Obama Promises Immigration Action, NYT Says Low Evidence Standard 'Justified' in Campus Rape Trials, 'Adios Amigos' = Racist?: P.M. Links

|


  • KLM
    Wikimedia Commons

    President Barack Obama will take executive action on immigration reform. Calling his plan "administrative action," he promised to direct law enforcement resources away from deportation and toward border security. Republicans forced his hand by blocking meaningful legislation on the issue, he claimed.

  • The New York Times editorial board endorsed new federal government mandates for how colleges must handle sexual assault investigations. The government is perfectly justified in requiring campus judicial bodies to use a low burden of proof, according to the NYT.
  • The Democratic Party took the release of the Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn Supreme Court decisions as an opportunity to reignite its base for the upcoming November elections. DNC promotional material warned that a GOP takeover of the Senate would cement the gains made by conservatives at the Supreme Court today.
  • Dutch airline KLM apologized for tweeting "Adios Amigos!" after Mexico's loss to the Netherlands. No offense was intended, according to a KLM spokesperson, though some had construed the Tweet as racist.

Advertisement

NEXT: Missourians Freak Out Over Cheeky Fireworks Billboard (Which May Be Driving Up Local Meth Use!)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Dutch airline KLM apologized for tweeting “Adios Amigos!” after Mexico’s loss to the Netherlands.

    Obama will fix this with an executive order.

    1. Is tough-shit wetbacks! the more PC way to say it?

    2. “Adios, maricons!” would have been nice, since that’s what the Mexico fans were chanting at opponents taking penalties.

      1. I was exceedingly happy when Mexico lost, just so the pointless tongue-bath they were getting from the American sports media would finally end.

    3. Hello.

      KLM: Friendly banter no longer acceptable anymore, huh?

      Still. Robben is one cynical dude.

      1. KLM: Friendly banter no longer acceptable anymore, huh?

        Are you white?

        1. Yes.

          And damn-darn proud of it!

          Well, I’m more olive but whatever.

          1. Olive power!

          2. Ethnic pride is only moral if you’re not white. If you are white and you feel any pride for your heritage you are basically a nazi. Even an innocuous preference for sex partners of similar European descent, pretty much confirms that you are Heinrich Himmler reborn. As such, you owe it to all those to whom your existence offends, to bite a cyanide capsule. We thank you for your cooperation.

            Sincerely,
            ~Academia

    4. What’s so bad about “amigos”? Sounds more like good sportsmanship.

      1. They actually said in Spanish, “Go with God, my friends.”

        What a horrible, racist thing to say. They deserve whatever criticism they get.

    5. ObamaSteiner will fix this with an executive order.

    6. So, it’s racist now to address people in their native language? No comprendo.

      1. Yeah, I’m trying to learn Spanish now. I’d like to know if I’m racist. Although I’m white, so I’ll just assume yes.

        1. Your racism is innate, you were born with it, you were better cared for from birth, ergo you are privileged. Since you are privileged, you must denigrate yourself while at the same time ingratiating yourself to the unworthy.

          1. Your racism is innate, you were born with it

            The real original sin.

        2. Learn to grovel with conviction, TEABIGOT!!11!

    7. Goodbye, my friends.

      OMG — can I say that?

  2. An Indian province is turning the birthplace of one of its native sons into a museum –

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..CMP=twt_gu

    1. Sorry, an Indian *state,* not province.

    2. I’m so happy George Orwell is getting re-personed after the Grim Reaper unpersoned him. Now if only the idiotic government of India would pay attention to what he said…

  3. …he promised to direct law enforcement resources away from deportation and toward border security.

    The border he’s talking about is, of course, the cervix.

    1. Yeah, the cervix is apparently.. poorly defended, but.. for only ~$9 a month, you can transform it into an ‘impregnable fortress’…

      1. But not if your employed by a closely held corporation owned by believers.

  4. The Democratic Party took the release of the Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn Supreme Court decisions as an opportunity to reignite its base for the upcoming November elections. DNC promotional material warned that a GOP takeover of the Senate would cement the gains made by conservatives at the Supreme Court today.

    It’s not about right and wrong. It’s all about TEAM!

    1. But this could work out very well for them with a critical thinking-challenged voter base, coupled with past missteps on womens medical issues. Hell hath no fury…

  5. The government is perfectly justified in requiring campus judicial bodies to use a low burden of proof, according to the NYT.

    Because the Commerce Clause.

    1. New constitution-free zone! Add college campuses to the 100-mile wide area along the borders.

      1. And everywhere in-between…

  6. Calling his plan “administrative action,” he promised to direct law enforcement resources away from deportation and toward border security.

    The wingnuttery will never admit Obama wants more border security. They will say the opposite.

    1. Where’s the emails, dipshit?

      1. Sent to Mexico in hopes of trapping high-ranking Servicio de Impuestos Internos tax-lords….

  7. You know, only four links? That’s pretty lame.

    1. They only provide four varieties of link now because of religious reasons.

      1. I blame Bush.

      2. There is NO medical need for PM links.

        1. Why does anyone need so many PM links?

          /sarc

    2. No one reads the links anyway.

      1. Actually, I take that back. I don’t read the links until I see your reposts in the comments.

    3. The peace treaty with the Skwerlz only allows so many links.

      1. Too many links are a slippery slope to Talos worship..

    4. More than four links causes squirrels. At least that’s their best excuse yet.

    5. I’ll add a link. Uber gets its political ground game going – only way to get around the Cronies these days I guess.

      Trigger Warning. Daily Beast is all Hobby Lobby all the time:

      http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..chine.html

      1. Dammit you beat me.

        1. I’m usually pretty slow. Western time zone and busy job, unlike folks like Fist.

          1. My girlfriend always praises my quickness. I mean, I think she’s praising it…

  8. Apparently,the min. wage being raised has consequences.

    – Managers have taken more responsibilities on themselves, instead of hiring more workers.
    – Businesses have laid off workers, or eliminated their plans to hire more.
    – Area parking now comes with an added “living-wage surcharge.”
    – Hotels have cut employee benefits, free food, and overtime.

    1. Should I start a petition to deport my fellow Indian immigrant Kshama Sawant? If I start a petition, it won’t be racist, right? Who is with me?

      1. Can we trade her for Libertarian Indian Wimminz?

        1. There are no libertarian wimminz!

        2. “All your (libertarian) Wimminz are belong to us.”

    2. Something about foreseeable consequences… I had something for this.

    3. Area parking now comes with an added “living-wage surcharge.”

      Okay, that’s pretty damn funny. I wish more businesses would itemize voters’ stupidity.

    4. Potential SFed link alert…

  9. Second Pre-Release Release of Shadowboy

    I don’t yet have the cover art from my cover artist, but I do have the content completed, so I’ve put up the eBook edition for sale. I can update the cover later and early purchasers will get it updated. The price point was chosen simply because I paid my editor (and will be paying the cover artist if he ever delivers). I need to recoup that investment.

    I do plan on running promotional offers, but Amazon requires the price be unchanged for thirty days to avoid fraud where you set the ‘discount’ to your normal price to look as if you have a drastic markdown. The hardcopy edition will be released when I have gotten the cover from the artist (he says he’s “Almost done”).

    There is a reason special offer.

    But there’s no hardcopy edition yet, what happens if the cover artist bails? Then the hardcopy edition gets the black and gray cover I’m using as a placeholder. Though from the last progress piece I got, the odds are the artist will complete the cover (when is up for debate)

    US Amazon direct link (I don’t have a problem if that goes through the reason magazine Amazon affiliate storefront. It’s an incentive for them to not delete my posts.)

    Oh, and there’s a TV Tropes page for the book.

    1. I swear I’m not going to post it a third time, I got one AM and one PM links announcement.

  10. The Democratic Party took the release of the Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn Supreme Court decisions as an opportunity to reignite its base for the upcoming November elections.

    They’re going to ride that virtual explosion of outraged jizz all the way up to victory in November.

    1. If Q2 has another GDP contraction, the Dems are so screwed in November nobody will remember Hobby Horse or whatever.

      1. Weather, Congress hasn’t passed Obama’s jobs plan or amnesty? Plenty of excuses out there.

      2. ^This. I hate to give Republicans any good ideas, but if we’re officially in recession by Q2 then “it’s the economy, stupid” will be the most effective strategy. Screaming about the WoW (war on women {not World of Warcraft}) will seem amazingly off topic.

        Also, Obama’s border enforcement order is an attempt to co-opt growing anti-immigrant feelings as a result of the influx from O’s Dream executive order. By appearing to care about the border, he’s attempting to stem the bleeding Dems are going to face in the mid-terms.

        Obama effectively killed immigration reform with the Dream order and the subsequent influx making further action impossible.

  11. You know. It really burns me to hear liberals complain about today’s SCOTUS decision. Between the decision 2 years ago and today’s decision, I gather that if you are an atheist, your secular objections to the ACA are invalid.

    Liberals should be glad they got the penal-tax decision. Religious people aren’t the only people that have individual rights.

    1. I think the SCOTUS has done a damn good job. Heller and Citizens United were highlights but I could name lesser known cases that I agree with.

      Hamdi V Bushpig was excellent as well as the EPA cases.

      I am a fucking FAN!

      1. The SCOTUS will listen to your defense of individual freedom ONLY if it’s based on your religious beliefs.

        If your defense of individual freedom is based on secular reasoning, well too bad. The law is the law.

        1. Read the 1st Amendment. “Free exercise” means the government can’t force you to do something that is against your religion. By implication that means religious objections get special treatment. It is in the damned text.

          1. I’m not arguing that religious beliefs don’t get special consideration.

            I’m just saying that religious freedom is not the only kind of individual freedom.

            Just because you’re non-religious doesn’t mean you have fewer constitutional protections. That’s called Equal Protection.

            1. Sure it is not the only kind of freedom. So what. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t a specifically protected freedom and limit on government action.

              Again, there isn’t a “but I hate this shit” protection written into the BOR.

              1. “Again, there isn’t a “but I hate this shit” protection written into the BOR.”

                Freedom to peaceably assemble. At least in the HL context, that the “but I hate this shit” protection. Unfortunately Congress has abridged that part of the First Amendment, despite the plain text of the Constitution.

                1. Tshmnster,

                  I think the entire ACA is unconstitutional for a lot of reasons. Mostly because the feds don’t have the power to force people to engage in commerce. That said, the states most certainly do. But they still wouldn’t have the power to coerce people to do things against their religion.

                  Again, your problem is with the 1st Amendment.

                  1. “Free exercise” means the government can’t force you to do something that is against your religion.

                    It’s against my religion (moral principles) to pay taxes. But FYTW says the govt. The govt can force you to do lots of things.

          2. Read the 1st Amendment. “Free exercise” means the government can’t force you to do something that is against your religion. By implication that means religious objections get special treatment. It is in the damned text.

            By implication, free exercise means also not exercising. It’s hardly reasonable to argue that a superstitious objection should supersede a reasonable one, especially reasonable moral objections.

        2. And you are protected under the 1st Amendment as an atheist. The government can’t establish a state religion. That is the bargain, the government can’t force you to be religious and it can’t make religious people do things that violate their religion.

          1. The 14th Amendment says I have just as much protection as a religious people receive under the First Amendment.

            1. No it doesn’t. The 14th Amendment just applies the BOR to the states. It doesn’t give you anything that wasn’t already in the BOR. And as much as it chaps your ass as an atheists, religious views get special protection under the 1st Amendment. Your problem is with the free exercise clause not the court.

              1. Boiling vs. Sharpe

                1. *Bolling

              2. Even if this is a state’s issue, the fact that the ACA is administrated at the state level still brings Equal Protection into consideration.

                1. So what? The state is free to say “Hobby Lobby gets a pass” and no one else does. Equal protection doesn’t mean everyone gets treated the same. It means the government has to have a valid reason for treating people differently.

                  Again, you are just butt hurt about religion getting special protection under the 1st Amendment.

                  1. The 1st Amendment wasn’t a bargain for atheists to not get a state religion. It was a bargain for a bunch of superstitious assholes with conflicting beliefs to prevent one another imposing their preferred superstition on everyone else. The first amendment is as much about Freedom From Religion as anything else.

                  2. I’m not butt-hurt and you probably know my feelings toward religion. But, if 1A allow for a freedom of religion, then that’s a completely, justifiable, legit reason for the ruling. It’s the entire point of that particular freedom. As you note, it’s the very same freedom that prevents me from being discriminated against for non-belief. Principle count.

                    Of course, as you note, ACA shouldn’t be a law in the first place.

                    1. Please add an “s” in the two places that would make you think I can speak English.

                    2. Piss Guy?

                    3. **Rimshot**

          2. The problem with that is, what’s really the difference between “I can’t do that because it’s against my religion,” “I can’t do that because some guy told me not to,” and “I don’t want to do that”? Essentially, that’s saying that the government can’t make people do things that they really really don’t want to. Which is fine with me, but I’m a nut after all.

            1. All you are saying Warty is “I don’t think religion is a special objection”. Well, maybe it shouldn’t be. But the fact is that it is special under the 1st Amendment. Religion gets special protection that “I really fucking hate this” objections don’t. There is no guarantee of “not being forced by the government to do anything you don’t like”. There is a guarantee of not being forced by the government to do something that violates your religion.

              1. It’s the same as the question of what counts as a religion. The Pope telling people to give him their money and not to wear condoms gets more respect than David Koresh gibbering about how he needs more child brides. Without an established church, how do you decide these things?

                1. If atheists want to start calling themselves a religion, have fun. Beyond that “what is a religion” is a hard question but one that the courts must necessarily answer by virtue of it being a protected right.

                  Again, religion really is special under the Constitution.

                  1. Beyond that “what is a religion” is a hard question but one that the courts must necessarily answer by virtue of it being a protected right.

                    This gets back to government defining what religious beliefs are. If the person asserts its their religious belief, good enough.

              2. Who determines “what is a religion?”

                Can I just join up with some libertarians and exempt ourselves from authoritarian bullshit? Sounds good. We will say we heard it on the wind that we don’t have to fund wars and transfer payments.

                1. Who determines “what is a religion?”

                  I believe that would be the IRS.

                  1. There is a blurry line between political conviction and religion belief. In ancient Athens and Rome, the two were not considered separate spheres.

                  2. If your faith was sufficiently strong, you too would be a non-profit.

                    / TheTaxMan

                2. Harry Browne appeared to me in a dream last night. He told me that if I was a good Libertarian I would go to heaven.

                  Ok, so now it is a religion.

                  1. It worked for Swedenborgians, no? If L. Ron or Joe Smith or Mary B. can start a religion, then maybe libertarians should too. Then 100 years from now, it would be accepted and our “you don’t own me and I don’t own any of you” catechism might be accepted.

                  2. Harry Browne appeared to me in a dream last night. He told me that if I was a good Libertarian I would go to heaven.

                    Ok, so now it is a religion.

                    I’m of a different, but related sect. I believe that when Christ said “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, he meant it, but NONE OF MY SHIT BELONGS TO CAESAR so I don’t have to give him anything. It’s kind of the inverse of “you didn’t build that”. So we’re both conscientious tax objectors.

                    1. I’m in the same sect as you!

            2. The problem with that is, what’s really the difference between “I can’t do that because it’s against my religion,” “I can’t do that because some guy told me not to,” and “I don’t want to do that”?

              There is no difference. And government organs making those distinctions means there is no freedom of religion.

              And I don’t think that the First Amendment means that religion gets special treatment. What it should mean is that if a law violates anyone’s religious freedom, then the law should not apply to anyone. This special exceptions bullshit is very dangerous and will just lead to a list of state approved religions and religious beliefs. Which seems to me to be quite the opposite of what the First is supposed to guarantee.

              1. if a law violates anyone’s religious freedom, then the law should not apply to anyone.

                This.

    2. The 1st Amendment says

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

      Religion is a special right and is afforded special protection under the constitution. If you choose not to have religious views, you are free to do that. But unless you want to change the Constitution, people who do have such views get protections you don’t get.

      1. …Equal Protection Clause…14th Amendment…blah, blah, blah.

        1. The equal protection clause guarantees you equal protection under the law, it doesn’t repeal the 1st Amendment.

          1. The 14th Amendment and Bolling vs. Sharpe modifies the First Amendment so that any protection that the First Amendment gives to religious people can’t be construed as an unequal protection that non-religious people aren’t afforded.

            1. No it isn’t. Boiling is about the DC Public schools. It didn’t concern religion. There is no case law I am aware of that says all people must be able to avail themselves of any objection that someone uses as a religious objection.

            2. I should say, I bring up Bolling vs. Sharpe in that it modified the 14th Amendment to have applicability to federal law.

              My main contention is that the original Equal Protection law modifies the First Amendment in such a way that the protections are equal across all groups of people.

              1. I think that the original text supports that too. It says “Congress shall make no law”, not “no law shall be applied in such a way as to infringe on religious freedom”. So if the law violates someone’s religious freedom, then the whole law is invalid, not just the specific application of the law.

    1. What’s awesome is the number of people who are sending hate tweets to @SCOUTUSblog, like in this case. And their responses, which are equally awesome.

      1. That’s what that tweet originated out of. That person made an idiotic tweet @SCOTUSblog, I responded complementing them on their response, the person in question responded questioning the size of my genetalia. Which is probably all she had in her repertoire, looking at her timeline.

        1. You have to tweet a pic of your junk. There is simply no other option.

          1. My wife would kill me. Though she told me she was trying to think of a good response, since the original tweeter blocked me.

    2. Holy shit, the SCOTUSblog feed is hilarious. Apparently a lot of idiots think it’s the actual Supreme Court.

      SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ? 45m
      No contraception, not safe MT @rappublicist: Seriously f@ck those senile pr@cks at @SCOTUSblog AND @HobbyLobbyStore

      1. I’m getting lots of lulz on this boring afternoon thanks to that link.

      2. It’s almost to beautiful to read.

        1. Especially if you pronounce the @ as an emphatic “a” sound. Seriously fA!ck those senile prA!cks.

          1. SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ? 6h
            It won’t be televised here MT @cjnkira: @SCOTUSblog you ruled against the working people, especially women, today. Revolution is coming.

      3. SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog ? 3h
        You want @drfreudblog RT @flowercamille: @SCOTUSblog it’s a shame that your mothers didn’t use birth control to prevent you and your idiocy

        1. It’s still amazing to me the level of seething butthurt progressives work themselves up to when they can’t force other people to fall in line.

          1. When everything you believe is for everyone else’s own good, and for the progress of society to utopia on earth, differences of opinion are intolerable.

  12. Roll that beautiful bean footage!

    http://www.WentAnon.tk

  13. “Whether or not I receive contraception is none of my employer’s business.” – People who want to force their employer to pay for their contraception.

  14. Can someone please explain how the KLM comment is racist?

    1. Speaking Spanish to Mexicans is obviously racist.

      1. How about “remember the Alamo?”

        1. “Remember San Jacinto” is a better burn.

    2. It made someone think of something that sounded like a racist statement, which is what counts nowadays. That’s the problem with Twitter being so niggardly with character counts.

      1. I giggled at this. OUT LOUD.

    3. Because if you say Auf Wiedersehn to a German, it would be racist too. Same thing as saying Namaste to an Indian.

      1. “Namastee, bitches.”

        Was that a MadTV skit? Chicago yoga?

      2. Later to an alligator.

    4. Check your privilege.

      1. There’s also that word they use…

        Don’t speak Spanish if you’re not Iberian or Indo-American or something like that.

        And don’t dress up in kimonos if you are a round eye.

        1. Cultural Appropriation is what I was thinking of — latest sin from the check your privilege gang.

    5. Within minutes of the Netherlands’ 2-1 victory over the Tri, KLM let loose on its Twitter feed a picture of an airport departures sign under the heading “Adios Amigos!” Next to the word “Departures” is the image of a man with a mustache wearing a sombrero.

      The post immediately went viral, with A-list Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal using not one but two expletives in a 140-character Tweet to tell his 2 million-plus followers that he’ll never fly the carrier again.

      1. Senor Garcia Bernal should prove first of all that he’s ever flown on KLM.

        Historians used to refer to a certain time in American history as the Era of Good Feelings. Perhaps in the future our era will be referred to as the Era of Hurt Feelings.

      2. She wrote it on a letter
        But it didn’t make him feel any better
        With love
        She says goodbye, adios, farewell

      3. “A-list Mexican actor.” That’s funny.

      4. And I’m going to fly KLM more now that mexicans won’t be on the flights.

        1. “And I’m going to fly KLM more now that Mexicans won’t be on the flights.”

          It will make the terrorists easier to spot..

      5. the image of a man with a mustache wearing a sombrero

        Which is racist when a Dutch company does it, but not racist when thousands of Mexican fans in the stadium do it.

        1. Shhh, you’ll spoil the narrative.. dick!

      6. A-List? Who the f#?& is Gael Garcia Bernal??

      7. Mexico doesn’t have any A-list actors.

    6. “Racist” has finally become meaningless.

  15. Dutch airline KLM apologized for tweeting “Adios Amigos!” after Mexico’s loss to the Netherlands. No offense was intended, according to a KLM spokesperson, though some had construed the Tweet as racist.

    Fuckwits.

    1. “Dutch airline KLM apologized for tweeting “Adios Amigos!” after Mexico’s loss to the Netherlands. No offense was intended

      HA!

      FYTW, mexico. I think shit-talking is completely legit and a sport of its own.

  16. Professor Bob, aka Robert Tilton, aka The Farting Preacher, attempts a physics lesson.

    Trigger Warning: speaking in tongues.

  17. It would be nice if someone in the media would bother to tell the truth about the child alien issue. It is not some evil Fox Priven plot by Obama. It is totally the result of what should have been foreseeable consequences of idiotic government actions.

    The root of the problem is the 2008 Victims of Human Trafficking Act. That act makes it virtually impossible to deport an unaccompanied minor. When you ad that to Obama declaring it shall be the policy to reunite unaccompanied minors with their families in the US, you see why this is happening. They created a system whereby any illegals living in the US could bring their kids up to live with them legally buy just having them show up at the border alone. Just pay the Mexican Mafia a few thousand dolls to deposit you kid at the border and the US government will do the rest. Needless to say once word of this got out, anyone in central America who had family in the US and the means to pay the smugglers just put their kids on the road to the US. This has been going on for a couple of years. It has just finally generated enough momentum for people to notice.

    1. WTF? Who are you and what did you do with John?

      1. When you ad that to

        It’s John, alright.

        1. I don’t know. All of a sudden pure, pristine accuracy sprang from his account.

          It’s got to be a trick.

    2. I thought all that alien abduction stuff was just stoners, and charlatans hypnotizing people to sell books.

  18. I typed “Obama to bypass congress on…” into Google, and got =

    Obama to bypass congress on climate change
    Obama to bypass congress on gun control
    Obama to bypass congress on bergdahl
    Obama to bypass congress on immigration
    Obama to bypass congress on syria
    Obama to bypass congress on debt ceiling

    by typing the words in different orders i also got

    Obama to bypass constitution
    Obama to bypass minimum wage law

    1. “Khalif, he don’t like it.”

      1. Elif air ab tizak!

    2. At least that Godwin chap showed his legislature the courtesy of forcing through the Erm?chtigungsgesetz.

  19. “Obama Promises”…

    No need to go further.

  20. So using Spanish and referencing a hat that is indigenous to Spain and/or Mexico, is racist?? Is speaking in a German accent about lager racist? Are the “Simpsons” racist for featuring an Indian entrepreneur?

    (trigger warning: answer to all questions above is “no”)

    1. Is speaking in a German accent about lager racist?

      It’s wearing the Pickelhaube that makes it racist.

  21. The Germans are going to keep fucking around and lose this game.

    1. Algeria is really playing well but I’d be surprised if they pull this off.

    2. Germany vs France has to happen.

      1. France v Algeria probably more fanatical.

        Bah.

        France got some calls their way today. Shoulda had a guy sent off.

        1. Hmm, France vs. Algeria. Replay of the Battle of Algiers?

          1. Thinking along those lines.

    3. You know who else… ah fuck it.

    4. Germany vs. Algeria is a good revenge game (should Algeria win), though it’s revenge for something that happened at the World Cup 32 years ago.

      1. Yeah but if there’s gonna be a favorable call in this game it won’t go Algeria’s way. German player went studs up and didn’t even get a caution.

        Neuer reads the play well. He’s like Brodeur out there.

        1. Man, the Germans keep kicking it right at Algerians… are they confused about how the scoring works?

          1. Low is freaking out on the sidelines.

        2. I heard something about the USMNT being worried about having an Algerian referee tomorrow. Are they afraid there will be payback for 2010? Seems odd.

  22. From the NYTimes piece: Even as the Obama administration takes on this issue, skeptics ? including libertarians and lawyers representing students accused of misconduct…

    Typical Times quality.

    1. So I guess a lawyer representing an accused is now just a skeptic of criminal law.

      1. More accurately, a skeptic of trumped up law.

    2. We should be proud that the Times hates and fears us enough to put us in print.

    1. WTF is this thing called? Thanks for leading me to this.

      1. I believe it’s known as “cleavage”

      2. How to say this…um, the derringer suits her.

        1. Oh, very well-played.

      3. Nothing is more un-nerving than a woman waving a gun around going, “and what does this part do…?”

  23. From gov’t, here to help, etc.

    http://www.kansascity.com/news…..40180.html

    1. Jesus. That is unbelievable. They’re even spending the guy’s own money to fund the case against him. What in the fuck…

      1. Land of the free.

    2. “I believe we have done above and beyond our requirements with this person and all the people we are appointed to serve,”

      Tone deaf, self-righteous cunt.

      1. Just a run-of-the-mill power-mad bureaucrat, who sees those they rule as things to be manipulated. A quintessential example of the banality of evil.

    3. So he’s effectively a prisoner who has not been charged, let alone convicted, of a crime.

      1. Hoarding is a crime, apparently. They really want to go after the preppers.

        1. Anti-“hoarding” laws have been around since WW2, at least. Clinton passed Executive Order 10998, which grants the Federal government the power to seize stockpiled food.

          1. Odd.. I don’t see any mention of a Executive Order 10998A, recognizing the authority of the stockpiled food owner to execute those agents looters who would try and take it. Talk about an egregious ‘equal protection’ violation…

    4. This was an even-handed, well-researched and expertly-supported article. And the government still comes off looking like a Kafka-esque monster.

    5. What happens if you compulsively throw stuff away. Is there a name for that? Purger?

      I have to admit I’ve had a hard time grasping the 1 terabyte disk drive. Having cut my teeth on a PDP-11 with a 10 megabyte disk drive throwing stuff away became a survival procedure. What, I can keep 400 photos of my thumb in front of the lens now?

      1. Lois Lernerism

    6. Despicable. Telling that his appointed attorney is still citing privacy concerns even after Flentie okayed.

      Flentie’s supporters wonder: If hoarding and hygiene were such problems, why no middle measures, like help for him at home, a cleaner, a nurse to manage medications? Why the rush to full guardianship?

      Because he could have told the busybodies to fuck off – as he should be able to.

    7. The court reasoned that because Flentie’s court-appointed attorney at the original hearing did not object to the “same day” service of the notice, failed to appeal and later went forward with a restoration hearing, Flentie had “waived” his claim that the law was violated.

      On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued no opinion in denying Sternberg’s application to hear the case.

      So, one person working for the government didn’t adequately protect him from other people working for the government, so fuck him?


  24. SJWs in the wild.

    This one is a bit difficult. Feminist activists vs those black isreal dudes. It’s like a conflagration of crazy.

    1. “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!!! MOOOOOOOOOOOMMM!!!! HE PUSHED ME!!!!!!!!!!?

      1. This is a very accurate assessment of the incident. That woman is VERY stupid. I never have sympathy for idjits who poke beehives getting stung.

    2. At least the dude knew the proper etymology of rape. Props for that.

      1. Is it bad that I just presume people know that? Latin has made me smug, I think.

    3. It’s not too difficult. She’s a stupid bitch, but pushing her was an inappropriate (albeit understandable) response to her provocation.

      1. It appears, in her attempt to maintain presence in the camera frame (if you didn’t know it from the #yesallwomen shirt, that behavior is a clue that she’s an activists), she bumped into them. The cops agreed. While it was inappropriate, it was a legal response. And the fact that she bumped into them again after the first push back made it intentional battery.

        It’s amazing I can root for people who routinely shout “fuck all white people”, but there you go.

        1. I really had a tough time deciding who I wanted to lose here.

          I just kept hoping for a fire or a truck on the sidewalk.

  25. Uber and Airbnb have built multibillion-dollar empires by operating in places where they are illegal, and so they are turning political to protect themselves.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..chine.html

    I know that the DB is trying to scare me with rhetoric like that, but all it’s doing is giving me a liberty-boner. *Warning: last two paragraphs may induce lethal levels of rage.

  26. What do you do when you want to land your AV-8B Harrier on an amphibious assault ship but your nose-wheel doesn’t work?

    1. haha, stool…

  27. So I take it we are one SCOTUS appointment away from Congress being turned into a rubber stamp and suspension of all civil liberties. Oh joy.

  28. Dutch airline KLM apologized for tweeting “Adios Amigos!” after Mexico’s loss to the Netherlands. No offense was intended, according to a KLM spokesperson, though some had construed the Tweet as racist.

    Reading this is not a surprise but it still manages to provide instantaneous frustration. By this standard, if a Mexican were to say “Dach, mijn vriend!” I’d get to call him a “feckless Brown Supremecist”, right?

    1. It might have been more the bandito caricature that was included in the tweet. Although it’s still an absurd thing to get upset about.

      1. Yeah my wife is Dutch and stays wired to Dutch news outlets. After I had posted she told me it was more about the cartoon.

  29. Dutch airline KLM apologized for tweeting “Adios Amigos!” after Mexico’s loss to the Netherlands.

    Cada palabra en espa?ol es racista.

  30. So do Reason’s editors support this bypassing of Congress on immigration reform?

    1. We all appreciate your tiresome vigilance in protecting us from the cosmotarian threat.

    2. Obviously. The President is only a tyrant when he does something the Kochs don’t like.

      Food trucks!

      Shut-up widget, you NAZI.

    3. I, for one, approve of the fact that immigration reform (with E-Verify) isn’t happening.

      If Obama can further undermine bipartisan cooperation, that’s a good thing.

      1. Well then let Obama have the IRS audit your ass until every penny you thought you made is taken from you. No mercy, you piece of shit.

    4. Come on man, they voted for Obama for a reason.

  31. KLM should have said “adios mucrotchos”. Now, that might be considered racist. I just think it’s funny.

  32. Adorable puppy teabagging a cat.

    Because it’s Monday and everyone needs a little happiness.

    TED S. trigger warning. It’s a gif.

  33. I’m confused. Mexican is now a “race”?
    If it isn’t, then which ‘race’ is KLM disparaging? All the really, really white people I see on Telemundo?

    1. +1 White-Hispanic

    2. The only word that comes to mind is jingoism, but i don’t think that’s strictly applicable either.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.