.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yep, Rand Paul has become a new favorite target as well.

  • John||

    Yup. In 2016, the talking point will be how they voted for reasonable people like Romney but they just can't stay in a party that would nominate someone like Paul or Cruz or Rubio or whoever. It is so predictable and so pathetic.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The fact that there are so many people that buy into it is what boggles my mind.

  • ||

    I keep hearing this 90% figure. DOes anyone actually have the data? I find it hard to believe 90% of Americans agree on anything. I really need to see how the questions were worded.

  • John||

    Here is what it is. There is one poll that said 90% of the respondents supported "expanded back ground checks" for gun buyers. Now understand that that poll didn't specify what kind of background checks. It also did nothing to measure the intensity of the support. A lot of people support a lot of things. That doesn't mean that they are going to change their vote based on it. It is a totally meaningless result.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Actually, I think the question was just a generic "Are you in favor of background checks?". Either way, it was way too vague, and other polling suggests that once you start asking more explicit questions, people's votes change drastically. For instance, "Do you think that backgrounds should be expanded to private sales" doesn't have nearly as much support.

  • Generic Stranger||

    *background checks.

  • John||

    So it is basically as Brooks describes it below. They really are totalitarians. In a totalitarian state, the state stays in power by making people who object to the state feel alone and isolated. No one knows how many people actually hate the government, so they feel alone and in the minority and don't do anything. This is the same thing here. They lie to try and convince the majority they are really just part of a fringe.

  • Sevo||

    "Here is what it is. There is one poll that said 90% of the respondents supported "expanded back ground checks" for gun buyers."

    Here ya go:
    'Mr/Ms Voter, do you support a law that stops people from killing kids?'

    'Mr/Ms Voter if background checks did this, would you support them?'
    Get ya 90%, easy!

  • John||

    Also, I have never seen a breakdown of the partisan split in the poll or if the poll even included voters much less likely voters. It is about as meaningless of a push poll as you can possibly have. But lefties hold onto it like a rosary.

  • MJGreen||

    Supposedly, don't fewer than 90% of Americans agree that the Earth revolves around the sun? Yet that many people agree on gun control? Sure.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Heard a little while ago on CNN another interview with the uncle. He said that in 2010 he had a conversation with the older brother and that he recognized than that the older brothers views on religion had become much more radical (evidently he had lived with his uncle at one point for a while prior to this). The uncle called a friend from the neighborhood where the family lived and asked if he knew what was going on. He told him that yes there was an Armenian man in the neighborhood who was converting people and "brainwashing" them. CNN has glossed over that comment since then but seems pretty important to track this guy down.

  • John||

    It would wouldn't it. But that would go against the narrative that all American Islam is peaceful and apple pie.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'll tell you what you won't see in light of the fact that the FBI interviewed the older brother two years ago. You won't see signs or website headlines proclaiming "Obama Knew!".

  • John||

    Yeah. Just think if the FBI had vetted Muhammad Atta in March of 2001. The media would have gone full Truther.

  • From the Tundra||

    Sounds like the uncle did a more thorough vetting than did the FBI.

  • tarran||

    An *Armenian*?!?

    And they fled into an Armenian neighborhood in Watertown?

    Fascinating!

    It will also be swept under the rug. The Armenian community has parlayed their victim status into a lot of political power.

    Back in the 80's there was a wave of bombings aimed at Turks that was pretty unnerving. In the late 90's the FBI arrested a BU professor as the ringleader of the gang. I believe he was convicted. At the time the news treated it as no big deal, because Turks were evil genociders.

    I don't think they could sweep something like this under the rug so easily.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Haven't found the video on cnn online but they do have a blurb about it here.

    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013.....day-after/

    April 20th, 2013

    [Update 11:15 a.m. ET] Ruslan Tsarni tells CNN more about the changing religious outlook of Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Tsarni noticed changes as far back as 2009. The uncle recalls a phone conversation in which Tsarnaev called him an "infidel." The young man also told his uncle he was not concerned about work or studies because God had a plan for him. The possible radicalization of Tsarnaev began around that time under the influence of an Armenian man who was a recent convert to Islam, Ruslan Tsarni said he learned from a family acquaintance. Tsarni said his radicalization happened "right there, in the streets of Cambridge."

  • AlmightyJB||

    He basically gave the same interview to NBC.

    http://m.today.com/news/uncle-.....-6C9529666

  • Ted S.||

    Armenians are Christians.

  • SIV||

    So they would have you believe!

  • AlmightyJB||

    According to the friend if the uncle, the Armenian was a recent convert to Islam. He then went about brainwashing the older brother. Hopefully there are not other young men brainwashed by this guy getting ready to do the same thing. I would have to think we'll get more info on this guy if the uncle turns out to be correct. It looks like CNN has their video up as well but I can't access the link from my phone

  • tarran||

    Armenians *are* Christians, but they have that Western Asian cultural capacity for vengeful violence, and a history where their victimization by other ethnic groups is a central theme.

    Interestingly Armenians *have* got away with terrorism in the past.

    It's surprising an unexpected to hear an Armenian might be a central figure in this, but it does explain what the hell those guys were doing running into Watertown, since it was about the dumbest place one could flee to if one was trying to slip out of town. If one is trying to rendezvous with ones' mentor, it makes great sense.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Mire Daley:

    Here in Chicago, we know how serious a problem gun violence is. Over Easter weekend, 25 people were shot in Chicago. Last year, more than 400 young people were shot in our city. Our mayor and police are working tirelessly to fight gun crime; over the past decade, the Chicago Police Department has taken 50,000 guns off the streets. But illegal gun traffickers don’t respect state lines, and easy access to firearms in other states helps fuel gun violence in Chicago.

    "Our local gun ban doesn't work for shit. This means we need a national gun ban!"

  • Virginian||

    Mencken on gun control:

    To all this, of course, the uplifters have a ready answer. (At having ready answers, indeed, they always shine!) The New York thugs, they say, are armed to the teeth because New Jersey and Connecticut lack Sullivan Laws. When one of them wants a revolver all he has to do is to cross the river or take a short trolley trip. Or, to quote the Nation, he may "simply remit to one of the large firms which advertise the sale of their weapons by mail." The remedy is the usual dose: More law. Congress is besought to "prohibit the inter-State traffic in revolvers, especially to bar them from the mails."

    Their arguments have not changed in seven decades.

  • John||

    How about it is a stupid waste of government money to build a race track to host one race a year/

  • SIV||

    They don't race in the streets?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I keep hearing this 90% figure. DOes anyone actually have the data? I find it hard to believe 90% of Americans agree on anything. I really need to see how the questions were worded.

    No kidding; it's utterly preposterous on its face.

  • John||

    But 90% of people agree that we should have background checks Brooks!1 Don't you understand that?

    The idea that the Senate wouldn't pass something supported by 90% of the population in a single day in a 99=0 vote is pretty ridiculous. Those Senators are just so beholden to the evil NRA they are willing to end their careers.

  • Virginian||

    Honestly, I think the number is spot on. The issue is that the Form 4473 is already in existence, and anyone who has ever bought a gun knows it.

    They're freaking out because the Congress declined to pass a law that already existed.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "It would be nice if bad people could never get their hands on guns. True or False?"

  • John||

    "Do you support common sense measures to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and criminals?"

  • Xenocles||

    Define "bad people." Then tell us the details.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone believes the Bahrain government were "stupid in a lot of ways" to host a Grand Prix, because of the opportunity it gives to political protestors.

    You don't think the long and happy association between Bernie and Max Moseley was just a bizarre coincidence, do you, Shirley?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Here's a random question ejected from the depths of my consciousness:

    Why hasn't anybody ever terrorbombed the spring bucking horse auction in Miles City, Montana? You'd think the dedicated hard core radical fringe of the animal rights movement would be all over that.

  • John||

    The Animal rights people tend to go after research more. If they were going to go after horses, they would blow up the Kentucky Derby or something. They hate horse racing.

  • Mike M.||

    They would stand out like sore thumb, and as soon as they tried something they would be shot. In small town rural America, everyone knows who is isn't from the neighborhood.

  • ||

    "Tsarni said his radicalization happened "right there, in the streets of Cambridge."

    People in the Boston area have been referring to Cambridge as "The People's Republic of Cambridge" forever. Thus, I find the location of his radicalization kind of ironic, Alanis.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I don't

    The proglodyte witches brew of collective guilt, anti-americanism and empowerment via victimhood produces toxic results in privileged Americans. It's entirely predictable that it would have even worse effects on people with a recent history of real suffering.

  • WomSom||

    Roll that beautiful bean footage dude.

    www.Ano-Surf.tk

  • ||

    ...wait ...what?

  • ||

    LOL. The DU Nimrods are calling us out!!!!!!!!!!
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022721728

    Golly! What a shitty week for libertarians!
    Vicious criminals taken down by local and federal law enforcement. Victims cared for by local emergency services.

    A fertilizer plant that skirted safety regulations for the past 25+ years explodes devastating a small Texas town.

    Tens of Britons mourned the death of Margaret Thatcher.

    And the "Academic" underpinings of their economic justification discovered to be fraudulent ... by a publicly funded PhD student at a public university.*

    What's a Randite to do now?

    I'm glad that their belief system was totally repudiated this past week - couldn't have happen to a more loathsome bunch

  • ||

    I like how R&R is supposed to be the sole reason anyone, anywhere would ever consider TEH AUSTERITY.

  • MJGreen||

    And the "Academic" underpinings of their economic justification discovered to be fraudulent ... by a publicly funded PhD student at a public university.*

    Huh? Am I supposed to check Krugman or DeLong to figure out what this means?

  • ||

  • MJGreen||

    Oh, that. Your previous post explains why that didn't jump to my mind; I had no idea R&R were supposed to be such huge players or their work the underpinning of, well, anything. They have been cited a lot the past couple years, but sheesh.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement