Academia

Hawaiian Student Sues After Being Ordered to Stop Handing Out Pocket Constitutions

|

pocket constitution
Cato

The always formidable defenders of free speech at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) filed a lawsuit in federal court today on behalf of a student who committed the heinous crime of handing out wee copies of the U.S. Constitution at the University of Hawaii at Hilo:

The complaint alleges that on January 16, 2014, plaintiff Merritt Burch, who is president of the UH Hilo chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), and a fellow student YAL member were participating in an outdoor event where student groups set up tables to distribute literature. Observing other students walking around and handing out items, Burch and her friend walked out from behind YAL's table to likewise hand out Constitutions and YAL information cards. A UH Hilo administrator ordered Burch and her companion to stop approaching students and get back behind their table, dismissing Burch's protest about her constitutional rights.

This is my favorite part, where the university administration tells Burch to go hand out her darned Constitutions on a tiny muddy plot on the edge of campus because "this isn't really the '60s anymore."

A week later, in an orientation meeting for student organizations, another administrator reiterated the rule against passing out literature. Burch and Vizzone were told that if they wanted to protest, the proper place to do so would be in UH Hilo's "free speech zone," a sloping, one-third acre area on the edge of campus. The "free speech zone" represents approximately 0.26 percent of UH Hilo's total area and is muddy and prone to flooding in Hilo's frequent rain. The administrator further observed, "This isn't really the '60s anymore" and "people can't really protest like that anymore."

Burch and Vizzone are challenging the denial of their right to hand out literature and policies restricting the distribution of literature. The suit also challenges UH Hilo's "free speech zone," a separate policy requiring students to request permission seven working days prior to engaging in expressive activity in two central outdoor areas on campus, and the failure of UH Hilo officials to adequately train administrators on the rights of college students.

Want to start your very own kampus kerfuffle? Grab a handful of pocket Constitutions from the Cato Institute for a dollar a pop.

Or maybe get one from a friendly cop?

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.

582 responses to “Hawaiian Student Sues After Being Ordered to Stop Handing Out Pocket Constitutions

  1. …….

    1. The squirrels must be taking the day of if you got to publish ellipses

  2. Ugh. This is just depressing.

  3. “this isn’t really the ’60s anymore.”

    “Yeah, back then it was *our* generation doing the protesting, now it’s (ugh) *you*!”

  4. Wee? Sounds like the author has been up in my neck of the woods.

  5. And that border patrol cop has gotten passive-aggression down to a science!

    1. You do know that was a staged bit, right?

      1. Having seen some real ones, especially one where they tase the dude, drag him from the car and beat him, this video got me at first. I was cringing at the anticipated gratuitous violence to be perpetrated by the “peace officer”.

      2. I went insane a few weeks ago when that was released, and all the morons expertly proclaimed “fake”!

        even *we* are surrounded by idiots

    1. You know who else tried to subjugate the Hawaiian people?

      1. Barack Obama?

      2. The Standard Fruit Company?

        1. You mean the *United* fruit Company? Or were you trying to smear them together with Standard Oil?

          1. No, United Fruit was dominant in the banana trade in Latin America. But I’m also mistaken since Standard Fruit didn’t acquire Dole until the 1960s.

            So the correct answer is James Dole.

            1. He’s mostly gone now.

              1. Although I could be wrong. I wasn’t exactly in learning mode last time I went to Hawaii.

              2. Did he get canned?

                1. James Dole was sort of like Bob Dole until he went on the dole and was required to dole out justice.

      3. The Hormel Foods Corporation?

        1. Dude, that was totally consensual. #8 on the menu at my local Hawaiian joint is spam…

          1. Soooooo, they succeeded?

      4. The Imperial Japanese Navy?

  6. Well, the 3/5ths part is clearly a dangerous trigger.

  7. T.R.I.G.G.E.R.

  8. See, this is what you get if you go to UH on the big island instead of Oahu.

    1. That reminds me of when I was getting law school catalogs in the mail after taking the LSAT. Almost all of them had a picture of a law school building or some minority student or the other in a law library on the cover. Except one. The University of San Diego School of Law had a picture of students playing volleyball on the beach.

      1. The University of San Diego School of Law had a picture of students playing volleyball on the beach.

        I’d go to that law school. I mean, if I had wanted to be a lawyer.

        1. I’ll tell you what, when I was freezing my ass off in Chicago, I was regretting mightily my decision not to go there (never really considered it, to be honest, until I was frozen). Or back to Florida.

          1. If you gave me a time machine I’d go back, withdraw my application to Johns Hopkins, and submit an application to UH Manoa in its place. If I was going to just get stoned and fuck around most of the time anyway, I wish it had been in Honolulu rather than Baltimore. Who knows, maybe I could have even become a megalomaniacal president!

            1. I would pick somewhere that’s not a complete joke. Maybe UC San Diego.

              1. I found Pomona was a pretty lovely place to slack off and get stoned. Pretty campus, warm weather. Great reputation (bought me some unearned goodwill) and Gregg Popovich used to coach there.

                1. and Gregg Popovich used to coach there

                  You must have missed where they stated a preference for the non-boring

              2. That’s not in Hawaii. Where are you supposed to get your lau lau?

                Which reminds me, I haven’t been here in a while. Their lau lau is amazing. They put a nice big chunk of fat in them to keep them moist. Fuck, now I really want some.

                1. My local place got priced out of the market and had to give up their lease, and now they are in Torrance. Best hangover breakfast ever. Buttered King’s Hawaiian bread with every order.

                  http://losangeles.menupages.co…..hut-2/menu

                2. If you are going to move to Oahu, why not get a job as a waiter and become a surf bum?
                  I have a couple friends who went to UH, and they are utterly unemployable. They would be a lot better off without the $50k in student loans.

                  1. Yes, why go to college to become a slacker? I hired a white-water guide on the Snake River in Wyoming who told me he was a ski instructor in the winter. No school, just rafting and skiing. And booze, women, and drugs.

                    1. That dude is probably way happier than most people I know.

                    2. told me he was a ski instructor in the winter. No school, just rafting and skiing. And booze, women, and drugs.

                      And he gets paid for it. Take that college!

                    3. He should advertise his alternative higher-education program, where he teaches others how to live that way.

                  2. They would be a lot better off without the $50k in student loans.

                    I didn’t have loans, it was paid for, so no worries for me. UH would have been great. My fucking degrees are useless too, so it would have been perfect. I am literally the perfect person to have gone to UH. And I stupidly didn’t.

                3. Which reminds me, I haven’t been here in a while.

                  Oh God damn. I open that up and there’s a big picture of malasadas. I haven’t had one in almost a decade…

                  On the other hand, my brother just sent me some fresh papayas from Oahu. Would rather have the sugar rush, but ripe papaya ain’t bad.

                4. Damn you. Now I have to plan a trip back there. A wen study UH in da seventies, and get back every few years.

                  We used to have late night snacks at King’s Bakery when it was a place on Beretania St. Back when I could eat a burger and fries at 11 PM and then go to bed.

                  1. King’s Bakery is a couple miles from me now:
                    http://www.kingshawaiianrestaurants.com/home/

            2. If you gave me a time machine I’d go back, withdraw my application to Johns Hopkins

              Dude, you went to Johns Hopkins?

              One percenter! I bet the Koch Bros paid for it!

              1. He worked out an “exchange” with Warty.

                1. He worked out an “exchange” with Warty.

                  How much arse rapin is there for 60k per year?

              2. Dude, you went to Johns Hopkins?

                Unfortunately, yes. So did Scruffy Nerfherder at almost exactly the same time.

                I bet the Koch Bros paid for it!

                No, just my parents. No debt for me!

                1. My parents paid for mine because it was so cheap. They gave the same amount to my brother to go to Yale, so he had a tad bit of debt.

                  1. My parents paid for mine because it was so cheap. They gave the same amount to my brother to go to Yale, so he had a tad bit of debt.

                    Wow, I didn’t realize how many one percenters are among us. I paid for my own lowly CompSci degree at an unheard of non-elite private college.

                    1. Berkeley was $4200/yr when I went there, so the taxpayers were footing most of the bill.

                      What is a non-elite private college? DeVry?

                    2. Shit. Bunch of smarty pants here.

                      I went to…Concordia University.

                      You’re making me regret not going to McGill. My sister still laughs at me.

                    3. And since we’re being up front, like Episiarch, my parents covered it.

                      Then again, Canadian universities are retardedly, abnormally on the cheap end.

                      And they still complain!

                    4. If you can hold a Fork, you can go to York.
                      If you can walk and talk, you’re in at Brock.

                      Carlton, where the K stands for Quality.

                      /that’s all I got

                    5. Hey now, my tuition was covered by the State of California courtesy of legislation regarding my father and Vietnam service-related disability (diabeeetus) from Agent Orange exposure.

                    6. Hey now, my tuition was covered by the State of California courtesy of legislation regarding my father and Vietnam service-related disability (diabeeetus) from Agent Orange exposure.

                      Mine was mostly covered by an obscure grant know as ‘child of a disabled veteran’. Because I spent most of my childhood with my grandparents and my grandfather was a WW2 veteran who received a purple heart, I qualified. I think I paid a total of around $7000 for 4 years. The gubmint subsidized the rest.

                    7. My Grandpa is a WWII POW and purple heart. I’m assuming he would have had to claim me as a dependent for me to get benefits, though.

                    8. My Grandpa is a WWII POW

                      Obama needs to demand that the Japs give him back while over there. It’s been long enough.

                    9. Germans. He was the flamethrower guy in his squad.

                    10. Grandpa was badass.

                    11. My Grandpa is a WWII POW and purple heart. I’m assuming he would have had to claim me as a dependent for me to get benefits, though.
                      reply to this

                      Correct, but my grandparents were able to do that, since I lived with them from the time I was 3, until 18 years.

                    12. What part of “monocle polishing orphans” eluded your observation?

                2. No, just my parents. No debt for me!

                  And they didn’t pay for Tony to go to JHU also? INEQUALITY!!!

                  1. Uhm, Tony went to PCU.

    2. See, this is what you get if you go to UH on the big island instead of Oahu.

      Really, almost anywhere in that state you can run across attitudes like this toward civil rights or free speech.

      1. I was completely joking. Like, not even the tiniest bit serious.

        1. Plus, Fuck Oahu! (and I say that as someone who lived on Mariner’s Ridge in Hawaii Kai as a kid, about a mile an a half as the crow flies from where Obama was born).

          Seriously, Oahu blows. If I had to live there again, it’d be either Kauai or Maui.

          1. Maui is a resort/golf monoculture. I really didn’t care for it. I like cities, and I like Honolulu. I also really like Kailua; Lanikai Beach is fucking amazing.

            1. I’m guessing that this is a lot cheaper than anything in Hawaii. I was there in March. it’s incredible. Pics don’t do justice.

              Porto de Galinhas

              1. How’s the English down there? Would I be lost?

                1. How’s the English down there? Would I be lost?

                  In Hawaii or Brazil? The threading here is not the best…

                  1. Ok, I assume you mean Brazil. Not many people there speak English. In the north that is, in the south English speakers are more common.

                    Just about everyone in my wife’s family are fluent in English, so that helped me out a lot at first. My Portuguese is pretty good now, though.

              2. Looks beautiful. Hawaii is expensive. The advantage of Hawaii is that it’s non-international travel, everyone speaks English, and there’s no crazy laws or crime to deal with. Plus it really is beautiful.

                1. I prefer New Caledonia. Pricey but pristine, natural beauty. One feature I really liked was the fact that they have one quarter of the world’s nickel so there is enough of a real economy that they don’t depend on your tourist dollars. You don’t feel like eveybody you come in contact with is looking to sell you something.

                  1. French?
                    *pinches nose*

                    1. Yeah, there is that.

                      But through a couple centuries of immigrants from all over the local food scene was a great mix of Itallian, French, Vietnamese, and bits and scraps from all over.

                2. Did you actually refer to the native tongue of Hawai’i as English?

                  From all I can recall it was Japanese or Pigeon.

                3. I’ve had a couple places on the Venezuelan coast recommended to me multiple times. I have no intention of ever going, at least not until they get their shit together.

                  1. I was looking at the worlds largest swimming pool but it turns out that the weather in that part of Chile sucks.

                    1. I was looking at the worlds largest swimming pool but it turns out that the weather in that part of Chile sucks.

                      Chili is actually very nice, my wife tells me. I’ve never been. But if you want beautiful beaches with bathtub temp waters, then go to NE Brazil. Venezuela? Umm, no.

                  2. My parents, now that they’re both retired, spend half of their lives on vacation living La Vida Dulce on our social security taxes.

                    They say Aruba is their favorite place for tropical weather, hands down.

                    They’re currently on a cruise through the Panama Canal.

                    1. I almost went to Aruba once, but instead wound in in Mexico again, and Belize.

                      I want to go to Panama, especially the upland areas around Boquete, which I hear is incredible.

                4. and there’s no crazy laws or crime to deal with

                  I’ve never had any problems in Brazil. I feel a lot more free there than I have in the USA for the last 20 years. For instance, you can walk anywhere you want drinking a beer. there is NO places that I have ever seen that you cannot drink, beaches, wherever. And that includes being a passenger in a car. There are no laws against drinking when you are a passenger in a car. I have also seen people openly smoking weed, and the police totally ignore them.

                  There is crime, if you go to the wrong areas. So you don’t go there, there is no reason to. And I live in Baltimore, so I don’t feel unsafe most places.

                  1. Not to mention that the cocaine is probably primo, right?

                    1. What cocaine?

                    2. Sudden has a diagnosed mental disorder where he can’t go more than 24 hours without mentioning cocaine.

                    3. I wouldn’t exactly call that a disorder.

                    4. Cocaine:Sudden::CHRISTFAG/GOP SHILL:shreek

                      Seeing a middle aged Axl Rose last night was proof that cocaine is one thing I ought to avoid.

                    5. Did someone mention cocaine?

                    6. Well, if we’re going to have a libertarian super summit and snort if off the behinds of hookers, then I am in.

                      Oh wait, I have to ask my wife first… sneaks off into the shadows…

                    7. protip: get the services from the hookers before beginning the coke binge.

                  2. And I live in Baltimore, so I don’t feel unsafe most places.

                    Ahahahaha, so true. Baltimore is the asshole of the Northeast.

                  3. It’s amazing how value is subjective; I would sell my soul to leave Brazil and move to America. Taxation, tariffs, bureaucracy, regulation, corruption are all incomparably much higher in Brazil. Consequently, almost every product or service costs at least twice in Brazil, with half the quality. Yet the absolute majority of Brazilians think the solution to every problem in life is more government intervention/spending. The beaches don’t make up for all of the problems, IMHO…

          2. about a mile an a half as the crow flies from where Obama

            Indonesia?

          3. I would’t mind trying to camp on the north side of Molokai. It is the most beautiful place I have ever seen (although Bora Bora is pretty close).

            Pic from the helicopter.

            1. I would’t mind trying to camp on the north side of Molokai.

              Never got a chance to visit Molokai myself. Having said that though, it’s tough to imagine anything competing with the Na Pali coast on the western side of Kauai. A place you could only get to by canoeing.

              1. It is similar to Na Pali, but with much higher cliffs and way more waterfalls.

                I hiked the Kalalau Trail last time I was in Kauai, and the helicopter noise was ridiculous. One almost every 5 minutes in the middle of the day. It was beautiful, though. Went body surfing at Hanakapi’ai, and afterwards I saw this sign.

                1. Damn, well I’ll have to put Molokai on my bucket list then.

                  I am kinda searching for where my next travel will be. I had planned Russia for Spring 2015, but circumstances might make that a prudent one to avoid for now.

                  1. I had planned Russia for Spring 2015, but circumstances might make that a prudent one to avoid for now.

                    A friend and I were talking about a Poland+Baltics tour before Russia gets overly belligerent. The downside with an LAXWarsaw flight is that the cheapest flight has a long fucking layover in Moscow. The upside is that for 20$ more you can have a long fucking layover in Amsterdam.

              1. Enjoy that coastline while you can before global warming destroys it.

                1. Only 3000 more feet of sea level rise to go!

                  1. Only 3000 more feet of sea level rise to go!

                    So what, another 15 years according to the IPCC?

              2. Cheater. I took the helicopter one with my iPhone. I’m sure I could find a much better one on google.

                1. Actually, yours was pretty good quality. My phone photos were on my old phone, and I believe they’ve mostly been deleted from any internet presence since I took said chopper flight with my ex-wife.

                  1. I’m trying to read between the lines here:
                    Are you offering me money to kill your ex-wife?

                    1. No way. Why contract out all the fun stuff in life? Besides, I’d rather her continue to live as a reminder for me to never make the same mistake again.

          4. Oh yeah? My family moved around Mariner’s Cove and Lunalilo for about 10 years. Luckily moved out of Hawaii Kai before it got overdeveloped like a motherfucker.

            Well, more overdeveloped than it already was. I imagine it’s 95% concrete by now.

            1. When? My time there was 1988-1991. I went back and visited with my then gf in 2010. I honestly couldn’t recall too much from my youth, but Koko Marina did seem way more sprawling than when I was a kid.

              1. Hah, just missed. I was there 1991-2001, in a number of places around Hawaii Kai over the decade. My parents were able to pay off their debt and afford to buy a house in Nuuanu. I got out of there in 2005.

                1. Well damn. Who would’ve thought that such a mean streak of libertarians would be raised in the shadow of Hahaoine Elementary?

                  1. Well I was on the Kamiloiki side. And then went to Maryknoll for middle and high school, which is a small Catholic school across the street from Punahou. So even if I was a Tony-level prog, I don’t think I could ever vote for Obama. Fuck Punahou.

                    Geoff Nathan: I wish I could’ve seen the islands in the 70s. I had a teacher who would reminisce a lot.

                2. God, I feel old. I lived there 71-80, mostly in Manoa. Go back every few years and stay with friends near Koko Head. True that Hawaii Kai is overdeveloped, and Hanauma Bay is impossible now.

  9. “this isn’t really the ’60s anymore.”

    How true that is.

  10. The administrator further observed, “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore” and “people can’t really protest like that anymore.”

    I would kill to find out who that administrator is…

    1. …and then kill again…

      1. It would be deliciously delicious if the administrator is a liberal progressive from the 60s sporting a half beard.

        I fear it’s someone about my age.

        1. Don’t forget the ponytail.

        2. I tried googling “Anthony Vizzone”, but the pictures were all over the place, mostly kids who are probably not the administrator in question.

      2. …and then kill again…

        Isn’t that the one with Elaine doing her creepy dance at the end?

    2. I would kill to find out who that administrator is…

      Well, the suit names names. Drop ’em some email.

  11. “this isn’t really the ’60s anymore.”

    “Yo, Yo, Barry O, how many dead kids won’t you show?”

    1. In the 60’s you went to college to avoid the draft.

      In the future, your college debt will be paid off with national service.

  12. Kids are pussies today. It’s as simple as that. Back in the 60’s, students had the balls to risk their personal safety for ideology. And while I appreciate what these kids are doing, suing the admins doesn’t pack the punch that a physical protest including a media blitz and/or picketing the actual admin offices does.

    Lawsuits don’t change behavior. They just pass a cost for non-compliance off on the taxpayers that foot the bill for these schools. Same goes for the police (and people that settle their claims against them rather than pursue them until a judgement is granted and actual blame given to the cops in the court record).

    [end rant]

    1. As a member of YAL I can attest that most chapters do not possess the numbers sufficient to make an impact picketing. Certainly no one is going to call out the National Guard for a dozen people.

      No, today’s campuses are mostly dominated by ethnic and cultural clubs that thrive on the politics of race and left-wing ideology.

      Lawsuits are the best way to create change and achieve objectives since the fact of the matter is a sizable number of people on campus probably think the Constitution is hate speech. You can’t even carry a Gadsden flag without it being called a racist symbol of hate.

      1. You’re probably right, but I just hate to see that that’s become the avenue people choose. I just think they could go to the media, even if it isn’t just the traditional media, and get some grassroots support to put pressure on admins.

        That and I’m a crotchety old bastard.

    2. I rather doubt you can scrounge up enough risk-taking liberty-minded students to stage an effective protest. Imagine three picketers being disbanded by a tired security guard after forty-five minutes of being ignored.

    3. Kids are pussies today. It’s as simple as that. Back in the 60’s, students had the balls to risk their personal safety for ideology

      Except of course that the kids these days did the exact the same thing as those 60’s kids, and for the exact same warped ideology rooted in envy and theivery as that 60’s generation. You might have heard about that whole “occupy” movement.

      1. Oh shit. I forgot about those assholes.

        Disregard what I said about kids being pussies. They’re really assholes.

        Good thing I’m a dick.

        1. Being a dick is the way to go. Because dicks fuck pussies and assholes.

          1. +1 pocketful of blueberries

  13. the rights of college students

    ROTFLMAO

  14. A week later, in an orientation meeting for student organizations, another administrator reiterated the rule against passing out literature.

    Stop handing out literature! This is a university after all!

  15. “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore” and “people can’t really protest like that anymore.”

    Good Lord! It’s not like they were not blowing up bathrooms and trying to incinerate judge’s children, then asking for probation and professorships.

    They were just handing out documentation.

    1. Oh yeah? Well, just what do you think is in those little Constitutions?? Well, I’ll tell you! It’s scary stuff, mister!

      1. One man’s scary is another man’s beautiful, maaaaan!

  16. Serious question: Who came up with the bullshit notion of “free speech zone” in the first place?

    1. That is a good question. My first guess would be something born of the 1968 Democrat National Convention, but that is just a guess.

    2. Time, place, and manner, bitches!

    3. Maybe the same idiot who came up with the ‘trigger’ thing?

      One day you have to hope that one of these tards say something stupid to the wrong person and when they get the crap beat out of them, the person doing the beat down says ‘you triggered me, asshole!’

    4. The first “free speech zone” popped up at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. You see, a TEAM Blue national convention serves a significant government interest, therefore, we, the peasantry, cannot be allowed to disrupt it with such trivialities as “rights.”

      1. The first “free speech zone” popped up at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

        So I was only off by 20 years, and nothing else.

    5. Josef Stalin?

      -jcr

  17. The left have done jumped the shark. They thought they were actually on the verge of the new commie utopia, and now that they are slowly, in spite of their strongest attempts at reality denial, starting to realize that they are NOT about to enter the age of the new Soviet man… Well, they are freaking out.

    1. Their default is Stalinism, so this fits right in.

      1. It’s going to get derpastical in the near future. I look forward to the automatic melt down of the ‘tolerant’ left.

        1. They never melt down, they just ignore history and come up with a new scaffolding of lies.

          1. Maybe they eventually run out of new names?

            Communism, Socialism, Progressivism. What ISM is next?

            Oh, I know, eventually no one will remember Communism and they’ll just recycle that.

            1. How about Jism?

              1. Reality Challenged Jerkojisms? That would be a good name for them.

            2. Oh, I know, eventually no one will remember Communism and they’ll just recycle that.

              That is my first guess.

              1. Some dude keep showing up in The Independents trying to float that balloon.

                1. Well we all know that shit floats.

  18. Really, this Free Speech Zone stuff is so absurd that it’s like the campus lefties are a real life parody of themselves. Words escape me.

    You know, I was just remembering that I was on a campus to meet with one of my clients last weekend, on a Saturday. It was a very impromptu thing, and I just threw on some jeans, t-shirt, and my cap with the Gadsen flag. I talked to several people while there and no one said anything about my cap. I actually wear it often and no one has ever said anything about it.

    Is it really perceived as some kind of racist symbol now? That seems pretty stupid, since it has nothing to with anything about race.

    1. Someone must have told them that the Gadsden flag represents liberty, which is oppressive to women and people of color.

      1. Not to mention *snakes*!

        1. The snake on the Gadsden Flag is merely another symbol of male privilege that existed during colonial times and the total lack of respect they had for women. It’s telling that the new right and the teabaggers would choose to represent their movement with a symbol that means little more than male power and the subjugation of women, all the while they decry womens’ right to reproductive freedom and contraception.

          -feminist turd

          1. My cobra don’t want none, unless you got da booty, hon!

    2. “That seems pretty stupid, since it has nothing to with anything about race.”

      Accusations of racism need have nothing to do with anything except the feelings (or the momentary rhetorical needs) of the accuser.

      Good call in the ‘pretty stupid’ part though. 😉

  19. Kid questions why the cops are arresting somebody for an open container. Cop slams him into next week.

    PoliceOne commentors react as expected.

    Ex.: Posted by Phil306 on Thursday, April 24, 2014 04:14 PM Pacific Report Abuse
    Bottom line: This guy should have gotten his ass beat worse then what he did. The officer did nothing wrong and an investigation isn’t warranted.

    1. So, is that link like a pig cheerleading site?

      1. Oh yeah. Avoid it unless you want to test the “Broken Monitor Theory”.

        1. Most of the world doesn’t have open container laws. The “Land of the Free”, however…

          1. It’s not an open container if you can chug really quickly. That’s the theory behind freeway cocktails.

    2. Arrested for a to-go cup? Holy shit! That is the only reason to cross the border into Wisconsin (well and Sunday liquor sales).

    3. OMG…

      He interfered with the arrest and then when ushered away he actually struck the officer before he was taken down and forced to comply. Look close right after he came off the car he swung at and looks like he made contact.

      I am going to assume (for my sanity) that since The Onion got its start in Madison, that an old ex-writer slipped that in there. If I didn’t go with this, I’d go crazy.

      So after you attacked a guy, he had the temerity to resist?

  20. Jimmy Howard on the bench and Gustavsson in? Bertuzzi and Zetterberg playing tonight!

    LET’S GO RED WINGS!
    clap clap clapclapclap

    1. I guess the Bruins think Chris Osgood is between the pipes. No other explanation why they’re taking all those shots from the neutral zone.

    2. GOALLLLLLLLL!

      Sweet, still on the power play as well.

      1. I got no skin in this series. But I think Detroit is crappy.

      2. Ugh, lockout got me away from hockey, aside from a brief playoff run last year. Turns out I didn’t even come back at all this year.

  21. Progtard site comments are easy pickins but I don’t think I’ve ever seen this “line of reasoning” used before:

    Charles Pilcher (democratsaint)

    Super User ? 1,116 Fans ? The GOP-The Humpty Dumpty of economics
    now the 65k question if guns were a right,why was it ILLEGAL before this bill to have a gun in a bar?why do they have to pass laws to expand rights if it was a right to begin with.this who law basically confirms that guns are NOT a right,as this law would have been un-needed if it was.this law confirms that the right believes it is not a right as why not take the original law to court,and have it struck down.this law is the right admitting what the rest of us have said having a gun is NOT a right.they have no argument,they passed a bill to legalize,ergo it must have been ILLEGAL.
    38 minutes ago

    1. Give me a link, dammit. I want a piece of that asshole.

      1. Wait, that doesn’t quite sound right.

        1. This does go back to you being a dick…

    2. From the Tony school of progtardery whereby a right only exists if the government has given you permission to endulge in it. See, the Jews in Nazi Germany and the slaves in the American South had no rights. It wasn’t that they had innate rights from their very nature and those rights were being violated. Rather, the fact that they were treated as such meant they simply had no rights.

    3. Ask Captain Retard who the hell Lincoln thought he was freeing all those slaves.

    4. Wow, that’s some real peak level derp there. Did this idiot ever hear about the REAL original law, named the 2nd Amendment, ‘WHICH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

      Apparently not. I love to challenge dipshits like that.

      Earlier today on another site, I had a clueless team blue cheerleader, get pissed at me because I said that most of the decent congress critters we have today are in the GOP, but that they are actually libertarians.

      Then he went on an enraged rant and told me that libertarians are irrelevant, because, because, common sense!

      I asked him to explain why libertarians are wrong, using real logic, and not just some meaningless phrase.

      Of course, then he did a Shreeky disappearing act.

      1. Did this idiot ever hear about the REAL original law, named the 2nd Amendment, ‘WHICH SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

        it must NOT be a right,or they would have not had to write about it.you have NO argument,QED

    5. I wonder if they feel the same about the right to not be murdered or assaulted or raped etc. I mean, we had to right laws about them so they must not have been a right to begin with. Therefore, following this guys logic, it is illegal to not murder, assault, or rape someone… right?

      1. *we had to write laws..

    6. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..99630.html

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..9700.html?

      The comments are about Georgia’s new gun law that essentially repealed rights-infringing laws.

    7. I’ll see your “Charles Pilcher (democratstain)” and raise you a “Jim L. (tssent) ”

      Jim L. (tssent)

      Political Pundit – 4,798 Fans? The facts, ma’am, just the facts

      My movie is about to come true. Please remember I scripted it before anyone else.

      Scene 1:

      As the credits flash by we find ourselves in downtown Atlanta on a morning about 8:30 am. Busses, taxis and automobiles honking, sidewalks teeming with people, your everyday rush about as Georgians hurry to work.

      Suddenly a shot rings out. Our attention is diverted to two guys standing in the middle of the street shooting at one another. Everyone on the sidewalks drops, people jumping out of cars and busses and taxis, everyone drawing their guns and as the panic spreads, everyone shooing anywhere…everywhere.

      The chaos quickly spreads, to the next street over, north, south, east and west. In less than 10 minutes a 2-mile square of downtown Altanta is in pandemonium. Everyone has hit the dirt. Everyone is hiding behind a tree or a trash can or a car or a bus. And everyone is shooting.

      (cont.)

      1. Never happen? Of course not. We’re all too cool to allow anything like that to ever happen in America. Right.

        So where the movie goes from there, I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. The real movie is already happening, and everyone from the producers to the directors to the players are in it.

        This country is on the brink of converting instantly to total insanity. And there’s not anyone capable of stopping it. The Congress doesn’t care, the Supreme Court doesn’t care. Why should citizens?

        23 Apr 7:38 PM

    1. That sound you hear is Kennedy’s pen writing her Topical Storm.

  22. SoCons: Homosexuality is Not Like Other Sins

    “Homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9?10.

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    It’s not the only sin mentioned, but it is different from all the rest, at least right now. At this moment in history, contrary to the other sins listed here, homosexuality is celebrated by our larger society with pioneering excitement. It’s seen as a good thing, as the new hallmark of progress.

    To be sure, the masses increasingly make no bones about sin in general. Innumerable people are idolaters, not to mention those who are sexually immoral, or who commit adultery, or who steal and are greedy and get wasted and revile neighbors and swindle others.

    Sexual immorality is no longer the tip of the spear for the progressive push. Adultery is still frowned upon by many. Accusations of greed will still smear a candidate’s political campaign. Thievery is still not openly embraced, and there are no official initiatives saying it’s okay to go steal things that don’t belong to you. There’s no such thing as a drunk agenda yet.”
    http://www.citizenlink.com/201…..ther-sins/

    1. There’s no such thing as a drunk agenda yet.

      Someone wake me up when yet gets here. It’s Thursday night, always a good night for a drunk agenda.

      1. Permission to drink, doctor?

        1. Permission granted. And no, I’m not a doctor. Nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

          I wanted to stay at the JW. But I was unable to find Taylor Momsen and convince her to sleep with me.

          1. Isn’t that hotel only a few blocks from where you live?

            1. Yeah, and that is whereshe was staying. I had no intention of getting my own room there. My goal the whole night through was to finagle a tryst with her.

              Ambitious? You betchya.

              1. My mom always told me:
                Never aim for the middle.

      2. The agenda is mostly belligerence.

      3. Thursday night? That’s when the weekend begins. Just got a couple of Costco half-gallons of tequila.

    2. I’ve certainly seen a lot of publicly-approved greed (1%!) and swindling (“if you like your plan…”) and adultery (Eat Pray Love) and of course reviling…

    3. A friend of mine who’s an Evangelical pastor actually posted that the other day. Of course being blue tulpa, you do leave out this bit:

      Distancing ourselves from both the left and the right, we don’t celebrate homosexual practice, we acknowledge God’s clear revealed word that it is sin; and we don’t hate those who embrace homosexuality, we love them enough to not just collapse under the societal pressure. We speak the truth in love into this confusion, saying, simultaneously, “That’s wrong” and “I love you.” We’re not the left; we say, this is wrong. And we’re not the right; we say, you’re loved. We speak good news, with those sweetest, deepest, most glorious words of the cross ? the same words that God spoke us ? “You’re wrong, and you’re loved.”

      I’m certainly not inclined to believe their particular interpretation of sin in this case (nor do I believe in a revealed word of God at all), but its disingenuous to say these people have anything but love. They are true believers, and in keeping with the practice of that belief, they wish to spread the revealed word out of love and an effort to save (notwithstanding how misguided said effort may be).

      1. “Of course being blue tulpa, you do leave out this bit:”

        I linked to the entire article, but your concern for fairness to SoCons is noted.

        It is also questionable that they are moved by love when they condemn the thing that marks an entire group.

        1. You’ve never heard the phrase “hate the sin but love the sinner”?

          It’s possible to condemn someone’s actions without resorting to hating them as a person. But I think we can make an exception in your case.

          1. I think when you hate an action that defines a group and which harms no one then it is hard to argue you are doing it out of ‘love.’

            1. Why is that? Seriously, why? I hate wealth redistribution. I think it is theft. But I don’t “hate” people that are for it. In fact, one of my best friends in the world is a serious proggie.

              I’d venture to say that the reason they don’t pass their hate onto the sinner is strictly out of love for their fellow man.

              1. Do you think your friends favoring of wealth redistribution defines him like a homosexual’s homosexuality does?

                Saying you hate homosexuality but love homosexuals is like saying you love left handed people you just hate when they use their left hand.

                1. Do you think your friends favoring of wealth redistribution defines him like a homosexual’s homosexuality does?

                  Perhaps it does, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t still love him like a brother.

                  Saying you hate homosexuality but love homosexuals is like saying you love left handed people you just hate when they use their left hand.

                  I guess it’s exactly like that. But doesn’t that make me a better person for not judging their humanity or worth as a human being because of one physical or mental trait?

                  1. I think the better person would be one that says ‘hey, while I find it strange this guy uses his left hand all the time, it is not hurting anyone so to each his own.’ And then not go out and try to prevent him from getting married, adopting children, and the like.

                    1. I didn’t see anybody calling for banning behavior on that link.

                      Unlike those on the left that want to make it the state’s business who can get a license to have children or an entire nation that imprisons people that do.

                    2. That link is to an affiliate of James Dobson’s organization which, yeah, kind of supports a few restrictions and behavior bans.

                    3. Funny how you’re the one insisting that after your initial point got destroyed.

                2. Saying you hate homosexuality but love homosexuals is like saying you love left handed people you just hate when they use their left hand.

                  Or it’s like saying “I hate killers but I love my son who also, sadly, killed someone.”

        2. Fair enough.

          Modern Christianity is a complicated (if not somewhat contradictory) worldview. I’ve had lengthy discussions with the aforementioned friend before concerning what I view as contradictions within Christian thought.

          My ex-wife was an adulterer. A fairly grave sin, one that is explicitly mentioned in the ten commandments. I was honest and honorable til the bitter end. But she’s nominally Christian, accepts the notion of the divinity of Christ (even if only because its a cultural relic on her mother’s side of the family). I don’t. I spoke at length with him about how I felt that my doubt in the divinity of Christ was a far less egregious violation of Christian ethics than her violation of one of the core commandments, but that according to his faith if she just FEELZ TEH BAD about it she’ll be granted passage to the sweet lucre of Heaven while I’ll be cast into the depths of Hell for the sin of over-reliance on the very faculties which the sky daddy allegedly endowed me with.

          1. I’m sorry to hear about this. But repentance is about turning away from the misbehavior and making reparation, not just a generic “I feel bad, what’s on TV?”

            1. Eddie is, of course, Catholic.

              1. Really?

                It sounds like Sudden was turned off Christianity (that is, more than he had been already) by the behavior of his professedly-Christian wife. That’s really a Bad Thing.

                1. My point is that Catholics have a slightly different view than Protestants on how ‘cheap’ salvation can be purchased.

                2. No, not at all. I harbor no ill will towards Christians and believe most of them to be good people, some of the more loving and caring people I’ve ever met (another member of this circle of friends is actually flying to Ghana right now for charitable work and to bear witness to the gospel).

                  This was an issue between my ex-wife and I leading up to our divorce (especially shortly after her father, who despite being raised Muslim in Iran shared a cosmological view very similar to my own, based on conversations I had with him). She ultimately used it as a reason that she felt that we were incompatible (after we were already married mind you, and knowing full well my take on religion prior to said marriage). It was gaslighting really. She wanted out for a whole variety of reasons that may be too detailed to get into here. And I’m frankly glad in hindsight, though it certainly sent me in a spiral for some time. But

              2. Of this I’m a aware. And he gets his fair share of shit here, as do you Bo.

                And Eddie, the conversation did drift a bit away from the notion of repentence, in part because I don’t think she’s the least bit repentent. In fact, she likely views it through the lens that she views most things, as “all part of God’s plan.” (and no, I never tried having a discussion of Calvinism with her, as in spite of being nominally “religious” she never had an iota of true intellectual curiosity to her faith). I didn’t take up that issue with my pastor friend, because he’s not a predeterminist. But we did discuss the notion that penetance can exonerate some sins, but my “sin” of doubt can not be forgiven if upon my death I walk to the pearly gates and say “Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle, you ARE real!”

                1. I am not trying to give Eddie anything for being Catholic, I am saying that since Catholics have a theology that does not accept the rather ‘easy grace’ that many Protestant groups embrace that is probably why he finds the minister and your ex’s reaction so odd.

                2. I’m not saying it’s totally safe (spiritually) to be an atheist, but I note that the Pope specifically says some encouraging (if somewhat complicated and not easily summarized) things to atheists:

                  http://en.radiovaticana.va/new…..en1-694445

      2. I think some progs simply look past passages like that with eye-rolling exasperation. It’s as if they’re saying, “Who’s this guy trying to fool? Everyone knows that if you disagree with someone on an important enough issue, you *have* to hate them!”

        If he’s halfway sane, he’ll deny hating all his Republican relatives, and I suppose

        1. he might even acknowledge that his republican relatives don’t hate him.

    4. neither the sexually immoral

      Not Bill Clinton?

      nor idolaters,

      Not Pete Stark?

      nor adulterers

      Not John Edwards?

      nor men who practice homosexuality

      Not Barney Frank?

      nor thieves

      Not Jesse Jackson, JR.?

      nor the greedy

      Not Harry Reid?

      nor drunkards

      Not Teddy Kennedy?

      nor revilers

      Not Barack Obama?

      nor swindlers

      Not Kwame Kilpatrick?

      will inherit the kingdom of God.

      Well I can live with that. But, you know, what the fuck is your point?

      1. How is Pete Stark, who policy wise I am no fan of, an ‘idolater?’

        “But, you know, what the fuck is your point?”

        What is yours?

        1. I was just rattling off those on the left that fit into those categories. Pete Stark is an atheist instead of an idolater, but I didn’t feel like listing Barney Frank twice.

          My point is that you’re an idiot that paints everyone to the right of Obama as some kind of SoCon bigot. Now, go get your shine box.

          1. “Pete Stark is an atheist instead of an idolater”

            Oh, so you were just wrong in your snap anger. Carry on.

            1. No, actually, atheism would in fact be a false idol.

              Sloppy wasn’t admitting a mistake he was answering your question.

              Carry on knowing sweet fuck all and being despised.

        2. Pete Stark was a man of honor!

  23. SoCon’s Theory on Pornography

    “I think these two consequences of pornography are related: pornography leads to fewer babies and this makes sex less erotic and thus in turn we forget what really is erotic and what makes us want to have sex in the first place.”

    http://www.crisismagazine.com/…..se-promise

    1. The article leads off with a link to Naomi Wolf. She could be wrong, she could be many things, but I wouldn’t call her a CoCon.

      1. Socons can not link to the work of a feminist? Actually they agree and work together on pornography quite a bit.

        1. You were focusing on this like it was a strictly SoConny issue.

          1. I did? I thought what I said was “SoCon’s Theory on Pornography.” Do you deny the author I quoted was a SoCon or the website is not a SoCon website?

            1. Oh, the Art of Cross-Examination as Practiced by Dumb People.

              1. Can’t answer? It is OK.

              2. All right, I’m sorry I said you cross examined like a dumb person. But I *do* think some of your lines of questioning are ill-thought-out, I’ll put it that way.

            2. OK, shitheel, perhaps if you were trying to be taken seriously, you would have said “A SoCon’s Theory On Pornography.

              Unless, you know, the author got a note from every other SoCon out there granting him permission to speak on their behalf.

              1. Oh my, the robc school of ‘you can not say ‘SoCon’s theory’ you have to specify ‘A SoCon’s theory.’ Because grammer be darned, you have SoCons to defend!

                1. So you admit you’re wrong.

      1. lol. So amusing to see the feminists twisting themselves in logical knots to condemn the effects of pornography without ever resorting to morality or “human nature”.

        I don’t know if she deserves much credit for noting that in an atmosphere where ‘sexual harassment’ is continual defined down to smaller and smaller ‘offenses’ many men are perfectly happy to decline the risk, drama and expense of relationships with actual women in favor of porn. I mean, how was THAT not predictable??

    2. Right, because a small SoCon website’s opinion has led to fewer babies to the degree that the left’s workers paradise of China has.

      Way to go, fuckhead.

      1. You are really, really confused in what you are talking about.

        1. Oh, I get it. You can paint everyone to the right of you as some narrow-minded bigot or imbecile because one person states their reason for not liking porn but I can’t point out that there are many more on the left that call for an outright ban on certain people breeding or for one-child policies carried out en masse like in China.

          Dude, please go swallow a cup of Drano.

          1. No, you really are confused, which is rather common when people are irrationally angry.

            The author I posted is not saying he is for less babies, he is for more and opposes pornography because he thinks it leads there. So your bringing up China and the left for lessening baby-making is rather hilarious.

            1. I’m not confused. I was merely pointing out that someone on the right makes a statement about porn meaning there are less babies in the world while there are those on your side of the aisle that are actively preventing people from having kids under penalty of imprisonment.

              Can you at least acknowledge that those on the right side of this issue (well, one person anyway)are peacefully trying to convince people that they are living an immoral life while those on the left (your side) are imprisoning people for reproducing?

              1. ” was merely pointing out that someone on the right makes a statement about porn meaning there are less babies in the world while there are those on your side of the aisle that are actively preventing people from having kids under penalty of imprisonment.”

                Since the fellow on the right was OPPOSED to porn because it leads to babies, yes, that was a pretty confused reply by you. Like I said, someone who snaps to anger so quickly is going to make a lot of confuse statements.

                1. You climb on one person’s opinion like its representative of everyone on the right, yet you fail to note that its a passive statement that isn’t meant to legislate anyone’s behavior. But you’re silent when an entire leftist government imprisons people for reproducing.

                  You’re a piece of shit, Blue Tulpa. A real piece of shit.

                  1. “You climb on one person’s opinion like its representative of everyone on the right”

                    Where in the world did I do that? I mean, really angry man, point it out where I did that.

                    “But you’re silent when an entire leftist government imprisons people for reproducing.”

                    What in the world? So every criticism of any social conservative must be first prefaced with a condemnation of Communist China or else it is carrying water for Team Blue or something?

                    1. Where in the world did I do that? I mean, really angry man, point it out where I did that.

                      OK, as my last interaction with you tonight I’ll do exactly that.

                      You wrote: SoCons: Homosexuality is Not Like Other Sins

                      and

                      SoCon’s Theory on Pornography

                      You intentionally try to cast all SoCons as supporting the words of two individuals. I guess that would be like me saying “The Left supports imprisoning people for having more than one child”.

                      My point is that you’re a disingenuous fuckwit that paints an entire non-homogeneous group based on the words of one person while ignoring the systematic persecution of people who have two children that actually exists en masse on the left.

                      You are a classless turd.

                    2. As a matter of grammar, if a libertarian writes a book about eminent domain, and it is introduced as ‘Libertarian’s view on eminent domain’ would you holler as angrily? Should they have said A Libertarian’s view on eminent domain?

                      You are just flailing around angrily.

                    3. Should they have said A Libertarian’s view on eminent domain?

                      Yes. And if you had command of the English language, you’d agree.

                    4. It is you that have a loose grasp on English grammar. It is totally appropriate to say ‘Libertarian’s view on eminent domain’ when introducing the view of a libertarian on eminent domain.

                      But what is further, do you get so cussed when someone talks about ‘Proggies view of X’ or ‘Proggies take on Y?’ Of course you do not, we could probably prove that on this very thread. You just feel, for some strange reason, you have to jump up and down and defend the honor of SoCons.

                    5. I’m jumping up and down defending the honor of people that argue in good faith. Which, of course, is why I’m engaged in arguing against you.

                    6. How are you arguing in good faith? You did not address any point I made just now.

                      Is that not what a ‘ means in SoCon’s?

                      Do you similarly call out people who talk about a ‘Prog’s view of X’ and such?

                    7. I notice you finally included “a” when you identified a Prog’s view. Thanks for proving my point.

                    8. Well, seeing as “Social Conservatism” is a movement that is often referred to as SoCon, you should probably expect people to assume you’re attributing a claim to the entire movement when you say “SoCon’s thoughts on…”

                      I would assume somebody was doing the same if they said “Prog’s thoughts on…” as well. And I think most others would as well.

                    9. “I would assume somebody was doing the same if they said “Prog’s thoughts on…” ”

                      Point to one instance in your commenting history where you have, one.

                      But more importantly, you should try to understand the difference between putting an s on the end of a noun and putting a ‘s on the end.

                    10. Bo, do you find it odd that everyone hates your fucking guts? Seriously, do you ever question why that is?

                    11. I have explained this to you before: people that lean right (some heavily obviously, to be getting so upset about criticisms of SoCons on a libertarian website) do not like people who they think lean left. It has little to do with the personality of the guy they hate, it has to do with sheer, dumb partisan thinking. If you went on a left leaning site, even a left leaning libertarian site like Bleeding Hearts, you would be get a good deal of nasty comments.

                      I have lots of friends and am not foolish enough to confuse partisan tribalism with general social acceptance.

                    12. I have lots of friends

                      [citation required]

                    13. I do not need to find them on a political discussion board.

                    14. Little tip…

                      Wrong conclusion.

                    15. Really Francisco, try what I talked to you about the other day. Print the discussion between sloopyinca and me up and show it to someone that does not share sloopyinca or your leanings. I never call him ‘a classless turd,’dumbass’, a ‘real piece of shit,’ etc. He does. He does so right out of the gate, he does so often, he does so because…I did not use an article in referring to a person of a certain political philosophy? Would anyone you show that to say it was me that had issues? With respect, pull your head out of your ideological behind a second and take a look around.

                    16. And you deserve every word of it. Anyone that knows you agrees.

                      Your powers of introspection are on par with that of a 13 yo.

                    17. You repeated the posts of a troll you were arguing with for an entire day, childish insults included.

                      Keep trying to pretend these things happen in a vacuum.

    3. I’ll go one step farther than that even. The right has a fringe website that says porno leads to less erotic sex and fewer babies while a fairly mainstream leftist site asks if people should be required to get a license to have a baby.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..-Have-Kids

      1. Why are you so bent on playing the team game? No one can criticize conservatives around you without you jumping up and down and yelling ‘ok, but the liberals are worse!’?

        1. “Why are you so bent on playing the team game?”

          Seriously?

          1. Eddie, you acknowledge you are not a libertarian but a social conservative, so why are you invoking the team game?

            1. “Friend, where is thy Murray Rothbard T-shirt? Verily, thou art not a libertarian – cast him out into the outer darkness, where there will be NPR, and Starbuck’s coffee, and gnashing of teeth!”

              1. No, really, what is this silly game you play here? You are explicitly on a Team, credit to you for being open about it, but trying to criticize someone for being on a Team puts you in the mote-beam territory.

                1. One could certainly argue that a “team” player shouldn’t criticize someone else for being a “team” player. Is that your point?

                  1. 🙂

                  2. Witches should not engage in witchhunts is the best approximation I can come up with at the moment.

                    1. Not implying you are a witch.

                      Or even a warlock, NTTAWWT.

                    2. I’m just sayin’, you took someone else to task for playing the team game.

                      Not so sure about the witch and warlock part, though.

                    3. “I’m just sayin’, you took someone else to task for playing the team game.”

                      Right, I do not play the team game, unless libertarianism is a team.

                    4. Ah, you simply point out the errors of the *other* team!

                    5. Of both.

  24. Libertarianism was never really a thing

    Trying to put my thoughts in words here, something I am obviously not very good at, but;

    I dont think “Libertarianism” in itself was ever really a thing or valid alternate economic philosophy. It seemed more of a response to social and academic concepts created at and before the turn of the (last) century that was itself in response to various entrenched monarchies and aristocracies.

    All societies are full of collective agreement and pursue extensive collective endeavors not suitable to entrust to whatever market conditions exist. Its always been that way, from fighting wars to eminent domain, to sanitation, to monetary policy, to collective property and mineral rights to transportation infrastructure.

    […]

    1. […]

      Certainly civil libertarianism is a thing and a important one at that. And from that perspective it is of course possible to gauge whether a collective endeavor, reasonably enacted, has benefits for most or infringes on individual liberties unacceptably.

      I dont care for the political views of many that associate with the so called “economic libertarianism” of today. It invariably involves overlooking significant realties, collective agreements, invisible hands, what have you to push a partial, hodgepodge philosophy for perceived economic prosperity, that in its truest form has never really even existed, has never been proven successful and really has nothing to do with how America started or what it is.

      1. Somehow civil liberties have nothing to do with economic liberties. Good to know.

      2. “It invariably involves overlooking significant realties, collective agreements, invisible hands, what have you to push a partial, hodgepodge philosophy for perceived economic prosperity, that in its truest form has never really even existed, has never been proven successful and really has nothing to do with how America started or what it is.”

        The guy needs remedial history, US and world.

    2. It seemed more of a response to social and academic concepts created at and before the turn of the (last) century that was itself in response to various entrenched monarchies and aristocracies.

      It’s responses all the way down!

    3. dont think “Libertarianism” in itself was ever really a thing

      Sticks head back up ass…

    4. It would probably blow this guy’s fucking mind to learn that libertarians wrote about class theory / class conflict before Marx.

  25. So,
    7 days of rain forecast.

    1. Hey, that’s the forecast for L.A. too. For 2014.

      1. Actually it looks like SF is going to get a decent amount this evening.

      2. We have a gale watch in effect, whatever that means.

          1. This has been your weather alert for the hard of hearing.

            1. It’s copy pasta out of a National Weather Service alert. I ain’t gonna retype it for you.

              Damn, try and be a nice guy and answer a guy’s question, while at the same time perhaps educate the masses…

              I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.

              1. I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.

                Nobody does.

                1. Thank you Sloop. I can always count on ya.

              2. I didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition.

                Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

              3. try and be a nice guy

                Come on, you know you were just trying to make me feel like a retard. It’s not going to work. I’m sober.

                1. Come on, you know you were just trying to make me feel like a retard. It’s not going to work. I’m sober.

                  So instead you make yourself feel like a retard?

                  Sanity and intelligence is just 22 oz of IIPA away.

                  Although I probably won’t drink IIPA tonight. Tempted to crack my Firestone 17th Anniversary.

                  1. I have an Anderson Valley Double IPA from Costco for tonight. I had a little bit of an upset stomach yesterday, so I’m hesitant.

                    1. Down, or to go?

                      If you want to lose weight, nicotine is very helpful.

                    2. 19 days without a drink. Lost 13 pounds.

                      I quit using tobacco (dipping) on 15 October 1999, after 18 years. Still dream about it.

                    3. Turns out I’ll be having drinks at a bar out in Studio City tonight instead. They usually have some decent stuff on tap. You guys have a good night. Suffice to say I won’t be making to the AM links thread tomorrow.

          2. Damn dude, you don’t need to shout.

    2. Seven days of rain? Consecutive days? Where do you live, in a monsoon?

      1. Well it may stop for Sunday afternoon.

        1. I think if I ever experienced seven consecutive days of rain I would seriously think of building an ark, and not like the Kaballah-istic one in that Aronofsky film.

          1. back in high school, we were given organizers. Each date had a famous quote. There was one day in June/July that said “if it rains today, it will rain for 40 more days”. I can’t recall ever seeing that written anywhere else.

      2. Monsoon is a season, not a place. In any case, in my experience living in a place that had monsoon seasons: during the monsoon it rained all day every day (for far more than 7 days) and during the “dry season” it rain every day but only for a bit (sometimes).

        1. “Monsoon is a season”

          It was kind of a joke.

          1. Of course it was, but it makes no sense. The lame joke would be something like:

            “What? Did the Monsoon come in early this year?”

            Or something else dumb, but at least makes sense.

        2. You just beat Bo at his own game. Golf Clap.

      3. Seven days of rain? Consecutive days? Where do you live, in a monsoon?

        I remember back in… ’98 I think… we had 45 days of consecutive rain. Here, that’s called November to April.

  26. …”The suit also challenges UH Hilo’s “free speech zone,” a separate policy requiring students to request permission seven working days prior to engaging in expressive activity in two central outdoor areas on campus,”…

    Nothing says “free speech” like having to ask permission to speak a week in advance!
    Don’t the admins have any concept of irony?

  27. I won’t be engaging Bo anymore supra God commanding me to love my neighbor.

    1. Plus it’s Troll Free Thursday.

      (though I’m still occasionally clicking back on the thread from earlier today about police harassing the elderly lady to see if/when Tulpa shows up)

      1. If you think posting negative things about social conservatives on a libertarian website is trolling you might not understand what trolling is. Or maybe libertarianism.

    2. Sloop, some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing. Take my wife for instance. No seriously, please take my wife.

      1. “some people just like to argue for the sake of arguing”

        You mean like if someone posts a comment about what is a bizarre quote about pornography and some other person has to call the person a sh*t because he did not criticize China?

        1. You did no such thing, idiot. You made a claim about “what SoCons think about…” on two different issues.

          Had you acknowledged that it was the opinion of a single person as opposed to attempting to attribute it to the entire “SoCon” group, I would have never said shit.

          You deliberately tried to paint all SoCons as having a certain mindset because of the words of two people. And anyone who knows shot about arguing knows that’s very far from arguing in good faith.

          1. No, I introduced a group of SoCons view on one thing, referring to Socons because plural, and I then I introduced the view of a SoCon on something as ‘Socon’s view’ (see, that thing in front of the second s there does not make it plural, it means the view belongs to that SoCon). So get off your high horse about arguing in good faith as you have no idea what you are talking about other than you are angry.

            1. A simple article in front of “SoCon’s” would clarify that you’re not attempting to paint with a broad brush.

              I know they probably teach you to be as mealy-mouthed as possible in law school, but in the real world, most people appreciate clarity of thought and intent when discussing political, social or any other nebulous group of people.

              Either you know what you were doing or you’re retarded. Which is it?*

              *Actually don’t answer that. I’m done (for the second time) interacting with your dumbass tonight.

              1. You know, speaking of galling dishonesty, not only do you not call out anyone else when they say something like ‘Prog’s view of X’ or ‘Democrat’s view of X’ when they are quoting a single Prog or Democrat, you do not live up to the standard you are defending yourself:

                “Can you at least acknowledge that those on the right side of this issue (well, one person anyway)are peacefully trying to convince people that they are living an immoral life while those on the left (your side) are imprisoning people for reproducing?”

                Why do you say ‘those on the left’ and not use a simple article or determiner like ‘some’ before the word ‘those?’ Do you not appreciate clarity of thought? Or are you dumb or too retarded to know what you are doing?

                “I’m done (for the second time) interacting with your dumbass tonight.”

                Actually, like most other things tonight, you are wrong here two, it is the third time.

                sloopyinca|4.24.14 @ 9:20PM|#
                I won’t be engaging Bo anymore
                sloopyinca|4.24.14 @ 9:31PM|#
                OK, as my last interaction with you tonight

                1. I never thought that the letter “a” would trigger so much squabbling.

                  1. According to sloopyinca, leaving one out is justification for repeatedly cursing someone out.

                    1. Cursing YOU out. If you don’t know why that’s different by now…

    3. I like it when you get angry. There’s nothing on TV tonight.

      1. I have plenty of website building you’re welcome to use as a time-killer!

        1. What is the website about?

          1. libertarian dating site

            1. I can help create the squirrels.

            2. Geez, I wish. No, it’s a stupid static site that gives information about a company we were assigned for the Accounting module of this bullshit class.

              1. Just go to monster template, and then cut and paste in dreamweaver.

                1. He’s making us use a very particular layout. I’d show you what it is, but he’s apparently too busy being a raging dickhole to actually turn the example site on.

                  1. raging dickhole

                    Stop stealing my band names kibby!

                    Arrrgh

                    1. I read that as “baby names”.

      2. There’s nothing on TV tonight.

        Wild/Avs

    4. I won’t be engaging Bo anymore supra God commanding me to love my neighbor.

      Fucking infuriating, ain’t he?

      1. Another satisfied customer…

  28. Atheists: You’ve been arguing against the wrong God.
    kthxbye

    1. Most believers believe in a personal god- one cares about people, listens to prayers, intervenes in the world, etc.

      If you define god as just a force of nature, OK, but realize that is not what most religious people believe.

    2. Most believers believe in a personal god- one cares about people, listens to prayers, intervenes in the world, etc.

      If you define god as just a force of nature, OK, but realize that is not what most religious people believe.

    3. If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is rubbish, you need to say why.

      If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is *not* rubbish, *you* need to say why.

      The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

      1. So the claim is nothing can exist without god. OK, is it possible to test this idea? I don’t think so.

        If you want to prove god exists, come up with a testable prediction. You can’t just say: if there is no god, nothing would exist, and since that is not true, god must exist. You could use that faulty logic to prove all kinds of crazy things.

        Electricity would not exist without gremlins. Electricity exists, therefore gremlins exist. Yay!

        1. You can’t just say: if there is no god, nothing would exist, and since that is not true, god must exist.

          Oh, ye of little faith! 😉

        2. So the claim is nothing can exist without god. OK, is it possible to test this idea? I don’t think so

          You need to have this conversation with some progs.

          Just start out telling them that you are not religious, but want to discuss all of the possibilities about the origin of matter, the universe, and life.

          And watch them go fucking insane.

          Progressivism is the ultimately closed minded and stupid religion.

          1. I’ve been there. Most atheists are progs, and progs believe many things that are far dumber than any religion.

            I’m not a big fan of Christianity, but it has one very wise idea. Christianity teaches that people are imperfect by nature and that true happiness comes after death. So there is no point in trying to make heaven on earth.

            Progs think they can make heaven on earth, and that is what makes them dangerous fools.

            1. “Progs think they can make heaven on earth”

              Oh uh, where is your article? You are lighting the sloopyinca fire!

              1. Bo, you’re the biggest dick I’ve seen since the Duke of Urbino.

                1. I know, right? With me all cursing and insulting someone right away because they use (correctly it ends up) using the wrong punctuation which I think implies casting aspersions on good, honest, social conservatives and all.

                  Yep, that is what most people would think of as being a jerk. Not the first stuff, but that punctuating thing.

                2. I guess you’ve never been to Seaworld.

              2. “Progs think they can make heaven on earth”

                Oh uh, where is your article? You are lighting the sloopyinca fire!

                Something something create a worker’s paradise something.

            2. Progs think they can make heaven on earth, and that is what makes them dangerous fools.

              I can’t exactly agree with that.

              What makes them dangerous is the method by which they think they can make heaven on earth, by giving more power to sociopaths in government, who are not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed.

              Technology is the true god, at least the only one who has showed up for the last couple thousand years. as far as anyone can prove.

      2. “If you think this God-as-the-condition-of-existence argument is *not* rubbish, *you* need to say why.”

        Exactly:
        The claim is “X exists”. My response is “I don’t see any evidence for that claim. Do you have any?”
        I do not make the claim that a specific thing (the god he thinks I’m arguing against?) exists; I claim I do not believe in the existence of most anything until there is evidence of that existence.

  29. Ok, this is kind of driving me crazy. So we’ve all read about Cliven Bundy’s recent musings about black folks. And then later today Harry Reid condemned him as a racist. And now I read (not sure how I missed it) that in 2010 Reid said that Obama was electable because he was a “light-skinned” black man “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

    And I cannot understand how that low-life Reid isn’t being called out as the world’s biggest hypocrite right now. I went back and read some of the comments from the 2010 Reid article and, wouldn’t you know it, ALL of the commentors said that what Reid had said was not racist at all and with even a few, “hey I’m a black guy and think what he said was fine.” But every comment on the Bundy article is how he’s a horrible tea bagging racist. What fucking planet do I live on?

    1. I can see the difference, one involves saying ‘A light skinned black man with no Negro dialect is just a better sell to American voters,’ the other involves saying ‘maybe black people were better off during slavery.’

      1. See my reply to Sloopy above for a surreal, real-time verification of what I just wrote.

        1. So you were honestly wondering what thinking is, but when someone offers an idea about that…

          Sheesh.

          1. Bo, I didn’t ask you to engage in a nuanced comparison of the two statements. Rather, I simply wanted to point out that Reid’s remarks in 2010 were indeed racist according to modern American standards but the Left apologized for him. Bundy’s musings were certainly not eloquent and offensive to people. But those same Lefties who apologized for Reid are condemning Bundy. And for Reid to lash out at him and call him a racist only proves he’s a hypocrite and should be called out for it. Must I spell this out for you?

            1. See, I thought you mean this part honestly, when you actually wanted to just declare your conclusion on the subject:

              ‘And I cannot understand how that low-life Reid isn’t being called out as the world’s biggest hypocrite right now. I went back and read some of the comments from the 2010 Reid article and, wouldn’t you know it, ALL of the commentors said that what Reid had said was not racist at all and with even a few, “hey I’m a black guy and think what he said was fine.” But every comment on the Bundy article is how he’s a horrible tea bagging racist. What fucking planet do I live on?’

              1. English really must not be your native language. Please look up “rhetorical construct”…

                1. I think the two comments are easily distinguishable, so if someone says they are going crazy trying to figure out how anyone could reasonably think they are I do not mind giving my answer. If that upsets him then it seems a bit sad that he just really wanted, what, others to say ‘you are correct friend!’ so badly.

                  1. So you didn’t look up the term “rhetorical construct” or didn’t understand what it is?

                    1. So he was just sadly making a declaration of his feelings on the subject for approval?

                    2. He was pointing out that both Reid and Bundy (who happen to be tied together in this issue) made offensive, racist statements at one time but only the one on Team Blue gets a pass. Admittedly the degree of offensiveness may be different but the private citizen should be given a little more margin than the public figure.

            2. About a year ago I asked here who was the bigger creep, Reid or Chuck Schumer. The informal vote indicated Schumer. But I think Reid must be moving up.

      2. Actually, Clive’s statement was with regard to the welfare state’s impact on the black family. Walter Williams agrees with him on this.

    2. Is Harry Reid proposing that a racist has no right to keep their cattle from being rustled?

      -jcr

      1. It makes me long for the liberals that wanted to make damn sure that those asshole Illinois Nazis got their right to march in Skokie.

        The ACLU still does so to a certain degree, but the left is not nearly as vocal a proponent for the rights of bigots and dumbasses anymore.

        1. Some historian wrote about this topic a few years back (and, damn it, I can’t remember name or title of article). His basic argument was that there had been a generational shift. That in the first decade or so post-WWII the ACLU had been a pretty even-handed defender of freedom of speech (& other things). But in the ’70s it became more a of a leftist tool. IIRC, it was kind of like at the state level it was still pretty good (at least when he wrote) but the national level group was just Democrat flacks.

          For that old school even-handedness I think of Nat Hentoff. Pretty clueless when he writes about economics but on freedom of speech & 4th amendment stuff, very consistent and very righteous.

        2. The ACLU still does so to a certain degree, but the left is not nearly as vocal a proponent for the rights of bigots and dumbasses anymore.

          Well, not bigots at least…

      2. Of course, once someone is proved a racist then they deserve no basic rights, crossreference with Weaver, Randy.

    3. What Reid said was racist, but Bundy’s was on another level. His use of the word “Negro” instead of “black” or “African American” was probably one of the least offensive parts of his comments.

  30. Did you know that today is Fashion Revolution Day?

    Simply put: people shouldn’t die to fulfill our fashion ‘wants.’

    Start the conversation with a friend or on social media by asking, “Do you know who made your clothes?”

    Well, do ya, punk?!

    1. Better quote:

      “Consumers everywhere, whatever their income, deserve to buy clothing that has not killed people in the process of getting made,” Siegle said.

      1. “Consumers everywhere, whatever their income, deserve to buy clothing that has not killed people in the process of getting made,”

        Holy shit, this guy is retarded. People die in the workplace. Does he also abjure fish because fisherman die on the job?

        1. “Consumers everywhere, whatever their income, deserve to buy clothing that has not killed people in the process of getting made”

          or *delivered*. Buy local clothing.

        2. “Does he also abjure fish because fisherman die on the job?”

          So, you want to kill innocent fish?

          Seriously, way to support people who work in dangerous faculty conditions – take their jobs away!

          1. factory, not faculty.

            Not that faculty members don’t face perils in the workplace. Someone might take their stapler.

            1. And they face lots of triggers!

            2. Someone might take their stapler.

              Or disagree with some science that is ‘settled’, forever. Otherwise, they might go into some sort of life threatening condition.

            3. There are the occasional shootings.

            4. My faculty job is always threatened by late-teen poon.

    2. Rumplestiltsken wove me a golden robe!

    3. CALLING GILM0RE!

    1. Partly, what elites want is for the poor to have lives and manners more like their own: less Seven-Layer Burrito, more Whole Foods; less screaming at their kids in the Walmart parking lot and more giving them hideous and crippling fits of anxiety about getting into the right pre-kindergarten. Elites want for the poor to behave themselves, to stop being unruly and bumptious, to get over their distasteful enthusiasms, their bitter clinging to God and guns.

      Intriguing. Sounds kind of like a website I came across once, theden.tv. What I gathered from it was how the elites want pigeon hole us all into various castes.

  31. Is It Racist to Date Only People of Your Own Race?

    Slate says yes.

    1. Click bait.

    2. If God had wanted the mixing of the races he wouldn’t have driven them all apart with the Tower of Babel thing…

    3. Is it racist to date only people of a certain race that is not your own race?

      I have two weaknesses, neither of them are white chicks.

      1. I’m disinterested in East Asians and blonds to about the same degree. I figure that makes it ok.

      2. That’s probably because you are a product of the UC System.

        I dated mostly Latinas and Middle Eastern chicks in college because they were the most attractive option by a wide margin. If I went to school in say, Oxford Mississippi, it would have been completely different story.

        1. I think we’re brothers who were separated at birth.

          1. I have dated, almost exclusively, East Asians and Latinas. But then I grew up and went to college a short walk from the Mexican border and have lived most of my adult life in Asia. I also speak, on some level, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese so I have some understanding of the related cultures – more than just a fixation.

            1. You’re a white dude?

              1. Just about completely white.

            2. There were plenty of hot white girls at my high school, just none in college. I’m compatible with pretty much any culture.

        2. Strangely enough given where I grew up and went to school, I’ve only gone out with one Asian girl.

          Other than that white girls or mixed Hispanic like me.

        3. Strangely enough given where I grew up and went to school, I’ve only gone out with one Asian girl.

          Other than that white girls or mixed Hispanic like me.

    4. To give a serious reply to the headline, I’d say it depends on why. If it’s because you honestly are for whatever reason only physically attracted to your own race, then I’d say no (it’s definitely possible that racially-biased socially conditioning may be the cause of that, but regardless, that’s beyond an individual’s control), but if that’s not the issue, then yeah, you’re racist to some extent IMO.

  32. http://www.slate.com/articles/…..=obnetwork

    He agreed to wait till the birth, but has now turned into a different person?distant and polite. I know that the next step is counseling, except I’m at the point that I’m not sure I even want to save the marriage. What sort of dad is he going to be if his love and trust for me is so conditional?

    His love is conditional in that he will stop loving her if she cheats on him and bears another man’s child. What a monster.

    1. Meh. He’s an ass. There’s no evidence she’s cheating (at least from what she says in the question). If he wants the DNA test with a cheek swab once the kid’s born, fine. But to act like this while she’s still pregnant (and with no evidence) is pretty assholeish.

      1. at least from what she says in the question

        Bingo. Notice how she says

        I’ve never given him the slightest reason to doubt my fidelity

        That’s classic cheater bullshit. Confront your cheating SO and ask them if their cheating on you, and they will go with “Why do you think that?” or “How dare you?” or “Don’t you trust me?” or accuse you of being the unfaithful one. The fact that she didn’t issue a straight denial, even in a letter to someone else, is very interesting to me. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if he wasn’t right.

        Personally, I’d do the secret cheek swab thing because there’s no downside if you’re wrong, and the advantage you gain in terms of battlespace preparation with your lawyer is too precious to throw away.

        1. It’s a strange request, but if she’s telling the truth, she has no reason to fear the results.

          1. Sooo… If she’s done nothing wrong, she has no reason to fear?

  33. “Earlier this month, I argued that racial resentment partially explains the political durability of the GOP’s position on Medicaid expansion and voting rights, and that the debate over issues like these is hobbled by the right’s unwillingness to accept the possibility that race ever helps produce an intensity gap in any policy dispute.

    “I received a ton of pushback from conservative readers, most of whom hold these positions based on ideological priors other than white supremacy. Unsurprisingly they were reluctant to admit that, to the extent that their views are winning the day in states across the south, it’s thanks to the support of a non-negligible number of racist, or racially resentful white voters.”

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art…..ce=twitter

    1. Unsurprisingly they were reluctant to admit that

      Republicans refuse to answer a simple question: when exactly did they stop beating their wives?

    1. You fucking tease!!!!!

      I thought this was Gymkata 4. I wondered how I had missed out on #2 and #3.

      Then I realized it was some stupid video and not a sequel to perfection:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Mkl9rtttog

  34. “So what does that tell us about Obamacare? According to Sommers, it suggests that most of the people who got those cancellation notices probably would have dropped existing coverage within a short time anyway…”

    http://www.newrepublic.com/art…..ce=twitter

    1. You could power a turbine with that spin.

  35. Trigger warning – sky-daddy at 3 o’clock!

    “No one loses their human dignity, and no one is beyond redemption” – Catholic parish in Nashville admits local Death Row inmates as members.

    http://catholicherald.com/stor…..ging,26044

    1. “No one loses their human dignity, and no one is beyond redemption”

      Well, at least on one who doesn’t live in the USA and who has committed in their entire life, any felony, or any misdemeanor involving drugs, or anything considered DMV.

    2. That’s nice of them. I wish they had the same attitude in medieval Europe.

      Does the RCC still excommunicate people?

      1. Let me say at least this much for the Church in the Middle Ages (without pretending it was all sweetness and light): Without the Church, the criminal code would have been even bloodier than it was. In England, for instance, people facing the death penalty (and bear in mind this applied to any of a long list of felonies, not simply wilful murder), could avail themselves of various Church-provided privileges like sanctuary and benefit of clergy. When England went Protestant, the Parliament abolished or limited many of these privileges, which in practice meant that there were a lot more hangings of thieves and others who even Texas wouldn’t hang today.

        1. The Catholic Church in medieval times was at times a force for mercy. Point taken.

          I remember that they tried to stop feuding warlords by getting them to swear on the bones of saints. And then there was the whole Peace of God thing.

        2. So it was the equivalent of joining the Night’s Watch?

      2. Does the RCC still excommunicate people?

        Orthodox Jews do it. I have been told that from someone with first hand knowledge. They literally shut out the person from existence as far as they are concerned.

    3. Is that unconventional? I thought ministering to the imprisoned was de rigueur for Christians of all stripes.

      1. JC himself ministered one of the guys he was crucified with.

      2. It’s quite conventional – lots of religions have prison ministries. Don’t have the details at my fingertips re integrating prisoners into congregational life.

        1. Yeah, if the RCs are like a lot of denominations, “membership” is a formal status which can be fairly important. That would make admitting them to membership a bigger deal (from an RC perspective) than simply ministering in the prisons.

          On excommunication, apparently yes but the practice itself was changed in 1983:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..lic_Church

    4. Good for them, Jesus was, of course, executed himself, and one of his last acts was to bestow grace on someone being executed beside him.

      1. “Good for them, Jesus was, of course, executed himself, and one of his last acts was to bestow grace on someone being executed beside him.”

        Or so the story goes…

        1. For me, all that is important is the story. I could care less about its historicity, it is a model for behavior that inspires and makes the world a better place.

          1. Do you say the same thing about the ACA enrollment story? DoL employment and inflation stats?

          2. “For me, all that is important is the story.”

            Fine by me, but you stated that as if it were historical, and I merely corrected that impression by pointing out there is zero evidence for such.

            1. Zero evidence?? Scores of people have been condemned to death on much flimsier evidence that Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection.

  36. So, on derpbook, a guy posted a pic of Ted Cruz and some other Team Red guy posing next to a tiger skin rug. The progs went into a derp frenzy about how awful this was. I posted the following Stossel video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSPkVoGx5c4

    The only response I got was “moron”.

    1. I don’t know how you continue to look at Derpbook. I deleted my account 2 years ago.

      I had somewhat of a difficult time stopping posting and reading HuffPo, but Facebook is another level of stupid.

      And, why is anyone still surprised about how government fails at everything they do? Failure is their greatest and only, accomplishment.

      1. I was a reluctant adopter. I don’t log in often and when I do, it is only to collect more derp samples.

  37. A UH Hilo administrator

    WHAT’S THE IDIOT’S NAME?

    -jcr

  38. Woman pitching expensive food is “most influential”:

    “Time’s 100 Most Influential People list features Bay Area names”
    […]
    “Alice Waters, owner of Chez Panisse: The Berkeley institution is called “the activist chef who pioneered good food for all.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/news/art…..to-5214113

    I certainly don’t mind consumerism, but naming tomatoes before you can eat them is a bit much.

    1. Naming tomatoes is a bit too much, but my friend’s cow, Harriet, was pretty tasty.

    2. the activist chef who pioneered good food for all people who can afford a $300 meal.

  39. The CEO of McDonald’s Canada has branded recent criticism of its use of temporary foreign workers “bullshit” in a conference call to franchisees that was given to the CBC.

    His remarks from earlier this week came before federal Employment Minister Jason Kenney announced an immediate moratorium on the food services sector’s access to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program late on Thursday, as a result of CBC Go Public’s inquiries.

    Three McDonald’s franchises in Victoria and a pizza restaurant in Weyburn, Sask., are at the centre of program abuse allegations involving Canadian employees alleging foreign workers were given priority work status or more hours.

    1. So does every employer have to prove there are no Canucks available before they can hire a TFW?

      1. “For employers who have been unable to recruit Canadian citizens or permanent residents for job openings”

        1. That’s what I thought.
          If Steve out there in BC says he was available, you’re had!

    2. Canada has McDonald’s? I thought you were better than that.

      1. Jesse,
        Not one outfit has beat Micky D’s frys in blind tests.

        1. I do like their fries. I’m fairly certain one of their strawberry shakes tried to kill me with some sort of chemical toxicity, but I can’t prove it.

          McD’s is just so…American, and to have them all over the proud Canadian homeland seems so un-Canadian.

          I love me some McD’s when I’m in airports, or have spent more than 3 months eating nothing but Korean food.

          1. Annex Canada…problem solved.

            1. “Annex Canada…problem solved.”

              I have it on good authority that we will around ~2067, when the resource wars reach their final phases..

          2. Some of the.best.food.I.have ever had.is a cheeseburger cooked by Dr. Girlfriend after.returning.from a two week trip to China. I love central Chinese food–the.lamb is amazing–but home cooking beats.all.

        2. McDs fries are shit. Wendy’s are the best by far, in fast food. My wife’s are better than any of them.

          I would bring up 5 guys, who have the best cheeseburgers in the fast food universe, but their fries are lame, for which they try to make up for by giving you so many you need a wheelbarrow to leave the building with them.

          1. You are not qualified to comment on the fast food universe until you have an In N Out in your neighborhood.

            1. I have “in-and-outed” four times; I am not ever going to “in” again.
              Dry, overcooked burgers, stale buns, fries that DQ wouldn’t sell.
              Yuuk!

              1. Those….those words….is it possible to use them in a sentence like that?

                1. Well, now that I think about it…

              2. You mean 4 times last week, right?

                I find the term “dry” very unlikely for In N Out. They use something fattier than 70/30 in their ground beef.

                What location? I can personally vouch for the In N Outs in Pinole and Pleasanton. The one in Oakland wasn’t there in my time…

                1. Playa,
                  Seriously, Salinas (off 101 at Market) at least twice, Fairfield off 80 twice with wife, Pacifica and San Bruno, once each. Santa Clarita (I think) once.
                  Never as good as, oh, Jack in the Box.
                  Kept hearing how good is was, kept trying and finally said ‘Screw this!’.

                  1. I don’t know what to tell you. I have eaten there hundreds of times, and have only had a bad burger a few times at the most…

                  2. Double double, or something else on the menu?

      2. but didn’t you read the story?
        McDonald’s has no Canadians.

        1. Flouting labor rules to improve the bottom line makes McDonald’s an even more American beachhead on culturally pristine Canadian soil.

          1. jesse: thanks.for the.Barcelona map/app link! I will definitely use.it.

            1. Oh good! Wasn’t sure if you’d see it. I was really late to the links.

              1. Just got back from gun.club/post gun club beer session, so I didn’t see.it.until recently.

      3. I thought McDonalds was better than that.

  40. Celebrity Quack Moms Are a Terrible Influence on Everyday Parents

    1. “Fellow attachment parent and nonvaccinator Mayim Bialik”

      The one with a doctorate in neuroscience (according to Wikipedia)?

      1. Her personal life is a fucking mess. You would have to be retarded to take her parenting advice.

        Her husband just got up and walked away one day. For some reason.

        Maybe it was that the whole family sleeps in a pile on the floor, and the poor asshole just wanted to sleep in a bed.

  41. Nominations open!:

    “CIA ‘torture’ methods included these 21 songs, artists”
    […]
    “If hearing Barney the dinosaur sing “I Love You” one more time seems like torture, try it on a loop for the next 24 hours.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..427375.php

    1. I’m going to make a playlist of all these songs and the next person that rides in my car is going to have me committed.

    2. The Barney song? You mean the one that goes

      I love you
      You love me
      we’re a happy family
      with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
      won’t you say you love me too

      I love you
      You love me
      we’re a happy family
      with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
      won’t you say you love me too

      I love you
      You love me
      we’re a happy family
      with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
      won’t you say you love me too

      I love you
      You love me
      we’re a happy family
      with a great big hug and a kiss from me to you.
      won’t you say you love me too

      1. Songs that drive me nuts:

        1. Renegades by Rage Against the Machine

        ? WEEEER! WEEEEER! WEEER! WEEER!…

        ? WEEEER! WEEEEER! WEEER! WEEER!…

        ? WIENERWIENERWIENERWIENERWIENER

        2. Christmas Shoes

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq10bz3PxyY

        3. Starships by [I refuse to write this person’s name].

        1. I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it
          I’m about to lose control and I think I like it
          I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it
          And I know, I know, I know, I know, I know I want you

          1. I do a pretty rad drunken karaoke to that song.

            1. And I’m glad I never saw it…

              1. If we ever do a full CA Reason brunch, I’ll make sure to save you a front row seat.

        2. Because I’m happy
          Clap along if you feel like a room without a roof
          Because I’m happy
          Clap along if you feel like happiness is the truth
          Because I’m happy
          Clap along if you know what happiness is to you
          Because I’m happy
          Clap along if you feel like that’s what you wanna do

          1. Then when they *still* won’t talk…

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0YC3RpvE3M

            1. It’s ‘Bring in the Clowns”, right? Did I win?
              I’m not clicking on it, ’cause I’m sure it’s “Bring in the Clowns”.

              1. No, it’s nerd humor of the worst kind.

              2. No, that would be bad even for me.

                1. (reply to Sevo)

          2. No shit.

            Hearing that song puts me in a “kids these days” mood.

            Yeah, the 70’s didn’t have the very best possible music ever but somehow I doubt that 20 years from now I will hear any of the top 20 pop songs from 2014 being played one some movie soundtrack.

            1. They’ll be playing “I’m Sexy and I know it” on movie soundtracks after everyone has forgotten Beethoven.

      2. The clean up song is worse. I used to play that for my kids until I lost my shit.

    3. Definitely Celine Dion should be on that list.

      1. And Enya. That stuff makes me want to firebomb a scented candle shop.

        1. Will someone raise a Sade?

          1. Do I hear a Sade from the gentleman off to the left?

          2. It’s an interesting coincidence that she shares the name of the inventor of sadism.

            1. I didn’t know there was a musician of that name.

                1. Reserve her for the worst suspects.

    1. Hmm, the American President is visiting my neighbors to the south. How can I counteract this?

      MAKE ME LOOK LIKE A PIMP!

      I so want to be a fly on the wall of his cabinet meetings.

      1. One of the few situations in which being a fly will assure you a longer life expectancy than the majority of the room’s inhabitants.

        1. Well played, Sudden, well played.

          Today, you will get 1.5 grains of rice and double your allotment of amphetamines.

          1. Amphetamines? Fuck yeah, comrade… who needs “food”

    1. Sounds like good advice in a bad situation 🙁

      (I admit I thought at first this was another religion story)

    2. Did the kid realize that Somalia and Hawaii are not the same place?

  42. Casting for new Star Wars movie almost complete

    Although pretty much every breathing actor or actress in Hollywood has been rumored for a role in the new trilogy of Star Wars films, Disney studio boss Alan Horn says they are finally getting close to revealing who will be populating that far, far away galaxy.

    In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the chairman of the Walt Disney Studios teased and tantalized without saying a whole lot: Casting, he said, is “almost complete. We’re not prepared to announce it yet, but we will be very shortly announcing what we’re doing.”

    Girls star Adam Driver is among those who is definitely in the movie, sources close to the films tell EW, although the studio and Lucasfilm is waiting for closer to the start of principal photography before confirming the slate of stars. Expect to see some totally new actors joining the line-up, as well as familiar stars from the original trilogy ? although that is hardly surprising. Director J.J. Abrams has expressed a desire to blend this new series with the original one.

    I’m waited with baited breath to see who Jar Jar and Wesley Crusher.

    1. “Girls star Adam Driver”

      Adam Driver? Squeeeee!

      Wait, who’s Adam Driver?

  43. Octopus on the ice! With 11:39 Left in OT!

    1. …be a successful straight fashion designer?

      Oh, and see this quote:

      “At the start of the year he turned up the temperature on Milan Fashion Week with a ring of fire in the centre of his tented runway.”

      Too Hunger Games-ish for me.

    1. It’s libertarian paradise!!!

      My guess is that they are going really really slowly.

    2. Reminds me of Argentina. No rules, yet everyone seems to make it to their destination.

      1. Same in parts.of China. It seems like.chaos but individual actions and attentiveness.make.it.work. we Americans hand.too much of.our responsibility over.to.traffic.devices and our skills suffer.

        1. Why can’t they drive here?

          *ducks*

        2. db|4.24.14 @ 11:22PM|#
          “Same in parts.of China”

          They could save money in China; don’t bother painting lines on the streets.

  44. This is really interesting, but why would anyone voluntarily do it?

    (How to drink beer all night without getting drunk)

  45. Warning- naked Lena Dunham as Eve. I must admit the heap of half eaten knowledge fruit is sorta funny.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6dqA-KQ3kE

    1. Her gunt is very distracting.

  46. The most self-righteous rant ever

    But why Frederick Douglass? Why bring him into this? And who am I to invoke him?a man who was born a slave and who freed himself from slavery…I’ve never had to fight for any fundamental rights…All I want is a livable world, and the possibility of social justice. So who am I to quote Frederick Douglass?

    Let me tell you who I am: I’m a human being. I’m the father of two young children, a 14-year-old son and a 10-year-old daughter, who face a deeply uncertain future on this planet. I’m a husband, a son, a brother?and a citizen. And, yes, I’m a journalist, and I’m an activist. And like more and more of us who are fighting for climate justice, I am engaged in a struggle?a struggle?for the fate of humanity and of life on Earth. Not a polite debate around the dinner table, or in a classroom, or an editorial meeting?or an Earth Day picnic. I’m talking about a struggle. A struggle for justice on a global scale. A struggle for human dignity and human rights for my fellow human beings, beginning with the poorest and most vulnerable, far and near. A struggle for my own children’s future?but not only my children, all of our children, everywhere. A life-and-death struggle for the survival of all that I love. Because that is what the climate fight and the fight for climate justice is. That’s what it is.

    Please let them come more unhinged.

    1. Climate justice? And I though social justice was full retard.

      Thomas Sowell called it cosmic justice:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIv4L9M1ECU

    2. I am engaged in a struggle?a struggle?for the fate of humanity and of life on Earth

      Jesus, is that you?

      1. I used to think South Park was exaggerating in Smug Alert:

        http://www.southparkstudios.co…..smug-alert

        1. It really is a god complex.

          1. It’ll be fine, they are oh so laughably impotent.
            We only need to worry if they manage to build a starship and cross the galactic barrier.

    3. Oh, my goodness!
      Either those kids are gonna be spinning their fingers at their head when Dad opens his yap, or they are gonna turn into some REAL assholes in high scholl.

  47. The derpbook prog has suggested that in 20 years, the increasing Hispanic population will turn red states blue.

    You know, just like what happened in Texas.

    1. And you know what the Micks did!
      Oh, wait! They gave us the Kennedy clan!

      1. Impocerous! Everyone knows all Irishmen are fanatical papists.

  48. Words fail me:

    I’d like to see these guys’ eyeballs explode when they see something REALLY worth getting upset over, like a famine or plague. Then again, it’s hard to imagine anything worse than having your scooter taken away, except maybe the horror of an attractive, intelligent, black Democrat taking the White House.

    http://woodgatesview.com/2013/02/27/scooter-trash/

    1. …”the horror of an attractive, intelligent, black Democrat taking the White House.”

      Damn. Guy figgered me out!

      1. Who could know? We haven’t had an intelligent, black democrat take the White House yet.

  49. Guy uses twitter hashtag to break up with girlfriend

    1. #Asshole

      1. Yes, good choice of hashtag.

    2. Wow, she must be devastated. He looked like a keeper!

    3. It’s just an updated version of a Dear John/Jane letter. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the first uses of a telegraph was to break up with someone.

      And now, Wuthering Heights in Semaphore:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqiUGjghlzU

      1. “Watson, come here I…on second thought, never mind, I’m breaking up with you.”

    4. Looks like a Stewie Holden.

  50. Hit+Run rule of thumb: If a thread is reeeeeaaaally long, it’s because some folks are in a pissing match….

    1. There was some good chit chat.

      But yes, there are some Bo feces on the wall tonight.

    2. Or San Francisco passed a law banning circumcised deep dish pizza be served at gay weddings.

      1. Ooh fun. It looks like I started writing one sentence and finished writing a different one.

        #hugsnotdrugs

      2. …killing Lou Reed in shock, who requested that the Cleveland Browns serve as pallbearers at his funeral.

        1. Unfortunately they were too busy participating in an armed intervention abroad to ensure free abortion on demand for Lena Dunham, and dog fights.

      3. So remember kids: stay in milk, drink your drugs, and stay away from school.

      4. Or:
        “Naked man flips out in Tesla on Los Angeles-area highway”
        http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopi…..a-freeway/

        Uhhhh.

        1. God, he was just doing some naked, high-speed, sunroof tai chi.

          LA authorities are such squares.

          1. They didn’t even send the cops on that call. I think the paramedics had to offer him a donut to get him out.

  51. Since I missed out on the bully thread the other day, here is my tale:

    In 7th grade, I got in an argument with another boy. He insulted me; I insulted him. He punched me lightly in the head a few times while I calmly sat. I parried one of his punches and gave him a 3 Stooges Double eye poke. He got up, swore at me, and stormed out of the room. He got suspended for a week; I got lunch detention for a week.

    When I graduated, I saw a report of the incident on my permanent record, which undoubtedly has been lost or discarded by now.

    1. +1 wise guy

  52. Aaaagh, Keith Olbermann!

  53. The entire United States of America, from sea to shining sea, from the redwood forests to the gulf stream waters, is a FREE SPEECH ZONE, MOTHERFUCKERS. That includes Hawaii, and it includes the campuses of state universities, even those that employ brain-dead apparatchiki to pretend they’re doing real jobs.

    -jcr

    1. Wow, we’ve come full circle, back to the original topic of the thread.

      1. I had forgotten what that was.

      2. All of this has happened before. And it will happened again.

        1. YOU SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

        2. Did you try making some phone calls to find Pliny?

          1. Not yet. I’ll try that Bristol Farms again a week from Friday when the liquor guy said he would have it.

            1. I had both pliny and blind pig tonight.

            2. And if you’re ever in Placentia, I highly recommend giving Mr. K’s liquor by the Bruery a shot. He’s always got a great selection of beers (although, I’ll admit I haven’t seen Pliny there)

              1. Try Dick’s Liquor in Albuquerque.

  54. Ok this was good:
    (paraphrase) Fallon: Obama is playing soccer with a robot, and Biden is talking diplomacy with the president of Ukraine. It’s like a Freaky Friday!

  55. This just in from Derpbook:

    He didn’t pay his grazing fees for almost 20 years, the same exact fees every single other cattle rancher has to pay for using PUBLIC land. The racism just exacerbates what a complete asshole this guy is, and by proxy, the people that rushed out to support him. Like I said, if he was a black man, and New Black Panthers showed up with guns to defend him, conservatives would be cheering the arrests/deaths of the deadbeat welfare queen thugs. That isn’t even debatable. Unless you can show me one single instance of an armed militia ever showing up to support a person of color who was ACTUALLY wronged by the government that wasn’t arrested or murdered on site.

  56. Benfica looked good.

  57. Kings. Win.

  58. Is this a school night?

    1. Not for me.

  59. Wait, what about cocaine?

  60. Ridiculous reasoning by campus officials, but ideally campuses should be private property (they aren’t… really) and they should indeed be able to make these kinds of decisions.

  61. grammer be darned, you have SoCons to defend!

  62. Racial discrimination lawsuit filed against UH Hilo Associate Campus Center Director Lai Sha Bugado: http://westhawaiitoday.com/new…..on-uh-hilo

  63. UH Hilo student candidates ‘disqualified’ by same administrator, Ellen Kusano, responsible for free speech violation: http://www.uhhilowithaloha.com

  64. UH Hilo student candidates ‘disqualified’ by same administrator, Ellen Kusano, responsible for free speech violation: http://www.uhhilowithaloha.com
    http://www.bigislandvideonews……fications/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.