Immigration

The GOP Leviathan on the Border

|

Republican House Speaker John Boehner pulled the plug on his immigration reform plan after his fellow Republicans gave it a cold reception. Raising an issue on which the party is so hopelessly divided would kill its chances of the winning the Senate in November. That is probably correct, but the bigger issue is why is immigration such a divisive issue for Republicans? One reason is that the anti-immigrant animus of rabble-rousers like Ann Coulter.

No sooner did Boehner release his reform "principles" than she went on the attack bandying surveys showing that immigrants will "wreck the country" with their Big Government-loving ways. "It's not their [Republicans'] position on amnesty that immigrants don't like," she harrumphed. "It's Republicans' support for small government, gun rights, patriotism, the Constitution and capitalism."

"But if Republicans love liberty and small government," I note in the Washington Examiner, they sure have a weird way of showing it.

In fact, there are at least four ways in which their immigration reform plans will expand the leviathan state and warm Thomas Hobbes heart.

Go here to find out what they are.

NEXT: Hackers May Have Used Pa. Company as Backdoor into Target

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. but the bigger issue is why is immigration such a divisive issue for Republicans?

    Because Boehner, and Republicans (in general), are pussies that lack any principles whatsoever.

  2. Goddamn imminents!

  3. if you don’t have border security, then why have borders at all?

    1. Because who would tell me what to do if I didn’t know who I belonged to?

      1. everybody belongs to something. A family, a club, a nation. Man’s not a solitary creature by nature.

        1. SAYS YOU! GET OFF MY LAWN!

        2. The difference between ‘belonging’ to a club where you chose to associate and ‘belonging’ to a state where you pay taxes and do what you’re told or get killed is huge.

    2. You have borders to keep other nations’ worse laws and enforcement out.

      Is this really that hard?

      1. Importing tens of millions of people from a DEMOCRACY with statist laws and enforcement would seem to run counter to the notion of keeping other nations’ poor legal systems out.

        I’d rather be a Mexican in Sheriff Joe’s prison than an American in, well, any Mexican prison.

    3. The purpose of borders is to keep government in. A border marks the outer limit for a government’s jurisdiction, so that people have someplace to escape to.

      If people can’t cross borders freely, then they have no escape. That’s why Freedom of Movement is the most essential freedom there is. Without it, everyone is a prisoner of their respective government.

      1. in your calculus then, there are no nations, those inside the borders you despise have no rights/freedoms to be protected, and the world is a free agent.

        The is the part of libertarian utopia that will never be achieved. As it is, this country is more welcoming, more hospitable, and more accessible to immigrants that just about any other place, to include our neighbors on other side.

  4. You don’t need to agree with drug use as a moral or practical habit to acknowledge that drug policy is desperately in need of reform. You don’t need to countenance illegal immigration to acknowledge that rounding up twelve million illegals dispersed in our country and sending them packing really isn’t an option, and building and guarding a gigantic thousand-mile long border fence is a massive expense for minimal benefit.

    1. But it worked so well for the Soviet Union.

      1. Not sure what your point is with this.

        If you’re serious and comparing us to the USSR, the USSR had no trouble with people streaming into its borders post-WW2, for reasons that had little to do with a fence or enforcement of border laws.

        If you’re being sarcastic — see above.

        1. Sigh, Tulpa – the SU fenced its nation in, ostensibly for ‘national security, had extremely tight immigration controls, and ultimately used that very fence to keep its citizen’s *in*.

          Oh and they did it at massive expense for minimal benefit.

          1. Seriously dude? Keeping the citizens in was the purpose from the get-go. The stuff about keeping imperialist spies from coming in to sabotage the worker’s paradise was silly propaganda, known by everyone involved to be silly propaganda from day one.

            Oh and they did it at massive expense for minimal benefit.

            Their economy and probably the military too would have collapsed within a few years had they not kept their best and brightest from fleeing to the West, so I’d say they got a pretty good benefit for the collective.

            1. No, I’d say they got a pretty good benefit for the top level of their society and precious little benefit for anyone below that, especially compared to the cost.

              And its amazing how often walls to keep people out get repurposed to keep others in.

              1. I’d say they got a pretty good benefit for the top level of their society

                That’s what I meant with my tongue-in-cheek call-out to “the collective”. The walls did exactly what they wanted them to do.

                And its amazing how often walls to keep people out get repurposed to keep others in.

                Example? I mean, if it’s amazingly often you should be able to come up with one.

                1. Uh, the Soviet Union, maybe, for one?

                  1. sigh. That wasn’t a repurposing, that was intended to keep people in from day one.

                    You claim that there have been fences/walls that were built to keep people out but later were used to keep people in. Name one.

  5. “The bigger issue is why is immigration such a divisive issue for Republicans?”

    It’s because legalizing those illegal immigrants and giving them a clear path to citizenship means enfranchising millions of new voters who are openly hostile to the Republican Party.

    Why score baskets for the other team?

    Certainly, the reason the Democrats want to enfranchise millions of illegal immigrants is because they expect that those new voters will be hostile to the GOP.

    It’s true that the reason so many immigrants, especially those from Mexico and Central America, are hostile to the Republicans is because the Republicans have been so hostile to them for decades, but in terms of winning or losing elections now, that’s entirely beside the point.

    It doesn’t matter why newly enfranchised immigrants would hurt the GOP in elections nationally; what matters to the GOP is that they would.

    1. Which immigrants are you talking about. The Mexican immigrants I know are not fans of the DNC (neither are they partial to the GOP). Most are rather apolitical and don’t see it as worth worrying about which party is in power since they’ll both screw you in the end.

      And they don’t worry about the GOP’s anti-immigration stance – a good percentage of these immigrants have children that have, will, or would join the Border Patrol if they got the opportunity.

      1. That may be the Mexican immigrants you know, but Mexicans immigrants who know nothing else about American politics know that the Republicans are hostile to them. It’s been that way since Prop 187.

        It’s unfortunate for the GOP, too, because Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans–and hence skew more religious. That means they’re more conservative, culturally, on social issues, and if it weren’t for the GOP’s reputation for hostility against them, they’d be a natural fit for social conservatives in the GOP.

        The liberals and progressives in Northern California still haven’t come to terms with the fact that Prop 8, which banned gay marriage, passed with Latino and African-American support, and we already know how Catholics feel about things like abortion.

        So, anyway, you’re right. Mexican immigrants should split or skew toward the GOP. But why would you favor a party that is seen as being completely hostile to your very presence in this country?

        1. Well, my point was more ‘they aren’t going to support *either* party’ – their antipathy for each has a different source.

        2. Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans–and hence skew more religious. That means they’re more conservative, culturally, on social issues, and if it weren’t for the GOP’s reputation for hostility against them, they’d be a natural fit for social conservatives in the GOP.

          And an even better fit for leftists promising free shit from big government. But hey, if you think the GOP needs to revive the Bush-Rove-Huckabee welfare state-social conservatism alliance, let’s hear you make the argument.

        3. The Mexican immigrants I know are not fans of the DNC (neither are they partial to the GOP). Most are rather apolitical…

          Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans–and hence skew more religious. That means they’re more conservative, culturally, on social issues…

          Both of these anecdotes are popular, but not especially true according to Pew’s polling on the subject:

          http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..prc-number

          1. “Mexican immigrants to the U.S. tend to be poorer than average Mexicans–and hence skew more religious. That means they’re more conservative, culturally, on social issues…”

            I see them mention that first generation immigrants are more socially conservative than second generation immigrants, and I expect them all to trend to the center, eventually. On social issues, eventually, they’ll probably be like the Irish and the Italians.

            When they say that Latinos, in terms of gay marriage, aren’t so different from other groups, I have some questions about that. Specifically, are they saying that these Latino immigrants aren’t so different from the American people–nationally?

            If you’re telling me that they’re the same as the average American–with the South included–and I’m talking about how socially conservative they are when compared to the average within California, we’re talking apples and oranges. The attitudes of Californians skew tolerant, and even IF new Latino immigrants are about the same as people nationally–including the South–then they’re much more socially conservative than the average, white Californian.

            Certainly, the people in San Francisco aren’t going to see that as especially tolerant, and of all those immigrants are enfranchised, I think the gay rights supporters of Northern California are going to be in for some serious disappointment.

    2. Perhaps this is also a salient point:

      http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..prc-number

      Bigger Government or Smaller Government?

      Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

      Amnesty will give the vote to a new bloc of voters who will vote 80% for the big government side. This should advance the cause of libertarianism!

  6. It’s true that the reason so many immigrants, especially those from Mexico and Central America, are hostile to the Republicans is because the Republicans have been so hostile to them for decades

    Or maybe their culture makes their in favor of big government?

    Libertarians fall in the multi-culturism trap. All cultures are equal, so let’s everyone in and have a great big party and have a coke!

    But they aren’t. Why is Latin America a mess? Not because they are dumber or lack resources. Mexico in particular should be one of the richest countries in the world. It’s because of their culture…

    Same with the Middle East. Why are some places a hell hole and other places amazing? Because some are islamists and some aren’t…

    1. This is absurd.

      I lived in Mexico for over a year.

      The suggestion that Mexico’s government is bigger than ours is ridiculous. Our government is bigger than theirs in every way I can think of–and much less intrusive, too.

      Most of the hiring, for instance, is done under the table. Not a whole lot of people bother to pay taxes. The police are pretty selective in terms of whether or not they enforce the laws, too. Just because the legislature passes a law doesn’t mean the local cops are going to enforce it.

      Culturally, I’d say they’re more entrepreneurial than we are, too. Every third house seems to run a store or a restaurant out of the front door of their home. And when they come here, they aren’t getting jobs in corporate America. They’re starting immigrant businesses or working for immigrant businesses.

      Disparage multiculturalism all you want; you seem to have the facts–and their culture–completely wrong.

      1. “and [their government] is much less intrusive, too.”

        I meant to say.

      2. There’s a big difference between weak government (Mexico) and limited government, Ken.

        Mexico’s govt fucks over everyone it can. The fact that its reach is limited does not change its nature.

        I suppose you’d prefer going to jail in Mexico and enjoying their justice system, compared to that of the US?

        1. How does this relate to what we were talking about, Tulpa?

          If our jails are better than theirs, does that mean their government is bigger than ours?

          If our jails are better than theirs, does that mean their culture is inferior and that they’re unsuitable for American citizenship?

          How does what you’re saying relate to what we were talking about? Are you posting just to read your own posts?

          1. In through one ear and out the other, as always with you Ken.

            How’s Libya doing these days, btw?

      3. I keep asking, why is immigration reform limited to Mexicans? There is the rest of the world you know. And one would expect immigrants from places other than Mexico to open immigrant businesses, as they already have demonstrated for a couple of centuries.

        Seriously, why?

      4. So why, as a country and a culture, are they poor? And violent? And corrupt? And uneducated? And want to escape from what they created?

        JeremyR: “Not because they are dumber…”

        It’s well documented that they are dumber, e.g. Richwine’s data.

        So do you have a cite to back your statement, or are you just another PC parrot?

        1. “So why, as a country and a culture, are they poor? And violent? And corrupt? And uneducated?”

          “Richwine’s data” shows that low wage immigrants who come here have lower IQs.

          “My dissertation shows that recent immigrants score lower than U.S.-born whites on a variety of cognitive tests.”

          —-Jason Richwine

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ad-at-him/

          It isn’t the country that he found has lower IQs–it’s recent immigrants, who couldn’t find jobs at home.

          The U.S. born whites who work manual labor in America almost certainly skew towards lower IQs, too, but you wouldn’t just test American day laborers’ IQs and then use that to make general statements about the rest of America.

          If I had data showing that American born, white, day laborers have lower IQs than the average American, what would that say about America’s level of poverty, violence, corruption, and education?

          The correct answer is absolutely nothing.

          If you think Richwine’s data shows Mexico’s level of poverty, violence, corruption, and education is a function of the lower IQs of its day laborers, then you’re just seeing what you want to see.

      5. You’re conflating an ineffective government with a non-intrusive government.

        I grew up in a Third World country before I (legally) immigrated to the US. It is much the same as Mexico – an oppressive and statist government, nominally democratic, where people may have more practical freedom because they ignore the law and bribe the police. This works well? unless you don’t have influence or money to bribe the police (which is continuous and ongoing if you own a business).

        I don’t see this kind of oppressive but ineffective government as any kind of improvement. And like in Mexico, the vast majority of people in my home country believe that the government should tax others more, spend more on themselves, and oppress others more. I can confidently say that importing vast quantities of my former compatriots would not spell well for America’s libertarian future.

    2. In fairness to Mexico, being a drug trade conduit is hardly conducive to prosperity.

      1. Holy shit bro, the fact that you of all people raise this salient point is an indictment of the others commenting here.

        1. And I mean that to apply to myself as well. The WOD is such a huge issue when it comes to Mexican governance that I’m ashamed it wasn’t mentioned in my first comment.

        2. But on the other hand (as I morph into Cathy Young), Mexico was a shithole long before the drug war really ramped up.

          1. And you claim this is unrelated to the Monroe Doctrine?

  7. It’s funny; it’s taken as a given on these here pages that Californians flooding into Colorado and Arizona and Montana bring their state’s politics with them. Or that Massachusetts residents moving to NH are turning that state blue. The New York/New Jersey/Marylanders moving to Virginia.

    But somehow we’re supposed to believe that Mexicans coming across the border with a different language and a different culture, are a teeming mass of Juan Galts, whose concept of politics is totally different from the I-fuck-you-or-you-fuck-me way politics is done in Mexico. OK.

    1. I don’t believe that immigrants making a Run for the Border are a bunch of closet libertarians. But locking people out of your country simply because they might not vote the right way is as dumb as not allowing Californians to move into your state… as admittedly attractive as that sounds after I type it.

      1. It may be impractical to have any ideology test, and you can be sure that Obama and Holder will change the test around so only big government supporters will be able to immigrate.

        However, they won’t have to try very hard:

        http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..prc-number

        Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

    2. Wait a minute Tulpa, this comment seems to fly in the face of the sentiment of your earlier comment regarding Mexico and the drug trade.

      Or do you think the “money talks and bullshit walks” way of life just came out of nowhere and is in no way related to drug money?

      1. Mexico had these problems long before the drug war. I’m not singling them out either; most of the third world has these problems.

        Liberal democracy (using the L-word in its original sense) is a most unnatural system of government, that arose in very peculiar conditions in medieval Britain. It has a hard time rising up on its own and is only kept alive via culture and tradition. You import tens of millions of people from a totally adverse political culture, you’re in for trouble.

        And I know someone’s going to say, what about the Irish and Germans and Italians in the beginning of the 20th century? Yeah, what about them. Ever heard of Tammany Hall? How about the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Yeah, I thought so. (and I say that as an Irish-American myself)

        They’ve all but lost it in the UK, it’s showing some serious signs of wear here in the US, and it’s in dire straits in the other three big Anglosphere countries that worship the queen. Fucking Anglos don’t have enough kids.

        1. Wait a minute, are you blaming the Fed and the income tax on Irish, German and Italian immigrants?

          1. I mean,

            “Support for the income tax was strongest in the western and southern states and opposition was strongest in the northeastern states.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…..nstitution

            Were the western and southern states where the Italian, German and Irish immigrant voting blocs ruled?

            1. Nice try. The northeast was by far the wealthiest part of the country at that time, so the relationship is natural.

              Perhaps you should look at which party’s president muscled through those things (along with the original marihuana de facto ban), and what that party’s base was in the northeast.

              1. Wait a minute.

                If these immigrant groups were responsible for this, then why did states that had less of those groups ratify the amendments first?

    3. “It’s funny; it’s taken as a given on these here pages that Californians flooding into Colorado and Arizona and Montana bring their state’s politics with them.”

      Wait a minute. So when people flee a state, for example when the tax policy is insane, that is the kind of person you don’t want in your state?

      1. Depends on whether they put 2 and 2 together about the insane tax policy’s root cause. Truth be told I’d rather not have dolts from Maryland fleeing across the Potomac to escape Governor Fartin O’Folley’s rain tax, etc, and they turn around and vote for Terry McAuliffe to lead their adopted home state.

        1. I would think someone who opposed the insane tax policy would be at least ahead of the average voter.

          1. We’re talking about Maryland here, so that’s not a very high bar. I’d prefer it if the welfare sows in Berea kept themselves and their little piglets in their own laboratory of democracy, too.

  8. Dude you know that is like totally bad ass.

    http://www.Anon-Works.tk

    1. Swing and a miss anonbot.

  9. 4. In order to deprive Democrats of new voters, Boehner’s principles recommend offering illegal workers legal status but not citizenship. But the problem with this Solomon-like solution is that it will create on American soil a new class of people whom Uncle Sam could tax but who couldn’t vote ? shredding America’s bedrock commitment to “no taxation without representation.”

    This class of people is not at all new: it already exists. In fact off the top of my head I can think of several subclasses of this class:

    1. Illegal immigrants
    2. Legal immigrants who have no intention of becoming citizens
    3. Legal immigrants who are on a path to citizenship and haven’t yet reached the end
    4. Me, who has never seen someone I voted for elected, and therefore entirely lacks representation

    Yet all these people willingly reside in the US and participate in the US economy. Adding another subclass…

    5. Immigrants given legal residence on the explicit understanding that they are not on a path to citizenship

    …in no way violates them or their freedom. If they like the terms, they will accept them. If they don’t like the terms, they can stay in their home countries where one person may or may not have more representation than the comical amount one of the 315 million people in the US has.

    1. Bluntly put, the ability to legally live and work in the US is well over 95% of the value of citizenship. To deny individuals this fundamental right because it might tarnish a “commitment” as vacuous as “no taxation without representation” is really backwards.

    2. Hell… as long as we have local city taxes we have taxation without representation. I get taxed by the city I work in, and the city I live in, and I’m only allowed to vote in one of those cities.

    3. Hmm, how about we give them limited voting rights on taxation issues only?

      1. They have the right to vote with their feet like everyone else, and considering they’ve already shown a propensity for border violation they should have no problem doing so.

        1. Curious, why should you be allowed to vote, and how does that not extend to an illegal who has lived and worked in this nation for quite a long time?

          1. We could start with my presence here not being illegal.

            Of course, the right to vote is a utilitarian thing and has been since the beginning of the Republic. Only white propertied males could vote back then and the electorate has been expanded from time to time either to get more buy-in (propertyless males) or because the powers that be thought the expansion would favor their power (DC having electoral votes, Republicans dividing the Dakota territory into far too many states so they could hold the Senate, etc).

            1. “We could start with my presence here not being illegal.”

              That is just question begging, since we are arguing about whether their presence should be or ever have been illegal.

              1. Whether their presence here is illegal is not up for debate. It is.

                The debate is over whether changes should be made in the future.

      2. I’d be inclined to say that if they don’t have title to vote, then they aren’t required to pay taxes. But then the lines at the Citizenship Renunciation Office would be far too long for any bureaucracy to handle.

        1. I’d be inclined to say that if they don’t have title to vote, then they aren’t required to pay taxes.

          Never really understood that as a matter of principle, particularly when talking about someone who came to work here voluntarily. The income tax has nothing to do with voting, it’s about benefitting from the economy the govt protects from theft, fraud, invasion, etc. (yes, I know)

          1. And yet somehow we were able to have those protections for years until the powers that be decided an income tax was the way to go.

            I’m sorry, but no one should have to pay for the “privilege” of working to support themselves and their family.

            (I know your “yes, I know” is like a sld, at least I hope so)

    4. While this might work in principle, Class (5) will quickly vanish:

      a) President Obama and Eric Holder and their ideological kin will find some dubious basis on which to declare this unconstitutional or find an executive action to nullify it. No one will have standing to challenge their action. See: The illegal legalization of Dreamers by executive fiat.

      b) The next combination of Democratic Congress + President (e.g. 2008) will simply pass a law removing this disqualification from citizenship. The illegal alien lobbies will ensure that it will happen.

  10. One reason is that the anti-immigrant animus of rabble-rousers like Ann Coulter.

    Maybe. Spend some time speaking to Team Red people in border states– Arizona, Texas, hell, probably even New Mexico and there’s a very strong secure-our-borders sentiment. And to some degree, they see the costs of illegal immigration first hand. The costs, of course, are a complicated subject but they do raise the ire of people who feel they’re paying taxes to support what they see is a shadow population.

  11. James Cohen|2.7.14 @ 10:35PM|#
    “More often big governments were the only thing standing between the Jews and the peasants, who hated them.”

    Uh, that doesn’t require “big” government.
    I’m pretty sure by now you’ve started with a point and have wasted quite a bit of time not really proving it, but offering one bit of mendacity after the other in an attempt at sleight-of-hand.
    Once more, what is your point? And are you Merkin in a new suit?

  12. Ah – this must be the retard thread tonight. You kids try not to hurt yourselves – I’ll head elsewhere.

    1. I called american socialist names over on the “O-care/unemployment” thread.
      Maybe the asshole has returned the favor.

  13. Effing up the economy seems to be the best deterrent to immigration. These supposed potentially ignorant immigrant voters will inadvertently and effectively close the border by not making anyone want to relo to the USA.
    So all you immigrant haters should love economy destroying policies. You fit right in to current policy.

  14. Hey, everybody! Merkin’s got a new handle!
    Same slimy racism.

  15. ITT: JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZZ TUK UR JERB HERR DERRR HERRR *derp*

    1. So you agree it smells sort of, shall we say, ripe?

  16. So anyway – I got into The Elder Scrolls Online beta.

    1. So, I got Rush TimeMachine / Live 2011.

      1. Alex looks old as fuck in 2011. Neil and Geddy merely look old.

        Mrs. Gin commented on the washing machines behind them. “yes, those are washing machines”.

        Camera men made a valiant effort to find all 4 women in the audience.

        1. So, sounds as meh and disappointing as TESO is.

          1. The Extra Special Olympics?

            It’s fine as a concert. Musicianship is tight, sound is good. They look old,but not any older than, say, Rolling Stones.

            1. So they look like soulless monsters who have thrown off the shackles of mortality and will live a deathless existence feeding off the life-force of concert attendees?

              1. NTTAWWT

          2. Damn dude, it sucks? I’m no Skyrim fanboy but I haz a sad. I was picturing Morrowind and Oblivion with my friends and you just shattered my dreams.

            1. It *doesn’t* suck. Its just meh and certainly not worth the subscription fee.

              If it was a GW type of deal – pay once and play or even f2p it’d be a decent competitor to other MMO offerings.

              1. I did WoW for years, I thought GW was decent but didn’t have the time, now the only one I play and pay a sub for is EVE Online. You thinking about checking out Star Citizen or Wildstar?

                1. I’ve applied for the Wildstar beta but no response yet. And I’m looking at Star Citizen but its not multiplayer I thought.

                  I played Eve for a while but it seems (at least to me) that you can’t really play ‘casually’. Either you’re an active member of a corp or you stay in carebear space because going into low-sec alone gets you eaten alive.

                  1. I would have to agree with your assessment of EVE Online – even in carebear mode you can get suicide ganked and there are tons of people who do just that, usually bored douches with tons of ISK and waiting on long skills to train. It’s why I think the game will never really catch on like other MMOs; it’s too punishing to new players.

                    1. I had the right idea. surrogate EVE addict. Had a coworker get addicted to eve so I din’t have to.

                      Eve Learning Curve

                    2. I had the right idea. surrogate EVE addict. Had a coworker get addicted to eve so I din’t have to.

                      The best part of the Eve experience is the news stories anyway.

                      For example, that last big battle they had. Reads like some awesome dystopian sci-fi story. Power grabs, incompetence, massive war caused by someone’s fuck-up.

                      The reality is so many people were there that the game basically slows to a crawl (they slow the game clock in places with a large server load) so actions that normally would take seconds to execute now take *minutes*.

                    3. Indeed. Best experienced through a surrogate Orphan.

                      Don’t forget massive heists of ill-gotten-gains!

              2. If there is a deity I will sacrifice my firstborn to it for Blizzard to make a “World of StarCraft”…been wanting that ever since Ghost got cancelled.

                1. Five years ago I would have done the same. And I’d actually have to *get* a firstborn first.

                  After Diablo 3 though . . .

                  1. Right?! But a guy can dream, can’t he?

                    Path of Exile is fun as hell though and f2p.

    2. I’m jelly, give me a review.

      1. Combat is more than just hitting a hotbar rotation – its pretty Skyrimy – and you can move around while attacking (which is rare in an MMO).

        Skills are improved by using them (TES standard) but you only *level up* by gaining XP – can only unlock new skills this way.

        You’re pretty much locked into a scripted story with no real escape. I guess once you reach the end of the story you’re expected to do nothing but raids.

        The story, so far is ridiculous. I’m killed and sent to a version of this world’s hell and have to escape – not too bad a start. Except I happen to escape at *exactly* the right time as this other dude who happens to be really powerful, but he needs my help anyway. Sketchy, but I’m in hell and I’ll take that risk.

        Then I get back to reality – I’m still shackled into this guy’s agenda. This guy I know absolutely nothing about. No way to not do what he wants short of just not playing the game. Apparently the story is predicated on me somehow knowing that he’s not going to betray me and that his goals are something I care to further. Typical ‘but though must’ gameplay.

        Then I get dumped among a band of pirates. But ‘good’ pirates (the dude tells me he senses ‘no real malice’ from them). Good pirates that kill and rob people (but the deserved it and not while I was around so that makes it ok? Like Captain Jack Sparrow’s crew!).

        I’m throwing up in my mouth a little bit just thinking about the shit I’ve had to read.

        1. No open world at all. Everything is level-gated. That means your starter areas will be empty unless you can keep a constant influx of new players after the initial surge at release – and you never can. Dead starter areas means the new players you do get get pissed off because there’s no-one to play with so they leave.

          It looks pretty decent (visually), especially after seeing the mess that was TOR.

          Stealth is worthless (par for the course for an MMO) except for backstabby rogues.

          Forced into classes – though supposedly you can branch out, I’m not seeing it. Very un-TES-like that.

          Final review – its gonna crash faster than Warhammer Online.

          1. WTF are you guys talking about?

            1. He’s basically crushing my dreams of what I thought Elder Scrolls Online would be like.

            2. A computer game. Shush now and go back to your real world with drinking and women and sex in it.

              1. My wife has a baby inside of her. I don’t really have any sex in my “real world”.

                1. But you had sex, at least once, right?

                  If not, get ye to a lawyer!

                  1. playa manhattan|2.8.14 @ 2:07AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                    My wife has a baby inside of her. I don’t really have any sex in my “real world”.

                    Agammamon|2.8.14 @ 2:12AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                    But you had sex, at least once, right?

                    Powned. Fuck all of you threaded comment advocates. P. Brookes++

                  2. I meant my “current real world”. My other kids look so much like me, I’m not even sure they’re hers.

                2. Wait until she gets around 6 or 7 months or so.

  17. Let’s pivot to something slightly less retarded than late night trolls- like Aaron Sorkin’s Newsroom. Here, we learn that the OKC bombing and the assassination of Ronald Reagan were the result of Christian extremists:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpZJOAkAVsA

    1. What’s that…I don’t even…huh?

      1. It’s derp, my friend! Fabulous, magnificent, splendid derp!

        1. It’s a drama, not a documentary.
          Funny how so many people don’t know the difference.

          1. It’s fucktarded is what it is.

    2. Fuck, you are making my head hurt with all these videos and I’m running out of alcohol.

      1. Have no fear! Watching Newsroom clips has the same effect on the brain as chugging a bottle of pop-skull plastic bottle vodka. Here’s their take on libertarians and Ron Paul:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9ERbWTsClU

        1. I couldb’t read that without thinking “Have no fear, Underzog is here!”

        2. “THOSE CRAZY LIBERTARIANS AND THAT LOONY RON PAUL!”

          /cue eye-roll

          Dat propaganda. Fuck Sorkin and all those writers.

    3. I hold no religious beliefs but that is just crazy as fuck to say that…wait a minute…dude notice the weasel way he says “done by Christians” about the last 3 events, differentiating them from shit like the KKK and Neo-Nazis where he says “done in the name of white Christian supremacy”

      1. *last 4 events, whatever

        1. Yeah, kinda interesting how they gloss over the fact the Hinckley was trying to impress Jodie Foster and Chapman was inspired by Catcher in the Rye. And McVeigh was an agnostic who said science was his religion.

          And the whole “we weren’t attacked by Muslims” thing- pure derp gold.

          1. LOL so let’s ignore *Bin Laden’s stated reason for the attack* and act like their religion had nothing to do with it. I’m sure it’s super easy to convince guys to die for infidels occupying a holy land they don’t even believe in!

  18. The sickle and hammer part is on now (on the west coast).

    1. So now I’m hating on you for not only your better weather (I’m freezing my ass off in Colorado) but also I preferred the times various things came on television when I lived in California.

      1. In this case, you got it an hour earlier. The parade of nations was a snooze fest (outside of some good looking womenz).

        1. I disagreed with the commentators on the meaning of the giant cylindrical locomotive during the “Russian history lesson in interpretive dance” that followed. It doesn’t represent propaganda, it’s Putin’s schlong. Duh.

          1. Lol, Tulpa did you see the athlete that’s supposedly his girlfriend? Pretty hot IMO

        2. Ha, that’s the only reason why I watched. I usually can’t stand sports because it makes me feel othered due to my inability to play any.

          1. I liked Brazil and Sweden, among others.

            1. My ex-wife is Brazilian.

              Don’t fall for that gorgeous booty, IT’S A TRAP

  19. Maria Sharpova bringing in the torch, eh? I hope she gets home soon (so I can see her at Starbucks).

  20. Has anyone noticed that Lonewacko has written himself a page in the Reason wiki?

    http://reason-magazine.wikia.com/wiki/Lonewacko

    1. Wow, I didn’t even know there was a Reason wiki. That’s funny as hell.

      1. It looks like Lonewacko started it.

    2. Is that easily defaceable? I don’t know anything about wikia.

      1. I answered my own question. Check out the last sentence.

        1. Lol, EPIC

    3. Why no entry for lobster girl

      1. The Lonewacko entry seems to be the ONLY entry. Did he blank the rest of the wiki?

      2. We had another wiki with lobster girl in it.

        No idea what happened to it. Looks like it has been deleted and taken over by bronies.

        http://reason.wikia.com

        I totally wrote a bunch of lies about her in it.

        1. I thought we had a ‘real’ wiki somewhere. You know, one with more than one entry.

  21. meet the aussie Justin Bieber

  22. Not sure I buy it being written by lone wacko.

      1. So you do like threaded comments.

    1. Did Lonewacko always talk about immigration? That’s what the blog that’s linked is mainly about.

      1. Eh, sometimes about The JOOOZ!

      2. Don’t tell me you actually went to his blog…

      1. The Canucks/Oilers game is over. Go to bed Canada. Grapes is sleeping. Rob McClean is almost asleep. Good night, Canada.

        Go to sleep, you hosers.

    1. You’ll be back.

  23. warm Thomas Hobbes heart

    Leave Hobbes alone!!!

  24. Sometimes mdude you jsut have to roll with it.
    http://www.Anon-Works.tk

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.