United Kingdom

Britain Poised to Muzzle 'Extremist' Speech

The country that gave us free expression may be backpedaling.

|

Censorship
terminallychll / Foter / CC BY

In Britain, if you have extreme views on anything from Western democracy to women's role in public life, you might soon require a licence from the government before you can speak in public. Seriously.

Nearly 350 years after us Brits abolished the licensing of the press, whereby every publisher had to get the blessing of the government before he could press and promote his ideas, a new system of licensing is being proposed. And it's one which, incredibly, is even more tyrannical than yesteryear's press licensing since it would extend to individuals, too, potentially forbidding ordinary citizens from opening their gobs in public without officialdom's say-so.

It's the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron's government. May wants to introduce "extremism disruption orders", which, yes, are as terrifyingly authoritarian as they sound.

Last month, May unveiled her ambition to "eliminate extremism in all its forms." Whether you're a neo-Nazi or an Islamist, or just someone who says things which betray, in May's words, a lack of "respect for the rule of law" and "respect for minorities", then you could be served with an extremism disruption order (EDO).

Strikingly, EDOs will target even individuals who do not espouse or promote violence, which is already a crime in the U.K. As May says, "The problem that we have had is this distinction of saying we will only go after you if you are an extremist that directly supports violence. [This] has left the field open for extremists who know how not to step over the line." How telling that a leading British politician should be snotty about "this distinction" between speech and violence, between words and actions, which isn't actually some glitch in the legal system, as she seems to think, but rather is the foundation stone on which every free, democratic society ought to be built.

Once served with an EDO, you will be banned from publishing on the Internet, speaking in a public forum, or appearing on TV. To say something online, including just tweeting or posting on Facebook, you will need the permission of the police. There will be a "requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web, social media or print." That is, you will effectively need a licence from the state to speak, to publish, even to tweet, just as writers and poets did in the 1600s before the licensing of the press was swept away and modern, enlightened Britain was born (or so we thought).

What sort of people might find themselves branded "extremists" and thus forbidden from speaking in public? Anyone, really. The definition of extremist being bandied about by May and her colleagues is so sweeping that pretty much all individuals with outré or edgy views could potentially find themselves served with an EDO and no longer allowed to make any public utterance without government approval.

So you won't have to incite violence to be labelled an extremist —in May's words, these extremism-disrupting orders will go "beyond terrorism." May says far-right activists and Islamist hotheads who have not committed any crime or incited violence could be served with an order to shut the hell up. She has also talked about people who think "a woman's intellect [is] deficient," or who have "denounced people on the basis of their religious beliefs," or who have "rejected democracy"—these folk, too, could potentially be branded extremists and silenced. In short, it could become a crime punishable by gagging to be a sexist or a religion-hater or someone who despises democracy.

Never mind violence, you won't even have to incite hatred in order to be judged an extremist. As one newspaper report sums it up, the aim is "to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred," but anyone who indulges in "harmful activities" that could cause "public disorder" or "alarm or distress" or a "threat to the functioning of democracy." (By "harmful activities", the government really means "harmful words"—there's that Orwellian slip again.) This is such a cynically flabby definition of extremism that it could cover any form of impassioned, angry political or moral speech, much of which regularly causes "alarm or distress" to some of the people who hear it.

As some Christian campaigners recently pointed out, they are frequently accused by their opponents of being "extremists" and of "spreading hatred" simply for opposing gay marriage and taking other traditional stances. Will they potentially be silenced for saying extreme things and causing distress? It's not beyond the realms of possibility, given that May has said that anyone who wants to avoid being thought of as an extremist should "respect British values and institutions" and express "respect for minorities." Slamming gay marriage could very well be read as disrespect for a British institution (gay marriage was legalised here this year) and disrespect for a minority.

What the government is proposing is the punishment of thoughtcrimes, plain and simple. Its insistence that officialdom must now move beyond policing violence and incitements to violence and start clamping down on hotheaded, "harmful" speech that simply distresses people is about colonising the world of thought, of speech, of mere intellectual interaction between individuals—spheres officialdom has no business in policing.

But self-styled progressives, members of the left and those who consider themselves liberal, don't have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging May's tyrannical proposals. For it is was their own arguments, their claims over the past decade that "hate speech" is dangerous and must be controlled and curbed, that gave legitimacy to May's vast silencing project, that inflamed the government's belief that it has the right to police heated minds and not just heated behaviour.

For the best part of two decades, so-called progressives have been spreading fear about the impact of dodgy words and dangerous ideas on the fabric of society. On campuses, in academia, in public life, they've continually pushed the notion that words hurt, that they cause terrible psychic damage, especially to vulnerable groups, wrecking people's self-esteem and making individuals feel worthless. From Britain's student-union officials who have banned Robin Thicke's 'Blurred Lines' in the name of protecting "students' wellbeing" to feminists who have demanded (and won) the arrest and imprisonment of misogynistic trolls, a climate of intolerance towards testy and vulgar speech has already been created in Britain, and the government is merely milking it.

May's proposal to set up a system of licensing for speech, essentially to provide a license to those who respect British values and deny it to those who don't, is the ugly, authoritarian endpoint to the mad obsession with hate speech that has enveloped much of the Western world in recent years.

We should defend extremists. Extremism can be good. I'm an extremist, especially on freedom of speech, which I don't think should ever be limited. Extremists enliven public debate; they sex it up, stir it up, forcing us all to rethink our outlooks and attitudes and sometimes to change our minds. A world without extremists would be conformist and dull and spiritually and intellectually dead.

Let's remember the words of the 17th-century poet John Milton in his impassioned argument against those authorities that last tried to license public expression: "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." Guess what was said about Milton after he said those words? Yep, he was called an extremist.

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.

379 responses to “Britain Poised to Muzzle 'Extremist' Speech

  1. Is there any longer any doubt that government is the enemy of the people?

    1. You are missing the point, WE IN GOVERNMENT HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THIS. I’m happy to see our counter parts across the pond are all ready overtly banning this, we in the US Government are able to coerce you people into silence with a very high success rate but do not have legislative authority to do so yet. Not that that matters much because most of you good little americans will cheer us on as we drag someone off for insubordinate speech. Its you “extreme” few that are so unpatriotic as to think differently.

      http://youareproperty.blogspot…..ality.html

    2. Unrestrained and unlimited government, as exists in the UK and most of the world, yes. Limited government on the other hand is the protector of liberty. You know this shit wouldn’t fly in the US.

      1. Right.

        That’s what I thought about many things prior to 9/11.

      2. What are you talking about? Cyber-bullying statutes, free speech zones, hate-speech laws, and a whole bunch of *explicit* support for banning unpopular ‘extremist’ speech such as non-pro-global warming talk and anything that ‘makes our war efforts harder’.

        1. Hate speech laws? Where? The cyberbullying laws aren’t going to withstand constitutional scrutiny.

          You can find *explicit* support of any whackjob view in any country. The point is that nothing like what the UK Home Sec is proposing could possibly survive as a law in the US.

          1. We do have hate speech laws in the form of bias intimidation and hate crimes.

            If any act that would otherwise be a minor misdeamenor can be linked with any discriminatory speech against a protected group, your act is automatically escalated into a felony bias intimidation or hate crime.

            We also have speech laws against incitement. Note that it doesn’t punish actors who riot but the people making speech that authorities think provides them the motivation.

            We also have obscenity laws.

            1. There needs to be an overt criminal act, not mere speech, for so-called “hate crimes” laws to have effect. And it’s not the speech that causes the escalation, it’s the discriminatory intent of the overt criminal act. True, the speech can be used to prove such intent, but that’s a big difference… the things you say can be used against you in a trial for any crime.

              Incitement and obscenity laws are almost never successfully prosecuted, they’re essentially dead letters.

              1. That’s good. It’s not good ENOUGH, but it’s good.

      3. What are you talking about. I have to register and license my guns in many states, not sure how speech is any different.

        1. You can’t kill a person with speech, for starters.

          1. derp

            Shall not be infringed.

            Well we aren’t infringing, we are just ensuring you keep and bear the types of arms we determine acceptable.

            Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech

            Well we aren’t abridging, we are just ensuring you speak on topics we determine acceptable.

            Stick your head a little further up your ass.

            1. One of the Volokhers, I forget which, said the founders would not consider laws prohibiting slander etc as abridging the freedom of speech because the concept “freedom of speech” is understood to not include lies, slander, etc. IOW, freedom of speech itself is already an abridged concept, as defined by the founders and constitution, presumably as revealed by the Supreme Court.

              Lawyers love to quibble. Government lawyers, including judges, are statists at heart and are especially orgasmic about quibbling which increases government power.

              1. There were laws against those things before, during, and after the Constitutional and Bill of Rights ratification process. Obviously the ratifiers didn’t see a contradiction at the time.

                This literalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights is a relatively modern invention, and I’m not sure anyone really believes it, since even literalists don’t think death threats and perjury are protected speech.

                1. The moral of my story was not whether slander should be illegal, but that the Volokh lawyer had such a flexible definition which makes it so easy for a government to justify any abridgement of freedom of speech. It has nothing to do with a literal interpretation, everything to with a statist interpretation.

                  Your inability to comprehend that shows you have swallowed the statist KoolAid.

                  1. Blame the morons who wrote the amendment that way.

                    They didn’t follow what it actually says then and we can’t follow what it actually says now. So you need a flexible definition.

                    1. Prior restraint of speech is unconstitutional. You can be sued for slander, but the government may not close down your newspaper because you print slanderous things. It is the rule of law for things expressed, not restraint of one’s ability to speak as he will before the fact.

                    2. Ah yes, the old statist root password to governance: flexible definitions, interpreted by them.

              2. You’re right, they didn’t approve of libel or slander. Then as now it’s a civil matter.

          2. fuck off slaver

          3. You can’t kill a person with speech, for starters.

            Hitler was pretty damn good at it. AFAIK, he personally never lit an oven or pulled a trigger (well, up until he offed himself, anyway). He convinced a hell of a lot of other people to do it for him, using speech. ~50,000,000 dead were the result.

            1. How cute to see the “libertarians” parrot the arguments of those who want to suppress speech.

              None of those people were killed by speech.

              1. No, they were killed by people who were motivated by speech. The fact that you don’t understand this….well, it explains a lot about your worldview, and it doesn’t paint a pretty picture.

                Free speech is important for the same reason that the right to bear arms is important. It is a form of power, the power to persuade, the power to rally others to your cause and make it stick. It is a force multiplier, helping to organize and unify people in action. There is a reason that the saying “The pen is mightier than the sword” exists. The fact that it can be used for something awful doesn’t negate the fact that it can be, and more often is, used for good, and it is necessary for people to remain truly free. And that goes for guns and free speech both.

                1. No, they were killed by people who were motivated by speech.

                  Which, even if speech were the only motivation (it wasn’t — in many cases the killers were FORCED to kill under penalty of their own lives), is a mighty huge flerking difference! Speech by itself can be rebutted or ignored. If Hitler were just a random guy in the street saying shit about Jews, it would be hard to blame him for the Holocaust. But he wasn’t, he was in charge of a massive coercive system. Orders aren’t just speech, they’re implicit threats.

              2. The point is not that speech is dangerous. Speach has always been dangerous, and the printing and ress more so, and religion all that cubed. The point is that the Founders, although many believed that they were redundent since no sensible person could read the basic Constitution and believe that the State had the power to regulate any sort of speech or ownership of weapons, explicitly made the FIRST TWO Constitutional Amendments instructions that the government had to leage several VERY DANGEROUS things unregulated.

                Because the government is more dangerous.

                1. Speach has always been dangerous, and the printing and ress more so, and religion all that cubed.

                  Dangerous to whom and in what way?

                  I’m talking about dangers to individuals and to public safety in general. Not whatever figurative dangers speech and the press represent to “the status quo” or “the government” or whatnot. Conflating the two is going to help the enemies of free speech.

                  BTW, many of the Founders were in Congress and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, blatantly violating the First Amendment, barely 10 years after they passed the First Amendment.

                  1. If you don’t see speech, religion, and printing as “dangerous” to individuals and public safety, then may I suggest you do some reading up on “rabble rousing”, “lynching”, “riots”, and related topics?

                    As to guns, the statistics on gun control laws and public safety seems to support the idea that overall and armed citizenry is safer than an unarmed one.

              3. They weren’t killed by SS guards either, or their guns, and not even by the bullets fired from those guns when the guards pulled the triggers on orders (verbal or written) from the chain of command which started with Hitler.

                No, they were killed by natural causes initiated by loss of blood.

                1. HAHAHAHAHAHA

                  So now I’ve got you down for “speech kills” and “who knows what coercion is anyway”. Not your finest libertarian moment.

                  1. Good to know you can laugh at your own mendacity.

      4. Yeah sure that must be why Obama using the 1918 sedition act to imprison journalists is actually happening in Canada not the US.

  2. How long will it take before criticism of the current government is ‘extremist’?

    1. It already is – we in government own the definition & application of words and alter them as we see fit. Its what keeps you people safe and free.

    2. It already happens in the U.S.

      Tea Party

      1. In reality, the ‘Tea Party’ is a minority and could rightfully claim distress by being insulted by hateful terms like teabagger or being called racists…but that irony would be lost on anyone behind an absurd law like this.

      2. Where in the US is the Tea Party forced to get government permission to express its views?

        1. Anyplace with a free speech zone?

        2. Was that the question posed?

          Or was it that criticism of government. Beibg characterized as extremist?

          1. Weak. We’re talking about coercion, not people saying silly things.

            1. Define coercion. If the cop turns his red light on, is that coercion? If the judge says pay up, is that coercion?

              1. Now you’re trying to obfuscate the definition of coercion.

                This thread is a hilarious exploration of “libertarians” defending their cherished paranoias by making incredibly unlibertarian arguments.

                1. Bow you’re trying for the third time to pretend ignorance of your statist attitudes.

            2. Actually no, you’re talking in a subthread that was about characterizing certain speech as extremist.

        3. in Washington DC, by the IRS. You really should try paying more attention to what’s going on.

          1. You don’t need a tax exemption to express your views.

            And the IRS has been condemned by people on both sides of the aisle and is forced to pretend it didn’t discriminate against TP groups. Matches pretty well with what I said “this shit wouldn’t fly in the US”

            1. And yet, my example goes unaddressed.

            2. And the IRS has been condemned by people on both sides of the aisle and is forced to pretend it didn’t discriminate against TP groups. Matches pretty well with what I said “this shit wouldn’t fly in the US”

              Oh, well that’s okay. So long as they ‘are forced to pretend’ they didn’t discriminate after the discrimination has already occurred, we shouldn’t worry about the IRS purposefully giving left wing groups a political advantage.

              You’ve convinced me.

              1. Your ability to miss the point is almost Neo-like. What the IRS did, while very wrong, was not speech-restricting.

                1. Turd.Burglar.

                2. It was certainly speech-restricting: the TP had to either pay special taxes for espousing their point of view, or jump through hoops to get exemption. In practice they ended up doing both.

                  Imagine an explicit tax on Republicans or Muslims or something and think about how speech-restricting that is.

    3. I wonder if this will include holocaust denial which is already illegal in many EU countries. I’mean sure it will be arbitrary. Governments love to use words with very broad definitions in their laws.

      1. Some would like to include “climate denial” in there as well.

    4. There are numerous precedents. The Sedition Act being just one.

  3. One would hope in the us this would be thrown out with extreme prejudice. I don’t know what Britain constitutional law is like, but I would think they have some sort of first amendment like statute.

    1. Freedom of expression is covered under common law, but there are a ton of exceptions that limited freedom of speech (including incredibly vague concepts such as using ‘insulting’ language or anything ‘indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety’. Obscenity laws are also still around.

      1. Are heresy laws still in effect?

        1. From what I can understand the laws were still on the books til the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act of 2008. You could argue however that ‘Blasphemy laws’ are still present through the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, which is more focused on ‘hate speech’.

        2. Are heresy laws still in effect?

          Since hate speech legislation frequently has the effect of criminalizing blasphemous speech against Islam, heresy is still basically criminalized in some instances.

      2. I should add that a ‘first amendment like statute’ is a fairly rare concept even in Western societies. Traditionally European states did censor the press to some extent and attempted to curb distribution of certain written material (such as communist or anarchist works).

    2. Not too long ago a British citizen was arrested for quoting one of Churchill’s statements in public.

      Once the home of great men who explored the world they have become a nation of PC sissys.

    3. UK doesn’t have a written constitution. Parliament can pass whatever laws it wants, with the only putative obstacle being royal assent (which has been a rubber stamp for centuries).

      1. So, just like us.

        1. Actuall, our Royalty does still use their veto power just to be a dick to our Parliment. So we do have that going for us.

      2. Actually barely more than one century.

        Queen Victoria withheld Royal assent with some frequency. She was the last Monarch to do so.

        OTOH, the Governors-General in the Dominions (Aus, Can and NZ) and the State governors in Aus and the Provincial Lt-Governors in Can continued to exercize their various Royal Prerogatives including the Royal Veto into the 1970s.

        Nowadays the Dominion Viceroys are mostly political hacks or feelgood socialites who are more interested in cutting the ribbon at the opening of the latest Wymyns Health or Aboriginal Rights centre (using the correct |Commonwealth spelling there).

        Mind you, I’m not sure I have a problem with that. The British Monarchy and its Viceroys has spent a long time trying to rise above political issues.

        1. Queen Anne was the last monarch to actually veto a bill in 1708.

          Politicians continued to withdraw bills that the monarchs opposed for a while longer, which I suppose could have still been going on in Victoria’s time.

  4. Here’s what I always find funny and telling. Far right speech is always specifically listed, but what about Marxists who espouse an ideology that directly calls for violent revolution and the suppression of all civil liberties?

    I’d like to think that the PC ninnies in America haven’t gotten this powerful to where they could seriously suggest this or craft legislation, but who the hell really knows…

    1. I think they would have already tried if they thought it possible. It’s one thing for universities to craft hate speech laws because there is no accountability. Politically, it would be very difficult if not impossible to say that only certain hate speech will be be outlawed and not others. There is no appetite for this type of censorship on the right. As far as the left goes, they might like the concept but are they willing to give up their own hate speech? That would eliminate half of social media I would think.

    2. Very true. Of course, to a great degree, this is government trying to “fix” a problem it created. They imported hundreds of thousands of Muslims, many of whom are extremists (wanting Sharia law, supporting terrorists, etc.). Then, as a reaction, a lot of Brits object to this, sometimes with “extremist” speech. So instead of dealing with the cause of the problem (Muslim immigration), the “solution” is to order everyone to shut up.

    3. That’s because Marxist gibberish doesn’t explicitly challenge or criticize the state. It first comes for the individual.

      That’s why the assholes ignore it.

  5. Well, Airstrip One seems to be coming along nicely. A little late though.

    1. In that spirit, you may enjoy this, John.

      1. Off-topic, but Michael Pachter commenting on the tech industry is always classic. That guy has a couple million gaffes related to the games industry.

        1. He is a man people listen to almost exclusively because they want to hear what compete bullshit will come out of his mouth next.

      2. Is Amazon going to take the place of WalMart in the proggie list of evil companies of evilness?

  6. Hey, don’t give our politicians any ideas

    1. They already have those ideas, they’re just too afraid of losing their cushy jobs to push it much further.

  7. The Brits have turned into the biggest pussies ever. Only the Swedes are bigger pussies than the limeys.

    All of this won’t matter over there for long, as all the limeytards will be in burqas. The one’s that didn’t get their heads chopped off that is.

    1. Sharia is coming for us all. Run!

      1. If you’re a limey or Swede, it’s coming for you.

        1. We shall see. Me thinks your fears are overblown.

          1. Me fails to care.

          2. Taking reproduction rates into account it’s simply a matter of time.

            1. This isn’t an exact science, but I think you are making a huge overestimation:

              http://www.pewforum.org/2011/0…..opulation/

              There’s apparently been a sharp fertility decline in the Muslim world too:

              http://www.aei.org/publication…..unnoticed/

              1. 14 centuries of fucking your cousin tends to do that.

        2. No it isn’t. Even in Europe, where immigrants are poorly assimilated, the spectre of Sharia law is a right-wing fever dream.

          1. My feelings as well. I guess we can agree sometimes.

              1. That’s it? And now they’re all in jail.

            1. You can “feel” all you want.

              The numbers tell a different story.

              1. I already responded to your claim above.

          2. France is even in worse shape than England.

            The Mooslims have created “no go” zones in some cities and the police obey.

            All for cheap labor.

          3. Rotherham?

            And that was like the 5-6th time it’s happened.

            Okay for Muslims to turn girls into sex-slaves, you get arrested if you try to do anything about it.

            And there was a recent report about no-go areas in Sweden completely controlled by muslims.

          4. Actually, it’s more a right wing wet dream: conservative Christians and Muslims agree on many issues. Conservative Christians were largely becoming irrelevant. This gives them a powerful new ally.

    2. Pretty sure you can have your head chopped off while wearing a burqa.

      Just sayin’.

      1. Burqas afford you special divine protection. That’s how it was explained to me at least…

        1. Details, please.

          Seriously, I’m interested.

          1. It was a joke. However, it wouldn’t necessarily surprise me if they had some kind of concept like that.

          2. Well see, it’s made of some of the same material as those rocks that repel tigers.

      2. The only thing I can’t figure out, is will the limey wiminz and limey dudes get different color burquas so you can tell them apart?

        1. Nope.

          Courtship will become mostly a potential couple carefully trying to ascertain the others gender and sex without explicitly ever asking about either.

          1. Just like Dwarves then.

  8. The new measures will be targeted at people and groups who “stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred”, she said.

    With all due respect, at least *they* understand “law”.

    YA reason to never set foot in the UK.

    1. Well, it certainly wasn’t for the food, weather, beaches, art, low cost, etc. They do have some great musicians though. I’ll give them that.

      1. Brit musicians will have to learn to not enunciate, a la Louis Louis, if they don’t want to be offend some sensitive soul.

        I’m waiting for some high muckety-muck to realize that the Beatles write that dastardly extremist song “Taxman” and revoke their awards, maybe dig up the two dead ones and quarter them.

      2. Well, it certainly wasn’t for the food, weather, beaches, art, low cost, etc. They do have some great musicians though. I’ll give them that.

        They have a good literary history and some nice churches! So that’s three reasons to go to Britain.

        1. But I could go to Russia for that too

          1. British pubs are better than Russian ones.

        2. Another reason, for me at least is Kew Gardens.

        3. So? Who the fuck wants to see ’em?

          – Cousin Avi –

    2. “The new measures will be targeted at people and groups who “stay just within the law but spread poisonous hatred”, she said.”

      And once they learn to ‘stay just within the law’, the slimy politicos will change the law again.
      The law isn’t what it says, it’s what politicos want it to be.

      1. They could learn a thing or two from our assholes on this one. What they should do is make staying within the law a violation, like we do with “structuring”. Then they can just put anybody they want in jail. It make the kanagaroo courst so much neater and cleaner and more efficient.

    1. Yep, everyone is on the side of the proglotards, except for white conservative or libertarian males. Everyone else loves them, especially Muslims. Muslims are extremely tolerant of gays, transvestites, other religions, women’s rights, abortion, all of those things.

      /progderp

      1. One of the most annoying things to me is that Muslims will say things that would be labeled extremist if a Christian or Jew said them, but they aren’t extremist when a Muslim says them.

        For example, supposedly moderate Muslims often harbor beliefs about gays and apostates that would result in any Christian being considered a radically right-wing hatemonger.

        1. I went to a panel at the local college shortly after the “Arab Spring”, it consisted of several Muslim perspectives from the Middle East – Persian, Arabic, etc. One Arabic guy (who was among those perspectives on stage with mic access who were answering questions) started going off in the middle of it about the Jews that controlled the White House. I think I was the only one in the audience who batted an eye.

          The guy honestly didn’t seem dangerous or anything, just your run of the mill conspiracy theorist who had lucked into a soapbox. The dangerous part was the people running the thing who acted like his rantings were cool.

          1. *panel discussion, forgot that second part.

          2. Would you have rather had him escorted off the stage for hate speech?

            1. Yes, and forced to do community service at the church or tabernacle of his choice. That’s what you want me to say, right?

            2. Would you have rather had him escorted off the stage for hate speech?

              What the fuck are you talking about? You realize there’s multiple options between ‘accepting his anti-semitic rantings’ and ‘having him escorted away by force.’

              Are you our new contrarian troll who ignores what people actually say and puts words in their mouths? We seem to get a lot of those.

              1. Just because other people didn’t say anything doesn’t mean they accept what he said. Talk about putting words in people’s mouths! Sometimes you let things go rather than giving them attention they don’t deserve.

                1. Bad troll…piss off.

              2. I don’t think we actually get a lot of them. I think it’s one or two people.

        2. “One of the most annoying things to me is that Muslims will say things that would be labeled extremist if a Christian or Jew said them, but they aren’t extremist when a Muslim says them.”

          For progressives, the Muslims are “David” to the USA’s (or Israel’s) “Goliath”. In their minds, Muslims are victims of the Crusades, Jewish apartheid, the wars in the middle east, and cartoonish right wing islamophobes

          And if you’re a victim, you achieved protected class status. Even if you behave like the very people who supposedly oppress you, no one can turn the tables and reset the binary opposition.

          I would say 40-45% of immigrants oppose SSM and drug legalization.They don’t care about the civil rights act, they’ll reject you if ain’t good looking. But no one mainstream here will EVER accuse them of being bigots and xenophobes.

          1. The Muslims won the Crusades. How can victors be victims?

            1. That’s what I like to know.

  9. They get pretty rowdy in Parliament — it could end up quiet as a monastery under these new rules.

    1. Most of that is for the cameras anyway.

  10. Great, another policy to add to the list of “But, England does it, so we should, too!!”

    1. Well, rest assured it will meet a whole lot more resistance here than it will in Limeyville. I don’t know what has happened to the Brits. They were always such a belligerent lot. Did someone put estrogen in their water supply that turned them all into such a bunch of pussies?

      1. I wonder about that here sometimes as well.

      2. Well, rest assured it will meet a whole lot more resistance here than it will in Limeyville. I don’t know what has happened to the Brits. They were always such a belligerent lot. Did someone put estrogen in their water supply that turned them all into such a bunch of pussies?

        What happened is this: A lot of British immigrants like hate speech laws because it makes it so that people can’t say mean things about them. Radical Muslim imams like hate speech laws because it effectively criminalizes blasphemy and gives them a means of silencing apostates.

        These groups are aided by a minority of white leftists who are the sort of European totalitarians who killed a few hundred million people in the 20th century.

        That’s the anti-free speech, totalitarian coalition that’s turned Britain into a floating panopticon.

        1. You forgot the conservatives who like hate speech laws as long as they think they’re aimed at Muslims.

          1. You forgot the conservatives who like hate speech laws as long as they think they’re aimed at Muslims.

            How often does this actually happen? I think if conservatives were currently politically ascendant they’d be arguing in favor of such things, but I don’t wee many laws getting passed in Britain by Conservatives that result in this sort of thing.

            In fact, the Conservative Party itself is now a wishy-washy moderate party that takes all of the left-wing social positions for granted. What right-wing hate speech laws have they been passing in order to stifle the speech of Muslims?

            I will agree that there are instances of anti-Muslim speech laws, like France not allowing Muslim women to wear burqas. That’s not the case in Britain though.

            1. Many conservatives seem to think interference with property rights and expression and deportation are okay for combatting the ‘threat’ of Sharia law. See the WTC Mosque, Burqa bans. FFS this is what we have murder-drones for.

            2. No, Britian just let Muslims rape 1400 underage girls without fear of prosecution, since they didn’t want to be seen as racist.

              1. Bitch slap to cyto…plus a million.

          2. You’re a loony.

            1. But, take those Muslims, put them anywhere but Europe, and Cyto will want us (Americans) murderdroning them into extinction.

              Cytotoxic is a buffoon. He wants Americans to murder brown people by the millions, but Heaven forbid we get any ideas about choosing who we let in the country.

        2. These groups are aided by a minority of white leftists who are the sort of European totalitarians who killed a few hundred million people in the 20th century.

          But, Europeans are so cultured and enlightened. I mean, sure, a few people got killed in some domestic squabbles within living memory, with a few racist overtones thrown in. But, they freed the slaves sooner, and, look at all the free healthcare!

          1. “THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE”

      3. Two world wars that killed off a disproportionate number of the best men of their generations were pretty bad for the breeding stock.

        1. That’s why they need more immigration.

          1. Yeah, that seems to have worked great at correcting their political culture so far

          2. Cyto wants Europe to welcome the same people he thinks the US military should be slaughtering.

            He’s an idiot, a stooge. None of his views have even the vaguest hint of logical consistency.

  11. OT, but so now Obama is doubling down on how he’s going to give green cards to 5 million illegal immigrants by executive order.

    I’m not surprised by that, but you have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with this guy? This is not a popular idea. What could he possibly have to gain by this? Does he hate his own party or is he just a complete psychopath?

    1. I think it may be a situation where he finds himself between a rock and a hard place. Dems have been promising Hispanic voters action on this issue for quite some time and frustration is mounting, so it’s possible he feels it may be in his long-term (legacy) interest and/or the least worst option for his party.

      1. Obama doesn’t give a shit about what people want.

        He has no more elections to face.

        He is the only person in the Democratic Party that really matters–and that suits him just fine.

        He certainly doesn’t care what 300 million Americans want. He cares about what he wants, and that’s it.

    2. Obama doesn’t care about what the people want.

      He never has.

      He’s cared about getting reelected, but that’s it.

      He didn’t care whether ObamaCare was popular.

      And, he’s been counting on losing the Senate for at least two months:

      “WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

      In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

      To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal…”

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08……html?_r=0

      Yeah, that’s from two months ago.

      Obama didn’t give a shit about whether what he said hurt Democrats in the midterms, and Obama doesn’t give a shit about whether what he does is popular.

      1. I can’t speak to what Obama wants or truly cares about. Simply put, I haven’t been impressed, but all of the policies (or at least the underlying concept like “universal healthcare”) highlighted in your comment above either have widespread support among the base and/or key Democratic constituencies.

        At this point, he may be more interested in doing favors for friends or enhancing his “legacy”

        1. “At this point, he may be more interested in doing favors for friends or enhancing his “legacy”

          What friends?

          The person he’s screwed the hardest is Harry Reid!

          The next person on the list is Nancy Pelosi. If the Democrats don’t chose a new leader in the House, I’ll be shocked.

          Oh, there’s one other person he’s screwed over royally–Hillary Clinton. What’s she gonna do, run on Obama’s legacy like Bush Sr. did with Reagan?!

          I don’t think so.

          And in case you haven’t noticed, ObamaCare was, is, and remains widely unpopular. His “friends” have lost miserably because of him. Democrats running for the Senate won’t even admit that they voted for him on camera!

          He has no friends, and he doesn’t give a shit. He’s had his own agenda from the start, and the only person he cares about is himself.

          1. This is a little confusing. These other Dems are not victims. They all voted for, helped design, and some even campaigned on his policies in previous elections.

            My point isn’t that ObamaCare is popular, but rather that it is popular among segments of the population loyal to the Democrats. At the very least the concept of universal healthcare is.

            1. The ACA, while it may have been intended as a step in the direction of universal healthcare, is not itself universal healthcare.

        2. I believe the President is no more intellectually complex than your average Starbucks hipster philosopher. Everything he does is done for the same reasons…to get people that he knows to stroke his ego.

          1. Sequin, absolutely.

            He’s an average wannabe thinker. He plays the part but there’s no substance.

            1. Like most politicians then?

              1. Bingo.

                Which makes the religious fervour of the eternal Obama supporters all the more disgusting. Before they had evidence to base their adulation on, during the first election, they at least had ignorance as an excuse. Now?

              2. Obama is worse because he’s depicted as a great thinker and orator.

                I have yet to see evidence of that.

      2. What I loved (and still love) about this one was the screaming of the poor little low-lying and island countries that will be most affected by the ravages of climate change- “You didn’t vote for giving us billions of dollars!”

      3. planet-warming fossil fuel emissions

        Even if everything the climate change asserters say is true, the temperature of the planet is not going to change at all.

      4. He didn’t have to expect the Democrats to lose the Senate to know that he wouldn’t have 66 (or even close to that. Maybe 40) votes for a binding carbon emission treaty.

    3. The sooner he does it, the more time it will have to be buried by worse news before the 2016 election.

      1. I suppose that’s true as well. Ideally, we can find a legislative solution that provides us with a more coherent and liberty-friendly legal immigration system. I won’t hold my breath though.

        1. And the socialists figured out the long game a long time ago. Even if 99% of what they pass gets rolled back, they still win 1% at a time.

    4. What could he possibly have to gain by this?

      Really?

      He can show, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans hate brown people when he’s impeached for his actions, thus retaining their votes forever.

      It’s a win-win for Dems.

    5. Source? I hope this is true. It would be an advance for freedom and some atonement from Obama.

      1. I hope this is true.

        You shouldn’t. There’s a significant faction of the GOP that is willing to help reform immigration law. Obama does this, and he will lose every single one of them, and quite likely poison immigration reform for years.

        And Obama CAN’T do anything lasting. Even if his actions don’t get overturned by the Supreme Court, they can be overridden by the next person who makes it to the White House. And if what he does provokes an anti-immigration backlash, that person would very well dismantle everything he did and then some.

    6. Those immigrants are needed to do the jobs Americans won’t do. Like vote Democrat.

      1. Green card = not voting. Besides, there are lows even the most desperate newcomer won’t stoop to.

        1. Green card = not voting.

          I’ve got some timeshares available on an oceanfront property in Nebraska.

          1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ns-voting/

            The 2008 and 2010 CCES surveyed large opt-in Internet samples constructed by the polling firm YouGov to be nationally representative of the adult citizen population.

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp*HAHAHAHAHAHA

            And that’s not even the only problem. But it is the punchline.

            1. How do you propose we determine whether non-citizens are voting then?

          2. Caution is in order:

            “After this story posted, Richman replied via email:

            “We agree with your rating of a ‘4’ because:

            “A. Noncitizen voting might tip one or two extremely close races but is unlikely to tip the balance in the Senate, and certainly not in the House.

            “B. Science is a process of finding, validation, replication and rebuttal. We are at the very beginning of the process. Colleagues have raised reasonable questions about the data we used–problems that we acknowledge in both the study and the Monkey Cage. It will take some time and additional research to increase confidence in our findings.”

            Asked for a reply to Hasen’s comments, Richman said, “We agree with Hasen. More work is needed. We view our study as the beginning of the process, not the definitive work on the question. We will be posting a response to some of our critics on the Monkey Cage in a few days, and I encourage you to keep an eye on that blog for it.”

            http://www.rgj.com/story/news/…../18131029/

            Here’s the original authors’ response with links to the work of their critics:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..r-critics/

      2. Or just work hard and try to improve their own lives? There is that aspect as well.

    7. Yeppers, he’s delusional. Should be an interesting couple of years.

  12. It’s folly like this that illustrate just how rare and precious our First Amendment really is. Restrictions on free speech is an encroachment on individual liberty that only benefits those in power, or the sycophants that surround those in power.

    1. Yeah, there were really good reasons why we didn’t want to be British anymore.

      1. Good thing we never had to fire a shot to do that

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/…..hpt=op_bn6

        1. It’s Paul Begala. The concept that government could be tyrannical is completely beyond him.

          1. I found the irony of him using the founding fathers to make his argument beyond belief.

        2. Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist…

          What a large, empty head. I have no respect for that creature at all.

          1. I liked how he was all coked up when celebrating Clinton’s victory at the end of The War Room (1993).

        3. Oh really, Mr. Begalia? Noah Webster would disagree with you:

          “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.”

          – Noah Webster, A Citizen of America, 1787

          1. The landscape has changed a bit in the last 227 years, both with regard to the relative strength of the military vs the people, and the willingness of people to resist the authorities.

            1. There’s still nothing the military could do to stop every armed American. We far, far outnumber them. They could nuke us, sure, but what and who would they rule, then? (Not to mention the use of nukes on your own people would be literal suicide–political & otherwise–in regards to the international community.)

              Plus, it’s unlikely the military, as a whole, would follow orders like that. D.C. exists at our whim, even if it would take something extraordinary to get us sufficiently riled up.

    2. And it also demonstrates what happens when individual rights aren’t enumerated. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

  13. Stick a fork in “Great” Britain, it’s done.

    1. Well, it’s been the United Kingdom for some time now, not Great Britain.

      1. IIRC Great Britain is England Scotland and Wales. Add Northern Ireland and you get the UK, the country’s name.

      2. It’s the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Calling it “Great Britain” is as acceptable as talking about “Bosnia” when you really mean Bosnia and Herzegovina, or “Rhode Island,” when you really mean the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

        1. Lol no one cares.

      3. Jesus Christ, UK, GB, GB and NI. Who fucking cares at this point? Notorious’s point stands. Stick a fork in that Lost Island of Something, Something.

  14. Treating speech as a positive right seems an ‘extreme’ postion to take. But maybe that’s just me.

    And it irritates me to no end that people treat words, even emotionally ‘hurtful’ ones as an actual, real assault.

      1. I wonder if Mays considers them extreme.

        1. Well, she did bar Zakir Naik from entering the country, and in response, after throwing a hissy fit, two high-level British civil servants quit their jobs in a huff.

    1. The left has spent so much time turning certain groups into victims that you can’t fit into the left unless you can claim to be victimized in some way. It’s almost glorified.

  15. What sort of people might find themselves branded “extremists” and thus forbidden from speaking in public? Anyone, really.

    “Extreme” is a relative term? *Mind Blown*

  16. OT (warning: Infowars): Check out this abusive pig

    “Let me see your f*cking keys? I’m searching your f*cking car,” Deputy Glans said, taking Colin’s keys against his will.

    Astonishingly, as Colin began to vocally protest the illegal seizure of his car keys, Deputy Glans responded by smashing the back of his head.

    Glans continued by unloading a stream of profanities at Colin for daring to defy his unlawful actions.

    “I can get a lot more intense,” Deputy Glans told Roberts. “I’ll rip your f*cking head off and sh*t down your neck.”

    In 1999, Deputy Glans was forced to pay millions of dollars after smashing head-on into a father of six while driving nearly triple the speed limit. The man, who had spent the last 14 and a half hours at work trying to provide for his family, was left so brain-damaged that he became blind and paralyzed, only able to move his left arm slightly.

    1. I love video. No one would believe all of this shit that goes on without it.

        1. overseer officer. nice:)

          1. Booya body and dash cams!!

            Film the police

            1. Go away, not actually dunphy.

        2. whole lotta stupid there

    2. “Deputy Glans”

      Cue Beavis and Butthead giggling.

      1. Yup. This shitbird has been a dickhead from birth.

    3. Pig has been suspended without pay, thanks in part to a lot of people who read Photography Is Not A Crime and melted the Sheriff’s Department phone system.

      However, both the Sheriff and the Department took the coward’s way out and deleted their facebook pages. So did Deputy Sgt Steriods.

  17. OT: http://www.businessweek.com/ar…..th#r=lr-sr

    So communism worked! Look at the failure after market reforms were introduced (sorta) to already fucked communist countries. But they did kill lots of people, so that’s still bad. Welcome to the New Left.

    1. I guess they shouldn’t have let all those people who love freedom leave.

      1. I guess North Korea didn’t learn from East Berlin. They just let half their countries wealth leave.

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/08/…..?hpt=hp_t1

    2. Jeebus that article’s retarded… Using relative rankings to determine whether market reforms worked. Couldn’t possibly be both lagging in comparison AND substantial improvement on a cas-by-case basis, could it?

      Also, they’re idiots for believing commie official figures.

      1. “Also, they’re idiots for believing commie official figures.”

        Cuba has 99.99% literacy! And Cubans live to 100!
        Judt (“Post War”) made the comment that GDR’s most valuable export was bent statistics; they kept banks buying E. German paper.

    3. Fun with numbers!

      “The USSR was in 27th place in 1939. It reached 26th place by 1989, before the successor states as a group fell back to 34th by 2010.”

      Uh, yeah, and 16-3/4, too!
      What a pack of meaningless crap.

    4. While Albania, Poland, Belarus, and Armenia have more than doubled their income per capita since 1990, six countries in the region are poorer than they were that year, including Ukraine and Georgia.

      So the poorer countries in the region are the ones that Russia periodically invades?

      I’m sure Russia’s bellicose involvement in the politics of Georgia and Ukraine have had nothing to do with their economic problems.

      1. This guy gets it:

        The Businessweek article is actually flawed. The biggest reformers (e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Baltic States), have done the best economically. Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia are actually all laggards when it comes to liberalization compared to the leaders mentioned above. Ukraine is another one of those laggards, where reform was seriously lacking. Russia’s reform’s were also not even halfway at best. Want proof, just look at the annual rankings of political-economic reform for the past twenty-plus years, from the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, the European Commission, Freedom House, as well as the Wall-Street Journal-Heritage Foundations annual rankings of economic freedom (liberalization).

        1. Exactly. The more the countries have left behind the stupidity of communism/socialism, the more they’ve succeeded. But there’s a special kind of stupid at Leftist think tanks.

      2. So the poorer countries in the region are the ones that Russia periodically invades?

        Boom!

    5. Did ending the Holocaust hurt economic growth? They should tackle that question next.

  18. threat to the functioning of democracy

    Democracy is a threat to the functioning of democracy.

    disrespect for a minority

    Thoughts: They can be crimes too!

    colonising the world of thought, of speech

    HA!

    so-called progressives have been spreading fear about the impact of dodgy words and dangerous ideas on the fabric of society.

    I contend that it is ‘progressive’ ideas that have had a negative impact on this thing they refer to as society.

    misogynistic…testy and vulgar speech

    Now you are just trolling us.

    stir it up, forcing us all to rethink our outlooks and attitudes and sometimes to change our minds.

    Why are you so racist?

  19. Think of all the good things they could do with the money if you had to pay for a speech liscense, though. Maybe there could be a sliding scale based on the extremity level of speech.

      1. One of the comments:

        11 months ago
        Looks like the UK’s laws in 5 years time.?

  20. OT: Another stupid study where the conclusion is baked into the premise. The results couldn’t mean anything other than what they believe them to mean.

    When whites are guilty of colorism

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. Regarding the first point: Our recent analysis of data from the National Opinion Research Center’s long-running General Social Survey confirms that African Americans and whites judge skin tone quite differently. In particular, white observers perceive the skin tones of black individuals as much darker than black observers do. This is consistent with other data showing that, to use one example, roughly 42 percent of whites describe Tiger Woods as having “dark” or “very dark” skin, while only about 14 percent of African Americans say the same. But such results do not mean that white people are “tone-blind.” In fact, there is solid evidence that white people do indeed see significant variation in African American skin tones. It is just that this variation is concentrated at the darker end of the scale.

      Wait, they needed a study to determine that white people could tell the difference between the skin tones of different black people? Did they really think white people can’t tell that there exist different skin tones among black people?

      1. Studies also show that a congressman’s penis length is directly proportional to the amount of money he votes for to fund social-science studies.

        1. 3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

          4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

          1. No one gives two fucks that you’re quoting the Bible, Bo. You’re still a cunt, as evidenced by the fact that you chase Eddie around and hector him with Bible verses. Because that is totally based in Christian charity and not Puritan-creepy authoritarianism.

            1. Here’s my favorite “bible verse”:

              “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you!”

              1. +Pulp Fiction

            2. Don’t worry Eddie, TIT will defend yure honah!

          2. Holy fucking shit, dude, do I need to bookmark another meltdown of yours?

            1. I think his ass is still chapped from the beating Gilmore and I gave him on the Russia thread on Friday.

              1. What kind of child are you? You and Gilmore gave me a ‘beating’ on an internet discussion board? Get a life.

            2. What are you babbling about Acomist?

            3. piss off, bo, the dude that blows himself, doesn’t really work for the rest of or maybe festivous.

      2. If you grow up among people of one race, you’re going to have a harder time recognizing features that distinguish people of another race from each other. That’s true of all races.

      3. The article seems to have the assumption that it’s somehow “bad” that white people view blacks, on average, as “darker” than they view themselves.

      4. And black people see white people as lighter.

        *headsmack*

        I once horrified a black women by holding my arm next to hers and showing her that I was darker than she was.

        I am as cracker as you can get.

        1. Sheesh, Suthenboy, I hope that wasn’t done recently. It just *has* to be a hate crime.

  21. When I first saw this map floating around face book I thought it was a hoax. Remember when Joe from Lowell was so convinced the Republican Party was now a regional party that could only when in certain areas of the country? Like everything progs say it was projection. Holy shit look at that map. Hell of a legacy the Black Jesus is leaving.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com…..es-2014110

    1. SF’d link.

        1. I’d be interested in seeing the gross popular vote totals each party received during the last three election cycles for House and Senate races.

          I would think Democrats have received more if you combine them all together, but obviously our system is based on winning single-member districts or individual states.

          It’s clear that we still have a sharp division between urban areas and rural areas though. Democrats are certainly geographically limited.

          1. I’d be interested in seeing the gross popular vote totals each party received during the last three election cycles for House and Senate races.

            I would think Democrats have received more if you combine them all together, but obviously our system is based on winning single-member districts or individual states.

            The Democrats won the overall vote totals in 2012, but I guarantee you they lost this time. There’s no way when you’re losing governors in Maryland and Illinois that you possibly could have ended up with more congressional votes than the opposition. This is especially true given that there was very low turnout in urban areas this election. Cook County in particular had very low turnout this year.

            1. Clarification: I meant when you combine all of the last three election cycles together.

              I would be interested in seeing the vote total for the governor races as well. Democrats will obviously benefit immensely from their strength in California since candidates like Jerry Brown and Feinstein pile up votes.

              I would think they lost in 2014 too, but I wonder if their losses in overall seats are proportional to the decline in the percentage of votes received. This is where the Dems have geographic issues.

              1. thinkprogress.org/justice

                “millions more Americans actually cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate than voted for a Republican candidate during the three election cycles that built the incoming Senate.”

                FWIW

                1. thinkprogress.org/justice

                  FWIW

                  Not much.

                2. “millions more Americans actually cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate than voted for a Republican candidate during the three election cycles that built the incoming Senate.”

                  Which is meaningless because it doesn’t tell you how many people voted for which side in the most recent batch.

                  The Democrats dominated in 2008 which creates an outlier that skews the numbers. That’s why you can’t look at three election cycles and draw any conclusions about the current state of American electoral politics.

                  1. They may be talking about 2010, 2012, and 2014. I don’t know since Bo didn’t post the full link.

                    1. It didn’t let me post it, said it was over 50 characters.

                  2. millions more Americans actually cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate than voted for a Republican candidate during the three election cycles that built the incoming Senate.

                    As Brian mentioned a couple of weeks back, how one packages data can provide a very misleading picture.

                    Why use the last three election cycles? Because 2008 was an outlier year. Why use Senate votes, rather than those of the House of Reps or for that matter state races? Because it wouldn’t say the same thing.

                    Obviously one doesn’t expect a lawyer to understand these things, or much of anything — but that combination of ignorance and arrogance is why lawyers are held in such low regard.

                    1. I looked this up and I assume Bo was referring to this entry on ThinkProgress:

                      http://thinkprogress.org/justi…..publicans/

                      They are looking at results from 2010, 2012, and 2014. 2008 isn’t included.

                    2. Don’t confuse TIT any more than he already is.

                    3. “millions more Americans actually cast a vote for a Democratic Senate candidate than voted for a Republican candidate during the three election cycles that built the incoming Senate.”

                      Which means diddly squat — the senate isn’t supposed to be based on raw vote counts.

                      The left got its clock cleaned and is grasping at straws to try to minimize that fact.

                3. Think Progress, you are a moron bo, there is no doubt after this post. MORON

                  1. After such a developed argument like that what can I say?

        2. That’s a whole lot of Christfag hillbillies.

    2. Yes, and it destroys criticism of earlier but less extreme maps, which Democrats dismissed with “Well, those red areas are where nobody lives.”

      1. Yes — anyone you meet who claims to be from inland California is either lying or a hallucination.

  22. Rational and intelligent leftist points out that not all women are progressives and that it’s therefore offensive and ridiculous to say that conservatives winning elections is ‘bad for women.’

    Which is to say, though the right to choose is incredibly important to people like me and Ann Friedman, it’s not as important to a good portion of the female electorate. And even women who do care deeply about reproductive rights don’t necessarily like being treated as one-issue voters.

    That’s crazy talk! I expect this woman to get shit on by other feminists for being a reactionary right-wing pig dog tool of the patriarchy.

    1. What could be more pro-woman than dismissing half the female population as idiots who want to enslave their own sex?

    2. Though I personally find Ernst’s far right views terrifying (she believes in fetal personhood and wants to abolish the EPA and the Department of Education)

      The terror!

      If that’s what she labels as “terrifying”, I wonder what adjectives she uses to describe, I don’t know, say the mass war rape and enslavement of Yazidi women and girls?

      1. I always wonder, if the mildest of conservative beliefs cause such melodramatic reactions in the left, why don’t conservatives stick to their principles more? If there’s no difference in being extreme and moderate in someone’s eyes, you might as well just go all out.

        1. Especially given that abolition of the Department of Education would have no impact on American education attainment whatsoever. The DOE has had no positive impact on education. It didn’t even exist before 1980 and American educational attainment has been totally stagnant for 35 years. As such, it is a provable fact that the DOE has failed miserably and should be abolished.

          Progressives are morons. The DOE supposedly is there to improve educational standards, therefore it must improve educational standards no matter what the evidence tells us.

          1. Finland still has a Ministry of Education, but it is a fairly decentralized education system that gives teachers a lot of flexibility in developing curriculum. Interestingly, it’s often touted as a model for leftists because of high scores on the PISA.

            Sweden has school choice, but scores lower. However, its economic performance has not appeared to suffer. In fact, the link between educational attainment and growth may be more complicated than many realize or simply overstated.

            Scott Sumner had an interesting post on this last year:

            “Based on test scores Sweden has the worst schools in Western Europe, even worse than America’s K-12. Horrible schools. But their students are above average in happiness, far above Finland. What explains that difference?

            One reason might be that Sweden has a 100% voucherized school system, so schools have to cater to parents…the vouchers are gradually forcing the schools to conform more to customer preferences.

            Some might argue that high test scores are needed to produce the sort of highly-skilled workers needed for the modern economy…Its workers are more productive than Finnish workers because test scores tell us little about productivity…

            Most likely the sort of society that is so obsessed with success that they produce a South Korean-type school system will be successful for other reasons…”

            http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=25145

            I’m partial to the Swiss system. I wish we had a well-developed apprenticeship system.

            1. “Scott Sumner had an interesting post on this last year”

              I always thought Cyclops was a bit of an asshole, so fuck his opinion.

              “I’m partial to the Swiss system.”

              What is Switzerland’s system?

          2. Hey now. Thats not fair. How are the democrats supposed to keep teachers unions captive without taxpayer money to dish out as pork?

            You racist.

      2. What animals.

        I thought the drive-by and beheading vids were the worst of it but this one ties with those for showing the depths of the depravity which exists in the minds of some humans.

    3. Choosing a point of view that doesn’t agree with them is rejecting the right to choose.

      Rational and/or intelligent leftists is an oxymoron.

      I am sure this comment terrifies someone.

  23. Above the Law – Freedom of Speech

    Just remembered this song. Took me long enough.

  24. The Brits are having fun trying to train Libyans.

    One young, slightly-built British soldier serving in the canteen attracted the attention of a group of his Libyan counterparts. They approached their translator with a question: Could they ‘buy him?’

    ‘They wanted him for sex,’ said the soldier’s wife. ‘They kept asking the translator how much “he” would cost so they could have him and rape him. I don’t know whether that is something that happens in their culture or not, but there just weren’t enough British soldiers at the base to cope with or control all of the Libyans.’

    1. Well, in the Libyans’ defense, the British guy had a really pretty mouth.

    2. An extraordinary claim. And in the febrile atmosphere of Bassingbourn Barracks it is very possible that exaggerated or even baseless rumours have gained currency. However, the very fact they are believed reveals how serious the situation at Bassingbourn has become. Remember, too, that allegations of a male rape are among those known to be under investigation involving the recruits.

      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..z3IW8elXXG
      Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

      1. That explains why far right news sources like The Guardian has been reporting on the same issues.

        Labour said the scheme had collapsed in “scandal and disarray”. Local residents have demanded to know why the MoD did not act earlier to stop the Libyans leaving the barracks when problems had already been reported. One family told how they had to call out the army after finding one Libyan in their driveway and another hiding under their car three days before the alleged attacks in Cambridge.

        Yeah, clearly the Labour Party and the Manchester Guardian just hate Muslims and want to spread their racist filth. Keep calm and carry on!

    3. To be fair, British guys are pretty effeminate.

  25. The question keeps popping up – what is it about becoming Home Secretary that turns you into a fascist shit?

    1. You’re going about it the wrong way. Pre hoc, propter hoc.

  26. This Ross Douthat article on the stupidity of nominating Wendy Davis makes some great points.

    The Christine O’Donnell thing really did happen more or less by accident, because she happened to be in the right place at the right time to catch an anti-establishment wave and win a primary in which she was supposed to be a protest candidate. Whereas the Davis experiment was intentionally designed: She was treated to fawning press coverage, lavished with funding, had the primary field mostly cleared for her, and was touted repeatedly as part of an actual party strategy for competing in a conservative-leaning state. Of course she had a much more impressive resume than O’Donnell, with less witchcraft and real political experience, and in that sense she made a more credible candidate overall. (Though, ahem, O’Donnell actually outperformed Davis at the polls in the end ?) But in terms of their signature issues and their public profiles, they were equally absurd fits for the tasks they were assigned; it’s just that in Davis’s case nobody on the left of center wanted to acknowledge it.

    1. Don’t read the comments at that article.

      1. Just normal coastal condescension. Nothing spectacular. But you are right in that it’s not worth reading .

    2. Texas is a red state with a strong socially conservative component. Its blue areas are mostly ethnic enclaves (specifically Hispanic and black), which tend to agree with Republicans on social issues.

      So obviously what you want to do to depress R turnout and increase D turnout in Texas is go with an upper class white woman famous for opposing any restrictions on abortion. That’s the ticket.

  27. “But self-styled progressives, members of the left and those who consider themselves liberal, don’t have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to challenging May’s tyrannical proposals. For it is was their own arguments, their claims over the past decade that “hate speech” is dangerous and must be controlled and curbed, that gave legitimacy to May’s vast silencing project, that inflamed the government’s belief that it has the right to police heated minds and not just heated behavior.”

    Brendan O’Neal doesn’t seem to understand who progressives are, who they have always been. This was the goal all along. This is who proggies are. Anyone surprised by this will probably be re-surprised every 24 hours when that large glowing ball appears in the sky.

    1. He doesn’t seem surprised by it, but seems to be saying progressives are surprised by it.

    2. Paranoia (/?p?r??n???/; adjective: paranoid /?p?r?n??d/) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often[1] to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. “Everyone is out to get me”). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

      1. non sequitur (plural non sequiturs or non sequuntur)

        1. Any abrupt and inexplicable transition or occurrence.

        Having a costumed superhero abduct the vicar was an utter non sequitur in the novel.

        2. Any invalid argument in which the conclusion cannot be logically deduced from the premises; a logical fallacy.

        3. A statement that does not logically follow a statement that came before it.

      2. Fuck off twit.

  28. It’s the brainchild of Theresa May, the Home Secretary in David Cameron’s government. May wants to introduce “extremism disruption orders”, which, yes, are as terrifyingly authoritarian as they sound.

    And once again the Conservative Party shows itself to be just one more mindlessly statist European political party actively grinding liberty into the dust.

    Gee, I wonder why British Conservatives are fleeing to UKIP. The Conservatives almost seem to want to destroy their own party.

    1. its the proggi es fault. theyre the one swho want to enslave nd rainwashc hildren with stalinist propagana and send us to ffema camps so the darkies and homos can take over, this story is onem ore link the chain that bega nwith the rothschilds at waterloo and continues toda y. i know because alex jones had someone who wrote a book and took 4 years of junior college english explain the whole thing!!1!

      1. Did you have a stroke? You should probably call the doctor.

    2. I seriously doubt conservatives are fleeing to the UKIP because they are upset about a crackdown on Muslim speech.

  29. Well, looks like the blanket has come to cover Cool Britannia.

    For shame.

    1. A “hive mind” is a concept popular in some science fiction-in which life-forms whose minds are telepathically linked share a common consciousness and memories. Hive mind entities are usually presented as insect-like and hostile to humanity.

      This cliche is often interpreted as a metaphor for either or both communism or the Yellow Peril. The logical fallacies of wanting such a hivemind is obvious regardless of politics: a collective becomes so extreme that it becomes inhospitable to the reality of which it lives in. Considering its choices, it then attempts to a) create its own reality, dooming it to failure; b) diplomatically engage with groups that still have a sense of diversity and free will (for mutual benefit); or c) attempt to assimilate those same groups into the collective (with all the negative connotations of “assimilate”).

  30. ” . . . anyone who wants to avoid being thought of as an extremist should ‘respect British values and institutions’ – Characterizing pretty much any non Anglo-Saxon as a ‘dirty foreigner’ has been (and continues to be) a British value. They’re going to be giving out a lot of these EDOs, I think.

    1. Have you seen those Picts? They’re filthy!

  31. Democrats baffled that stupid, racist teabaggers refuse to vote for them in spite of promises of free shit, more laws, and higher taxes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uMbgRGzmb0

    1. Paranoia (/?p?r??n???/; adjective: paranoid /?p?r?n??d/) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often[1] to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. “Everyone is out to get me”). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

      1. When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. Only other people know it.

        It is the same when you are stupid.

        1. Paranoia (/?p?r??n???/; adjective: paranoid /?p?r?n??d/) is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often[1] to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs, or beliefs of conspiracy concerning a perceived threat towards oneself (e.g. “Everyone is out to get me”). Paranoia is distinct from phobias, which also involve irrational fear, but usually no blame. Making false accusations and the general distrust of others also frequently accompany paranoia. For example, an incident most people would view as an accident or coincidence, a paranoid person might believe was intentional.

          1. Is there a point in your cut-and-paste comment?
            You seem to think someone cares about that definition, but I think you might be delusional.

            1. from you delusiona lis tuquoque

              According to German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin, patients with delusional disorder remain coherent, sensible and reasonable.[7] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines six subtypes of the disorder characterized as erotomanic (believes that someone is in love with him or her), grandiose (believes that s/he is the greatest, strongest, fastest, richest, and/or most intelligent person ever), jealous (believes that the love partner is cheating on him/her), persecutory (delusions that the person or someone to whom the person is close is being malevolently treated in some way), somatic (believes that he/she has a disease or medical condition), and mixed, i.e., having features of more than one subtype.[5] Delusions also occur as symptoms of many other mental disorders, especially the other psychotic disorders.

              1. According to Sevo, FB is a self-absorbed imbecile, demonstrating an inability to address any of the issues presented.

            2. Tulsa got tired of Deputy Fuzz already, but still wants to wake us from our ideological slumber?

              1. Tulpa. Fuck you, autocorrect!

        2. When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. Only other people know it.

          It is the same when you are stupid.

          That was awesome. I’m stealing that.

          1. Actually, I flubbed it. Should be :

            When you are dead you do not know that you are dead. It is only hard for the others.

            It is the same when you are stupid.

            A coworker of mine has it hanging in his office.

          2. People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
            Isaac Asimov

            1. People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

              So, you know everything? I have some questions.

              1. Asimov isn’t exactly in a position to answer at this point.

          3. I think it’s also been called ‘blissful ignorance’.

            When you have it, you don’t have to suffer daily nut punches like us libertarians.

    2. Made it to 2:58. I’m so ashamed.

      1. I made it to 1:50. The guy in the middle is full of disingenuous bullshit.

        1. I made it to about 1:30. Holy crap — them in a nutshell “Tens of millions of people think our policies are fucking up their lives. Clearly, they must be stupid or delusional or ignorant, because I couldn’t possibly be wrong about anything!”

          That kind of Team Blue analysis of why they got hammered isn’t going to turn out well for them.

          1. That kind of Team Blue analysis of why they got hammered isn’t going to turn out well for them

            Never underestimate the ability of the Stupid Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

      2. You recruits have made Master Chief D very sad.

        Go ring the bell and get off my beach.

    3. Holy Jesus, that guy in the middle is one stupid, partisan idiot.

      He’s calling people ‘ignorant?”

      Da balls.

    1. How about I say “yes” and avoid the video entirely?

      Maher is just unbearable.

      1. You’ll never win the coveted Derp Beret with that attitude.

  32. It looks like Flaming Commie is the perfect example of why statism will never die.

    We have an egregious example of the inevitable evils of statism. The proggies who insisted on going down that road in the first place are puzzled as to how they got where they are and we are all saying ‘we told you so’. This has happened over and over and over again throughout history and Flaming Nutsack says that we are the delusional and paranoid ones.

    Whatcha say Flaming? How high will the bodies have to pile up before you believe it?

    “They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white is white and black is black you still cannot change their basic perception and the logical behavior. Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. Facts tell nothing to them. Even if you shower them with proof, with documents, with pictures, even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camps he will refuse to believe it. When he receives a boot to his bottom, when the military boot crushes his balls then he will understand, but not before.”

    -Soviet Political Officer on true believer Progressives

    1. Progressives circa 1985: “We just don’t think people should smoke, you’re crazy if you think we’ll ban smoking in private establishments.”

      Progressives circa 1995: “We just think obesity is a problem, you’re paranoid if you think one day we’ll ban sodas over a certain size.”

      Progressives circa 2000: “We just think people should respect each other and not use mean speech. You’re delusional if you think one day we’ll make it illegal to say something offensive.”

      It’s strange how every generation progressives seem to enact laws that they called the last generation of conservatives and libertarians paranoid for predicting.

      1. Be gentle now, Irish. The sensitive proglodytes truly believe that they are something new. You will hurt their feelings if you tell them that they are the same old leftists who have been with us for more than a century, failed over and over again to deliver on their unworkable economic models, while murdering millions to try to force their ill conceived plans on an unwilling society, and somehow think they will succeed this time if only the right people are in charge.

        In our time, the right people means Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Ezra Klein, Lena Dunham… need I go on, or is that brutal enough?

        1. Does anyone seriously say Lena Dunham should be in charge?

          1. It wouldn’t be any less dumb than saying any of the others in that list should be in charge. And yes, I am sure there are those who would go for it. They think Hollywood stars should dictate policy and decide what is science and what is not.

            Why would it be worse for Lena Dunham to be in charge, than let’s say Lizzie Warren or Hillary Clinton?

            1. I’m not big on the idea that pedigree, credentials, and even experience make you fit to “lead”, but Clinton and Warren possess all of those or at least two of the three.

              Dunham does not, but I suppose celebrities have succeeded in politics before. It has happened on both sides of the aisle though.

              1. You’re missing Hyperion’s point, which is not at all in respect to credentials and qualifications but rather worldview. And he is absolutely on the money — progressives want deeply broken people in charge with deeply broken systems of thought. It does not bode well for our country and tends to confirm more conservative/libertarian paranoia than one would think, as Irish pointed out.

                1. I don’t agree with their worldview either, but I see a similar issue with the Republicans.

                  1. Don’t be surprised to find that’s focused on a whooooole lot less around here.

                    1. Bo Cara Esq.|11.8.14 @ 8:53PM|#
                      “Don’t be surprised to find that’s focused on a whooooole lot less around here.”

                      Why, my goodness, Bo. Who would ever presume you might, well, sort of bias your comments SINCE YOU’RE CONSTANTLY CAUGHT BULLSHITTING?

                    2. You’re such an angry guy that I don’t think you even know what you’re angry about anymore but just lash out and maybe a justification will come to you later.

                    3. Bo Cara Esq.|11.8.14 @ 9:02PM|#
                      “You’re such an angry guy that I don’t think you even know what you’re angry about anymore but just lash out and maybe a justification will come to you later.”

                      You’re such a delusional twit, you presume people dislike you because of their problems.
                      Incorrect. People dislike you because you’re an insufferable bullshitter.

                    4. Sevo, you attack anyone here who dares disagree with you on politics, religion, etc.

                    5. Bo Cara Esq.|11.8.14 @ 9:30PM|#
                      “Sevo, you attack anyone here who dares disagree with you on politics, religion, etc.”

                      Bo, don’t flatter yourself.

  33. OT, but so now Obama is doubling down on how he’s going to give green cards to 5 million illegal immigrants by executive order.

    I’m not surprised by that, but you have to wonder what the fuck is wrong with this guy? This is not a popular idea. What could he possibly have to gain by this? Does he hate his own party or is he just a complete psychopath?

    I think you don’t understand how public choice theory works.

    Obama has no more elections to run for, and he’s a lame duck, he doesn’t have to worry about his future power being diminished by losing more allies in Congress in future elections. He still has a lot of power, which will abruptly end in two years, and since he cares only about himself because he’s a sociopath, he has every personal incentive to use the heck out of it before he’s tossed out of the White House.

    1. I still fail to see what it gains him. It makes no sense at all.

      1. To add to that. I was reading an article somewhere a couple of days ago, but I can’t remember where it was. Anyway, the story claimed that Obama effectively has no real working relationship with Harry Reid, Pelosi or Wasserman Shultz. And that not only does he not have any relationship with any of them, but that it is well known that they do not speak and that Obama has open hostility for all of them.

        Can that really be true? A president who openly hates and refuses to speak with his Senate majority leader, house minority leader and the chair of his own political party?

        Ok, I mean, really the guy is looking more like a psychopath every day.

        1. Here are the articles that discuss this:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

          Hard for me to take sides when dealing with these politicians.

        2. Here’s another one:

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..ack-begin/

        3. I wouldn’t want to associate with Reid, Pelosi, or Badhairday Shultz either. If Obama has open hostility toward them that actually makes him less psychopathic in my book.

      2. Obama sees conflict as good for politics, it’s a political weapon to be sought after and used. He’s relentless in engineering conflict.

        I’m actually all for his doing this as it forwards fundamental freedoms of association and movement, but I have no illusions about his motives.

        1. The backlash may ultimately work against freedom in the long run and don’t you care about procedure/process. Presidential power seems to be keep growing over time.

          1. I don’t care much about the process here, because Congress could fix this if they wanted. They’ve given and allowed so much Presidential discretionary power in this area in the past, it’s hard to see them complain because they don’t like this specific use now.

            1. This would still be a pretty drastic step to take. I want congressional action as well, but I fear this may set back the cause for a better immigration system and a path to citizenship for some.

              1. I don’t think the Republicans have any interest in doing that anytime soon.

                1. And since they control Congress, that means it’s not supposed to happen.

            2. Rule of law and property rights: out the window. I want my illegals legalized now!

        2. Obama sees conflict as good for politics, it’s a political weapon to be sought after and used. He’s relentless in engineering conflict.

          You make him sound so sophisticated and strategic, but it’s backfired on him badly almost every time he’s done it.

          He’s the intellectual equivalent of a YouTube troll with his finger on the nuclear button instead of the submit one.

    2. this is it basically

    3. And he also appears to be ready to respond to the “two thirds of the electorate who did not vote”. I have to assume that either he means that he as special extra-sensory political powers or that he has nothing but utter contempt for electoral politics and representative democracy, leaving him able to believe himself to have a mandate to do anything.

  34. Dunno if you’ll get the entire article without a scrip, but:

    “ObamaCare Goes to Rewrite”
    http://online.wsj.com/articles…..ns_opinion
    “Mr. Reid broke Senate filibuster rules to add three liberals to the D.C. Circuit with the expectation that the en banc court would favor the Administration. At a July 22 press conference, Mr. Reid boasted about his filibuster play and proclaimed that, “It seems clear to me that that decision will be overturned.”
    —-
    Harry has had a rough week. By taking the Fourth Circuit appeal in King, the Supreme Court makes his machinations moot.”

    Couldn’t happen to a more deserving life-form.

    1. Someone here pointed this out. In order to view the entire article, simply Google search part of the article (ObamaCare Goes to Rewrite suffices, in this case) and click the resulting search link for Wall Street Journal.

  35. The great thing about progs is that just when I think I have found the dumbest, smugest one ever, I stumble on one who is even more insufferable:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP8wkscwkAg

    1. bonus- presenter bears a striking resemblance to Dr. Bunsen from the Muppets.

    2. Interesting. So the Dems got trounced in the mid-terms because people are too stupid to understand what is good for them.

      Pure drivel.

      1. I like the one where they lose because they’re ‘spineless’.

    3. Progressives are pissed because they put their faith in politicians to control their lives, and the lives of others.

  36. It takes less digits to count the commenters who AREN’T Tulpa

  37. the brainchild of Theresa May

    I don’t believe that her brain was the primary organ behind this idea of hers.

    -jcr

    1. Well it has to be her brain. There is nothing else going on down below it. =D

      1. I was thinking it would be her spleen.

        -jcr

  38. Stupidity isn’t against the law presently, in her case I might reconsider, hashtag stupid bitch on twitter which proves my point. As far as tomorrow it’s boxers or briefs. Some libwhack feminazi, I’ll just LOLZ and have a cup of coffee. Hashtag idiots r us.

  39. “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” – Albert Camus

  40. “or someone who despises democracy.”

    What will all the college professors do? I guess all colleges will be closed down due to not enough faculty.

  41. As this woman’s proposal strikes me as being utterly extreme in both its scope and intent, I could see how taking things to it’s logical conclusion could lead to a Python-esque scene akin to the one where the leader of the stoning is in turn stoned for uttering “Jehovah” in describing condemned crime. Yet I somehow think a good part of the problem is the number of people among Theresa May’s supporters who would find “The Life of Brian” as exhibit A of political extremism.

  42. So, how long until they’re officially renamed Airstrip One?

  43. Isn’t the point of the Lib Dems to oppose things like this? Why even have a coalition?

  44. May is an obvious extremist. Very dangerous, very obviously! Muzzle her.

  45. This is the first step which is going to leak into America as far as freedom of speech rights go! Stop them now so we can speak freely forever.

    Reverse Mortgage Tool

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.