Government Spending

Obama Budget Includes More Money for Agency Policing Campus Sex

The Office for Civil Rights and its army of bureaucrats would get $30 million.

|

Kirsten Gillibrand
Public Domain

President Obama's proposed budget includes a $30 million increase for the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights—the federal agency charged with investigating university's sexual assault and anti-harassment policies.

OCR had a budget of about $100 million last year and will get a 31 percent increase under the new budget, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. The additional funding will allow the agency to hire 200 new employees.

That's bad news for civil libertarians. OCR has been accused of vastly exceeding the scope of federal law in its effort to force universities to adjudicate sexual assault more aggressively. The result has been a wave of new policies imposed on college campuses that limit the due process rights of accused students. Some legal experts—including several members of Harvard University's law faculty—have criticized the agency for pushing a "flawed" interpretation of Title IX of the Higher Education Act, which mandates gender equity. I have gone as far as to call OCR "A Rogue Agency That Must Be Stopped."

OCR's theatrics have badly damaged the rights of students and professors. As an example, the City University of New York recently instructed faculty members not to use the gender-specific salutations "Mr." and "Ms." Why? Because CUNY administrators wrongly believe Title IX requires them to police gender-related speech—and OCR's army of overzealous bureaucrats is to blame for the confusion.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO that the increased funding would, "finally provide the resources needed to properly investigate sexual assault complaints and put more cops on the beat to raise accountability on college and university campuses for accurately reporting statistics to the federal government."

If OCR's efforts thus far are the result of inadequate resources, I shudder to think what the runaway agency will be able to accomplish with an even bigger budget.

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.

167 responses to “Obama Budget Includes More Money for Agency Policing Campus Sex

  1. The result has been a wave of new policies imposed on college campuses that limit the due process rights of accused students.

    It’s yet another needle heading toward that education bubble. And is it me, or is the Obama Administration strangely preoccupied with college sex?

    1. It’s always about poling millennials.

      1. Narrows gaze at waffles in the Swiss fashion.

        1. Hey, I am just a little late!

          *narrows gaze*

  2. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO that the increased funding would, “finally provide the resources needed to properly investigate sexual assault complaints…”

    I’m thinking that what she wants is exactly the opposite of proper investigation.

    1. Since when is sexual assault a federal crime?

  3. You can buy a lot of rape with that.

    1. “Rape” sure, but not “rape-rape”.

      1. I think they trade at a 5 to 1 ration, though.

        1. Ratio. I just plain can’t damn type today.

          1. I’m standing in line for my ration of today’s rape.
            Damn socialism.

            1. Is Warty the Official Rape Commissar?

              1. Warty? Are you talking about He Who Weighs? Use his title or be destroyed.

                1. Say five Squat More’s and you may be forgiven!

              2. Warty actually had sex with Steve Smith and came out on top.

              3. Don’t turn around a ha,
                Der Warty is in town a ha.

    2. the best way to buy it it to have sex with it first and than haggle with it after. Just ask Warren Sapp.

  4. Today’s US college campus is such a comedic, pathetic joke. You dimwits that attend, along with your slappy parents, deserve every single bit of this nonsense.

    Why you continue to write checks to people that have nothing but contempt for you is a mystery.

    1. Why you continue to write checks to people that have nothing but contempt for you is a mystery.

      Um, have you checked to see how many jobs require degrees these days?

      Plus, engineering degrees are still very lucrative.

      1. The employers may require a degree; it is far from obvious that actually performing many of today’s jobs requires a degree. A degree does show a potential employer that an applicant will borrow the equivalent of the down payment on a duplex to spend four plus years kowtowing to authority and parroting whatever the authority says.

        So the degree proves docility and the non-dischargeable debt guarantees fear of job loss. In short, a perfectly engineered worker for business as it is conducted these days.

        1. Damn. Homple nailed it.

        2. He asked why people continue to get degrees. I answered. Nothing you wrote contradicts my answer.

          1. I’m not contradicting anybody; I’m just pointing out an unfortunate widespread hiring practice.

            1. Ah, I see. Carry on then.

      2. I think you are going to see way more schools like this popping up:

        https://www.primeacademy.io/

        Full disclaimer, my daughter has applied. Hopefully it works out for her. I think it will. It is run by some local folk who ran a big staff augmentation shop here.

        As someone who has an open slot for a programmer but can’t find anyone who is competent to fill it, I am all for schools like this teaching basic programming to kids.

    2. Because every office job I apply to has some nonsense about requiring a college degree?

  5. Is the goal to make every college an all-woman institution?

    1. Yeah, but don’t you dare suggest all-male, publicly funded colleges you cis-shitlord.

    2. The goal is to infantilize children by extending high school another four years. Free community college is a carrot, infantile rape rules is a stick. Can you doubt that student loans will be forgiven by the next all-Dem Pres and Congress?

      A California legislature wants to raise the tobacco minimum age to 21.

      The longer people remain children, the longer the government can be in charge of them as the ever-present nanny.

      They’d love to lower the retirement age too, but increasing life spans work against that.

      1. Plus, the more Gender and Diversity Studies majors the feds can hire for lifetime jobs, the better.

  6. It’s fucking all-culture war, all of the time these days. Like we have nothing else to worry about.

    1. What *do* you have to worry about, Mr….Libertate, is it?

      1. They call me Mr. Libertate!

        1. Mmm-hmph. [Makes note on clipboard]

          Do you have any other statements you’d like to make before we pronounce you guilty?

          1. Why, yes, yes I do. “No, fuck you, cut spending.”

  7. So, by rejecting the budget proposal, we could prevent increased spending AND infringements on the due process rights of students?

    Count me as a vote for “Fuck you. Cut spending.”

      1. All in Favor?

          1. “No, fuck you, cut spending.”

            Really, how is this not the GOP’s platform for 2016? Or, failing the idiots in the GOP, the LP’s?

            1. Really, how is this not the GOP’s platform for 2016?

              Because, when all is said and done, there are plenty of shitheels in the GOP who are all too happy to spend like maniacs and have no particular problem with revoking students’ due process rights. Marco Rubio comes to mind.

              1. Indeed. They’re already showing little interest in doing anything beyond the superficial to cut back spending or the scope of government in general.

              2. “…have no particular problem with revoking students’ due process rights.”

                Or anybody’s due process rights for that matter.

                1. No, no, no, we’re freer than ever. I read this in another thread. Big government is no threat, because we’re permitted to do some things we used to not be able to do. Thanks you, government, from which all freedoms emanate!

                  1. That’s either thank you or thanks, depending on the informality of your appreciation.

            2. Count me as a vote for “Fuck you. Cut spending.”

              Reason needs to whip up and sell some “Fuck you. Cut spending.” rubber stamps.

              FY/CS 2016.

              1. And t-shirts.

                On the front: Fuck You.
                On the back: Cut Spending.

                I’d buy one.

  8. I was watching the Back to the Future marathon on ABC Family Sunday, and they were advertising some preteen soap opera about a girl accusing a guy of raping her, including the lines “you didn’t say no.” “Well I didn’t say yes.” I wondered how the hell this affirmative consent crap got into a script so fast.

    1. If he didn’t say “yes” either, it sounds like mutual rape to me.

    2. I’m sorry but as far as I am concerned her not saying no means it ISN’T rape (caveats about capacity to say no and threats of violence aside)

      I mean all this mumbo jumbo about women being to traumatized to say no is just bullshit infantilizing. If you don’t make it clear to him that he doesn’t have consent then he can legitimately claim that he thought he did have it and therefore lacked the intent to commit a crime.

      You don’t have to fight back, just fucking say “I said no, stop raping me” or something to that effect that makes it absolutely clear where he stands.

      1. This. It’s just plain ridiculous how whenever someone simply suggests common sense ways to protect oneself, the cries of “blaming the victim!” start screeching to the heavens. Apparently the era of “I am woman hear me roar” is over.

    3. I was watching… ABC Family Sunday

      There’s your problem.

  9. Is Robby going to cover the mattress girl implosion at Columbia?

    1. That sounds sexy.

      1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..e-her.html

        I fell for it because of the two other accusers. I thought they were also accusing him of forced sodomy but it turns out one is accusing him of emotional couples trauma or some such nonsense and the other is accusing him of trying to kiss her at a party.

        1. the mattress project is an act of bullying

          Ha! While part of me loves to see the left’s narrative turned against it, statements like that only legitimize the narrative. That UVA frat got it right – publicly reject the narrative of contrived victimhood.

        2. I never believed it – no criminal complaint, just a narcissistic feminist art project.

        3. “Emma Sulkowicz?famous for carrying her mattress on campus as a symbol of her burden as a victim and a protest against Columbia’s failure to expel the man she calls her rapist?has become the face of the college rape survivors’ movement. Sulkowicz’s protest has garnered her awards from the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority Foundation; last month, she attended the State of the Union address as a guest of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand.”

          I heard about this last year i think. I had not heard any follow-up on the story.

          Is this not getting “Jackie” levels of commentary because, uh = pointing out that the modern Campus Rape-hysteria narrative is *bullshit* is …mean and unhelpful and stuff?

          They point out that the woman had her story covered in dozen different major media outlets – yet it seems now that the ‘debunking’ is only happening on the back-pages of the internet.

          glancing the whole 5,000 word story over, its just ridiculous the level to which this ‘friends-with-benefits’ hookup-story gets amplified into some kind of Scarlet-Letter-meets-Rashomon level of Epic Drama just because we’ve passively allowed this ‘victim-deification’ culture to advance unchallenged.

          Half these fucking stories boil down to people deconstructing twitter-feeds.

          I seriously wonder if we’re ever going to return to a day where people actually have the slightest bit of common fucking sense.

          1. I’d wager the more direct reason it’s not getting Jackie levels of coverage is the timeframe. In the UVA case, the outrage from the original RS article hadn’t worn off when the story was debunked, so people were still incensed and interested. In this case, it’s been a year since her “protest” which itself was a long time after the alleged incident, so it’s just old hat, allowing all the outlets that trumpeted her story originally to quietly ignore her undoing.

        4. Amazing how many of these Perfect Examples of SJW outrage turn out to be bullshit. The story of the woman (name forgotten) who “counseled” Jackie at UVA and who now works for the feds (IIRC) is similarly suspect: another of those “I didn’t go to the cops and only later realized I was raped” stories.

      2. How big of a slut do you have to be to carry a mattress everywhere?

        1. It’s the “Free Curb Service” sign along with the mattress that makes someone a slut.

    2. I saw Mattress Girl open up for L7 back in ’03. Tampons everywhere..

    3. She imploded? Did people stop paying attention to her and her ego collapsed into a singularity?

      1. Nearly. It’s relative.

    4. mattress girl implosion

      Great band name.

  10. 130 million fucking dollars.

    Liberals, this is why all your spouting about safety nets for the poor and destitute means dick to me. Because once you get your hand in the wallet, this is what you do with it.

    1. With that money, we could just give 6500 poor people $20,000 each.

      Instead we’re giving it to bureaucrats to fuck up the lives of college students.

      Because liberals care about the poor so very, very much.

      1. On a local level, our uber-liberal suburb is touting its new shelter for homeless teens.

        http://www.minnpost.com/politi…..oklyn-park

        $950K to build a 12 bed shelter. $600K to run yearly.

        You could just give 12 homeless teens $4K/mo to – I don’t know – pay rent on a super cool apartment and buy food for themselves? And that isn’t even factoring in the $1M to build it.

    2. Seriously, what does the $100 million buy? Why would you need anything more than a few bureaucrats and some lawyers reviewing college policies? Maybe with a hotline for complaints. Why does it need 200 more employees? What the fuck would they all do?

      This entire agency should be relegated to half of one floor of an office building, with most of its employees working part-time. Or hell, they should just pay FIRE a consulting fee and let FIRE do all the work.

      1. Why does it need 200 more employees? What the fuck would they all do?

        Not every idiot son or daughter can score a job as a congressional staffer, you know.

        1. Don’t forget that the first thing any decent bureaucrat does is buy new furniture for their office. Don’t ask me why they can’t be told that the old stuff was fine.

  11. The Ministry of Chastity and Temperance will not be denied.

  12. It’s not the $30 mil that bothers me. It’s what they’re going to do with it.

    1. They’re going to throw a very foul and unpleasant party with it, that’s what.

  13. I just had a thought: Clearly, all of the rape hysteria the Dems are pushing is an attempt to win the female vote, which dovetails nicely with the Hilary nomination in 2016. However, what if female turn out is not high enough in 2016 to push Hilary over the top?

    I sort of hope the fall out of that would be a FLOOD of misogynistic comments by the left. I’m sure they wouldn’t be straight up misogynistic, but sort of backhanded or thinly veilied…. but still. I’d be highly amused.

    1. The thing that’s funny to me is that the rape hysteria and the Dems’ proposed “solutions” are the very soul of misogyny. It’s anchored in the notion that women simply can’t take care of themselves in the adult world and must therefore have Big Brother’s help. How the fuck is that any different from the “old-fashioned” way they rail against, except that the big brother used to be a family member who actually cared about the woman being watched over.

      1. “It’s anchored in the notion that women simply can’t take care of themselves in the adult world and must therefore have Big Brother’s help.”

        Just look at the ‘It’s on Us’ initiative. The basic message is ‘Look dudes, you can’t expect women to care for their own safety. Only you can protect women from the perils that beset them on all sides.’

        How progressive!

  14. You know, at this rate, if you’re really interested in policing and preventing campus sex it would probably just be cheaper to segregate universities.

    1. I can’t learn because I get boners in class.

      1. Perhaps what universities should do is hire prostitutes to reduce male students’ sex drive through frequent and vigorous sex acts. Tenure-track prostitutes, of course. Put them in the Art. Ed. department, I think.

        1. Nonononono

          No Tenure Track. Can you imagine what a Prostitute would look like 18 months after she got her Tenure and didn’t have to care if any of the students still wanted to fuck her?

          1. You know nothing of academia. Besides, they can just keep on bringing in TA prostitutes.

            1. T&A prostitutes?

      2. Brannigan: I have a very sexy learning disability, what do I call it Kiff?

        Kiff: *sighs* Sexlexia.

    2. Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to not admit the be-penised? (Don’t say “men.”)

      1. Well, until the bepenised proletariat get their own personal Vladimir Menin and things get bloody.

        1. No, I mean like more of an Eloi / Morlock set up. The women get degrees and white-collar jobs and the men toil to support them.

          1. Until they turn women into a food resource?

            1. Only the thin ones. Skinny bitches don’t deserve to live.

              Wait, this might actually work out…

              1. What if the men identify as women and demand to be admitted on that basis?

                1. That’s crazy talk. No one would ever do that!

                2. They get to bunk with the radical feminists who hate trans people. Whomever survives has proven themselves worthy.

                  1. Ooh, there’s a fun thought!

                    not.

                    1. You just don’t appreciate the nuance of blood sport.

      2. Penis? Is that like a prolapsed vagina or something?

    3. What about the homos?

      1. You can’t let the homos in, some of them might be bi.

      2. Cavort like the Greeks of old, I’ve yet to see them have any demand for affirmative consent from them.

        1. I’ve yet to see them have any demand for affirmative consent from them.

          And you won’t. Trust me on this.

        2. Did they cavort or gambol?

          1. Gamboled around their very own City-States.

      3. Check yer homo privilege! Ya non-rapist!

  15. This is why it matters who sits in the executive office.

  16. OT: Via the NY Times (Which I can’t link to because Reason is dumb)

    BUENOS AIRES ? Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor whose mysterious death has gripped Argentina, had drafted a warrant for the arrest of President Cristina Fern?ndez de Kirchner, accusing her of trying to shield Iranian officials from responsibility in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center here, the lead investigator into his death said on Tuesday.

    The 26-page document, which was found in the garbage at Mr. Nisman’s apartment, also requested the arrest of H?ctor Timerman, Argentina’s foreign minister. Both Mrs. Kirchner and Mr. Timerman have repeatedly denied Mr. Nisman’s accusation that they tried to reach a secret deal with Iran to lift international arrest warrants for Iranian officials wanted in connection with the bombing.

    The new revelation that Mr. Nisman had drafted arrest warrants for the president and the foreign minister further illustrates the heightened tensions between him and the government before he was found dead on Jan. 18 at his apartment with a gunshot wound to his head. He had been scheduled the next day to provide details before Congress about his accusations against Mrs. Kirchner.

    Hitmen are so inept these days.

    1. Was there ever any doubt about what sort Kirchner was? Seriously. As much as I’m appalled, I’m not surprised in the least.

    2. Who ever could have predicted that an Argentinian with a German surname would turn out to be such an authoritarian?

      1. Or who could have ever predicted a Peronist would turn out to be such an authoritarian?

      2. You know who else had a German surname and…..I just can’t…

        1. Bonus points were available for pointing out that the prosecutor killed was Jewish. Blown chance, Swissy.

    3. Am I the only one that is surprised the feminist are jumping to Argentina’s presidents defense? This story has all the details that normally ring their bell. It involves a women they can relate to, there is a ton of evidence against her version of events, but their is a narrative that allows her defenders to claim that her detractors are sexists making excuses. Is it because she’s foreign?

      1. “Am I the only one that is surprised the feminist are jumping to Argentina’s presidents defense?”

        Kirchner is a female de facto dictator, which is exactly what many feminists–particularly their leaders–want to be. A plus if she can have somebody killed and get away with it.

        Not surprising at all.

  17. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO that the increased funding would, “finally provide the resources needed to properly investigate sexual assault complaints and put more cops on the beat to raise accountability on college and university campuses for accurately reporting statistics to the federal government.”

    Is it wrong for me to want her to wander into the path of a low-flying piano?

    1. Not necessarily wrong. Definitely cartoonish, though. I mean what next; you want her to accidentally step on a rocket-powered roller skate and be thrust through a cactus patch only to slam into the front of a interstate bus?

      1. That would be AWESOME! Hell, if she did that, I’d put her at about even in my book.

  18. I seriously wonder if we’re ever going to return to a day where people actually have the slightest bit of common fucking sense.

    Magic 8-Ball sez, “Not bloody likely.”

  19. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02……html?_r=0

    The New York Times runs a hit piece of Fatso’s penchant for living large at other people’s expense. I am all for hit pieces on Fatso or on politicians of any stripe for living large at others’ expense. The irony of the Times, who has spent seven years ignoring Louis and Marie in the White House, is a bit much however.

  20. Three conspiracy theories:

    Feminists are secretly working for religious conservatives trying to subdue premarital sex.

    Feminists are secretly (or openly) working for BIG LESBIAN trying to turn all women away from men.

    Feminists are secretly working for the sex toy industry trying to get more people to rely on masturbation for their sexual needs.

    1. Number two. Feminists hate men and hate themselves even more for being attracted to them. Their solution is to convince themselves they are lesbians and are not attracted to men.

      1. John, it takes some really crazy statements to make me defend the modern feminist movement, but that’s a pretty crazy statement.

        Misogynists hate women, but most misogynists are straight men who are attracted to women. The real issue, I think, is that a lot of people need scapegoats to deal with their own failures. People for whom those failures include sucking with the opposite gender grow to blame the other gender for their problems, rather than themselves.

        Misogynists and misandrists are very similar in that they’re disproportionately sexually frustrated. Go read the Jezebel comments some time, then go read a fever swamp of misogyny like Red Pill on Reddit. They read exactly the same, except the genders are switched – and every single person commenting on those websites has some serious sexual hangups they haven’t quite worked through..

        1. No. They hate men. Go read Jezebel. Every man is a rapist and an exploiter. All but the most feminized men are considered verbotten. Yet, unless they are just totally Lesbian and only attracted to women, they still are attracted to men sexually. Think about how fucked up that would make a person. They feel this genetically driven desire to sleep with and mate with men, yet rationally hate men and use them as a stand in for every evil in the world.

          Pretty much everything a site like Jezebel writes is rooted in the twisted effects of that conflict.

          And as far as men, yeah, a whole lot of men hate woman and can’t resolve the conflict they have between that and their natural desire for acceptance from them.

          That is not crazy at all. Do you actually interact with people or get out much? If you do, I am shocked you haven’t figured this out.

          1. It is absolutely crazy to say they’re trying to ‘convince themselves they’re lesbians.’

            They’re not. They’re just using men as scapegoats for all of their problems.

            You’re too spineless to make your desires clear and say ‘no’ once a sexual interaction goes farther than you wanted? Not my fault, dude’s a rapist.

            Are you fat and feel unattractive? This has nothing to do with human beings not being attracted to obese people, it’s caused by unfair societal standards implemented by the patriarchy.

            Are you thin skinned and easily annoyed by trivial bullshit? Well, if men would stop purposefully irritating me with their manspreading and mansplaining as a means of patriarchal control, I wouldn’t have to be so irritable all the time.

            That’s all it is. Basic false victimhood as a means of scapegoating.

            1. It is absolutely crazy to say they’re trying to ‘convince themselves they’re lesbians.’

              They’re not. They’re just using men as scapegoats for all of their problems.

              You do understand those two things are not mutually exclusive? And the fact that they try doesn’t mean they succeed. Some women do others don’t. How successful they are in doing that determines how the neurosis manifests itself.

        2. Misandry and Mysoginy are really two sides of the same coin, but it’s not necessarily just sexual frustration driving it, it’s also selfishness, laziness, victimization, and the need to control. That’s why you often see fat, slovenly people in either group demanding that they get the 10 even though they themselves are 2s and have nothing to offer other then their constant bitching. For the men, its I deserve the 10 because “I’m a nice guy” as if offering the most basic expected human behavior puts you in a position to deserve the 10. For women its, “You should just love me the way I am” as if having a vagina automatically makes it ok for you be fat, slovenly, and to be able to treat others like shit.

          Both groups don’t want to put the work into being a good partner, get frustrated when no wants them, then blames the entire sex for their laziness and selfishness.

          1. I think that your point and John’s point are both just flavors of special snowflake syndrome. JezzieFems, like most other collectivists and many other fucked up people, are trying to cope with a world where they are unimportant. Inevitably, they latch to some collective characteristic of importance, whether it be nationality, race, hobby, sports team, political TEAM, or gender. Once latched onto their collective of choice, it’s simple group interest politics.

      2. Can’t agree with you here, John.

        Without men, they’d have no one to lay a guilt trip on (their lesbian lovers would throw the same victim card back at them).

        Without men, they’d have no one to blame for their failings.

        Without men, they’d have no one whose inadequacies they could try to assert.

        They no more hate men than any other bully hates his/her target. At risk of playing the amateur psychologist, I’d say they generally want to fuck their daddies and can’t forgive them for not reciprocating the feelings. As a result, they spend the rest of their days trying to turn all men into the daddy they can take their frustrations out on.

        1. Sure Bill. It is a co-dependent relationship. And hating something is a great way to avoid personal responsibility.

          That fact, however, doesn’t mean the person doing it consciously realizes what they are doing. They don’t wake up one day and think “I will avoid responsibility by blaming my problems on men”. No. they can’t face responsibility and convince themselves men are to blame then can’t reconcile the resulting hatred of men with their desire to be accepted by men and end up hating themselves more than they already did for it.

          1. I think I see where we’re differing here. What you’re calling “hating” is what I consider a really screwed up attempt to create the reality they won’t admit to themselves they want. They want Daddy. They want someone to give them their pony and tell them all the time how they’re just the little princess. They also know Daddy’s never going to give them that. So, they spend the rest of their lives trying to pound men into Daddy while getting revenge on them for rejecting them.

            1. ^ That’s not a bad point given that these ‘free willed feminists’ are always trying to get government to give them things.

              If you were actually opposed to patriarchy you wouldn’t want male politicians coddling you any more than you’d want daddy coddling you. The fact that they absolutely accept being taken care of and controlled by the state (which is disproportionately run by men) tells me they actually yearn for patriarchy, they just want a type of patriarchy that has yet to be provided to them.

              1. …they actually yearn for patriarchy, they just want a type of patriarchy that has yet to be provided to them.

                My guess is, and probably would rightly be considered incest if it were.

            2. To expand, I remember reading comments on Jezebel re: Barack Obama about a year ago in which they were basically slobbering all over him. One person talked about how her heart was set aflutter when he totally touched her arm on the campaign trail in 2008.

              Yeah – those people really hate patriarchy. They despise it.

        2. Without men, they’d have no one to lay a guilt trip on (their lesbian lovers would throw the same victim card back at them).

          Or possibly a fist, given the domestic violence rates among lesbian couples. Seriously, if women ran the world it would be a nuclear wasteland in no time.

          1. Or possibly a fist

            And given loose-but-suggestive numbers about female sexual assault/rape among self-identified lesbian women, this fist might not be directed at their face.

      3. My wife – then girlfriend – was part of a feminist woman’s group during college.

        It always amused me to see these er, strong women, get all feminine and turn on the charm once a few guys showed up to drink beer.

        I had one of them – who was married – tell me that she was in an open relationship… and would I be willing to go out with her? And back then I was one of the meanest SOBs around – at least compared to the other pansies there.

    2. #2 and #3 are the same; it’s just that you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes by BIG DILDO.

      1. I’m envisioning Thailand crushing the burgeoning U.S. sex toy manufacturing industries with a flood of cheap dildos.

  21. Dems ask for $30 million. Instead of laughing in their face, the GOP will give them $20 million and brag about cutting government spending. And the Dems will still launch into “The GOP wants women to be raped” nonsense. In for a penny, in for a pound – cut the whole frigging Dept. of Education.

    1. And still be accused of hating women and thinking rape is okay.

      1. They’re already accused of this stuff and will continue to be so accused as long as it gains more votes from loony feminists than it loses among sane people. Which is forever, so why not make some points with the sane folks?

        1. Exactly. The Dems are going to call them evil women haters no matter what. So why not do the right thing?

          1. So why not do the right thing?

            You do realize you are talking about the GOP, yes?

            1. I wish the more reform-minded Republicans in Congress would take a more radical position. But everyone just seems so unwilling to make waves.

              1. more reform-minded Republicans in Congress

                All three of them?

                1. To be sure, some are reform-minded, and some just say they are during campaigns, but there are a decent number. Enough to make noise if they wanted to. They just don’t want to.

  22. Jesus Tittyfucking Christ. Post another fucking story already, Reason!

    1. Or we’ll never leave this thread!

      1. You’ll be happy to now that this will soon be donning my office wall.
        [reprint, obviously]

        1. You stole that from Armstrong’s family? Does your infamy know no bounds?

          1. He’ll go up on the big boy wall of fame, too. Above Ted Williams and beside Woody Hayes, neither of which is a reprint.

            1. In a thousand years, the U.S. will be largely forgotten, but they’ll remember the first guy to set foot on another world.

              1. they’ll remember the first guy to set foot on another world.

                And they’ll remember the first guy to set foot on the moon as well.

                But seriously, I did buy that and it is going on my office wall as the only non-sports person.

                1. The Moon is a world but not a planet. Except that after it blasted out of orbit in 1999, perhaps it was reclassified a a planet? Maybe not, since it escaped the sun as well as the Earth.

        1. Day 20: Fought off the man by recoding the site. Released one hostage in exchange for a Cuban sandwich and a Coke.

          1. Day 30: Just did a virtual interview with a correspondent from Fox. He was uninterested in our protest but instead kept asking why Hit & Run hadn’t posted any new articles in a month. We’re adding his network to our boycott.

    2. Maybe on immigration or trans issues. Anything but another vaccination thread.

      1. “Vaccinating trans deferentially documented deep dish abortions”

        1. deep dish abortions

          Never heard of them – are they on iTunes?

          1. They’re either on the PS4 or XBOX ONE. I remember it was supposed to be the better of the two, if that helps.

  23. From Drake:

    Is the goal to make every college an all-woman institution?

    The goal is for members of the Politically Correct religion to be the only ones eligible for a government job. This is completed by making the job of drone pilot require a college degree. The ‘private’ sector will stop requiring college degrees. It has already so, to some extent, already.

    So what we’ll end up with is PC girl GS-7s, with college degrees, sitting in cubicles at the Pentagon operating kill drones that were designed and programmed by boys at Raytheon who never attended college.

    This will be interesting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.