Reason Morning Links: Financial Reform Hits Senate Roadblock, Pakistan Blocks the Internet, Immigration and Crime

|

Advertisement

NEXT: How Should Justices Judge?

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.

    1. Wow, that first linked article looks fun.

    2. Obama wasn’t a loud race-baiter like Al Sharpton; he was a deep-voiced, serious, almost sad, observer, a black angel come to forgive the iniquity of guilt-racked liberal America.

      Fucking good article. Everyone needs to read this. It’s scary as hell. Awesome link, Johnny.

      1. Reality-based, indeed.

        1. Orwell strikes again.

      2. Proof of that is how un self aware liberals are. Tell a liberal sometime that a lot of white people supported Obama out of white guilt. They go insane. They won’t give an inch. You would think that it would be easy for them to admit that in a country of 300 million people and a very complicated racial past, at least some people voted for Obama out of guilt. But they won’t even admit that. It is a serious case of over compensation and defensiveness.

        1. What’s funny about that is that liberals put a great deal of effort into promoting white guilt. Then, when it actually gronks out a result, they deny that white guilt could possibly be responsible.

          Weird. Just weird.

          1. A continuous denial of cause and effect is rampant in some circles. Look at government regulation. the problems caused by regulation can only be cured by… more regulation! How blind to causality do you have to be to even think of solutions involving the same thing that caused the problem?

        2. Proof of that is how un self aware liberals are. Tell a liberal sometime that a lot of white people supported Obama out of white guilt. They go insane. They won’t give an inch. You would think that it would be easy for them to admit that in a country of 300 million people and a very complicated racial past, at least some people voted for Obama out of guilt. But they won’t even admit that. It is a serious case of over compensation and defensiveness.

          Note that America is the only country in the world where there is a concept of an ethnic majority feeling guilty for ethnic privilege.

          Certainly Malays in Malaysia do not feel guilty for having legal and social privileges that
          Chinese and others in Malaysia do not.

      3. Is liberal america guilt-racked or –wracked? Is there a difference? Yo, fuck you, English.

    3. I read that one in City Journal a few days ago. It is great.

    4. Take Grigory Zinoviev’s description of Lenin: “He is really the chosen one of millions. He is the leader by the Grace of God. He is the authentic figure of a leader such as is born once in 500 years.”

      Yeezow.

    5. Holy crap, that was awesomely creepy. Thanks, JL.

    6. “The totalitarian movements which have arisen since World War I are fundamentally religious movements,” wrote the political scientist Waldemar Gurian in 1952, in part because they “cannot conceive of realms of life outside and beyond their control.”

      While I’m in California this week, I think I’d better go around branding this on people’s foreheads.

    7. I’ve always heard the ‘black angel’ trope refered to as ‘the magic negro’ (mostly by its detractors) but I guess since it’s associated with jackass Limbaugh one can’t use it anymore (even though it was popularized by Spike Lee)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

  1. Censoring comments that offend muslims and defame Mohammed. These Pakistanis are wacky, good thing something like this could never happen here.

    1. Balko sure is taking it on the chin from you about that.

      1. Radley’s being a censorious pussy?

  2. Nothing like a little karma…

    the Washington Wizards overcame a 10% chance to win the NBA lottery, not the Broolyn Nets.

  3. Happy Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, here is my drawing http://allyourspeecharebelongtous.tk

    in other news Tom Corbett is trying to subpoena twitter to find out the identity of an anonymous twitterer who criticized Corbett. Corbett is abusing his powers as attorney general to stop criticism of him to further his campaign for governor of PA. its unfortunate that the media didn’t give Rohrer, a pro-freedom candidate who was Corbett’s only opponent in the primaries, any exposure. here is an article on the matter from Wired: http://www.wired.com/threatlev…..-subpoena/

    1. ^I posted that comment on another article but I meant for it to be on the Morning Links comments.

    2. The PA governor’s race is shaping up to be a race to the bottom. A “law and order republican” versus a “tax and spend democrat”.

      PA voters are really sticking it to the establishment this year.

      How does Corbett think this is even close to right. I mean everybody knows that Corbett rapes babies, but this is the first amendment buddy. Serious stuff.

      Oh yeah, for those of you who don’t know Mary Beth Buchanan got hammered in her primary…good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

  4. “Islam discourages any visual representations of the prophets of God — Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, anybody — because we believe it can lead to a form of idol worship”

    Please, folks, no idol worshipping as a result of today’s festivities, OK?

    1. its the sunni’s that have the ban on mohammy depictions, not the shias or all of islam

      1. Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said … “Islam discourages any visual representations ….”

        1. sunnis are the majority of islamic sects, big surprise that the majority would try and pretend that their sect is the only brand of islam.

          1. Blasphemy!

    2. I can’t help myself. Since I was a teenager with a Farrah Fawcett poster on my bedroom wall. I’m just a god-fearin’ idol worshipin’ man.

    3. Having to blurt out “peace be upon him” after every mention of a name can in no way a form of idol worship. Making “Muhammad” the the most popular name for males in the entire world is in no way a form of idol worship. Killing people for insulting a historical figure is in no way a form of idol worship.

      1. Blasphemy!

    4. Please, folks, no idol worshipping as a result of today’s festivities, OK?

      What a perfect image.

      1. By which I mean, what else is there to do with a perfect image except…

  5. ‘The Day *One* of The Days We’ve Been Fearing Is Upon Us’

    FTFY

  6. So far the spill appears to have reached only the very edge of the marsh, a vibrant estuary that shelters dozens of species of fish, birds and mollusks, at South Pass. But over the last several days, it has inched inland.

    “It’s moving farther up and it’s accumulating,” said Lauren Valle, a Greenpeace volunteer who has been shuttling members of the media to affected areas aboard one of the environmental group’s boats.

    Valle said she had been turned away from some areas by BP contractors. “They’re trying very hard for people not to see it. We’re here to bear witness.”

    I can’t speculate on the reason BP contractors turned people away in this instance, but oil slicks can be very dangerous to lay persons. For example, a boat propeller can agitate the oil, causing volatile gases to evaporate out, which can be a health hazard as well as potentially explosive.

    1. But BP is teh evil.

      1. You bet. Thanks, BTW.

    1. Cool.

    2. Oh really? Then explain George Washington.

    3. A necessary skill for getting laid as well.

  7. Apparently Rand Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 last night.

    BALLS! BALLS, BABY!

    1. now if he would only publicly support the legalization of drugs and the defunding and dismantling of the DEA, FDA, and the DHHS.

      1. He had supported ending Depts of Ed and Energy

        1. and Commerce.

    2. “I absolutely think there should be no discrimination in anything that gets any public funding, and that’s most of what I think the Civil Rights Act was about in my mind.”

      Keep an eye on how this story gets treated. I think it’ll be fascinating.

  8. Sent to this Balko, but too late for today’s links:

    SWAT team peacefully negotiates man out of house.

    1. I bet the SWAT team was pissed and disappointed that the raid had to end peacefully.

    2. Sorry, I withhold judgment until I see exactly what “without incident” and “urged” mean.

    3. So now the SWAT team is being sent out for domestic disputes? What’s next, DUI enforcement?

      1. Sounds like they were sent out for a potentially deadly hostage situation. Seems like an appropriate use.

        1. Sounds like they were sent out for a potentially deadly hostage situation.

          If you believe that then aren’t all domestic disputes potentially deadly hostage situations. What if a guy has a gun in his car? Then a routine traffic stop could turn into a potentially deadly hostage situation. Better use SWAT. The scent of mission creep is overwhelming.

    4. There must not have been any seven year olds in the house to set on fire.

      1. No this was merely a guy that might possibly shoot his domestic partner. If there was an anonymous call indicating that there might have been a 1/4 ounce of pot in the residence, then the police would have stormed the place.

        Priorities man, you gotta have priorities.

        1. kinnath, you cannot be serious. Do you realize how many kids you could hook on dope with that much weed? The street value alone of that kind of haul would be in the high seven figures.

          Yes, it is about priorities. When the kingpin leaves his mansion, and goes to the playground to start doling out his quarter ounce it may be your kid he hooks.

          Also, remember that these guys are out risking their lives for you. And you want to criticize them?

          1. Since I have not partaken in the demon weed for about 2 decades, I do not know the current street value of the product.

            1. 7.5 grams(about 1/4 oz), when broken up and sold, has a street value of $8.19 million.

              1. http://www.michigandaily.com/c…..determined

                To determine an approximate street value of drugs, the DEA keeps a record of drug busts that occur throughout the country. Published in a report known as “Trends in Trafficking,” the DEA takes into account the price, quantity and quality of drugs confiscated in the busts.

                Burnside that while it’s difficult to gauge a market with so many factors, the $1,000 figure for a pound of marijuana seemed appropriate.

                Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Diane Brown said these dollars values have no legal significance. Instead, they’re meant to give ordinary citizens an idea of drug recovery values made by the police.

                Like most products, the price of pot relies on the classic economic mechanism of supply and demand. With drug raids like the seizure of 375 pounds of marijuana in Ypsilanti earlier this week, Burnside and other drug enforcers hope to create a shortage in the market, thus boosting prices and lowering consumption.

                “It’s like buying a candy bar,” Burnside said. “If you buy one in the store today, the price might be different if it’s on sale tomorrow.”

                The Lieutenant also noted that a drug’s price can change significantly based on location.

                A University student who wished to remain anonymous said he regularly travels to Detroit to buy marijuana because it’s cheaper there.

                “I would pay 50 or 60 bucks for an eighth (of an ounce) of Chronic in Ann Arbor, but I could get a full ounce of the same stuff for 80 to 100 bucks in Detroit.”

                The self-described “marijuana enthusiast” said the DEA’s estimate of $1,000 seemed reasonable, but that $1,500 was more realistic. He said he thinks that police intentionally place a lower value on a drug to make others who dabble in the market question the higher prices they might be paying to dealers.

                1. If that dipshit really believes that $100/oz weed from Motown is the same as the $50/8th weed in Ann Arbor, then maybe druggies shouldn’t be allowed in public schools.

                  Usually the street value given after a bust, especially by local law enforcement, is determined by the smallest saleable amount.

                  Say they nab a kilo of pure coke, well that can be cut to double and sold in gram allotments. Thereby giving you 2000 grams that could of been sold at a market price of $60, for a street value of $120,000. But, it is never mentioned that a guy with a kilo is not selling grams, and he probably isn’t cutting his product either. After all is said and done the kilo he paid $35k for will probably gross him about $60k.

                  1. 7.5 grams(about 1/4 oz), when broken up and sold, has a street value of $8.19 million.

                    versus

                    I would pay 50 or 60 bucks for an eighth (of an ounce) of Chronic in Ann Arbor, . . .

                    Just a few decimal point differences there.

                    1. I was being facetious, I think we may be talking in two different directions here.

                    2. As I suspected . . . .

                    3. Good thing that’s resolved. We could of went back and forth all day long, both of us ignorant to the others true intentions.

                    4. I’m up for some more mindless bickering.

                      Boxers or briefs?

            2. $500.00/oz.

  9. Is it too late to submit a picture of Muhammad holding a gun to the heads of all of the Reason staffers?

    1. You kinda just did.

    2. Give it a month or so, and you’ll see a real picture of it. And if I win, I’ll be in it, too.

  10. For Draw Mohammad Day I was going to draw a picture of Mohammad having sex with a child concubine, right next to a picture of Abraham raping his slave that Yahweh sent an angel to catch for him. But I can’t draw. So everyone just assume I drew that. Thanks.

    1. Imaginary visual representations conjured up by words and seen only in one’s mind’s eye are marginally acceptable. But, no idol worshipping!

    2. I was going to Photoshop something about as tasteful. It wouldn’t have mattered – Nick mentioned that deliberately offensive drawings would be excluded.

      1. My problem with that is that while Mohammad never carried a gunpowder-based bomb, he did in fact have a child concubine. And Abraham did in fact rape his slave.

        The rules of this contest therefore create a situation where I can’t draw pictures of the stories the religious tell about their own prophets, because it’s offensive to take their own pseudohistories literally. That seems a bit off.

        1. I agree, but I think the point was, if the images are relatively benign, then it makes those who would commit violence to stop them look all the more insane.

  11. Apparently Rand Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 last night.

    He did it in the most wussed out, apologetic, please-don’t-beat-me-master way possible, and it’s still TEABAG PAUL IN RACIST OUTRAGE all across lefty land. That’s why the NPR guy was sent to ask it.

    I hope Paul II notes the reaction and learns the lesson: Don’t talk to the police.

    1. Salon has three articles on Rand Paul this morning. Unlike last week, they are sharpening the knives this week. It’s good to see the world returned to its rightful order.

      1. Wow, you’re not kidding.

    2. Probably won’t hurt him in Kentucky, it being – according to “Confederates in the Attic” – the most fervently pro-confederate state today (while being a border state in 1861-65 that sent boys to fight on both sides.)

  12. http://www.slate.com/id/2254214

    Anyone else see this? Saleton is not my favorite writer. But, I have to give credit where credit is due. That is just a spectacular take down of Blumenthal and his lies about the Vietnam lying.

    1. Yeah, I posted a link to it yesterday. It is spectacular. Radley linked it as part of his filling it for Instapundit as well.

    1. Meant churches

      1. Mean churches!

    2. Wankers need to learn to say “Go fuck yourself.”

  13. Mary Lou Retton on steroids tries to play “gotcha” with Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act during her MSNBC show.

    http://bit.ly/cojfDQ

    But somehow she can’t wrap her mind around the concept of private property, individual liberty, and the concept of negative/positive rights.

    1. Mary Lou Retton the gymnast?

      1. yeah. Find a pic of Mary Lou Retton, imagine about 1000 mg of test a week coursing through her blood and BINGO.

    2. sorry – didn’t realize that others were talking about this above me. that’s what I get for posting before reading all the comments.

  14. I’ve just been reading the transcript of Maddow’s “interview” of Rand Paul. (In Weigel’s WaPo blog.)

    He really *is* a professional politician. I would have gotten up and started choking her.

    She was resolutely impervious to his question about the distinction between private and public ownership.

    ps- He’s probably doomed.

    1. I read that to. He did pretty well. It amazes me that Leftist think Maddow is smart. She is just a fucking moron. She literally had no idea what Paul was talking about. Maybe she was just being a lying bitch, which is clearly possible. But I think she really might be that stupid and that cocooned in liberal thought. Paul’s points went right over her head.

      1. Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul By Joan Walsh

        Are you saying I don’t need to read this Salon article 😉

        1. She is an example of an idiot who brings you down to their level and beats you with experience. I am serious. It is very hard to win an argument with someone who has no idea what you are talking about but thinks they do and refuses to listen.

          1. It’s especially hard when the lemmings watching her show don’t get the points either, and just assume their side won.

            1. People watch MSNBC?

              1. They look at it, at least.

            2. When I used to talk politics with people, I would see this all the time. Most liberals are incapable of comprehending the idea that a private business owner should be allowed to decide who they will or won’t do business with or (gasp) how to run their business.

              To them, the concept of choice and self-determination for a business is an alien and indecipherable concept, as is the concept of a distinction between public and private. They just have no relevant context in which to process the information.

              Even if the rare one does seem to grasp public-private, it doesn’t matter. This idea is to important to be left up to the individual to decide. They need to be forced to comply for the good of the collective. See also: smoking, trans fats, salt, etc.

          2. Rachel or Joan or both?

      2. It would have been better politically just to say yes he supports it. He’s welcome to his dogmatism, but we’ll see if he can get elected on it.

        BTW, the reason it’s necessary to have laws against private discrimination is because it’s not just about being a “bad business decision.” It’s about the harm racism and segregation do to society. It’s perfectly legit for the government to say “you want the right to do business here, then follow the rules of your community.”

        1. What harms might that be? I for one give neither damn nor fuck what color or religion a person is, but I don’t imaging that my beliefs are the True Way, and that to go outside them brings harm. That’s the problem with you progressives. You talk a bunch of game about diversity, but only diversity within your own narrow view of what the world should be. How about accepting ALL people, even racists.

          1. “Imaging” = “imagine”, obviously.

            1. Not “obviously”! 😉

          2. If the private sector is promoting a permanent underclass of people along racial lines, then the people via their government have the right (and responsibility) to do something about it.

            You’re free to be a racist. You’re just not free to serve the public in a racially discriminatory way. And diversity doesn’t mean treating all possible worldviews as equals, just people.

            1. “If the private sector is promoting a permanent underclass of people along racial lines, then the people via their government have the right (and responsibility) to do something about it.”

              The private sector is the same people that would be voting, buddy. If they don’t want it, they won’t support that business. There are more immediate ways of voting.

              “You’re just not free to serve the public in a racially discriminatory way.”

              Some countries have a class system that derives from their culture. Should we invade them to set them straight?

              “And diversity doesn’t mean treating all possible worldviews as equals, just people.”

              People who have opposing worldviews. If we’re treating them all as equals, then the racist has as much right to refuse service to black people as the non-racist (or smart racist) has to serve them.

              If you need help with that gordion knot you call an ideology, I’ve a sword I can lend you.

              1. If racism were a minor thing in our society, we wouldn’t have needed the laws. But it was an endemic problem that did create an underclass and the effects have still not worn off. It’s too big of a problem to solve with the market. For all you know, only serving whites would be good for business in certain places. But it shouldn’t matter–there are more important issues at stake. The market does not make an ideal society all by itself, and it can even reinforce things that are bad for society.

                “Some countries have a class system that derives from their culture. Should we invade them to set them straight?”

                Not sure where this comes from. In general I’m not in favor of invading sovereign countries for any reason other than they attacked first.

                “People who have opposing worldviews. If we’re treating them all as equals, then the racist has as much right to refuse service to black people as the non-racist (or smart racist) has to serve them.

                Equality has never, ever been about treating all ideas as equal.

                1. “The market does not make an ideal society all by itself, and it can even reinforce things that are bad for society.”

                  The market is composed of the desires of a society. To say that its products are not ideal, or that they are bad, is a statement of your own perceptions of it, and while you are entitled to them, don’t think that we’d all be better off if only we all had your ideals.

                  “Equality has never, ever been about treating all ideas as equal.”

                  You missed my point. People are to some degree defined by their ideas. To say that people are equal is to say that ideas are equal to some degree as well. Careful where you swing that ‘never’.

            2. Because of the nature our insane drug laws, perpetuated by liberal and conservatives, black youths are 3 times more likely to serve time for drug related offenses. Yet, Bill Clinton thought it prudent to sign a law that denies student financial aid for anyone convicted of a drug related crime.

              The poverty rates for blacks in 1998 was 26.1%, for non-hispanic whites it was 8.2%. This would indicate that blacks would not only need more financial aid but would be legally barred from said aid more than whites.

              If this is not a perfect example of a law doing disproportional harm to minorities, then I don’t know what is. This law has been on the books for 12 years, and I have heard nary a protestation from mainstream democrats about it.

              If you think that lunch counters can create a “permanent underclass”, as compared to the power of the welfare/police complex, then you my friend are a fool. Or maybe a liar.

              Fuck off if you want links the info is out there, and I don’t want spam filtered.

              1. I absolutely agree with you–drug laws in our country certainly would seem to violate equal protection at least in practice. I do believe the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce related to drugs or anything else, but for the most party our drug policies are bad policies.

                1. I do believe the federal government is allowed to regulate interstate commerce related to drugs or anything else

                  Of course you do.

                  I think you missed the entire point of my post. Which would be that we do have a permanent underclass, and I don’t think abolishing the vicious cycle depends on a black guy being able to buy a grand slam breakfast.

                  These debates on race usually hinge on easy targets, red herrings, and bugaboos of the liberal imagination. People will argue endlessly about that jackass Imus, but neglect the fact that blacks are disproportionally jailed, poor, uneducated, and murdered as a direct result of the welfare/drug warfare complex.

                  Some will argue that these problems are cultural in nature, a foolish proposition I would say. I can not hammer the point enough: The drug war has done more harm to the upward mobility of the poor of all colors.

                  Not to mention the welfare state, which is an effective ghettoization/apartheid of minorities. But, I guess anything that keeps the riff-raff(black&white;)out of nice middle-class neighborhoods is a good thing. Especially if it lets you fall asleep at night with a good conscious.

        2. Tony,

          I have a certain amount of property in my house right now.

          You are not “harmed” if I refuse to give you any of that property.

          You therefore cannot possibly be “harmed” if I refuse to sell you that property, for whatever stupid reason I come up with. You never had the property to begin with, and had no right to expect to have it.

          You may think that there is a “psychic harm” done to people when they hear the message that they are being denied property due to their race. But I don’t really see how that’s any different from the “psychic harm” they experience when Nazis march down the street. If people aren’t entitled to be protected against the one psychic harm, I don’t see how they are entitled to be protected against the other.

          1. Fluffy,

            I get it, and I don’t think you’re wrong. The 1964 Act just prohibits places that serve the public and are engaged in interstate commerce from discrimination, and does the same for employers who don’t have a legitimate reason.

            1. What business serves “the public?” When you cross the threshold to enter a business you are a guest on private property. If that property owner wants to keep you out, you have no right to be there. It is not yours or “the public’s” to decide how it is managed.

              If I were a competitor to Racist Bob’s Diner, I’d be advertising all over the place that I’ll serve all paying customers and Bob will only serve WASPs. Not only is Bob going to have a limited clientele, but he’s probably gonna have a hard time finding good employees. You’re hurting my business by making Bob serve everyone. Why do you hate successful minorities, Tony?

            2. Just for laughs, do you agree with the line of reasoning that started with Wickard and culminated with Raich? Anything that has an interstate market can be regulated by the feds because it has the potential to affect said interstate market?

        3. BTW, the reason it’s necessary to have laws against private discrimination is because it’s not just about being a “bad business decision.” It’s about the harm racism and segregation do to society. It’s perfectly legit for the government to say “you want the right to do business here, then follow the rules of your community.”

          So what is stopping you from running your own business and doing things the “right” way?

    2. ps- He’s probably doomed.

      The good thing is, this will probably be long forgotten by November.

  15. The striking thing about the media commentary on the Maddow interview is that it claims Paul was evasive.

    Which is a funny thing to say when the transcript includes:

    MADDOW: Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?

    PAUL: Yes.

    Wow! Look at the evasion!

  16. Its funny how many people think “Jim Crow” was private businesses voluntarily refusing to serve black folk, rather than the state enforcing racial segregation on private businesses.

    Liberals have conveniently forgotten that the civil rights era was originally about eliminating discrimination forced by the state, in order to preserve their worldview that the state is primarily a force for good, and private enterprise primarily a force for evil.

    1. That’s certainly the case with railroads and interstate buses, as Morgan v. Virginia demonstrated. No one’s saying that private businesses don’t discriminate, but they’re usually punished in a way that government, with its ability to enforce laws and promote monopoly, is not.

      1. Exactly, the original Plessy v Ferguson, the railroads were all on the side of Plessy. And these were old school 19th century robber barron railroads.

        Granted their support of Plessy wasn’t really because of any larger moral stand but because they didn’t want to add additional Pulman cars south of St Louis on the Chicago to New Orleans run – but that reason is good enough.

  17. Interviewee: “There *may* be a long term trend in global temperature, but it still is not clear that the costs some people want to impose on us in the here and now are justified.”

    Maddow: “So, you are advocating that the schools teach children the moon is made of green cheese!”

    1. I’ve only been able to stomach Maddow in five minute random intervals, and that about sums it up. I remember she made a good point once after Obama won the Nobel prize that there are numerous past winners who also won simply from intention, and not from results. (not that that changed my mind that he won it for the same reason that Crash won an oscar.) But that insight was completely destroyed by the look of absolute smugness on her weasely “face”. I don’t hit girls, but I’d choke the shit out of that one.

      1. I could get her to turn.

        1. Nice handle.

  18. It’s perfectly legit for the government to say “you want the right to do business here, then follow the rules of your community.”

    But it’s apparently not legitimate to say, “If you want to control the operation of my private business enterprise, get your fucking checkbook out and buy it from me.”

  19. How about accepting ALL people, even racists.

    *gasps*

    1. I think Tony’s going to call that one it. I’m sure the SWAT team will arrive shortly. Thank God I don’t have any pot on me.

  20. If the private sector is promoting a permanent underclass of people along racial lines, then the people via their government have the right (and responsibility) to do something about it.

    The “people” are a vast and disparate assemblage of individuals.

    I know that’s difficult impossible for you to comprehend. You project your specific individual desires and urges onto the “people” because you’re an idiot. You’re just a little tyrant, wrapping yourself in the cloak of a “greater good”.

    Fuck off.

    1. I read this on the train today on my way in to work. It’s from Aldous Huxley:

      “Throughout recorded history, an incredible sum of mischief has been done by ambitious idealists, self-deluded by their own verbiage and a lust for power, into a conviction that they were acting for the highest good of their fellow men. In the past, the justification for such wickedness was “God” or “the Church,” or “the True Faith”; today idealists kill and torture and exploit in the name of “the Revolution,” “the New Order,” “the World of the Common Man,” or simply “the Future.”

      1. ‘Like’ is an understatement.

      2. I like people who like turtles!

  21. We’ll give some land to the niggers and the chinks. But we don’t want the Irish!

    1. the little bastard shot me in the ass

  22. “Islam discourages any visual representations of the prophets of God — Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, anybody — because we believe it can lead to a form of idol worship,” he said.

    They’re already idolizing the invisible Mohammed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.