Drones

Drones Invade New York City!

Blanketing lower Manhattan with posters designed to look like official NYPD signage

|

Credit: JayShells

On September 16, 29-year-old "Essam" and a group of friends blanketed lower Manhattan with posters designed to look like official New York Police Department signage. "Drones: Protection When You Least Expect It," read the slogan below simple ideograms of families running from unmanned aerial vehicles. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner, which manages the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city. All told, they swapped out about 100 ads.

"We see this trend throughout history of military technology always coming to the civilian world," the Army veteran told Animal New York. He says his goal is for the conversation about domestic police use of drones "to reach a mainstream level where we are talking about this at the dinner table." 

The signs went up on the same day as protests to mark the one-year anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, but were unrelated. A graduate student from Maine, Essam told Animal that he "identifies strongly with libertarianism" and chose the date to coincide with a gathering of the U.N. General Assembly and the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution.  

NEXT: Egyptians Protest Draft Constitution

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. Felonious pranksterism!

  2. Guess whose name is being added to a list…?

  3. You magnificent bastards…..I salute you!

    /Patton

  4. Essam is masse spelt backwards. Think about it.

    And for a libertarian to steal someone’s advertising space… tsk tsk tsk.

    1. He didn’t steal, he borrowed. IT’S DIFFERENT.

      1. I admit it would actually be pretty great if the cards they swapped out were for the “If you see something, say something” campaign.

        1. Done replaced with “Snitches get stiches, Reporting your neighbors is aiding and abetting big brother” at 4 thruway rest areas

      2. no it isn’t dumbass. I used to buy that kind of space. People do pay for that shit.

        1. Are you stupid, or really stupid? Because I wasn’t being serious.

    2. Yeah but kicking someone in the nuts for being an asshole is assault, even under the NAP. Not gonna stop me from laughing my ass off when I see it happen though.

    3. Yes, and let’s watch the usual suspects focus on that, rather than the effort to use communal property to actually fight the expansion of the police state.

      1. The NYPD is authority, NutraSweet, which makes them always right. Why don’t you shut up?

      2. As always, Sug nails it. Thanks, big guy.

      3. Since when is private advertising space communal property?

        I’m guessing that happened exactly when you agreed with the message of the vandalism.

        1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          Oh joe, please, more. Your utter lack of self-awareness of your own mendaciousness and stupidity are a gift this Friday morning. It’s like you’re doing this just for me.

        2. “the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city”

          So, public property.

          1. Which private companies paid money to have temporary ownership of.

            1. joe pretends to care. It’s so cute. And by cute, I mean joe is a short cunt.

              1. Why does joe always make it past your “don’t feed the trolls” policy?

                Makes me wonder if you’re jealous of his height…

                1. joe isn’t a troll, nicole. He isn’t a sockpuppet. He is the exemplification of partisan scumabggery. And he’s an unbelievable coward. Who is incredibly short.

                  1. And he hates women, too. Don’t forget that. Feel free to unleash your hormonal rage on him, nicole.

                    1. Now now Warty, I am above hormones. Most of the time.

                    2. Of course you are, sweetie. Of course you are.

                  2. He can’t be a sockpuppet unless he’s already on the board under some other identity and is using the fake Joe identity to make that other identity look better. I don’t think Joe is making any of us look better.

      4. Actually, it is the property of a private advertising agency. Reading comprehesion, they still teach that in school?

    4. The aspect of stealing advertising space is the first issue that came to mind with this.

      OTOH, if I read the article correctly Van Wagner has some sort of monopoly contract with the city, so I doubt that they would have agreed to a lease of the space for the given message.

    5. Jimmy James: Let me tell you something little miss. Advertising pays our bills. Advertising pays your salary. Advertising is what made this country great!
      Lisa: Well, okay, maybe I misspoke…
      Jimmy James: What was the Constitution of the United States?
      Lisa: A document…
      Jimmy James: No! It is an advertisement! An advertisement for liberty! “When in the course of human events…” I’m telling ya, that’s right up there with “Put a tiger in your tank,” and “Where’s the beef?”

      1. ::nods approvingly in FoE’s direction::

      2. Except that “when in the course of human events” was penned in the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution) by the noted secessionist, Thomas Jefferson.

  5. Editorial inconsistency detected:

    https://reason.com/blog/2012/09…..zing-subwa

    When a liberal defaces advertising, it’s vandalism. When a libertarian does it’s… nothing?

    1. Fuck off, dipshit. Go be short on your own fucking time.

    2. Note that the Animal New York article cited uses the word “vandalism” multiple times.

      1. joe, would you say that you’re a complete douchebag because you’re incredibly short, or because your penis is incredibly small? It’s both, isn’t it.

        1. I thought it was because that one sheep he likes stopped being receptive to his advances.

          1. I thought it was because that one sheep he likes stopped being receptive to his advances.

            He found out she was just pulling the wool over his eyes.

        2. Remember guys, consistency is only important when attacking liberals for inconsistency.

          1. Remember guys, consistency is only important when it’s not me. And by me, I mean super small penis joe.

        3. Fuck off, Epi. Don’t you know that two different Reason writers aren’t allowed to have two different opinions about two different situations? They must march in lockstep, like the rest of the LEGITIMATE MEDIA.

          1. Huh, he said “legitimate media”, huh huh.

            1. In the case of a legitimate media, a reporter has ways of shutting down differences of opinion.

              1. Damn you, now I need to clean my monitor off

          2. Would you say that joe’s complaint about consistency is utterly un-self-aware, or obscenely un-self-aware?

          3. The situations aren’t different, as far as violating private property rights are concerned.

            And the reason editors are writing the headlines.

            1. How many beers have you had so far today, joe? You’re all energized and shit. Or is it vodka and Red Bull?

            2. Not as clear-cut as you’d like it to be, Joe. City-owned bus stops on public sidewalks.

              1. The subway advertisement was in a city-owned, public subway station.

                No difference whatsoever.

                1. joe, would you say you’re abject scum, or total scum? I’m curious as to your self image.

    3. The “libertarian” didn’t commit assault by spraying toxic spray paint in someone’s face.

      Jus’ sayin’

      1. The assault and vandalism are two separate issues, and Reason repeatedly called spraypainting the anti-muslim advertising vandalism.

        There’s absolutely no difference, other than the political ideology of the perpetrator.

        1. No substitute teaching work today, joe? Man, it must suck so badly being you. Are you drunk yet?

          1. I was a sub for 3 years after I got my B.A. and during grad school.

            It was a horrific existence.

            1. You just described joe’s entire existence, except that he’s also incredibly short. I think he should just kill himself.

                1. I thought the dude should keep on keeping on, until he bent his head forward around 1:05 and revealed that huge balled spot. Fuck, his life is done.

        2. You’re absolutely right. They’re both vandalism; and vandalism in the name of Islamic supremacy, I oppose, and vandalism in the name of Liberty, I support.

          1. Yes, it is vandalism. And if these guys were screaming at a cop that what they did was 1A protected, I would mock them too. As it stands, I find their behavior as disturbing as doing 5 over the speed limit.

            Sdie note: it sounds like their signs could be removed with no permanent damage, making it a less onerous form of vandalism.

            1. When you pay for advertising, you’re paying for the time your advertising is displayed.

              There’s no way the owner of the space is getting that back.

              1. Oh joe, you’re so…concerned. Wow, I totally believe you.

              2. I suspect the advertisers will get comped time or reimbursements from the city, so it’s likely the city out the money. You are correct, though, that someone will never get the value of that time back.

                I think the world is a slightly better place for it having happened. If the perps were caught, I would argue that they should be punished according to the law. Not inconsistent.

                1. You are not inconsistent because you call this what it is-vandalism.

                  Reason? Not so much.

                  1. Reason? Not so much.

                    The “for a site called Reason…” shtick never gets old.

                    1. It’s amazing we haven’t all experience acute liver failure. Did you get a promotion?

                    2. I’m saying that Reason is inconsistent, not that I’m shocked to find an argument I find unreasonable in the magazine.

                  2. So let’s ignore the message in favor of the medium. Well, not the medium, per se, but what we think about the misuse of the medium. In fact, wouldn’t it be awful if we think something mildly at variance with something we’d previously thought? Let’s drill down on this rather than giving any thought to the troubling nature of the message.

              3. The owner of the space is the people of NY.

                If only there were some way the city (or Van Wagner) to give the advertiser another block of time to make up for the time during which the advertiser’s ad wasn’t up.

                1. The owner of the space is whoever paid the people of NY to own the space.

                  Destroying their private property is still vandalism.

                  And all of these arguments apply equally to the subway ad. Reason is still being inconsistent, due to the ideology of the perpetrator.

                  1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    “Destroyed”? Oh my god you;re so fucking stupid. It’s truly amazing. You are like a singularity of stupidity.

                    1. Slipping a piece of paper in front of another is “destruction” in joe’s mind. Actually: “mind”.

                    2. When you’re buying advertising TIME, obscuring said advertising destroys what you bought, whether you use spraypaint or another poster.

                    3. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      Oh god it’s like you want to get smashed into the ground. It’s amazing. You are stupider than the stupidest monster in Stupidtown.

                    4. If I steal your rental car, and then return the car to the rental company unharmed, have I violated your property rights?

                      (Yes)

                    5. (You’re so fucking stupid. Oh my god.)

                    6. So is it theft (of time, resources, whatever) or is it vandalism/destruction of property? This is why you are an idiot, Joe.

          2. Hey, at least you are honest about your convenient, inconsistent support of property rights.

            1. But you’re not, joe, and that concerns me. See? You’re concern trolling us, and I’m concern trolling you. Isn’t this fun?

            2. And you’re not. How…unsurprising.

            3. Hey joe, how many people did your vote kill today?

              1. Those who die for Obama’s glory go straight to a heaven of purest delight.

                When Obama kills you with a drone, he’s doing you the best favor that can be done for another. He has redeemed you.

                1. They’re thanking their deity when they see the missile coming, assuming they see it at all.

                  That they, these penniless, 3rd world peasants, barely scraping a living out the hard-scrabble earth, can die horribly for Sandra Fluke’s vagina and free heath care, is an honor they once only dreamed of.

            4. He’s right, in a schoolmarmish, stickleresque sense. As in, Yes, dear, that’s good, but a little beside the point.

        3. Actually this is not vandalism by any definition.

          The existing advertisments were not damaged or defaced in any way that I can see, they were merely obscured. Technically this would be theft and possibly also trespassing. There is another difference as well, in the vandalism case it was done with the intent of drowning out a political message, here the message obscured was not political but commercial and it’s being “shouted over” was a side effect of the action, not the central goal.

          The main thing you miss however is that KMW makes no editorial comment on whether she supported the actions of the pranksters, opposed it, or simply found it amusing. If you go back up and read the article it is a pretty straightforward presentation of the facts with no editorial or opinion offered.

          So tell me how this is being inconsistant on the part of Reason? Or are you saying that they should not even mention things they do not support?

          1. Rasilio, we’re all being played, and should know better. Joe aka The Derider is just a shit-stirrer. I feel dirty every time I respond to him. I don’t expect to change his mind, but hope that others reading these comments will learn from our responses to him.

            1. Tonio, there is only one way to respond to joe. It’s a way of treating him with the respect he deserves: none.

            2. That’s pretty much what I do. I don’t respond becasue I think he’ll change his mind, I do it because of the people who read these comment threads and don’t post on them and hopefully giving them the correct impression.

          2. Reason is being inconsistent because when a liberal violates private property rights to further a political message, it’s vandalism.

            When a libertarian does the same thing, they make no editorial comment on whether they support the action.

            1. joe, you using the word “inconsistent” is like Sasha Grey using the word “virgin”. Holy fucking shit you’re stupid. How do you even breathe?

              1. +1 Sasha Grey

                Also I didn’t know CNBC was in the porn-ranking business: http://www.cnbc.com/id/4090921…..s?slide=12

                There are no Asians on the list, though. Fuck that.

                1. Yeah. No Tera Patrick? That’s fucked up.

                  1. eh, I don’t see Tera Patrick’s appeal

                    I also don’t like big boobs — that’s probably part of the problem.

                    1. She’s not my favorite either, but she’s a very popular porn star.

                      I also don’t like big boobs — that’s probably part of the problem.

                      Why are you, as a homosexual, commenting on female porn stars anyway, then?

                      I keed. I keed.

                    2. I also don’t like big boobs — that’s probably part of the problem.

                      I don’t like fake boobs. If they’re real, they’re fine with me.

                      My smallest GF had tiny A- boobs. My biggest had double Ds. All good.

                  2. I prefer Kya Tropic to Tera Patrick, but I generally specify “Asian” in any porn search. And “doggystyle”.

                2. Needz moar Latinas

                  1. Needz moar Latinas

                    I know, who the fuck wrote up that list? Heinrich Himmler?

                  2. Why are you, as a homosexual, commenting on female porn stars anyway, then?

                    I keed. I keed.

                    Well after all, I was complaining that there weren’t enough Asians on the list.

    4. To give a straight reply, the main problem with the Eltahawy story was how she insisted it was protected speech to deface the poster. Nobody is suggesting that here. It’s fairly-civil disobedience.

      1. To give a straight reply

        Here’s yer problem.

      2. From the subway article:

        While I like a good piece of detournement as much as anybody, there’s a clear free-expression distinction between buying advertising and destroying an advertisement somebody else paid for.

        How is this case any different?

        1. it’s pretty fun when you concern troll, joe. Watching you pretend to give a fuck about property rights is pretty hilarious, I must say.

    5. I don’t think it was intended to silence the advertiser, so the thought behind it is a little different, even if the impact is not.

      1. It’s OK. His heart was in the right place?

        1. Hey joe, can you tell us about rape again?

    6. It’s art. Or artisanal messaging.

  6. FYI, the graphic of the running family is the one currently used to depict illegal immigrants in the SW US. So that makes it even more snarky.

    1. Yeah, that’s a nice detail.

      Seriously, in 10-15 years, when the stories are about families burning alive in vans and houses destroyed because “and the drone was discharged in a general direction maybe, according to police spokesmuppet” and “operators perhaps were have retraining may done,” a simple SWAT raid will sound quaint.

      1. This nonsense is so laughable.

        Police Helicopters =/= Helicopters with hellfire missiles.

        Police Drones =/= Drones with hellfire missiles.

        1. Oh joe, you’re such a total slut for the state. It’s truly pathetic. Do you like being pathetic?

        2. I’m glad to see you support police having drones. I assume when they arm them, you’ll keep on sucking that cop cock. Assuming Tulpa will let you have a turn, of course.

          1. When is the last time you heard about “families burning alive in vans and houses destroyed” due to a police helicopter shooting missiles indiscriminately?

            All the technology exists, and yet that never happens.

            Stop clutching your pearls. The sky is not falling.

            1. Slurp it up, joe! Use that tongue!

            2. Well, right now its just military helicopters overseas. Clearly, mission creep expanding its use to police helicopters against U.S. civilian populations is unpossible.

              The fuck is wrong with you?

            3. Hey, fuckshit troll:

              Helicopter Shooting: FBI May Investigate Texas Police Firing On Fleeing Truck From The Air

              They don’t arm helicopters because they can have officers fire from them–indiscriminately into trucks full of people. Dumbass. What’s it like to be wrong all the fucking time, you short fuck?

            4. When is the last time you heard about “families burning alive in vans and houses destroyed” due to a police helicopter shooting missiles indiscriminately?

              Philly, 1978?

              1. Holy fuck joe is stupid. I love that he actually wants to come here to prove it conclusively. Again and again.

              2. Yes, that’s fucked up.

                No, it’s not an example of an armed helicopter.

                1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  Oh god you’re such a lickspittle scumbag…it’s like someone created a parody of a partisan scumfuck and brought it to life. You are literally one of the lowest forms of life I’ve ever seen, joe. Holy shit you’re vile.

                2. Lol, bolting the machinegun to a tripod rather than having an cop hold it makes all the difference in the world, right? Good god.

                3. Lol, bolting the machinegun to a tripod rather than having an cop hold it makes all the difference in the world, right? Good god.

                  1. P.S. The NYPD have armed helicopters with miniguns as part of Bloomberg’s “7th largest military” anti-terrorism BS.

              3. Not Helicopters but you could also throw in Waco and Ruby Ridge as well.

        3. Joe left off the ending “Yet.” I’m sure it was just an oversight.

          Or he actually thinks that this will never be used against US. Just “bad” guys at weddings and funerals and terrorists who are so defined solely because of their age and gender and country they live in.

          1. Why have police not used helicopter gunships against US? The technology has been around for 60 years.

            1. Why have police not used helicopter gunships against US? The technology has been around for 60 years.

              Why did the federal government hold off implementing the TSA police state at the airports until after 9/11? The technology has been around since at least the 1930s in Germany — you know, 80 years ago — and probably earlier?

              1. I remember walking through metal detectors and having my luggage x-rayed long before 9/11.

                But now it’s a police state? When did we cross that line?

                1. Shift those goalpost, you vile piece of shit! Go go go!

                  1. Essam’s real crime is saying he’s a libertarian. If this was an OWS effort, or some dipshits from Oberlin College, Obama’s Sockpuppet would be either silent or filled with praise.

                  2. It’s his argument, how can I shift the goalposts?

                2. But now it’s a police state? When did we cross that line?

                  When I started getting sexually assaulted in public. Is that a good line for you?

                  1. Waiting for episiarch to make a bunch of comments about how you weren’t REALLY sexually assaulted.

                    1. No, you’re the rape master, joe. Tell us about lying back and thinking of England. Come on; your total ignorance was so fucking hilarious.

                    2. No, it’s cool, I mean, I was totally asking for it. Not only was I choosing to fly, but I was also choosing to opt out of the machines where you get to stand in the “thanks officer, you can stick your hand up my ass now” position while someone in another room looks at you naked and the rest of the people in line can pretend nothing untoward is going on because they’ve already forgotten it’s undignified to remove your shoes in public.

                      I choose to be publicly sexually assaulted so other people have to witness it.

                    3. Let’s say you voluntarily entered into a marriage in 19th century england. The laws allow your husband to discipline you by beating you, and to have sex with you whenever he wants.

                      If he wants to have sex with you, but you don’t want to have sex, and he forces you to do so, is that rape?

                      Episiarch doesn’t think so.

                    4. joe, it’s stunning how you’re your own worst enemy. You’ve been taken to the woodshed multiple times on this shit, yet you persist in making yourself look like a fool again and again.

                      Thanks, joe. Thanks for making yourself look the fool, and I didn’t even have to do any work. You are literally the stupidest monster since stupid came to Stupidtown.

                    5. Yes, I’m so wrong that episiarch doesn’t need to point out a single reason why.

                    6. nicole,

                      Don’t forget, joe was on his high school debate team… so he’s much better at this than you could ever be. He still has the milk crate he had to stand on to reach the podium mike. It gives him power over you.

                      You’ve already lost, nicole. joe’s twenty, thirty moves ahead of you.

                      WINNING!

                    7. Had you refused a metal detector or luggage x-ray in the 80’s, do you doubt they’d search your person before they let you get on the plane?

                    8. Keep going, joe! Have another vodka and Red Bull! It’s only 3 PM! You have tons of time to go down to the bar and get belligerent later!

                    9. Joe, at the risk of continuing a pointless argument, I suggest you are missing my point.

                      A metal detector only detects metal objects that pass through it. It is not a stealth way to strip-search people while putting the nasty unpleasantness out of the way, so they don’t have to think they are being strip-searched even though they are.

                      I am not objecting to the pat down per se, any more than I am objecting to the entire existence of the TSA (which, of course, I do). I think the patdown is the way to go. Because every single person going through that machine should realize that they are really going through what I am, and I hope they wonder whether they are really safer because someone sticks their hands in a small young woman’s waistband in front of an entire airport. It’s happening to all of them and I don’t want them to forget it.

                    10. Had you refused a metal detector or luggage x-ray in the 80’s, do you doubt they’d search your person before they let you get on the plane?

                      If government agents tried to insist on openly sexually molesting you or else taking nude pictures of you and making you stand in a surrender pose in the 80s, I suspect that some resistance would have been encountered.

                      Now, not so much.

                    11. I call threadwinner on nicole’s 2:44 pm post. That was amazing snark.

                    12. Yeah, I agree. It was an extra-thorough PWNing because joe was stupid enough to step right into the spinning knives.

                3. I remember walking through metal detectors and having my luggage x-rayed long before 9/11.

                  I remember those Not Quite As Bad Old Days too, when TSA agents didn’t insist on either taking nude pictures and irradiating you with the new scanners and making you stand in a “I surrender to the government” pose, or sexually molesting you, as a condition of flying.

                  It was edging toward a police state back then. It is one now.

                  Last time I went through a TSA line at McCarren International (after the LP convention, got threatening several times with incarceration for not being submissive enough to constitutional violations.

                4. “But now it’s a police state? When did we cross that line?”

                  So it’s black or white, no gray?
                  OK, airports: when security personnel became federal agents.

          2. As long as those people died or were maimed for O Glorious Obama, their suffering serves a good cause.

        4. I seem to recall a recent story with a police gunman and a helicopter. No smoking vans, perhaps, but a couple dead immigrants under a tarp in a truckbed. Yeah, I’m much happier with the violence dial turned down from ten to seven.

    2. We’re all illegal in some way or another, Tonio, so it’s perfect.

  7. OT: Congressman concerned about Guam tipping over wants the ability to legislate free speech!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    http://tinyurl.com/cjsxkdy

    1. The hell? A Soka Gakkai* cult member calling for speech restrictions on corporations? Bizarre.

      * SGI is basically Buddhist Scientology

  8. Not thrilled they stole private advertising space for this, though I love the prank.

    Even less thrilled about the far more massive theft via taxation that is used to purchase these FN drones, which can easily be used against the U.S. civilian population.

    1. All it will take is one incident where it could be argued that an armed drone could have stopped a fleeing car that ended up ramming a school bus and they we will have them.

      1. OK, read comments above — government owned advertising space, not private. Question: was the advertising covered up just government agitprop paid for with stolen tax money, like those FN anti-drug ads from a government department of health (in which case I have no problems with covering it up), or was it from private companies using their own money?

        1. Given what I can remember of seeing them around the city, it would be a mixture of both.

          It’s not vandalism, but it is theft. If he had stuck to only covering up PSAs and straight up propaganda, his actions would be completely justified as a protest.

          If you read the original article, the NYPD counter-terrorism task force is hunting for him.

          Do they routinely hunt for vandals?

          1. That is beyond fucked up.

          2. If you read the original article, the NYPD counter-terrorism task force is hunting for him.

            Do they routinely hunt for vandals?

            Well, “Essam” is a name commonly used by those swarthy, Middle-Eastern types.

            And by protesting both the glorious heroes of the NYPD and drones, he is clearly a terrorist, because in a post-nine-eleven world, nine-eleven nine-elevens nine-elevenly.

          3. It’s simultaneously vandalism and theft.

            Theft because he’s stealing someone else’s advertising space and time.

            Vandalism because in doing so, he destroys the value of the original advertising.

            If they were posting these things on vacant billboards, it would just be theft.

            1. You’re so deliciously vile, joe. Like a special kind of repulsive. No woman will touch you, will they? They won’t even go near you. Will prostitutes even touch you?

            2. Since when do you care about theft, you leftist fuckbag? Oh, yeah… when you have to pretend to so you can concern troll.

              And you don’t know what vandalism entails, either. joe’s dictionary always magically agrees with him.

              1. Still googling for a definition that qualifies a temporary and removable covering as vandalistic defacement?

                1. Haven’t found anything? Really?

                2. Defacement need not be permanent to qualify as vandalism.

                  If I tag up your house with washable paint, is it somehow not vandalism?

                  1. Washable paint =|= slipping a piece of paper in front of another

                    So when you put a Post-it-note on a book, that book has been defaced? Words mean things, asshole.

                    1. If the piece of paper slipped in front of another, which is not glued on, covers up a private advertiser, it’s theft, not vandalism.

                      If it covers up a government poster, it’s simply recovering stolen property.

                    2. prote, did you know that when you put on clothes, you are mutilating your body?

                    3. Not to mention makeup!

                    4. It’s good to see your defense of nakedness rights are so inconsistent, SugarFree. I WIN THE DEBATE! I AM SO SMART! I AM SO TALL! I STILL HAVE A WIFE!

                    5. prote, did you know that when you put on clothes, you are mutilating your body?

                      Stop projecting. When I put on clothes, they look freaking awesome. Apparently not so much for you. =D

                      Joe could have a tiny point here if he had made the right argument, but he’s arguing a much larger invalid point.

                    6. Yes, words mean things, and the definition of defacement does not include permanent damage as a necessary condition.

                      1. To mar or spoil the appearance or surface of; disfigure.
                      2. To impair the usefulness, value, or influence of.

                    7. words mean things

                      Hey joe, are you still pretending you’re not joe? Because if you are, that was even and even bigger red flag than normal. You idiot.

                    8. And it took him that long to google up something that vaguely agrees with him.

                      Hey, let’s ask a Muslim girl that’s had acid thrown into her face if having it covered instead with a scarf she could pull off at any time is the same thing.

                      Note that he has to run with the vandalism angle because of the thousands of times he’s justified theft.

  9. “…and here comes joe p boyle around turn number three atop Urban Planner…”

  10. The owner of the space is the people of NY.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, NO NO NO. WE are not the government. We do not own stuff owned by the government. Elected politicians collectively “own” stuff like this for the term of their office. Private individuals do not.

    If it was mafia owned advertising space, would you say the people of NY owned it because they pay protection money to the mob?

  11. They need the drones to detect stranded jet skiers who end up on the runway at JFK.

  12. Speaking of drones, Neatorama has highlighted a drone for parents to use on their kids. At last, military technology does something positive and life-embracing.

    1. On school-day mornings, I walk my grade-school-age son 400 meters down the hill to the bus stop. Last winter, I fantasized about sitting at my computer while a camera-equipped drone followed him overhead.?

      I was thinking, how much of a lazy fat-ass do you have to be to “fantasize” about that. Apparently, this much. I’m sure though, that if someone tried to abduct his kid, he’d be able to leap out of his office and high-tail it down to the bus stop to prevent it in time.

      1. I’m thinking, how much of a pussy do you have to be to not let your kid just walk 400 fucking meters by himself?

        1. Paul Wallich, an IEEE Spectrum contributing editor, frequently writes about his home-brew projects. He says the drone’s four propellers gave him pause: “I am not at all sure I like building devices with sharp, fast-moving parts!”

          That much of a pussy.

        2. Meters? Sounds foreign to me.

          1. Canadian even.

            1. He’s from Vermont, I think. It’s not a province or anything now, is it? I guess it could be. I don’t pay much attention to states north of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

              1. I’m from Vermont! No, I’m from Massachusetts and was dumb enough to move here in the 1980’s when it was still a small gubmint place. Also you could spit in the air and it would freeze before it hit the ground. Try that in Florida.

                1. We have freezing technology down here.

                  When I lived in Minneapolis, I was amazed to learn that I could just keep beer outside for half the year.

  13. Say isn’t that the Illegal Aliens ideogram?

    1. Already called that upthread. Pwned, Biotch!

    2. And BTW, is that you posting those reviews on Amazing as FA?

      1. I have no idea what “Amazing as FA” is, so no.

  14. There are drones targetting illegal aliens in New York?

  15. Awesome ad. Would have preferred it having been done without covering up advertising space that others paid for, but well done.

    I have always wondered, however, what Reason’s editorial stance on drone policy would be. I would say that drone usage and implementation needs to have civilian monitoring of drones used by armed forces + intelligence, and that they should either be strictly restricted or eliminated for use by domestic government agencies. Beyond that I have some more specific suggestions, but I would like to see something from Reason outlining either a positive use for drones in a warfare/enforcement capacity or a piece opposing their use entirely and stating the reasons why we should all agree.

    1. Abolish Domestic drone use for law enforcement until the 4th amendment is secured

  16. And to you, the dear reader who made it this far down the page, I would like to point out that I was 100% correct in my prediction for the thread:

    SugarFree| 11.30.12 @ 1:46PM |#|?|filternamelinkcustom

    Yes, and let’s watch the usual suspects focus on that, rather than the effort to use communal property to actually fight the expansion of the police state.

    Good night and have a wonderful weekend.

    1. Why can’t you predict something useful, like Megabucks numbers? Gloatey bastard.

      1. It is not ours to criticize the form that divination takes.

  17. I hope everyone knows the graphic of the three people is the standard California road sign, seen near the Mexican border, to watch out for illegals crossing the road.

    And as this article shows, there have been other parodies of the image.

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/nave…..of_the.php

  18. Eh, I’d countenance mass murder if it gave me a laugh. Humor trumps all other considerations. The Joker is my hero.

  19. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner. SohbetChat

  20. A graduate student from Maine, Essam told Animal that he. SohbetSohbet Odalar?

  21. U.N. General Assembly and the anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. Sohbet SiteleriChat Siteleri

  22. Essam and his team disguised themselves as employees of the outdoor advertising firm Van Wagner. SohbetChat

  23. Assuming Tulpa will let you have a turn, of course.Mynet SohbetMynet Sohbet

  24. A graduate student from Maine, Essam told Animal that he. Film izleDizi izle

  25. the Army veteran told Animal New York.SohbetSohbet Odalar?

  26. which manages the advertising space on bus stations and kiosks throughout the city. OyunMirc indir

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.