Homelessness

Bans on Sharing Food With Homeless Persist

It will take a concerted effort by advocates for the homeless to pressure cities to repeal these inane, mean-spirited, and un-American laws.

|

Soup kitchen
U.S. Navy

With all the restrictions on selling and marketing food, it's easy to forget that even sharing food is sometimes still a crime. Despite my own stated optimism last year, it appears that bans on sharing food with the homeless and less fortunate won't be going away any time soon.

Last week, Scott Keyes, a senior reporter with the progressive news site ThinkProgress, reported on the idiotic outcome of one of the latest of such bans.

In that case, the city of Birmingham, Ala. has barred a local pastor from sharing food with the homeless from a church-owned vehicle because he doesn't have… a food truck permit.

"Wood was stopped from handing out food by local police because he was in violation of a new city ordinance, passed in December, that regulates food trucks," writes Keyes. "The new regulation requires food trucks to get a permit, which can cost as much as $500."

Just like those on the left, conservative critics were aghast.

This issue certainly cuts across the normal left-right divide.

"Serving the needy[] is something we should reward, not criminalize," Keyes told me by email this week. "And serving the poor in a manner and location that is convenient for many homeless people is especially laudable. Making it more difficult to feed the hungry ignores the fact that poor people exist, and they get hungry like everyone else."

Besides being cruel and only exacerbating problems of hunger, these bans are all unconstitutional. As I wrote in a 2012 column, "the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assemble peaceably for any reason."

Lawsuits challenging these ridiculous bans continue.

Just this week, a judge in Albuquerque, N.M. threw out criminal charges against a man who shared food with homeless people in the city, and also awarded the man thousands of dollars in damages.

"The officers were acting in good faith to ensure that the food code was being enforced," claimed the city attorney, reports KRQE. Luckily the judge saw things differently.

As I noted in my column last year, a federal lawsuit by the ACLU of Pennsylvania against the city of Philadelphia forced city officials there to back down.

A lawsuit challenging a Houston ban on sharing food with the homeless was withdrawn last year after the judge in the case recused himself.

Meanwhile, Chicago and Seattle were forced to pull back bans of their own thanks to pressure from advocates.

While the growing national backlash may be a recent phenomenon, many of these local ordinances have been in place for years. A 2007 report by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and the National Coalition for the Homeless looked at similar bans in twenty municipalities around the country—including ten alone in Florida. Other cities listed in the report included Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Denver, San Francisco, and Santa Monica. The report noted that three cities—Las Vegas, Wilmington, NC, and Orlando—had passed laws within the previous 18 months.

Sadly, outrage over these bans hasn't been enough to stop even more cities from considering and even passing new ordinances.

At a time when more than fifty cities have such bans in place, reports MSNBC, cities like Los Angeles are considering bans of their own. The city of Hayward, just outside San Francisco, passed its own ban last year.

Until more courts act to declare these bans unconstitutional, it will take a concerted effort by advocates for the homeless, and supporters on the left and right, to pressure cities to repeal these inane, mean-spirited, and un-American laws.

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: The Seven Deadly Sins, With Thaddeus Russell, Baylen Linnekin, TV's Andy Levy, Dagen McDowell, Charles Payne, Noelle Nikpour, and Commie Jesse Myerson!

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. In the restroom? I would sooner eat in a public restroom.

      1. True. People used to go at it in the bathrooms way back when I was cooking at a restaurant in Blacksburg called Daddy’s Money. Restrooms, cars in the lot, dry storage room, cooler, manager’s office… Not that I ever saw it, but supposedly a lusty pair got caught in the walk-in freezer.
        What’s that old song about “When that kid leaves we’re going to do it on the kitchen table. We’re going to climb up in the freezer and play a little whip and chill”?

        1. But that’s Blacksburg. I mean….it’s full of Hokies. Hokies have no class. It is known.

          1. Me nem nesa.

        2. I’m old enough to remember that restaurant…

          1. Daddy’s Money is where I learned the main reason to be a cook is to bang young waitresses. IQ and millihelen ratings seemed irrelevant to their accessibility. Something about the cook-waitress relationship works hard to make them willing.

            1. never worked for me when I was a cook, although I asked out two of the waitresses and went out a couple times with one of them.

    2. He speculates that D.C. has a lot of people with a lot of stress, and, you know, what better way to relieve it?

      Stress from what? DC has the highest per capita income from people sponging off the taxpayer. These assholes don’t work at all.

      1. Actually working at a useless Fed job can be pretty stressful, because they have so much more time to fuck around with office politics, backbiting, etc. My experience contracting for a Fed agency is that is not necessarily a paradise unless you are already the type of useless scum that thrives on that stuff.

    3. For anyone who cares, I broke Bo and he shit allover the thread. If you ever want to point out what a childish cretin he is, bookmark this thread and ask him how anyone could be take seriously after acting like he has.

      For those of you who don’t want to watch me trounce a sockpuppet, skip it.

      1. Damn it, stop poking the trolls with sticks. You were bound to pop one of them eventually.

  1. Obviously I don’t want it banned, but I wish people wouldn’t feed the homeless. Like birds, it encourages them to stick around.

    1. Happy Easter, ‘murcan!

      1. Derp derp derp derp derp.

      2. Truly a Christian attitude.

        1. I’m not a Christian.

    2. And that’s the intent of these ‘quality of life’ laws – they don’t mind you feeding the homeless, they just want you to do it somewhere else.

      It’s like the zoning laws that require you to build a ‘nice’ house and prohibit you from building a cheap little house. Cheap little houses are for poor people and we don’t want that kind around here.

      I may have illegally built a little mother-in-law cottage for somebody who may have had it disguised as a shed and had no permits – less than $25k for a fully furnished 500 sf cabin with a full bath and a kitchenette. Imagine building a bunch of those as cluster housing for poor people. And imagine the ensuing shitstorm for building houses less than half the size as what’s mandated by the county zoning laws. (And, of course, we’re going on year 5 of the ‘temporary’ moratorium on multi-family residence construction and high-density development. You gotta have a minimum 2 acre lot and 1280 sf house in the county.)

      1. See that would be dangerously close to a solution for homelessness. There are far too many people making a living off of homelessness to do anything which might actually fix the problem.

        1. Virginian|4.19.14 @ 10:56AM|#
          “See that would be dangerously close to a solution for homelessness.”

          Depends on who would have skin in the game.
          In SF, the “public housing” is treated by the residents as worth the amount they pay, which is often enough zero, since they’ve learned they can’t be evicted.
          And then the Chron writes a story about how these poor people have to live in miserable housing.

          1. Right, but I think a large chunk of the “homeless” people on the streets are what we would have termed transients or tramps in earlier decades. The kind of guys who used to sleep in bunkhouses or cheap motels between day labor gigs. But those have been regulated out of existence in many cases.

          2. About five years ago I read a sob story in the Chronicle about a woman in public housing near me. She and her daughter had a three-bedroom place for $80/month, but the maintenance was just terrible.

            1. The good people of Marin have finally managed to toss the Seminary in Mill Valley off their land. They don’t want their kind around.

        2. Some of the homeless would welcome such accomedations. Sadly,, some would view them as a source of ready cash, and sell the fixtures. And it is hard to tell the former fromthe latter, expecially if you have decided to be ‘non-judgemental’.

      2. square footage minimums? I’ve never seen that in zoning/land use /building codes.

        I’ve heard of minimum lot sizes, setbacks, maximum house area percentages, maximum imperv surface percentages, and single family zoning, but never minimum square footage sizes. How could a state/county get away with something like that?
        I was abuilder in New Jersey, where I still live.

      3. Cheap little houses seem to work in Asia, like Thailand, Burma, and Communist Vietnam and Laos. People have an indoors place to live and stay out of the rain. They don’t need a 2-acre lot. Just look at free-market Hong Kong in comparison, as far as population density and number of people per apartment. If you don’t provide basic shelter you end up with favela.

  2. Hire the homeless to polish monocles and brush top hats.

    1. They are much too filthy for that… and absolutely crawling with disease..

      1. If the homeless wear masks and gloves, they won’t catch it.

    1. I love it when somebody figures out that age-old standards can be vastly improved on.

    2. I think it’d be hard on your wrists.

    3. Looks like it isn’t going to be much of a lever and an even worse axe/maul.

  3. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_…..ear-option

    Aldon Smith might be available May 3rd.

  4. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_…..on-success

    Why I dislike the NBA.

    1. I dislike it because it’s fixed, and playing physical defense of any kind is basically illegal.

      1. Yeah, I noticed that. I guess a team being built along the lines of the Pistons from the late 80s and early 90s is out of the question.

        I LOVE watching wicked good physical/defensive teams in sports just like watching an offensive one.

        Both are ‘elegant’ in their own right.

        1. I was watching the NCAA tournament this year and thought that in every game these kids would have fouled out in the 1st half had NBA refs been ‘officiating’. NCAA lets them play for the most part.

        2. The Pistons went beyond “playing defense” – that ceased being basketball. The WWE filled that niche well enough.

          You can play defense now – although I would get rid of that silly technical for not being matched up call – let ’em all 5 pack the lane or chase Lebron, whatever.

          1. You don’t think there are phantom ‘and 1’ calls?

            1. If that’s what it takes to never see the awful crap that was “physical” (i.e against the rules but not caught) I’m ok with it.

      2. “I dislike it because it’s fixed, and playing physical defense of any kind is basically illegal.”

        No, it is illegal, and always was, as basketball, since it’s inception, was a noncontact sport by rule.

        That’s not a change in rules, it’s a change in enforcement, basically, the refs aren’t listening to the crybaby thugs who can’t play and rely on fouling people and getting away with it.

        The sport was never better for the thuggery and muggings that they used to allow.

        The brand of basketball you seem to enjoy is dead, and good riddance, it was never legal anyway and always bored the shit out of everyone but stupid fans who like thuggery.

        1. Yeah, the basketball where, instead of having to get open or maneuver for a shot, you throw up a prayer and fling yourself into a defender is way better. Nothing like watching two teams go at it from the free throw line.

          The present style appeals to people who think the only facet of the game that matters is fancy looking shots.

    2. Ha, I read that (growing up I was a Sixers fan. Tony, Malone, Cheeks, J etc.)

      I dislike the NBA because the the depth of the field is weak. Eight seeds rarely upset the first. It makes the 1st round extremely boring and predictable.

      Hockey on the other hand is nuts. It’s pure chaos in the first round. It’s a lot tighter where if, for example, Dallas eliminated Anaheim or even Detroit beats Boston, it wouldn’t surprise most.

      1. You see any of that Dallas/Anaheim game last night? Getzlaf is a beast!

        1. I have Perry and Getzlaf in my keeper league.

          Both of them are beasts. Even at the Olympics.

          And they play nasty too.

          But they don’t annoy or irritate you like Marchand, Lucic and Chara. The Bruins will cross check you from behind with a dirty play and go after you for getting your head smashed claiming you dove.

          I’m learning to hate them like I used to back in the day.

          1. Yeah, always fun to develop a nice hatred. Unfortunately the Hawks are nothing like the Hawks of my youth. Hard to hate a team without real villans.

            Nice start for the Habs. Any riots up there yet?

      2. Hockey IS deeper, but I still fear Bettman is going to expand. Actually I’m positive. It was the whole point of this latest realignment, and expansion dilutes the talent pool. All 4 sports should contract, from a talent viewpoint anyway.

        Ever watch Red Zone for more than 20 minutes? Man there’s some shitty QBs out there. I have an idea, let’s expand to LA!!

        1. Oh, and London needs a team too.

        2. I see your point but for some reason expansion hasn’t really hurt hockey. A team can literally go from last to the Cup in one or two years – unless you’re the Oilers or Islanders. Yeesh.

          Bettman has made the NHL a viable entity. You’re probably right. I know Quebec is on the table. Although I didn’t hear any of it in his conversation with Mad Dog Russo this past week.

          1. There’s not a chance I will invest any time in the 1st round of the NBA. Heat/Hawks why should I? Okay, maybe Warriors/Clippers because I like watching two teams who hate each other. Other than that, I’ll wait for the Conference finals.

          2. I don’t know, Rufus. Watching the empty arenas at certain places (Florida), makes me wonder if there aren’t too many teams. Yes, the ‘Canes and Lighting were able to assemble a good team and win, but it seems like for the most part those areas struggle.

            That said, it sounds like Seattle is in the mix, too.

          3. The expansion from 6 to 12 did hurt the NHL for a while, though.

        3. Just wait until my Budget Men’s Football League gets off the ground. (I’m afraid the ACA has poisoned the word “affordable” for at least a while, so, “Budget”. Or maybe “Economy” or “Bargain”.)

      3. It’s less about the depth of the field, and more about home court advantage, which is massive in the NBA relative to the other sports.

  5. Here’s a food freedom question for Baylen:

    Should airplane passengers be allowed to wield a Toblerone bar “like a sword”?

    A passenger accused of making a hoax bomb threat on a Hong Kong-bound flight wrapped his head in two blankets, waved a chocolate bar “like a sword” and demanded the plane be diverted so he could watch the Winter Olympics, a court heard yesterday.

    Armed with a large Toblerone bar, Antti Oskari Manselius, 23, from Finland, informed flight attendants he was “robbing” the plane and demanded the Amsterdam-to-Hong Kong flight be redirected to Sochi, Tsuen Wan Court heard.

    1. Is this Finn Saturday?

    2. mmmmmmm… Toblrone. yum.

    3. There’s very little call for the word ‘brandished’ these days. One ‘waves’ goodbye, a sword is brandished (or thrust, either is acceptable).

  6. Sometimesm an you jsut have to roll with it.

    http://www.GotsDatAnon.tk

  7. In Southern Mississippi, students at St. Stanislaus school opt for cheap Lenten lunches; the money saved goes to a poor school in South Africa.

    http://www.sunherald.com/2014/…..ifice.html

  8. This is a human rights violation of the worst kind.

    1. The same thing happens in North Korea and parts of Africa. We just call our warlords politicians.

  9. “An anonymous donor gave the motorcycle, with an approximate retail value of $8,000, to Catholic Charities. It is a touring bike with two cylinders, four-stroke, 1450 cc, fenders, a Jimmy Buffett Parrot head mural on the tank (two-sided) and other detailing.

    “All proceeds will benefit the 70 programs and services of Catholic Charities, including education and work readiness, counseling, basic assistance, and programs for older adults.”

    http://www.wnypapers.com/news/…..son-raffle

  10. http://rare.us/story/veteran-s…..kick-ptsd/

    Might be a repost, but I found this interesting.

    1. I would love to see some numbers of how prevalent PTSD is after these two wars compared to WWII and Vietnam.

      My hypothesis: There are more cases now and the reason is that we tell these guys we expect them to be fucked up when they come back. That, and many people now raise their boys to be sensitive little snowflakes rather than men.

      Yeah, I know…get off my lawn.

      I’m sure there are many legitimate cases. That said, I’m also sure many cases aren’t.

      1. Better explanation: PTSD is now something you can claim as a disability. I know a guy who was deployed to Qatar. Never been in combat. Somehow has a 50% disability for PTSD. That’s over 800 bucks a month, tax free. In other words, you pay his rent.

        Incentives matter.

        1. True.

          The debriefing interviews when you come back were almost begging you to say you suffered emotional trauma.

          I think these things become self-fulfilling prophecy.

          1. I do think there is some of what you say as well. Farm kids drafted for WWII would have seen animals slaughtered from a young age, and done the killing themselves. They would have been trappers, fishermen, or hunters. They may have seen a field hand suffer a gruesome, perhaps fatal accident. They might have seen other bad things growing up in the Depression.

            1. Another huge difference for WWII veterans was that most were still in uniform with the same people in the same unit for months/years after the last round was fired. They had a huge transition from battleground to occupation to transit ship to stateside base – all together – and then often more time before discharge. After that just about everybody they would meet had been touched by the war in some way.

              Even then they did hae some people who could not cope but I doubt the press of the day would have blamed it on the war.

              1. True this.

                During Vietnam a guy was laying in the mud in a rice patty , taking and giving rounds, and then a couple of weeks later he’s drinking beer in the Pizza Boy in Lake Jackson, Texas.

                I know because I was a high schooler serving them beer and pizza.

                They were fucked up. But they didn’t get disability for it. At least as easily.

            2. Maybe, but most service men were not farm boys. Farm employment has already been on the decline for decades at that point. Total agricultural employment in 1930 was only 25% of the male workforce.

            3. For the most part ‘farm kids’ weren’t drafted for WWII; they were doing a vital job, and got exemptions. The kids who were being drafted were from the cities. Of course THEY were probably closer to the experience of death than kids today, too.

        2. PTSD is now something you can claim as a disability.

          You get more of what you reward . . .

      2. I lean to your direction on PTSD, FdA, although I do wonder if it’s a better understanding of what earlier veterans also experienced. Georgie Patton aside, shell shock was an accepted condition. The idea of a solider changed by war is hardly new either.

        1. I do wonder if it’s a better understanding of what earlier veterans also experienced.

          I’m sure that’s some of it. Probably the same can be said about things like autism and ADHD. These seem, at least to me, to be overdiagnosed.

          I’d love to see some data on how much the “popularity” of a disorder leads to unsubstantiated diagnoses.

          1. Yes and PTSD seems to much more symptoms than signs.

            Speaking of earlier experiences, 1946’s The Best Years of Our Lives is one of my favorite movies.

            1. Great film.

          2. What you subsidize you get more of.
            \
            This is true for mental health disorders in general, not just PTSD. A huge industry has grown up around mental health problems, particularly around drug and alcohol treatment programs that are quite frequently government funded in one way or another. There are many institutions that require a mental health diagnosis for acceptance into them, and these programs are abused by people who routinely fuck their lives up and go looking for a place to crash until the next check comes in. The third of any month is the most powerful treatment tool known to modern medicine. A truly startling number of sufferers recover on exactly that day, and for many it is the only know remedy for their condition.

            Back to PTSD, I think that the answer is properly, and maybe unhelpfully “It’s complicated.” That said there is a lot of gaming the system, there are people convinced by self-interested parties that they have it when they don’t, there is the serious problem of an overly broad definition of what PTSD actually is, there have been social changes that leave people with less emotional toughness than in generations past. The list goes on.

            If I had to pick the one thing to call the biggest problem it would be the treatment industry itself, and the funnel of government money it has been conditioned to chase. It does a disservice to people truly in need of treatment to have resources drained by marginal and phantom cases.

          3. Also, I know teachers who point out that the reason their test scores are declining is because of soaring rates of add, adhd, and autism. We’ve made it in the best interest of the teachers to assume everyone else is disabled, otherwise we’d just assume they are incompetent.

      3. I think its four-fold

        1. We have a better understanding of PTSD (including a better, more consistent definition and diagnosis criteria)

        2. Liberal application of the diagnosis criteria lumps people with marginal (effectively non-effectual) symptoms that are barely detectable with people who are actually suffering from severe mental trauma.

        3. The CYA principle – better to give a PTSD diagnosis to someone who may not have it than to not give it to someone who’s in a position to use that against you in the future.

        4. Incentives to grab a PTSD diagnosis by the service-members themselves – not really any downside to having one and persistence can get you one through #3 above.

        Its like ADHD diagnoses – Its amazing how rapidly that diagnosis spread once it was found out that you can get government benefits, including tutoring resources for you kid while not having any negative effects on the kid’s prospects in later life.

    2. Just say no to Comic Sans.

  11. “Charity car drive takes children, youth from low-income families out for a spin

    “Organised by the People’s Association (PA) and several car groups in Singapore, “Love on Wheels” took some 200 children and youth from low-income families to Gardens by the Bay for a photo hunt activity.”

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com…..um=twitter

      1. Yeah, but there’s 22 guys in the pit stop crew instead of 4.

        1. I think if you limited the modern crews to four guys, they’d still beat the crews from the 1950s by 30 seconds or more.

          Did you see how long it took the old-timey guy to change a single tire? A modern crewman would have that thing changed in five-ten seconds flat by himself.

          It wouldn’t be “blink and you’ll miss it”, but it would still be pretty fast, comparatively. They just have better technology.

  12. “A portrait of Malala Yousafzai, the Pakistani schoolgirl shot in the head by the Taliban, is expected to fetch up to $80,000 for her charity when it is auctioned in New York next month….

    “”The funds raised will support the work of the Malala Fund, including helping young Syrian refugees in Jordan and girls freed from child labor now attending school in Pakistan,” said Malala, who was badly wounded but survived the October 2012 attack.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..60838.html

  13. “A Michigan township will not immediately be allowed to remove outdoor clothing donation bins placed by a Maryland-based nonprofit group, a judge ruled….

    “Elkridge-based Planet Aid got approval from property owners to put in bins. Officials in Ypsilanti Township, near Ann Arbor enforced a decades-old zoning decision requiring such structures to be approved by the Planning Commission.”

    http://thedailyrecord.com/2014…..rity-bins/

    1. Ypsilanti is also where the playground slide shitter is/was.

      1. I suppose this is what you mean?

        http://gawker.com/serial-playg…..1564736457

        I could be wrong, but I suspect he isn’t affiliated with any charity.

      2. Ypsi IS a shithole. Lived there for a couple years. It hasn’t improved over the decades.

        Amazing it’s right next door to Ann Arbor. Ypsi is to Aye Squared as Benton Harbor is o St. Joe.

  14. As a more-libertarian-than-thou libertarian, until zoning is repealed completely, bans on feeding the homeless are about the least egregious regulation on use of property.

    1. I would have thought that, short of an actual public nuisance (which can be dealt with independently of zoning laws), the right to give one’s own property to the poor, and to get together with like-minded people for that end, strikes me as an important aspect of liberty.

      1. “While he was selling velvet and fine embroideries to some solid merchant of the town a beggar came imploring alms; evidently in a somewhat tactless manner. It was a rude and simple society and there were no laws to punish a starving man for expressing his need for food, such as have been established in a more humanitarian age; and the lack of any organised police permitted such persons to pester the wealthy without any great danger.”

        http://saints.sqpn.com/saint-f…..apter-iii/

    2. Yeah, the zoning laws here in FL are utterly ridiculous as well, I’m starting to think I will never get the permits for my textile sweatshop nor my proposed cocaine refinery. Those poor urchins are going to starve without that income…

    3. So you aren’t really libertarian then – we need governmental permission to do charity. Go it.

      If the charity results in something that violates others rights (ie, they leave piles of food as waste, etc.) you address that. But if I give a guy a meal and you support armed agents of the state preventing or punishing that, you are no libertarian.

    4. . . . until zoning is repealed completely, bans on feeding the homeless are about the least egregious regulation on use of property.

      That doesn’t really make sense.

      A ban is basically a form of zoning in itself – you designate a geographic area that a specific activity is forbidden (by extension you are designating other areas where it is permitted).

    5. Amen to the second part of that.

  15. Speaking of hyperventilating paranoiacs, Melissa Harris Racetroller is on the trail of the dread anti-government white supremacist militias today, ably assisted by some dope from the SPLC. They even flashed a graphic claiming more than one hundred murders have been committed by “Stormfront users” whatever the fuck that means. Did you know black people have perfectly justifiable and rational suspicions regarding the legitimacy of government, but white people who don’t trust the government are just plain crazy?

    They went on to bash Hillary(!) for not being on the anti-gun bandwagon, and invited some sort of human Barbie from a “mothers against gunz” organization to read a finely crafted statement. They’re not against guns, you know. They just don’t think YOU should be allowed to have one.

  16. I just watched the second episode of this season’s Game of Thrones (we get it a day early on this side of the Pacific).

    No spoilers other than to say – very satisfying.

    1. Yeah, that aired six days ago here.

      1. I guess I missed the discussion aboutit – so they already showed Joffrey’s wedding there?

    2. No, please – spoilers.

      I love the yummy, yummy tears of people who get their tv ‘ruined’ by spoilers.

      ‘Oh you’ve RUINED the episode for me! Now, if you’ll excuse me I have to go home and watch it anyway.’

  17. 21 years since the feds murdered the Branch Davidians. One of the more monstrous things the American government has done.

    1. I wonder, with the internet, if they could get away with a similar thing today. Back then nobody knew anything about the Davdians other than what the media dutifully reported for the government. The recent BLM vs. Bundy issue seems to show how things might go differently than they did back then.

      1. They just have to be smarter about. I honestly do think they will come back for Bundy, and he’ll be shot resisting arrest, and the feds will find some suitable Goldstein evidence to make it politically impossible to defend him. He’ll have a laptop with kiddy porn or bombmaking materials or something.

        Hell, if he has a reloading bench they’ll just call that a bombmaking lab.

        1. I could be wrong (yeah, it’s happened before) but I believe that at this point Bundy – as long as he does nothing insane – will be handled administratively. He is too high profile now.

  18. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014…..rate-flag/

    Yankees wet their pants over a flag.

    1. I notice that the ACLU weighed in on the practices of a Catholic school. They should hire an ACLU official as principal, I’m sure (s)he would run the school much better! 🙂

      1. Yeah gotta love how the ACLU phrases it.

        “Helping children understand the impact of this patently offensive expressive activity.”

        Such stalwart defenders of the 1st Amendment they are.

        1. Er, do you realize that you two are hitting the ACLU here from two contradictory sides? Eddie complains that they got involved in a private school matter at all, and you complain their response was not strong enough.

          1. Have a blessed day!

            1. Notorious GKC “The food at this place is so terrible.”

              Virginian “Yeah, and such small portions!”+

              1. mmm…food…

          2. No, I’m mocking the idea that two boys waving a Confederate flag is offensive. Essentially, I’m mocking cringing Yankee liberals for being cringing Yankee liberals.

            Men bearing the Stars and Stripes burned my ancestral homeplace to the ground and reduced us to penury, but you don’t see me bitching about people waving it around.

            Maybe I should claim that it’s some kind of trigger for PTSD like the feminists have started doing.

            1. People can choose who they want to associate with, and one good way to choose is not to associate with people who walk around waving emblems of slavery. That this fails to outrage people, especially people who style themselves as libertarians, is what is truly amazing.

              “Men bearing the Stars and Stripes burned my ancestral homeplace to the ground and reduced us to penury”

              They did that because your ancestral homeland left the Union because they so loved enslaving other human beings. And not ‘oh my, my insurance is heavily regulated’ slavery, but actual, human slavery.

              1. They did that because your ancestral homeland left the Union because they so loved enslaving other human beings.

                So, they burned entire cities to the ground because the cities refused to accept your choice of gevernment.

                Your forwarding that as a defense, replete with your embellishments, destroys any libertarian credibilty you may claim.

                You’re just a fucking statist who thinks he’s right.

              2. Look, the “I’m so libertarian, look at me” Blue Tulpa is now speaking in favor of collective punishment.

                Please, please explain to me how my family, who never owned slaves, deserved to have their entire livelihood burned to the ground and be driven from their homes with naught but the clothes on their backs for the sins of people who happened to live in the same general area as them.

                I mean, you can’t have it both ways. Either collective punishment is wrong or it isn’t.

                1. Shenandoah Valley campaign?

                  1. Yes, the one in 1864. Sheridan’s burning of the Valley actually predated Sherman’s March by a couple months, but used essentially the same tactics.

                    1. I hear it really sucked. 🙁

              3. Seriously: how is the Confederate flag an “emblem of slavery” any more than the US flag is an “emblem of unjust wars” or “internment” or whatever? Is a pan-African flag an emblem of murdering police? Is a UK flag the emblem of colonialism?

                1. Bo can tell the difference. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?

                  Bo knows.

    2. If it were about a private Jewish school getting upset and expelling two kids for marching through a school event with a Nazi flag would you describe it similarly? Because I do not think it is unfair for black students to see the Confederate flag in much the same way a Jewish student would see a Nazi flag.

      1. Hmm, I would.

        You wanna talk about somebody who has actually experienced slavery then it would be different.

        But I would give as little consideration to a school-age jewish kid, who grew up in the US, getting freaked out over a Nazi flag as I would an AA kid getting freaked out over the confederate flag.

        But – I think *that’s* all beside the point. I think the ‘black kid’ angle is being played by people who over-reacted to this incident.

        I *do* think those kids who brought the flag in did it as a deliberate provocation and not to celebrate, uh, ‘southern heritage’ or whatever. And their intended targets who showed ‘heroic restraint’ really didn’t – they just didn’t care enough to get worked up over a couple of arseholes.

        1. It baffles me when Jews sue to supress the broken cross or Blacks to surpress the Stars And Bars. I mean, if I was the target of that kind of hate, I’d WANT the assholes to wear identifying badges.

        2. I think you’re forgetting about their constitutional right not to be offended…oh wait…

      2. Except of the two nations fighting that war, it was the USA that was last to free the slaves. Thus logically, the Stars and Stripes should be as equally offensive as the Stars and Bars.

        1. Considering it was the USA that forced the other nation to do so, your point is full of what you call ‘derp.’

          1. Why? Slaves were kept under the Star and Stripes – far longer than they were kept under the confederacy.

            From the time the US existed until slavery was abolished the USG *supported* the institution (not just turned a blind eye to the practice for political harmony).

            Given how short-lived the Confederacy actually was (along with the abuses perpetrated against escaped slaves by the USG) there is, literally, no reason to freak out over S&B that doesn’t also apply to the S&S.

            And if AA are going to freak over the S&B because of slavery, they should also freak out over the Spanish and Portuguese flags, the British flag, French, Netherlands – all of whom participated in slave trading for longer than the US did. We were the last to abandon it, but we were also the last to pick it up and only as a holdover from the practices of the British.

            Oh and they should also freak out over the flags of most of the sub-Saharan African states as a lot of those guys also not only sold their own people as slaves to Europeans but kept slaves themselves.

            1. “Slaves were kept under the Star and Stripes – far longer than they were kept under the confederacy.”

              Two years is ‘far longer?’ And that is just the tip of the problem with your argument. Slavery existed on the periphery of the Union, and comparatively insignificantly, while for the Confederacy it was a central, defining feature and way of life. Eventually, the Union forced the Confederacy to end it, though they fought lick heck to keep it, and then the Union ended it on its own periphery. To not see how the Confederacy is worse on this is truly bizarre.

              “And if AA are going to freak over the S&B because of slavery, they should also freak out over the Spanish and Portuguese flags, the British flag, French, Netherlands – all of whom participated in slave trading ”

              People feel stronger about their own nations history than others, and, again, slavery was not so defining for these regimes as it was for the Confederacy, which was created because of its devotion to it and fear it might be restricted.

              1. I mean, imagine you making the same argument about Jews getting upset about the Nazi flag. You could use all the same routines-I mean, they should be more upset with various Arab flags who are just as anti-Semitic and have committed atrocities against Jews, right? But they are upset about the Nazi flag because slaughtering and oppressing Jews was a conscious, defining feature of that regime just like enslaving black humans was for the Confederacy.

                1. just like enslaving black humans was for the Confederacy.

                  God damn, could you troll any harder?

                  Next time don’t make it so obvious you’re trolling.

                  1. Enslaving black human beings was essential, foundational for the Confederacy. Do you dispute that they were a slave regime that left the Union to preserve that?

                    That you see that statement as ‘trolling’ shows how sad you are.

                  2. “In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

                    Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

                    A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

                    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19t…..missec.asp

                2. One problem with your analogy is that while it’s logical to assume that anyone waving a Nazi flag supports killing Jews, it’s not logical to believe anyone with a Stars and Bars supports slavery. It has become more of a regional symbol.

                  1. How do Southern blacks feel about it?

                  2. it’s not logical to believe anyone with a Stars and Bars supports slavery.

                    Wrong name. Most people wouldn’t recognize the Stars and Bars, which has 11 stars in a circle in a blue canton, and the rest of the field has three stripes.

              2. Bo are you really this uneducated ?
                Less than 2% of Southerners owned slaves.

                Do you think that dirt poor sustenance farmers fought and died for a few rich slave owners?

                If slavery was the true reason for the civil war why did Lincoln wait until the war was well underway to emancipate them ?

                Wouldn’t he have done that first and that would have been the action that started the war ?

                The cause of the Civil war was a Federal government behaving just like the BLM did in Nevada.

    3. When did the Confederate flag come to symbolize racism?

      I grew up thinking it represented rebelliousness. I mean, I’ve seen The Dukes of Hazzard.

      I need a symbol of Polish repression to rally the troops behind.

      Ban the pierogi!

      1. “When did the Confederate flag come to symbolize racism?”

        Could it be because it was the flag of a horribly racist confederation of governments?

          1. Did you just get back from Mars?

            People find the Confederate flag rightly similar to the Nazi flag, both regimes were essentially based on racial supremacy. In fact, if you think there is any truth to ‘Give me liberty or give me death,’ the Nazis were slightly better than the Confederacy.

              1. oh, yes

                  1. Bo has to simplify what was a very complicated scenario because he’s not smart enough to understand it.

                    Work with him here.

                    1. Again, when we are dealing with an actual regime expressly devoted to enslaving other human beings, ‘libertarians’ like Snap and Crackle urge nuance. But Obama is, of course, uncomplicated evil.

                      Or something.

                      This is what gives libertarianism as a brand such a bad name. When libertarians whoop and holler over the minimum wage but call for nuance over a slave regime then people rightly question what we are all about.

                    2. Bo STILL has to simplify what was a very complicated scenario because he’s not smart enough to understand it.

                      Work with him here.

                    3. Bo STILL has to simplify what was a very complicated scenario because he’s not smart enough to understand it.

                      Bo is a snot nosed kid with absolutely NO life experience who drank all the Kool Aid poured into him by the education system and is convinced at the ripe old age of 20 something that he knows everything about everything. What’s more, he has a deep seated desire to inform the world of it.

                      In actuality, he’s an ignorant little pedantic twat who likes to fight with his betters.

                      I would engage him, but it would do no good. He doesn’t care to learn anything, only argue insignificant points, for the sake of arguing. He doesn’t listen to anything anyone tells him and in his eyes, he can certainly never be wrong. (In fact, his response to this will be, instead of self reflection, to accuse me of having no point because I won’t stoop to argue with his inane bullshit.)

                      He will be hated for most of his life because of this, and he deserves everything he gets.

                      AND, if he wasn’t such a little fuck-nozzle, he might have kissed a girl by now.

                    4. Fransisco, you are so partisan that you have fallen in with an obvious ‘Mary’ troll here, can you not see that?

                      The ‘kissed the girl’ comment is, of course, your best one. Goodness knows us college students have never kissed a girl of course! None of that going on at colleges.

                      “who likes to fight with his betters.”

                      The arrogance peeks through.

                    5. Bo, you ever find it odd, that ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE here says the same exact thing about you?

                      …yet, they are the ones who have it wrong? Have you EVER considered they may all be right and you are a shithead?

                      You’re a miserable excuse for a human being.

                    6. Francisco, the people who give me a hard time here are two types. One are those who obviously, to be generous, came to their libertarianism through conservatism. Of course they do not like me, because I do not favor conservatism in my libertarianism. If you went to a liberaltarian website I bet everyone there would not care much for you. What should you draw from that?

                      Then there are some who just really hate ‘splitting hairs.’ They come here to let off steam or ‘hang out’ and do not want what they say ‘put under the microscope.’

                      For what it is worth, I think you are more the second than the first.

                      I mean, look, take this conversation to any grown, well adjusted person you know who does not share your political persuasion. Show it to them. Show me disagreeing with you and you launching into personal and juvenile attacks on me. And ask them, who is being the miserable person? Go ahead.

                    7. You’re right Bo. They would say that about me by looking at this one thread.

                      But what they’d be missing were the hundreds of other threads where people have attempted to argue with you in good faith with you being a complete cunt. You see, I attack you personally because, PERSONALLY, you ARE A CUNT and arguing with you in good faith is a complete waste of time, because you don’t.

                      You are an arrogant little fuckstain who thinks he superior to everyone around him.

                    8. Fransisco, I do not call you names or insult you, yet you call me, someone you do not know a ‘CUNT’ because ‘arguing with [me] is a complete waste of time?’

                      You should show that type of thinking to someone else and see what they say…

                    9. They’d say you’re a cunt, and a coward, and a child.

                      And you’d cry about it and spam the board, like you have today.

                    10. “Bo is a snot nosed kid with absolutely NO life experience who drank all the Kool Aid poured into him by the education system and is convinced at the ripe old age of 20 something that he knows everything about everything. What’s more, he has a deep seated desire to inform the world of it.”

                      One of the great stages of a man’s maturity is when he finally realizes that his parents were always smarter than he thought they were.

                    11. Where did I say that? Oh right I didn’t, and you’re trying to change the subject away from your impossibly moronic claim.

                    12. Lolol, keep it coming, it’s your rep.

                    13. They’d say you’re a cunt, and a coward, and a child.

                    14. Again, when we are dealing with an actual regime expressly devoted to enslaving other human beings,

                      Bo is actually so sutpid that he thinks the ONLY THING THE CONFEDERACY EVER DID WAS ENSLAVE HUMANS.

                      lol

                    15. Because expressly devoted means only thing ever did!

                    16. Where did I say that? Oh right I didn’t, and you’re trying to change the subject away from your impossibly moronic claim.

                      AGAIN. Feel free to define it some other way if you feel better, you still sound like a fucking idiot even for making a qualified claim like that.

                    17. Shorter Bo “I say really stupid shit, then argue pedantics and definitions when I realize I’m wrong”

                    18. Snap and Crackle, no Pop|4.19.14 @ 2:06PM|#

                      Again, when we are dealing with an actual regime expressly devoted to enslaving other human beings,

                      Bo is actually so sutpid that he thinks the ONLY THING THE CONFEDERACY EVER DID WAS ENSLAVE HUMANS.

                    19. Agreed, nowhere in there did I define anything, which is why you just threw it up there without claiming I did.

                      You know I didn’t. You just think pointing at it and running away like a bith will get it done.

                      So, anything else? Nothing you did here in any way enhanced your credibility or arguments. Well done.

                    20. Snap and Crackle, no Pop|4.19.14 @ 2:06PM|#

                      Again, when we are dealing with an actual regime expressly devoted to enslaving other human beings,

                      Bo is actually so sutpid that he thinks the ONLY THING THE CONFEDERACY EVER DID WAS ENSLAVE HUMANS.

                    21. You know I didn’t. You just think pointing at it and running away like a bith will get it done.

                    22. Lol, now you’re not even making sense.

                    23. You’ve been (disturbingly) delightful Snap, I owe you one for epitomizing the trolly demented mania of the angry ‘libertarians’ that get upset by my comments here.

                      Please do stop by more often!

                    24. “who drank all the Kool Aid poured into him by the education system and is convinced at the ripe old age of 20 something that he knows everything about everything. ”

                      A pretty good analysis. I’m sure most kids who haven’t looked into this on their own would agree with Bo. It’s how things are presented in school these days, and reinforced by the MSM.

                      We would be better served to recommend a few more thoughtful histories to Bo. I’m just reading “The Wars of Reconstruction” by Douglas Egerton which really changes my view of the post war period – sadly an era not discussed much and of which I was rather ignorant. I don’t have a good suggestion for the causes of the Civil War – I’d be glad to hear others’ recommendations.

        1. Not much more racist than then the confederation of governments that opposed them.

          1. Four out of what, twenty, Union states allowed slavery, and numerically it was not a big deal in them compared to every single state in the Confederacy having slaves, sometimes reaching huge chunks of the population in them. Is that ‘not much more’ to you?

            Is there anything more amazing than Confederate apologia and excuse making among libertarians?

            1. How do you apologize for the laws that punished escaped slaves and required their return, along with the assistance of law enforcement to help with re-capturing?

              1. Laws that were pushed by all of the Confederate states and resisted and loathed by most of the Union ones?

                I mean, you are spinning out of control here.

                1. Wait – if slavery was a peripheral thing in the Union as a whole (as you said in an earlier post on this topic) how can the slave states have enough political pull to force this against concerted northern opposition?

                  On the other hand – if the states that formed the Confederacy had enough political pull to force the northern states to support their desires then seccession wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place.

                  Slavery, contrary to your representation here, was *not* a majority thing in the south.

                  Yeah, they had slaves, a fairly significant percentage of the population (still not outnumbering whites or freemen in general though) and those who had slaves tended to have a lot of money/political pull.

                  But let’s not pretend that the north was running anywhere close to lockstep with the abolitionists. A majority, at *best*, simply didn’t care about the fate of the slaves (at least not enough to actually do anything about it).

                  Lincoln himself was a lukewarm abolitionist, perfectly willing to maintain slavery if that was what it took to preserver the *Union* which was his overriding concern.

                  He only freed them when the south forced his hand on the secession issue.

                  1. “if slavery was a peripheral thing in the Union as a whole (as you said in an earlier post on this topic) how can the slave states have enough political pull to force this against concerted northern opposition?”

                    It is almost as if it was part of some great compromise or something, where each of two sides get something they want…

                    “Slavery, contrary to your representation here, was *not* a majority thing in the south.”

                    Which Southern state’s majoritarian legislatures voted to end it?

                    “But let’s not pretend that the north was running anywhere close to lockstep with the abolitionists.”

                    I did not say the North was perfect, just that the South was far worse and that slavery was a defining thing for them. The Southern Declarations said that themselves.

                    1. Actually, you said “expressly devoted to enslaving other human beings” and now you’re walking it back because you realize how fucking dumb you sound saying something like that.

                    2. Well, since you do not know what ‘expressly devoted’ means, thinking it means ‘only thing ever did’ I can see why you are confused!

                      Expressly devoted might mean something like, wait for this: expressing your devotion! Kind of like “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”

                    3. “Well, since you do not know what ‘expressly devoted’ means”

                      Well, since I never defined it, you seem to have proven you have shitty reading skills and make things up.

                      Anything else?

                    4. And by the way, still classic Bo/Tulpa. he knows his point is fucking stupid so he distracts with inanities.

                      Please, every insult is proof that you know I’m right.

                    5. “Please, every insult is proof that you know I’m right.”

                      Did not you say something about physicians healing themselves?

                    6. Lol, now you’re not even making sense.

                    7. I know, I’m repeating you!

                    8. You certianly seem to think so, lol.

                      I can’t believe you broke this easily.

                    9. I can’t believe you broke this easily.

                    10. I can’t beleive you think you’ll ever be able to live this thread down, lololol

                    11. You certianly seem to think so, lol.

                      I can’t believe you broke this easily.

                    12. Snap and Crackle, no Pop|4.19.14 @ 2:06PM|#

                      Again, when we are dealing with an actual regime expressly devoted to enslaving other human beings,

                      Bo is actually so sutpid that he thinks the ONLY THING THE CONFEDERACY EVER DID WAS ENSLAVE HUMANS.

                    13. Agreed, nowhere in there did I define anything, which is why you just threw it up there without claiming I did.

                      You know I didn’t. You just think pointing at it and running away like a bith will get it done.

                      So, anything else? Nothing you did here in any way enhanced your credibility or arguments. Well done.

            2. Since when does “better than a monstrously evil regime” equate to good in the eyes of libertarians?

              FDR was less evil than Hitler. He was still an evil sonuvabitch who deserved a bullet in his skull.

              1. I am no fan of that patrician proto-fascist, but any libertarian who can not distinguish between FDR and Hitler, or the Nazi and American flag for that matter, is off his rocker, so to speak.

                1. Who’s failing to distinguish between the two? Given the chance, I’d kill both of them. Given the chance, I’d kill both Lincoln and Jeff Davis.

                  You’re the one arguing the opposite POV, that one is better than the other. In my eyes, they are all equally worthless.

                  1. “Who’s failing to distinguish between the two?…In my eyes, they are all equally worthless.”

                    See what you did there?

                    1. “See what you did there?”

                      What he didn’t do there was ellipse out the meat of the comment in a cheap attempt to create a gotcha.

                      Why are you such a disingenuous piece of garbage that you think you can excise most of his comment and not be treated like the kind of cherry picking, quote chopping piece of shit we all hate on these boards? Since you are?

                    2. If there was something between those two quotes that you think undoes my point, point to it.

                      If you have nothing to say about what we are talking about, why not stop trolling?

                    3. If there was something between those two quotes that you think undoes my point, point to it.

                      If you’re too fucking stupid to see it the first time, why would my repeating it help you?

                      why not stop trolling?

                      Ulik, heal thyself.

                    4. “If you’re too fucking stupid to see it the first time, why would my repeating it help you?”

                      Haha, you really have nothing of substance here.

                    5. Haha, you really have nothing of substance here.

                      That’s your go to when you’re wrong and know it isn’t it? I’ve seen you do the same thing before just before you ran.

                      Again, you chopped up and cherry picked a quote, in an obvious effort to change what he was saying.

                      The only “point” you proved is that you can’t read worth a damn Tulpa.

                    6. Go To 2:11 PM

                    7. Another Bo standby when proven wrong, just point at a previous post.

                      Anything else? You’re running oput of gimmicks.

                    8. “You’re running oput of gimmicks.”

                      While you stick with the spame one.

                    9. So, nothing then? We done now boy?

                    10. Mary, mary, quite contrary today.

                    11. I don’t need to hear about your life Tulpa.

                    12. That’s your go to when you’re wrong and know it isn’t it? I’ve seen you do the same thing before just before you ran.

                    13. Yeah, you’re not trolling.

                      I’m going to save this page, and every time you try to snatch a little credibilty back, I’m going to link to this post.

                      Thanks. You gave me gold.

                    14. I don’t need to hear about your life Tulpa.

                    15. Thanks. You gave me gold.

                    16. No, I gave the commentariat gold.

                      You gave them ammo.

                    17. Yeah, you’re not trolling.

      2. When ot was adopted as the battle flag of a Confederation of Racist would-be aristocrats?

        1. ^^ This.

          One can argue the free speech right to waive around the Confederate flag, or a Nazi flag, or the hammer-and-sickle (would anyone here defend that one so passionately?). First Amendment protects exactly those forms of speech we would most want to repress.

          But to pretend not to understand why American blacks might be offended by the flag that represents the governments that seceded from the Union in order to preserve the institution of slavery is just asinine.

          Bo can go to some pretty nit-picky places sometimes, and we all get that the Union had its own share of evils and that the southern states had legitimate complaints. But to pretend that the Confederacy didn’t secede for the primary expressed purpose of preserving the institution of slavery is just willful ignorance.

          1. So Bo’s rocking two browsers I see.

            Petulant liar is lying petulantly.

            1. Not seeing much in the way of real responses . . . anybody here have an argument?

              1. Any arguments to what? Your bullshit strawman assertion?

                1. Yes. I see lots and lots of name calling and “your wrong!” and “you don’t know anything about history!” directed at Bo, but I’m not seeing any content other than that.

                  The South and North had lots of issues with each other. The South had lots and lots of perfectly legitimate complaints about how it was being treated by the North.

                  There was one particular sticking point that they just couldn’t sort out and that led the majority of the Southern states to secede from the Union and declare themselves an independent country.

                  What was that one particular issue again?

              2. Yes, I have an argument.

                I went over 2/3 of my life without anyone complaining about Confederate flags. They were everywhere. They were a sign of rebellion and had nothing to do with race. Then, long about the late 90s, the race baiters decided they needed something new to bitch about and all of a sudden the rebel flag was equated to a swastika and all the politically correct sheep hopped on board. It was, quite literally, an invented controversy.

                So the rest of the world needs to bend over backwards and get rid of what had become a part of their culture to appease people who one day decide to pull outrage out of their assholes.

                1. Fair enough – and thanks for actually having an argument.

                  Question – I’m from CA, and the total amount of time I’ve spent outside CA in my life is probably about 8 weeks out of my 43 years.

                  To me, growing up, the Confederate flag was always a rallying symbol for white supremacists. Sure there was an air of rebellion about that, as it was generally considered not okay, but white supremacism it was. That’s just what it meant here.

                  I’ve never seen a black person with a Confederate flag T-shirt on, or a Confederate flag on their truck, or what have you.

                  Was there ever a time in the South when anyone other than white people identified with the Confederate flag?

                  I’m not saying the flag should be banned. I’m just questioning the people who are screaming about how obviously wrong it is to see the flag as having some racist baggage it carries.

                  Do you really just not see it at all?

                  1. Like I said, I never heard a word about it till the late 90s.

                    I’m from the north. To me it meant Bo and Luke Duke and good ole boys racing cars and making shine. It was a kid’s TV show for God’s sake.

                    As far as I can tell there was nothing racist about it until someone thought they could get some traction out of it. I see it the same as sports teams with Indian related names. Just one more way for Team Outrage to get their fix.

                    1. “To me it meant Bo and Luke Duke and good ole boys racing cars and making shine”

                      Me too. And I do think comparing it to a swastika is a bit extreme, but I’m not also not really agreeing with those who say that the stars and stripes represent slavery just as much or even moreso.

                      I read the comments here a lot, and I know Bo can be frustrating to argue with, but I also often agree with him. In this case I don’t think people are being entirely fair to him.

                      I think he’s even mostly just wondering why so many people who call themselves libertarians jump to the defense of the Confederacy so quickly and viciously when the Confederacy was fundamentally anti-liberty in its support and expansion of the institution of slavery.

                      I see it sort of like the hammer and sickle – as a symbol of revolution, it is a good thing, as a symbol of a repressive government, it is a bad thing.

                  2. Fair enough – and thanks for actually having an argument.

                    And that was my argument from the beginning. It’s just that I will not argue with Bo.

                  3. I went to high school with several black guys, and asians who identified with it.( wallets, hats, shirts etc) I’ve also seen Lajon Witherspoon from sevendust were one at live shows.

  19. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014…..p=obinsite

    More family court bullshit.

    1. For those who didn’t read the article, woman leaves the state, gives birth, and gives the baby up for adoption. All without her husband’s consent. Which is bad enough.

      But then the husband goes to the other state to get his kid back, and the state refuses on the grounds that the adoptive parents have formed a psychological bond with the baby.

      How the fuck does this kind of thing happen?

      1. Why is there no information as to who the mother is? Shouldn’t she be outed?

        1. Of course not. She clearly just wanted what was best, and depriving a father of his child is something we have to do unless we want women to be reduced to second class citizenship.

          In the family court system, women have rights, and men have responsibilities.

          1. I’ve been trying for several hours to find the name of the mother or the adoptive parents and I’ve got nothing.

  20. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014…..p=obinsite

    Colleen Campbell had told investigators Deacon was not the man she saw fleeing in a stairwell after the shooting, but she was coached to give vague testimony at trial, with authorities threatening to take her children if she didn’t cooperate, the suit states.

    1. There was a recent SCOTUS case where a man suspected of a gang crime was thought to be in his girlfriends apartment. They knocked on the door and he and the girl came to the front. He told them they could not enter. They arrested him and removed him and then asked the woman. She did not give consent so they suggested they may have to take her children from her because of the dangerous environment, so she consented. They found incriminating evidence inside (firearms) and he challenged under Randolph v. Georgia, the case that said if both co-tenants were present and one consented and the other did not the denial of consent trumped and the police could not enter.

      The SCOTUS (the five conservatives and Breyer, that is) upheld the search of course.

      1. There are five conservatives on the SCOTUS now?

        1. When it comes to law enforcement matters you could count the usual four and either Kennedy or Breyer to be honest.

          1. But what makes them conservative? Breyer doesn’t become less of a socialist tool simply because he’s also a fan of extremely broad and far reaching police power.

            It reminds me of how in the 90s Russian hardliners who wished to return to Communism were somehow “conservative”

            1. Conservatives have been vocal fans of ‘law and order’ police tactics for decades Virginian. See, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. On the SCOTUS see Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, etc.

              Breyer is actually the worst in my opinion, he is the epitome of the authority worshipping technocrat, supporting socialist economic policies and often joining the court’s conservatives to empower the police.

              1. Right, but you still didn’t answer the question. Breyer is a lifelong man of the left, deeply and truly. He isn’t a conservative in any way, shape, or form.

                1. I answered the question:

                  “Conservatives have been vocal fans of ‘law and order’ police tactics for decades Virginian. See, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, etc. On the SCOTUS see Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, etc.”

                  As an empirical, historical fact, conservatives in America have been greater fans of less restricted police action than liberals.

                  1. “But what makes them conservative?”

                    That one?

                    No, you didn’t. Stop lying.

                    1. Still nothing of substance.

                    2. Still nothing of substance.

                      Says the proven liar.

                    3. So, nothing then? We done now boy?

                    4. Wow, this is awesome, you really are totally speechless.

                    5. Says the proven liar.

                    6. Again, thanks you for the gold, I hope everyone had as much fun watching you fall apart as I have.

                    7. And by the way, still classic Snap/Mary. she knows her point is fucking stupid so she distracts with inanities.

                    8. Lol, awesome, you can’t stop

                    9. Of course I can, watch.

                      I’ll go do something fun, and you’ll stay here proving my point.

                  2. But – voting for les restricted police action is not an inherently conservative thing to do.

                    Liberals love them some police freedom when it serves *their* goals too.

                    1. Are you being willfully obtuse?

                      Traditionally groups, judges and politicians described as liberal have been far more likely to advocate police restrictions than conservative ones. This can be demonstrated historically and contemporaneously (like with polls or counting the voted of justices when the police are a party).

                    2. Are you being willfully obtuse?

                      Someone is.

                      Do you always get indignant when someone asks you to answer the question that was asked instead of the one you wish had been asked?

                      I still want to hear how Stephen Breyer, a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, a man who has been a tireless champion of a “pragmatic” interpretation of the Constitution, is somehow a conservative whenever he sides with broad police powers.

                    3. Virginian, I can only keep repeating my answer, and perhaps you will respond to it.

                      Conservative politicians, groups and justices have for decades now been associated with ‘law and order’ police support. If you want to debate it, we can look into policy positions, polling data, judicial votes and political rhetoric (it wasn’t the liberals accusing the conservatives of being ‘card carrying members of the ACLU that are soft on crime’).

                      How can a lifelong Democrat vote for expanded police powers more than his liberal brethren on the court? How does a lifelong Republican vote for something usually associated with liberals like many Republicans do all the time?

                    4. So you’re not going to answer the question I asked?

                      I’m just trying to get you to clarify your thinking here. It’s pretty shoddy and murky. Think about how your general theory of expanded police powers being conservative fits in with the observed facts of Breyer, a lifelong man of the left, enthusiastically supporting expanded police powers.

                      Simple logic should illuminate the answer for you.

                    5. I answered the question. Conservatives and liberals are hardly monolithic in their views. Just as many lifelong Republicans can support this or that liberal issue, so can a lifelong Democrat support this or that conservative issue.

                      If you took justices and rated them on how much they voted in support of the police as a party, Breyer would be worse than all the liberals on the court, but better than the conservatives (though close to Kennedy).

                    6. You’re speaking in generalities, I am speaking of specifics. You called Breyer a conservative, when he is in fact nothing of the sort.

                    7. ” called Breyer a conservative”

                      No, I did not. I said

                      Bo Cara Esq.|4.19.14 @ 1:28PM|#

                      When it comes to law enforcement matters you could count the usual four and either Kennedy or Breyer to be honest.

                    8. Me: There are five conservatives on the SCOTUS now?

                      You: When it comes to law enforcement matters you could count the usual four and either Kennedy or Breyer to be honest.

                      So, I ask again: Why is Breyer magically a conservative some of the time? How does that work?

                    9. Sheesh, Virginian. Can you not see the “When it comes to law enforcement matters you could count” part?

                      If you said “when it comes to civil liberties, Ron Wyden could count as a libertarian” you are acknowledging that Wyden is not a libertarian, but could be counted as one if you just looked at civil liberties.

                    10. No, Ron Wyden is still a liberal. Points of agreement with libertarians do not make him a libertarian.

                      Same with Breyer. He is a man of the left, and he has been for his entire life from what I can see.

                  3. lol. So Breyer is magically a conservative because only conservatives support overwhelmingly broad police powers?

                    What is your opinion on how a true Scotsman seasons his porridge?

                    1. Where did I say Breyer is a conservative? He is more conservative than the liberal justices on police matters.

              2. Bo, there are no conservatives and liberals on the SC bench.

                Only those who will act to further state power and those who act to oppose it.

                View them in that lens and their ‘flip-flops’ start to look a whole less arbitrary.

                1. “Bo, there are no conservatives and liberals on the SC bench.

                  Only those who will act to further state power and those who act to oppose it.”

                  I would agree that a much more meaningful classification system is statists and non-statists.

  21. Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware of, or that governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are the laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.

    But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being engrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.
    Thomas Paine

    1. If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments, more than might be expected, it is the progress that the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce have made, beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilization operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.

      Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

      The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.
      Also Thomas Paine

  22. Is there really any doubt now that Bo is Tulpa?

    There shouldn’t be, his obvious trolling for no other reason than to incite is classic Tulpa.

    1. Is there really any doubt now that Snap is Mary?

      There shouldn’t be, his obvious trolling for no other reason than to incite is classic Mary.

        1. Ulik, heal thyself.

      1. Ohhhhhhhh my, it’s fun to watch Bo crack up entirely. Finals must be coming up! Dem B’s, bruh.

  23. Today on Derpbook:

    Islam was conceived as Christians were murdering and slaughtering their way across Asia. You know those “infidels” invading their homeland they talk about? Those were the Christians raping their daughters and cutting off their heads.

    Ah, the wars the Christians were fighting back then were the Byzantines defending themselves from the Persians.

    1. LOL that’s not even close to the truth. How are there people this dumb who still want to talk about history?

      1. Ignorance begets confidence more frequently than knowledge does.

        See also the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      2. As if any of it has a bearing now. Grudges hundreds of years old are stupid things to fight about.

    2. That is just so ridiculously wrong.

      Anyone interested in the early history of Islam should read this book: Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins by Robert Spencer

  24. CONSTITUTIONAL? How does it even get that far? How about the fact that these laws are completely ridiculous and clearly against the public benefit? You know, the most basic elements of law.

    1. Well, in this country, the most basic element of law is supposed to be the constitutionality of it.

      The substitution of “Is it constitutional?” with “is it politically popular?” as the first question asked of a law is what has led to the decline of the country.

      1. no… I’m pretty sure there are older common law principles that say that while the legislature has the right to make laws, they can’t be blatantly against the public interest

        I’m pretty sure that concept has been taken under the wing “constitutional” after said document was written, but the concept is very old.

        Like, I’m pretty sure in the days before the constitution, in America or in England or Canada or Australia, if some authorities passed a law that said “Parliament/ the Lord/ the colony Magistrates get to sleep with any man’s wife they wish and no one has the right to stop us”, the judges would overturn that, regardless of what else was written in law.

        Is that crazy? The idea that a BASIC ELEMENT of law IN THE VERY FIRST PLACE is that it shouldn’t fuck the public over? That judges should be laughing the legislature out of court for stuff like this?

        Seriously, if I were a judge, I’d be handing out contempt of court chrages for even BRINGING frivolous lawsuits, and ditto to the legislature for even having ever written laws like this. I’d use the gavel as a weapon and throw it hard at them as part of the punishment, to shame them in court.

        1. Right but here we have a written Constitution with explicitly and narrowly defined governmental powers. English common law is different.

          It used to be in this country that judges would strike down laws that were unconstitutional. Now they look for ways to pass them based on nonexistent text.

          sic transit gloria mundi

  25. The government doesn’t accept competition, even if that means arbitrary losses of life. They’d let people starve to maintain patriarchy.

  26. Here’s something both liberals and conservatives should agree is stupid. And yet somehow they apparently don’t. Sigh.

  27. Cheap little houses are for poor people and we don’t want that kind around here.

  28. There are far too many people making a living off of homelessness to do anything which might actually fix the problem.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.