Russia

Putin vs. Punk

The international politics of Pussy Riot.

|

Credit:Reason Magazine

On February 21, four masked Russian women walked into Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior Church and sang-shouted a song called "Punk Prayer." The lyrics include "Saint Maria, drive Putin away!" and "Holy shit, Lord's shit." The performance by the feminist punk collective Pussy Riot lasted under a minute, but a few weeks later Yekaterina Samutsevich, Maria Alyokhina, and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were charged with "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." The women claimed they were protesting the Orthodox Church's coziness with the state, which did little to endear them to their fellow citizens.

But to people outside conservative Russia, Pussy Riot quickly became a cause célèbre, winning backing from such famed musicians as Paul McCartney and Madonna. In the months before their summer trial, solidarity protesters in bright balaclavas popped up from Iceland to D.C. Even Russian president Vladimir Putin bowed to international pressure enough to say he didn't think the women "should be judged so harshly for this."

On August 17, three members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison. Meanwhile, Russian protesters who backed the women face much more daunting prison terms—in one case, up to 10 years for "mass disorder" and alleged assault on a police officer—without international attention and celebrity endorsements.  

Advertisement

NEXT: Green Energy Industry Waits on Fate of Tax Credit

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. feminist punk collective

    Whatever happened to just being in a band?

    1. It was disposition matrixed.

    2. The entire punk movement. We can’t just record songs and make people feel good we gotta take a stand man.

    3. Because they are not band/artist in any shape or form.

  2. So the rumors of Lucy’s death were vastly overrated?

    1. Damn you!

    2. I’ll believe it when she comments. Preferably by insulting Warty.

      1. Stop enabling him. He likes the verbal abuse.

        1. Yeah, but so do I.

      2. Well, get Warty!

          1. MY EYES! Cut them out, please!

          2. Nah, he’s too pretty.

    3. Well HM, this post is from the November 2012 issue, so it was likely written well before now.

    4. It’s from the Nov issue, so it was probably written a month ago at least.

  3. Lucy, I see the rumors of your (Reason) demise have been greatly exaggerated.

    1. Nah. This is from the mag, so she wrote this awhile back.

      She’s gone, fellas. Time to move on.

      1. Sure, just strip me of the will to live. Bastard!

      2. Seriously, though, did she leave Reason?

        1. She said it was because of–and I quote–“Res Publica Americana’s foul personal odor problem he refuses to address.”

          It’s your fault she’s gone.

          1. Showering’s for totalitarian city-statists/city-sadists. In the long-lost past of the free-spirited gambol, men were proud of their musky scents. Clearly, Ms. Steigerwald has been indoctrinated by the AG[ricult]URAL city-sTATE.

          2. She is still on The Twitter, further evidence supporting the foul personal odor theory. Lucy would rather tweet than talk to us. Sadface.

            1. Or it might be because we’re all micro-aggressors and chauvinists. Make me a sandwich!

              1. For some reason I read that as “Calvinists”. Which would have been funnier, I think.

            2. She’s breaking my heart 140 characters at a time.

              1. If only she could do it faster.

              2. It’s all hashtags of rejection, tinyurls of loneliness and twitpics of despair from here on out, Sug.

                1. #lucyisbreakingmyheart

                2. #lucyisbreakingmyheart
                  #iwilltotallyhatethenewintern

                  1. #iknowpeoplewhowritelikethis
                    #ihatethem

            3. You do realize that we aren’t actually talking here, do you? OR am I missing out on something?

              1. Oh, fuck! The literalists have got Zeb! Run!

      3. I blame…crap, I’m not sure who to blame. I guess I’ll blame Pro’L Dib and all his inferior-ness.

        It really is off putting.

        1. I agree with blaming ProL. Thanks a lot for driving Lucy away, ProL, you jerk!

          1. He killed Lucy.

            1. WHERE IS SHE?!

              /Batman

              1. Look in the box!

            2. That monster!

          2. Lucy and I were strongly in agreement that Pro Lib is too old to be on computers.

            1. Do you ever wonder what the hell people are talking about around here? Lucy did, then she realized you were all pointless. Except for Warty, her true love.

              1. IT’S HIM!!!!! HE DROVE LUCY AWAY WITH ALL HIS INFERIORITY!!!!

                GET HIM!!!!

                1. Inferiority? I’m the result of many thousands of years of selective breeding. As you are well aware.

                  1. Yeah, but you were born one generation too early. Clearly inferior. Hadnenough, Kwitheshitz?

                2. I knew the jokes about being old would draw him in. It’s like putting out a crappy unsweetened cookie to lure in SugarFree.

                  1. I’m strangely unaffected by being older than you. Maybe in another decade when shit stops working, but everything’s groovy right now.

                    1. On the plus side, you’ve got a better chance of not getting 100% screwed by Social Security.

                    2. Yes, yes it is. Quite groovy. Groovus even. -)

                    3. You guys have any daughters born in the Bush Sr. years?

            2. Lucy once called someone here her hero. Oh, that’s right, it was me.

              1. We don’t need another hero.

                1. We already have Jayne.

                2. We don’t need to know the way home, either.

                  But you are so old, you’ve forgotten where it is, Pro’L Dib. Your awareness has left you. Inferior.

                  You’ll probably end up as some blind wierdo “holy man” spewing nonsense in some desert town and get shanked in the street.

  4. I don’t feel right about reading this.

  5. What? No jokes about Putin making Pussy Riot, Quiet Riot?

    1. Those girls won’t rock your boys.

      1. Yes, but will they cum on and feel the noize*?

        *”noize” being my cock, of course.

        1. How much more sexist can you get, dude? We’ll just see what the fine bitches at Jezebel have to say about this sexist sexism of yours.

          1. Nonsense. They love swarthy bad boys.

            Here’s a screencap of the porn video Lindy West made in an attempt to woo me.

            She failed. Candy Corn Oreoes are disgusting.

            1. vs.? Those poor fucking Oreos never stood a chance.

              1. Is it wrong that I wanted to try those Oreos, until Lindy West managed to make them even grosser than they already were. Damn, this is a depressing thread. No more Lucy and goddamn Lindy West ruining disgusting seasonal junk food.

                1. The video is so brave when you consider that Lindy West is normally so careful and restrained about what she eats.

            2. There’s just a fat feminist in the photo. Is Lindy West the hot chick that, surely, is hiding behind her, or what?

  6. Speaking of punk: Green Day cancelled their North American tour.

    1. However will I cope????

      SOB!

    2. And naught but a few wet teenaged girls gave a fuck that day, and God looked upon the world, and it was good.

    3. Green Day isn’t punk. It’s spunk with a silent ‘s’.

    4. I’m sorry I thought you said speaking of punk but then you mentioned green day. Did you mean spEking of suck?

  7. Why is everyone so concerned about the Russkies – aren’t there enough problems in the good ol’ U S of A to worry about?

    1. We’re just watching our future

  8. On February 21, four masked Russian women walked into Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior Church

    But they were not hooligans! Ok? OK?!?

    […]and sang-shouted a song called “Punk Prayer.” The lyrics include “Saint Maria, drive Putin away!” and “Holy shit, Lord’s shit.”[sic]

    But they were not hooligans! Ok? OK?!?

    The performance [sic] by the feminist punk collective [sic] Pussy Riot lasted under a minute, but a few weeks later Yekaterina Samutsevich, Maria Alyokhina, and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova were charged with “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred.”

    But they were not hooligans! Ok? OK?!? Ok, so they entered the place with masks on their heads as if they were about to rob a bank, but they’re not hooligans financed by “democratic” fronts of the CIA, for cryin’ out loud! Ok? OK?!?

    The women claimed they were protesting the Orthodox Church’s coziness with the state, which did little to endear them to their fellow citizens.

    Their fellow citizens were probably not as gullible as some here in the U.S.

    Communism does that to people; poor bastards.

    1. I bet someone is scraping your “I Luv Thought Crimes” bumpersticker off right now. You better run out to the parking lot and check.

      1. “Hooligans” don’t have rights, NutraSweet. Or women. Especially “hooligan” women.

        1. Oddly enough, nowhere in the common definitions of hooliganism is “trespassing for the purposes of political protest.”

          1. A hooligan is someone who angers Putin.

            1. Mr. Putin treats objects like women, man.

            2. Re: heller,

              A hooligan is someone who angers Putin.

              It is difficult to make the case (with a straight face) that the gals did not act like hooligans but like free-speech heroines when they did, in fact, act like hooligans. Just sayin’

              1. It’s easy when you ignore the 10 or so people on the thread proving your easily falsifiable bullshit wrong.

      2. Old Mexican would have arrested Martin Luther for damaging the cathedral door.

        1. Wouldn’t any Catholic?

          Jus’ sayin’

        2. Re: NeonCat,

          Old Mexican would have arrested Martin Luther for damaging the cathedral door.

          Nah. The old doors where like the bulletin board for the town. He was good.

      3. Re: SugarFree,

        I bet someone is scraping your “I Luv Thought Crimes” bumpersticker off right now. You better run out to the parking lot and check.

        I don’t think so, since mine says “If you enter my pad without permission while wearing a mask and acting like a nut, I will shoot you oh-so-very dead.”

        But I’ll check. Thanks for the warning.

        1. Of course, that would be your business. I hope that if you did something that abhorrent you would be shunned in Libertopia for the murderous bastard you would be.

          1. Re: Randian,

            I hope that if you did something that abhorrent you would be shunned in Libertopia for the murderous bastard you would be.

            You mean like this guy was?

        2. So the issue you have is trespassing, not hooliganism. And they were not charged with trespassing.

          Your scenario makes sense in AnCap world, but in a heavily state dominated society, one’s right to be in a particular place is a little less clear cut.

          1. Please don’t confuse the Yokeltard with facts. He’s too busy being a fashionable non-conformist.

          2. Re: Zeb,

            So the issue you have is trespassing, not hooliganism.

            They did in fact act like hooligans. If a group of masked malcontents crashed my place, I would regard them as hooligans, in a second.

            Your scenario makes sense in AnCap world,

            Oh, don’t give me this crap. Immoral acts are always immoral no matter how oppressed you think you are. The end never justifies the means. Period.

            1. They did in fact act like hooligans. If a group of masked malcontents crashed my place, I would regard them as hooligans, in a second.

              So therefore it’s OK for the State to lock them away in the gulag for a few years.

              1. Re: Randian,

                So therefore it’s OK for the State to lock them away in the gulag for a few years.

                What is it with you and this false equivalency shit, Randian? I never said it was ok to lock them up for 2 years. My point is that there’s NOTHING about these gals that make them deserve being regarded as “free speech” heroes. They’re NOT heroines.

                1. But but but they were trespassing. In MASKS, even! To the gulag…go!

            2. Oh, for fuck’s sake. It wasn’t your house! It was a government owned building, presumably open to the public.

              How is hooliganism even reasonably its own offense? Seems to me it falls nicely under trespassing, assault or destruction of property. Disrespect for the established order should not be a crime.

              1. Re: Zeb,

                Oh, for fuck’s sake. It wasn’t your house! It was a government owned building, presumably open to the public.

                It was open to parishioners, Zeb, but that does not mean there’s not an implicit contract between the church and the public, just like there is one between any other public place and the public. You don’t go into a restaurant and take a dump in one of the tables without facing consequences, wouldn’t you? You would not go to a public beach and start hitting people with a bat, or would you? Just because it’s “public” does not mean “open season” on crazy and immoral behavior.

                How is hooliganism even reasonably its own offense?

                I find the name strange as well, Zeb, but I see it no differently than the similar “disturbing the peace”

                Disrespect for the established order should not be a crime.

                Granted – I agree! But this was not “disrespect for the established order”. All H and R posters have quite a bit of disrespect for the established order, but would not go to a church wearing masks like hoodlums and scare people. Even YOU might find that behavior queer and nutty.

                1. You don’t go into a restaurant and take a dump in one of the tables without facing consequences, wouldn’t you? You would not go to a public beach and start hitting people with a bat, or would you?

                  Isn’t that the very definition of “punk”?

                2. “You don’t go into a restaurant and take a dump in one of the tables”

                  They didn’t do that.

                  “You would not go to a public beach and start hitting people with a bat, or would you?”

                  They didn’t do that either.

                  “crazy and immoral behavior.”

                  OM now thinks protesting in a public place is “crazy and immoral”.

                  1. Re: Lazy,

                    OM now thinks protesting in a public place is “crazy and immoral”.

                    “Protesting” =/= entering the premises uninvited, wearing masks and scaring parishioners. They could’ve protested outside the church all they wanted, albeit risking arrest as well.

                    The lazy moron that cannot even think of a cool nick, not surprisingly, indulges in equivocation.

                    1. “The lazy moron that cannot even think of a cool nick,”

                      Look again ignorant cunt.

                      “”Protesting” =/= entering the premises uninvited”

                      It’s a church asshole, it’s open to the public. Uninvited is irrelevant.

                      “not surprisingly, indulges in equivocation.”

                      Says the asshole who rests his argument on no sources and no evidence.

                    2. Re: Lazy Fuck,

                      It’s a church asshole, it’s open to the public. Uninvited is irrelevant.

                      It’s not “open to the public”, Lazy – may I call you “Lazy”? Or Mrs. Lazy? I can’t tell. Anyway, it ain’t open to the public. It is open to parishioners with the implicit agreement that they enter to pray, hear mass, receive communion, etc. Just because you say “open to the public” does not mean you can enter inside to cause a ruckus, just like being a “public woman” does not give someone license to rape a prostitute.

                    3. “It’s not “open to the public”,”

                      Yes, actually, it is.

                      Have you really reached the point where you’ll lie about trivial shit like that?

                      “It is open to parishioners with the implicit agreement that they enter to pray, hear mass, receive communion, etc”

                      Incorrect.

                      Anything else you’d like to be wrong about?

                      “Just because you say “open to the public” does not mean you can enter inside to cause a ruckus,”

                      No one claims it does, asshole, but they do claim they can protest there, which is what happened.

                      OH NOES!! A RUCKUS!!!

                      “just like being a “public woman” does not give someone license to rape a prostitute.”

                      God damn you make some stupid fucking analogies.

                    4. By the way, I notice you conveniently ignore my takedown of your profoundly stupid analogies.

                    5. Re: Lazy Fuck,

                      By the way, I notice you conveniently ignore my takedown of your profoundly stupid analogies.

                      That’s because they deserve no more than indifference. Your “takedowns” are juvenile and – appropriately – lazy.

                      I am still allowed to call you Lazy, right? Or Mrs. Lazy? I can’t tell from here.

                3. “You don’t go into a restaurant and take a dump in one of the tables without facing consequences”

                  And by the way, GG Allin would.

        3. You persist in insisting is was simple trespass. Which it wasn’t.

          And they weren’t–as has been pointed out to you dozens of times by now–charged with trespass.

          1. Re: SugarFree,

            You persist in insisting is was simple trespass. Which it wasn’t.

            I agree that I am persisting on calling the action what it was – a naked act of aggression against property. I don’t agree with you that it was simple, because I haven’t said it was a “simple” act of trespass.

            And they weren’t–as has been pointed out to you dozens of times by now–charged with trespass.

            And againg – why does it matter? Does this mitigate their action? Does the harsh punishment suddenly justify their action?

            The fact is that the gals acted like hoodlums and got punished for it. That does not suddenly turn them into “free speech” martyrs.

    2. Warty, what is a hooligan and why should being one be against the law?

      1. Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women.

    3. OM, do you have a point here or are you just being a Rockwelltard again?

      1. I didn’t want to believe that you would think that “freedom of speech” trumps property rights, Randian. I just couldn’t, but you turned me into a believer all of a sudden.

        My point is that there is no real reason to consider the women that entered a place they were not invited in, wearing MASKS (like bank robbers) and singing nonsense, like some kind of “free speech” heroes.

        1. Whose property rights?:

          As far as maintenance is concerned, our Cathedral is not the property of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is another unique thing about it. It was built on funds from the government of Moscow, and on private donations. Moscow Mayor Yuri Mikhailovich Luzhkov proposed to His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II to include the management of the Cathedral in the Moscow budget. But since we have a lay government and the Moscow municipality does not have the right to provide support to the Church, it was decided to leave ownership of the Cathedral to the city. So the Christ the Savior Cathedral complex is city property, which is operated by, and whose technical aspects are run by the Christ the Savior Cathedral Fund, which consists of 300 persons.

          Source.

          1. Yep. And not only that, but it was neither the church nor the city of Moscow who charged them. So the property rights argument doesn’t hold much water in this case. If the owners of the building wanted them charged with trespassing, that would be one thing, but that is not what happened.

          2. Re: Randian,

            Whose property rights?

            The church, Randian. The church. Even when they’re renting the place from the city, that does not mean anybody can break into the place to cause a ruckus. Even I, as a renter, still possess the right to not have my place broken into by uninvited strangers.

            You must think that because the place is open to parishioners, then it is totally open to the public to do what they want. Seems like you obviate contractual rights as well just to shoehorn your case against my argument.

            1. I’ll cop to the fact that they may have violated property rights. You know who else violates property rights? Kids who cut across my lawn. I’m not going to shoot them or send them to the gulag either, nor am I going to slyly argue in favor of that.

              Because I am not an asshole.

              1. Re: Randian,

                You know who else violates property rights? Kids who cut across my lawn. I’m not going to shoot them or send them to the gulag either, nor am I going to slyly argue in favor of that.

                Thanks for telling me. I’ll remember that when and if I cross your lawn.

                I don’t have a lawn, but I would certainly make it clear to anybody (when I have a lawn) that nobody can cut through it without facing some sort of consequence. I do take property rights very seriously.

                1. Congratulations, Tuff Gai. Go flaunt your boner for violence somewhere else.

                  Acting like some idiot in a compound in Idaho is a surefire way to be a shitty neighbor.

                  1. Re: Randian,

                    Congratulations, Tuff Gai. Go flaunt your boner for violence somewhere else.

                    Oh, my. Your neighbors better not put fences around their homes lest you accuse them of being “violent.”

                    I was talking about placing dog poop around the usual walking paths, but I guess you think that anybody that protects their property is indulging in “violence.”

                    This reminds me of Edward, by the way… Remember Edward? He was so outraged that someone would state he would shoot anybody who walked on his lawn, and he became angrier when I recommended to him not to walk on that guy’s lawn.

            2. “Even when they’re renting the place”

              You’ve provided no evidence that they are, you’re making an assumption to argue your moronic “property rights” angle.

              “Seems like you obviate contractual rights”

              Seems like you make them up out of thin air when your argument get shot down in flames.

              1. Re: 0073735963,

                You’ve provided no evidence that they are, you’re making an assumption to argue your moronic “property rights” angle.

                The cathedral is not owned by the church, which rents out space on the premises.

                Maybe the source is wrong about it, but I doubt it. The premises belong to the city, ergo the church is renting the place.

                This also means you’re lazy.

                1. “The cathedral is not owned by the church, which rents out space on the premises.”

                  That claim is unsourced and unclear.

                  “The premises belong to the city, ergo the church is renting the place.”

                  NO stupid fucking asshole, it means the church USES the place, you still have yet to prove they rent the cathedral.

                  “This also means you’re lazy.”

                  Says the lazy asshole who uses an unsourced wiki quote to prove a point that was idiotic in the first place.

                  1. Re: Lazy Fuck,

                    NO stupid fucking asshole, it means the church USES the place

                    You mean like a wino “uses” a park bench?

                    I don’t think so. Makes no sense. Neither does you.

                    1. No, I mean like a church uses a community center.

                      How fucking stupid are you?

                    2. “Makes no sense. Neither does you.”

                      Because Russia has no community property? Are you seriously this retarded?

                    3. Re: Lazy Fuck,

                      Because Russia has no community property?

                      That has nothing to do with anything. Besides, “community property” is an oxymoron.

                      The fact is that the link I provided indicates that the church is renting the place from the city, which makes sense since the property is under the purview of the city.

                      You, on the other hand, wish to justify the actions of the Pussy Riot hoodlums by, somehow, turning the church into “public property”. Even if it were so that the church is totally open to the public, that does not mean people have license to act like – very appropriate – hooligans.

        2. I didn’t want to believe that you would think that “freedom of speech” trumps property rights, Randian.

          Complete red herring, OM. They weren’t prosecuted for trespassing. They were prosecuted for “hooliganism”:

          In the Soviet Union and Russia today, hooliganism is legally defined this way: “In the Soviet Union ‘hooliganism’ (???????????, khuliganstvo) was made a criminal offence under the penal codes of the Soviet republics. In the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic (RSFSR), article 216 of the penal code defined ‘hooliganism’ as ‘any deliberate behavior that violates public order and expresses explicit disrespect toward society.’

          http://www.globalpost.com/disp…..ooliganism

          So enough with the property rights argument; its irrelevant. Defend, if you care to, the actual law at issue on hooliganism.

          1. All he’s doing is parroting the same unthinking bullshit that came from the Rockwellians back in August.

            If OM’s “arguments” sound familiar, you can find them here and here.

            1. Oh, my Randian… I didn’t know they had worked it into a full-blown conspiracy theory. I mean, they spell it “Amerikan” which means they are totally serious for reals.

              I was disappointed they didn’t work in chemtrails.

              1. Check this shit (from the Roberts article):

                But when Julian Assange, who, unlike the presstitute western media, actually provides truthful information for the western peoples, was granted political asylum by Ecuador, Great (sic) Britain, bowing to the country’s amerikan master, refused the obligatory free passage from the UK.

                Old Trollxican not only copied his arguments from the Yokeltards, but he straight copies their stupid [sic] usage as well.

                What a tool.

                1. But but but… HOOLIGANS!

          2. Re: R C Dean,

            Complete red herring, OM. They weren’t prosecuted for trespassing. They were prosecuted for “hooliganism”

            That may be so but that is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that people are prosecuted through an interpretation of a tougher law. The point is that the gals knew what they were getting themselves into by acting like hoodlums. I don’t shed a single tear for them.

            1. That may be so but that is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that people are prosecuted through an interpretation of a tougher law.

              What a justification.

              Who knew that Yokeltards were apologists for the neo-Soviet state? Oh, right, they have been ever since Murray Rothbard and the 1960s.

              1. Justin Raimondo siding with the Islamicist over the ‘guilt’ of Nakoula, another retching moment I’d like to forget as an Ancap.

                Rothbard’s work as an economist is second to almost no one, but I’m not going to make excuses for his politics be it supporting Dixiecrats in the 40s or Soviet foreign policy apologetics in the 70’s. Hell, supporting Buchanan and getting tough on the rioters in the 90’s were the least of his infractions.

            2. “That may be so but that is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that people are prosecuted through an interpretation of a tougher law. The point is that the gals knew what they were getting themselves into by acting like hoodlums. I don’t shed a single tear for them.”

              That’s a very long winded way of saying “Yes, my argument was stupid”

            3. I’m not following, OM. Are you saying that because they might have been prosecuted for trespassing, its perfectly OK that they were prosecuted for hooliganism instead?

              And this:

              The point is that the gals knew what they were getting themselves into by acting like hoodlums.

              I find, well, awfully Tulpa-authoritarian. Its perfectly OK to prosecute somebody under an odious law because the law is the law? Really?

              1. Re: R C Dean,

                I’m not following, OM. Are you saying that because they might have been prosecuted for trespassing, its perfectly OK that they were prosecuted for hooliganism instead?

                Never did I say it was “OK”, just not suprising or extraordinary, which is the contrary to what you imply: that it is totally extraordinary for the Pussy Riot hoodlums to be prosecuted under a tougher law.

                The point is that the gals knew what they were getting themselves into by acting like hoodlums.

                I find, well, awfully Tulpa-authoritarian.

                How so? I am not justifying the State, I am pointing out that these gals were not indulging in harmless fun. The fact that they got arrested for ACTING like hoodlums does not turn them into “free speech” martyrs.

                Its perfectly OK to prosecute somebody under an odious law because the law is the law? Really?

                Just point out where I am saying, unequivocally and without resorting to semantic gymnastics, that it is “OK” to do so. I am arguing that there’s nothing extraordinary about it. That’s all.

                1. “I am not justifying the State”

                  No, you’re just justifying the State’s abuses.

                  “I am pointing out that these gals were not indulging in harmless fun.”

                  NO actually, you’re making up facts to fit a narrative.

                  For example, your idiot ass keeps pointing out that were “uninvited” to a place that is open to the public.

                  That, coupled with your moronic attempt to turn from you easily defeated “HOOLIGANS” argument to a more acceptable but completely unproven “THEY WAS TRESPASSIN!!!” argument shows that you know you made a fool of yourself.

                  0073735963, too cool for OM to even get it.

                  1. Re: Lazy Fuck,

                    No, you’re just justifying the State’s abuses.

                    Ah, the false equivalency, again. I am beginning to believe you’re a Marxist, Lazy – may I call you Lazy? Or Mrs. Lazy? I can’t tell from here.

                    Anyway, just because I point out a fact does not mean I am justifying the actions of a 3rd actor. I am not, and never did.

                    NO actually, you’re making up facts to fit a narrative.

                    For example, your idiot ass keeps pointing out that were “uninvited” to a place that is open to the public.

                    You seem to miss the point of contractual rights, Lazy – may I still call you Lazy? Ok, Lazy. There is NO such thing as a Public Place – you cannot have 7 billion people standing in the same spot, so the idea defies reason. Second, the church is the authorized manager of the place, so it is NOT a public space but a private venue. It is open to parishioners just like any other church would be, but that does not mean people have license to enter and cause a ruckus.

                    0073735963, too cool for OM to even get it.

                    I’m still calling you Lazy Fuck, because it sounds more melodious.

                    1. “There is NO such thing as a Public Place ”

                      Full Derp.

                      “I’m still calling you Lazy Fuck”

                      Well, you were too lazy to look up 0073735963 before you made a moronic comment about it, so…

    4. I like how you put that [sic] in there as if it wasn’t a performance.

      I bet you lean back in your chair after every post and think “Wow, I am the fucking cleverest person ever.”

      1. Re: Randian,

        I like how you put that [sic] in there as if it wasn’t a performance.

        That’s because it wasn’t a performance, it was a clear act of intimidation and a violation of property rights. I would not dignify what they did by calling it a “performance.”

        1. Who did it intimidate? Who is intimidated by music?

          Whose property rights were violated?

          Just because you hold a different opinion on whether it was a ‘performance’ doesn’t mean your fifth-grade-level use of the terribly unfunny [sic] is proper or correct.

          1. Re: Randian,

            Who did it intimidate?

            The members of the parish that were inside. Did you see the video?

            Who is intimidated by music?

            You sure have a strange sense of taste. WHAT music?

            Whose property rights were violated?

            The property rights of the church. EVEN if they’re renting the place from the city (which is the ridiculous red herring that you threw there), it is still the property of the church. I as a renter still possess the right not to have my place broken into by uninvited strangers.

            Just because you hold a different opinion on whether it was a ‘performance’ doesn’t mean your fifth-grade-level use of the terribly unfunny [sic] is proper or correct.

            That’s not a mere opinion. If you use the word with such broad and liberal meaning, then a bank robbery can be called a “performance.”

            1. I am just a sockpuppet for the Neoconservative Amerikan Empire, Old Trollxican. You caught me!

              1. Now you’re acting like the ass you normally are, Randian.

            2. “You sure have a strange sense of taste. WHAT music?”

              Listen, everything else aside, no one sounds like anything but an asshole saying shit like this.

              You may not like their music, but you sound like an asshole saying shit like that about it.

              1. “more like c-rap amirite you guys?”

        2. If only they’d included some Pat Boone standards.

      2. ‘I bet you lean back in your chair after every post and think “Wow, I am the fucking cleverest person ever.”‘

        Ha. That’s pretty much exactly what I am picturing right now. I also read his posts in the voice of Ricardo Montalban.

        1. Dumb Dummy McDumb Dumb Zeb:

          If you call THAT a ‘picture'[sic], then I have to question your aesthetic tastes, if not your vision!

        2. Fantasy Island or Khan?

          It makes a difference.

        3. I suspect OM thinks they modeled the “Most Interesting Man in the World” after him.

        4. I really believe OM thinks they modeled the “Most Interesting Man in the World” after him.

    1. I’ll tell you what I’m blathering about… I’ve got information man! New shit has come to light! And shit… man, she kidnapped herself. Well sure, man. Look at it… a young internet personality, in the parlance of our times, you know, and she, uh, uh, owes money all over town, including to known libertarians, and that’s cool… that’s, that’s cool, I’m, I’m saying, she needs money, man. And of course they’re going to say that they didn’t get it, because… she wants more, man! She’s got to feed the monkey, I mean uh… hasn’t that ever occurred to you, man? Sir?

  9. Well, I was was just chatting up Lucy on The Facebook, and she wanted me to “tell all of them to, quote, ‘go fuck themselves’.”

    Me – she misses.

    You all? Not so much.

    1. Jokes aside, I hope we didn’t drive her away. 🙁

      1. Well of course you drove her away. We can’t discuss anything female around here without it devolving into a comparison of hooters, cooters and naked chicks on motor scooters.
        What self respecting
        woman would any part of that?

        1. THIS IS WHY THERE ARE NO WIMMINS LIBERTARDIANSZ!!

        2. All I ever did was complement her on her alt-text!

          1. You complemented her? See, that’s the problem. You should’ve complimented her, you fool!

            1. But I thought women were looking to be completed!

                1. Can’t it be both?

                  1. There are more than two. Yeah, I know, hard to believe.

        3. I thought people were pretty decent with Lucy. Surprisingly so, really.

        4. Before this devolves into some petty Victorian era sanctimonious one upmanship where tight ass rejects from society finger the best of us, let’s get this one thing straight. It had nothing to with us and our antics that are not unique to libertarians no matter how you falsely plead, btw. Reason overstaffs during election cycles. People were going to be let go regardless. I was expecting Lucy to be one of them. She reports on general libertarian topics like this one, but lacks a specialization like, say, Suderman, that would distinguish her from your average freelancer.

          1. ^This is why nobody takes libertarians seriously.

            1. Prudery in males is not something generally admired by women when it is exhibited by men. For good reason, it is effete. Goes back to the caves, saltier the tong the less likely you’ll starve when your mild mannered man is too busy decorating the caves with raspberry stain images instead of hunting for bison.

              1. tongue

            2. Ohhh. You are saying they hate Frank Zappa imitators. Believe you me, that stays in check in mixed company.

      2. RPA,

        In all seriousness, her Twitter gives the impression that it was something internal at reason.

        1. They have a policy of no talking to the low lifes who read our site.

          1. I actually half-thought that was the justification.

          2. So Scott S. is next, eh?

        2. What gave you that impression? I read the recent stuff, didn’t see anything odd.

        3. I haven’t been able to make anything of her twitter feed. None of it makes much sense recently.

  10. She’s still on the masthead, too.

    1. Ze plot, it thickens, non?

      1. You should really try that again with Ricardo Montalban’s accent, just for the sake of thread consistency.

      2. Either that or they were just too busy solving the ampersand problem.

  11. By the way, boys and girls. Ohio State today posted a job for an experienced writer with humor skills. Looks like a good gig, if anyone’s interested. Probably Gordon Gee’s joke writer.

    1. Sorry. Sugared up the link. Try here.

      1. How odd. Guinan works at Ohio State? Huh, I always thought Star Trek was fictional, at least after TOS.

  12. Excuse me, but how is this Putin versus Punk when, in fact, Putin begged the courts for a pardon for these girls?

    As much as I think such a charge of hooliganism is ludicrous, Americans just don’t understand that these girls are NOT A BAND/ARTIST, they are activistist, who have violated property rights time after time but for this they were never arrested. They should have been jailed for their repeated crimes against property, not some ‘hooliganism’ idiocy.

    I am a woman, I am a Russian, these girls do not speak for me! Only “art” these girls have “created” was a video of a girl stealing a frozen chicken and masturbating with it in a grocery (where they were acting as technical crew, not “artist”) and a video of an orgy they made at Zoological Museum.

    Exhibit A, the so called “art” of this Pussy Riot. http://www.via-midgard.info/ne…..ru-ne.html

  13. Kisses to all of you.

    Because I’ve had my shots.

    1. Good move. Hi Lucy:)

      1. Too soon, jerk.

  14. The women claimed they were protesting the Orthodox Church’s coziness with the state.SohbetChat

  15. that it is totally extraordinary for the Pussy Riot hoodlums to be prosecuted under a tougher law.SohbetSohbet Odalar?

  16. The lyrics include “Saint Maria, drive Putin away!” and “Holy shit, Lord’s shit.Sohbet SiteleriChat Siteleri

  17. If you enter my pad without permission while wearing a mask and acting like a nut, I will shoot you oh-so-very dead.G?zel S?zler?ark? S?zleri

  18. They did in fact act like hooligans. If a group of masked malcontents crashed my place, I would regard them as hooligans, in a second. SohbetChat

  19. Vladimir Putin bowed to international pressure enough to say he didn’t think the women “should be judged so harshly for this. Mynet SohbetSohbet

  20. and he became angrier when I recommended to him not to walk on that guy’s lawn. Film izleDizi izle

  21. Reason overstaffs during election cycles. People were going to be let go regardless. SohbetSohbet Odalar?

  22. For example, your idiot ass keeps pointing out that were “uninvited” to a place that is open to the public. OyunMirc indir

  23. Just because you say “open to the public” does not mean you can enter inside to cause a ruckus. R?ya TabirleriYemek Tarifleri

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.