Justin Amash

Justin Amash Chastises Marco Rubio Over PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Stance

The Michigan representative didn't pull his punches at the International Students for Liberty Conference.

|

Justin Amash and Thomas Massie at a panel at the 2015 International Students for Liberty Conference in D.C.
Stephanie Slade

Rep. Justin Amash (R–Mich.) threw some shade at Sen. Marco Rubio (R–Fla.) today over the latter's support for permanently reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

The congressman was asked during a panel at the 2015 International Students for Liberty Conference, happening now in Washington, D.C., how he felt about the idea that Congress should "rubberstamp" reauthorization of the controversial law. Amash responded: "I think it's embarrassing to say things like that. It reflects a lack of awareness of what the American people think and what the Constitution says. And if [Rubio] thinks that that is the future of the Republican Party, he is very wrong."

Amash said the GOP's job is to stand for liberty, protect people's rights, and curb corporate welfare, adding, "I think we have a great group of people who are pushing the country in the right direction. And we've got some people like Sen. Rubio who want to take us backward, and move the party in the wrong direction, and make it into a very small party."

Rubio staked out his position in an op-ed for FoxNews.com back in January in which blasted President Obama for putting "the U.S. war against Islamic extremism" on hold. He wrote at the time:

The U.S. government should implore American technology companies to cooperate with authorities so that we can better track terrorist activity and monitor terrorist communications as we face the increasing challenge of homegrown terrorists radicalized by little more than what they see on the Internet.  

This year, a new Republican majority in both houses of Congress will have to extend current authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and I urge my colleagues to consider a permanent extension of the counterterrorism tools our intelligence community relies on to keep the American people safe.

Amash's harsh words were a doubling down of sorts: After Rubio's piece was published, the congressman retweeted a link along with the word, "Disqualified."

The PATRIOT Act was passed in the wake of 9/11 to give intelligence officials expanded surveillance tools for use in fighting terrorism. Several key provisions of the law are set to expire this year.

NEXT: Murder at Copenhagen debate on free speech attended by Swedish Muhammad cartoonist

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

  1. Breastfeeding Mother Arrested and Babies Taken Away by Force: The Parents’ Side of the Story

    The police literally ripped 14 month old Levi from his mother’s breast, reports Erica May Carey, as she was nursing him in the car at a California gas station. Her baby was screaming, and she says her breast was exposed as the officers dragged her from the car. As she recounted the events of last Thursday, Erica began weeping, saying that she was “hogtied like an animal, when moments before I was nursing my infant.” She was arrested and jailed for fighting to keep her children with her.

    Certainly a little looney, but whose kids are they, the parent’s or the State’s?

      1. It’s H&R, off topic is the commentariat’s bread and butter.

      2. Exposed breasts are always on topic.

    1. babies were taken amidst accusations of neglect for choosing alternative remedies such as calendula and coconut oil for their older baby’s eczema and preferring not to take their newborn twins to the hospital after an unassisted homebirth, even though they were reportedly healthy.

      Well, since regular medicine can’t treat most forms of eczema anyway (immonosuppresants being the most reliable but extreme method available), and unaided births have been going on for mellenia, I don’t really se where the neglect claims have any ground.

      1. At this point “neglect” means “offends the sensibilities of the upper middle class”.

        1. Look, those pearls aren’t going to clutch themselves.

          1. Pearls are a dangerous choking hazard. Calling CPS.

        2. At this point “neglect” means “offends the sensibilities of the upper middle class”.

          Yep. I brought that SC case where the kid was playing in the park up at some gathering or another, and a woman was arguing with me about how the authorities did the right thing and blah blah blah. She of course is a housewife because her husband makes tons of money. So her kids never go a minute unsupervised. I’m sure that’s going to create independent and capable young people.

          1. How the hell did it happen that there seems to have been a complete disconnect when it comes to one generation of parents passing down accumulated knowledge and lessons learned, so that their children, and their children’s children, think that they must reinventing parenting?

            I can understand the baby boomer mentality: they acted as if they were the first generation ever to be young, then acted as if they were the first to marry, the first to have kids, the first to reach middle age, etc. But now millenials are starting from scratch in child-rearing as well?

            1. It is the same as it ever was.

            2. Parents have always done silly things out of fear for the bogeyman du jour getting their children. Circumcision, kicking AIDS patients out of schools, the Comics Code, etc. It’s not a new thing.

              The problem these days is that the 24/7 news and talk industry, in its desperation for eardrums and eyeballs, parades a constant stream of bogeymen before them. It’s no wonder the dullards that make up 80% of the population think the entire world is out to get their children; and the only logical response is to keep them under lock and key and watchful eyes, aside from the time they spend under the gentle tutelage of the State.

              1. Which would be fine if they didn’t feel the need to extend that to the 20% who are not dullards.

    2. my co-worker’s mother makes $85 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for nine months but last month her check was $14492 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this web-site
      .. http://www.jobs-check.com

  2. No, Ms. Slade, the USA PATRIOT Act was *not* “passed in the wake of 9/11 to give intelligence officials expanded surveillance tools for use in fighting terrorism.” The Act was a wish list of powers the DEA had been trying to get Congress to give them for at least a decade before 9/11, and its only connection with 9/11 was that the tragedy gave them an opportunity to get it enacted.

    And the powers it purports to grant (but can’t) have indeed been used almost entirely for drug enforcement. That by itself is more than enough reason to demand it be repealed or overturned immediately.

    1. But the point remains, and it is indeed the point that you make, that it was 9/11 that gave congress the green light to pass this foolishness.

    2. The Act was a wish list of powers the DEA had been trying to get Congress to give them for at least a decade before 9/11

      And had been going absolutely nowhere. It was 9/11 that changed enough legislators minds to get it passed. And I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to assume that their motive in changing their minds was to give intelligence officials expanded surveillance tools for use in fighting terrorism. At least some of them got rooked.

  3. He wrote at the time:

    The U.S. government should implore American technology companies to cooperate with authorities so that we can better track terrorist activity and monitor terrorist communications as we face the increasing challenge of homegrown terrorists radicalized by little more than what they see on the Internet.

    But don’t worry, we’ll never use this against Americans, for “law enforcement” purposes completely unrelated to terrorism.

    Mendacious scumbag, or fatuous moron?

    1. There’s nothing wrong with the government imploring. In fact I wish they’d implore me more often.

    2. “Mendacious scumbag, or fatuous moron?”
      Yes and yes:
      “These strained relations between the White House and Silicon Valley were placed in sharp focus Friday after the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo declined White House invitations to attend the summit ? and a private lunch with the president.
      These companies are among a number of tech giants that have pushed Washington to end the bulk collection of private data because of customer privacy concerns, but little has happened to curb the NSA’s practices.”
      http://blog.sfgate.com/techchr…..on-valley/

    1. He gets the brass balls award for February, for sure.

    2. Imagine being those IRS goons. You go to some dilapidated house and toss the mother and baby out in the street. I don’t know the tax situation in this case, but you’d think an ounce of compassion would exist in their minds and THEY would be the ones to find the loophole to let them stay. Not these guys.

      1. Sounds like the sheriff’s issue with the whole thing was that the feds were seizing and selling the property without ever taking the landlord to court.

        There’s some old document that says “The government may not deprive citizens of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law.”

        1. There’s some old document that says “The government may not deprive citizens of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law.”

          Isn’t it fucking awesome that there is actually an enforcer who gives a shit.

          If all the pigs were like this guy, I’d have less problem with authority.

          1. Outside of a few big-city counties, sheriffs are usually concerned for their people and their rights. Something about being elected has that effect.

            1. Probably about having a high likelyhood of meeting the folks that you police in day to day life too.

              In big cities, other people are just in the way. In smaller communities, they may be a pain in the butt, but they are people you know too. Makes a difference.

        2. Morning. Yep, it says a lot things.

      2. US Marshals, actually, and there’s no room for compassion in federal law enforcement these days; it’s specifically selected against during the recruitment process. There’s a reason they use mother with baby targets during pistol qualification.

        1. US Marshals, you say?

          *crosses em off Christmas list*

        2. The IRS sent the Marshals, the Marshals don’t come on their own.

          1. The ole just following orders thing? Create a compassion less bureaucracy where no human is responsible for their actions.

          2. The Marshals were the people that straffinrun was describing.

    3. I bet dollars to doughnuts that this Sheriff is an Oath Keeper.

      County Sheriffs are the only LE that is directly elected by the people and is responsible to the people.

      Find out if your Sheriff is an Oath Keeper and if not work to elect one who is and constantly remind him why he got elected to office.

      It’s our only hope.

    4. I bet dollars to doughnuts that this Sheriff is an Oath Keeper.

      County Sheriffs are the only LE that is directly elected by the people and is responsible to the people.

      Find out if your Sheriff is an Oath Keeper and if not work to elect one who is and constantly remind him why he got elected to office.

      It’s our only hope.

    5. And examples like this are why I am skeptical of some of the more extreme anti-law enforcement attitudes that some express. Guys like this sheriff actually are performing a public service. And lumping them in with authoritarian thugs does them a disservice.

  4. Amash said the GOP’s job is to stand for liberty, protect people’s rights, and curb corporate welfare…

    Disqualified. If he really thinks that, he’s too naive to be president.

    1. Right on. The GOP’s job is to pander to social conservatives and the defense industry, and suck slightly less than the Democrats for economic conservatives.

      1. No , that ie their job.

        They just don;t do it and instead do what you say.

  5. The PATRIOT Act was passed in the wake of 9/11 to give intelligence nearly all federal law enforcement officials expanded surveillance tools for use in fighting terrorism doing whatever they damn well please.

  6. “Houston arson investigators on Saturday were working to determine what caused a fire that destroyed a building at an Islamic institute in the city, officials said.”

    http://www.christiantoday.com/…../48124.htm

    1. (autoplay ads)

      1. I want to click that link, but I am an atheist. I won’t catch fire when the link loads, will I?

        1. If you don’t execute the “Halt and Catch Fire” command when given, you should be fine for the time being.

          The thiest ninjas dispatched to your place later, however, will make it look like an accident.

      2. *gasp* a site named ‘Christian Today’ contains religion. I’m shocked.

        Though for the storage facility fire, there were plenty of places to link to (I could be mistaken, but the information I have is that the structure that burned was primarily used for storage)

        1. If by ‘storage’ you mean ‘insurance payoff’ then you are probably correct.

          This story is not related, but I am bored so I will tell it anyway;

          I knew of a guy in Jena, La who bought an old derelict hotel, slapped cheap paint on it, then filled it with furniture and appliances that he got from junk yards.
          Surprisiingly, it caught fire and burned to the ground about three months after he opened it.

          Unsurprisingly, he spent a couple of decades enjoying the hospitality of the state.

          He lived in a tar paper shack until Pentagon drilled a hell of a good well in his back yard. He built a huge, garish monstrosity of a house (he put a fountain with multicolored lights in his living room) and blew through all of his money in a couple of years. That amounted to about 50k a month. When the well finally ran dry he was over a million in debt.

          Genius.

          1. Yeah, but what a ride .

            Any hookers and blow involved ?

          2. Yeah, but what a ride .

            Any hookers and blow involved ?

    2. 1. An arson investigator once told me that he always assumes every fire is arson until he can prove otherwise. Nine out of ten fires are arson according to him and it is almost always the owner trying to collect insurance.

      They should take a hard look at Mr. Zahid.

      2. “It’s getting pretty scary, and very close to home, being harassed based on our faith.”

      No shit. Perhaps you should consider a different religion, ya know, one that doesn’t teach doing just that to members of other religions.

      1. Yeah I would say either insurance or an attempt to cash in on the current media hype train over the shooting in NC.

    3. OK, what part of “working to determine what caused [the] fire” is unclear?

      Here is a report in the Jerusalem Post:

      http://www.jpost.com/Internati…..ter-390995

      1. But the bottom line is that the Pope ordered me and my Opus Dei colleagues to promote sympathy for Islam, because….

        because…

        Well, for whatever reason, make up whatever shit you like!

        1. Maybe NASA could help you come up witth a reason.

          I’ve heard that making Muslims feel good about themselves is mission critical these days.

          1. I can’t tell whether you mean to insult me or not, so in case you *don’t* have such an intention, please ignore the following:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOphGZZrE44

              1. If you’re not trying to insult me, bless your hearts.

                If you are…

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNgWQfOd-1M

                1. I was trying to insult Bronco Bama and the head of NASA who took the job with those instructions from the Prez.

    4. “Houston arson investigators on Saturday were working to determine what caused a fire that destroyed a building at an Islamic institute in the city, officials said.”

      You mean they don’t already know that 100 year old church segregation has caused atheists to be radicalized and attack Muslims? Quick, someone send Cali Dissident to Houston so he can solve the case…

  7. “……terrorists radicalized by little more than what they see on the Internet. ”

    Bullshit.

    Rubio has been doubling down on the suckage lately, hasn’t he? Or did I just not notice it before?

    1. No, Rubio is correct. The text of the Qu’ran is available on the Internet.

  8. Rubio suffers from the delusion that the right people can be trusted with power. It’s a dangerous and foolish attitude.

    1. He also suffers from the delusion that he is one of the right people.

      Funny that.

      1. right people can be trusted with power.

        Eh, I mean I was all of a sudden given the Oval Office I think I would spend the first few days pardoning lots and lots of people. Then after that start getting legislation to repeal unconstitutional laws.

        I’d say it’s more you can’t trust people who would seek power. I’d trust many of the regulars here with dictatorial power actually.

        1. In addition to the pardons I think firing a lot of people would be a good use of time and would go a long way.

        2. I’d trust many of the regulars here with dictatorial power actually.

          For a week or two. That’s how long non-Hobbits can resist the ring.

          1. Exactly.

          2. I like Mises answer to what he’d do if he were made dictator. Resign.

            1. Or W F Buckley’s. When asked what he would do if he won the 1965 election for mayor of NYC, he said “Demand a recount.”

            2. I like Mises answer to what he’d do if he were made dictator. Resign.

              See that’s silly. If I was dictator….oh man. I’ve got thousands of people to release from jail, I’ve got millions of criminal records to expunge. I’ve got millions of bureaucrats to fire and thousands of pages of legislation and regulation to go through with a red pen.

              1. It would be fun, wouldn’t it? Just whatever you could get done in 4 years to monkey wrench the entire system.

              2. For the greater good, I’d violate man’s liberty.

          3. But the good I could do! Oh I would be a benevolent God…

        3. I’d trust many of the regulars here with dictatorial power actually.

          I’d be careful about that. Remember, it’s not just the guy in office who’s a power seeker. The regular you gave dictatorial power to wouldn’t be surrounded by advisers from the H&R comment section. We’ve got better things to do with our lives. They’d be surrounded by all the usual suspects. And they’d be sure to tell him at length how wise, courageous and insightful the new libertarian policies being enacted were. But, if they don’t act now, there’s just this terrible, awful threat that will just undo all the progress that the libertarian policies have made. Surely, someone as wise, insightful and courageous as they understands just how dire the situation is and will act responsibly…

    2. Dangerous only for us, the ruled. No down-side for him.

  9. This country is one mediocrely successful terrorist attack from full-on fascism. When that happens, Rubio, and countless people like him, will be calling the shots. And sadly, it will be with the blessing of many of our neighbors, it goes without saying.

    If I hear Obama say one more time that his “primary” duty is the physical protection of Americans, rather than upholding the Constitution, as his oath of office states, I’m going to scream.

    1. My take is that Obumbles has gotten every single thing regarding the presidency, the constitution, his priorities, everything WRONG. He doesn’t even find the proverbial acorn.

      In addition to that he has been very careful not to let the truth ever pass his lips.

      If he was trying to fuck things up as much as possible instead of just being an idiot, I don’t know what he would do differently.

      1. That’s a meme that I’m a bit surprised hasn’t got legs – I’ve been waiting for it in vain. And that is: nothing BO says is reality-based. It’s either a purposeful lie (foreign policy) or a complete misunderstanding of basic fundamentals (economics), or both.

      2. That’s not entirely fair. Most of the ISIS policy has been as good as we could possibly have, when you look at the very limited options available. Nearly the entire GOP and a lot of Dems would have us invading Iraq and Syria again.

        On marijuana legalization he’s been about as good as you could ever seriously hope for from a libertarian POV.

        On a few issues he’s actually gotten better as a lame duck. Granted, he’s atrocious on a lot more.

        1. I am not interested in being fair. I am interested in being right.

          I disagree with your assessment.

          If ISIS is a threat to us then get a declaration of war from Congress and go pound the hell out of them. Kill every goddamn one of them. Fight wars like you are in it to win. Replace the current rules of engagement with ‘find the enemy and kill them’. Get rid of the fucking lawyers that follow the troops around. When you are finished killing them pack up and come home. Nation building is a fool’s errand. If they aren’t enough of a threat to warrant that then stay the hell out.

          His drug warrior goons have been going full guns against the American people in the way that the troops should have been doing overseas. He refuses to reclassify MJ and lied about his ability to do so. His record of pardons is abysmal.

          He appears to be going full Chavez now that he is off the election leash. Threatening CEO’s who dare criticize his signature law, attempting to; throttle the internet, writing up budgets for 4 trillion dollars, raising taxes by hundreds of billions, directing the EPA to kill the keystone in order to enrich his cronies, yammering on about global warming….ad infinitum.

          He is trying to realize his dream of ruling a country like China. If anything he has gotten worse in every way. I have a sickening feeling he is just getting warmed up.

          1. This wins the internet, today and tomorrow.

          2. If ISIS is a threat to us then get a declaration of war from Congress and go pound the hell out of them. Kill every goddamn one of them. Fight wars like you are in it to win. Replace the current rules of engagement with ‘find the enemy and kill them’. Get rid of the fucking lawyers that follow the troops around. When you are finished killing them pack up and come home… If they aren’t enough of a threat to warrant that then stay the hell out.

            Subtlety isn’t your strong suit, is it? Thank God you weren’t in charge during the Cold War. Sometimes you have to choose a course of action lying between doing nothing and engaging in total war. Getting the locals to take care of this problem in their own backyard is exactly the right policy, though it’s not the easiest or the most emotionally satisfying.

            1. False equivalencies are basically your only argumentative tactic, huh?

              Slaughtering ISIS rabble could not potentially spark a nuclear Armageddon. It isn’t exactly comparable to our situation in the Cold War.

              His point wasn’t that we should go in and destroy ISIS, merely that there’s no point in doing our piecemeal, ineffectual drone campaign. If they are enough of a threat to warrant war, we should destroy them. If they’re not enough of a threat to warrant war, we should leave them alone. The worst conceivable option is a half-measure that causes this war to drag on for 10 years.

              1. Slaughtering ISIS rabble could not potentially spark a nuclear Armageddon. It isn’t exactly comparable to our situation in the Cold War.

                The Soviets were a serious threat to our interests in Europe and East Asia years before they had nukes. We spearheaded NATO three years before they got nukes. We didn’t fight them then, when we were the sole possessor of nuclear deterrent, because doing so would have created more problems than it solved.

                While ISIS certainly doesn’t represent the threat that the USSR did, I would certainly think that anyone over the age of 10, excluding retards and Bill Kristol, would recognize the problems with swatting at the Mesopotamian beehive without an exit strategy that leaves things better than they are now.

              2. His point wasn’t that we should go in and destroy ISIS

                Did you read his post?

                1. Irish: “His (Suthenboy) point wasn’t that we should go in and destroy ISIS”

                  The Devil Uno: “Did you read his post?”

                  Suthenboy: “If ISIS is a threat to us then get a declaration of war from Congress and go pound the hell out of them.”

                  Followed in the same paragraph by: “If they aren’t enough of a threat to warrant that then stay the hell out.”

                  Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it?

              3. + 3 Vietnam “police actions”

                1. That was for Irish.

            2. Subtlety isn’t your strong suit, is it? Thank God you weren’t in charge during the Cold War. Sometimes you have to choose a course of action lying between doing nothing and engaging in total war.

              The problem with that is that that’s been tried. It doesn’t really work. All it does is draw us into quagmires that we haven’t really thought through our interests well enough to assess the costs and benefits of marginal escalation. Vietnam comes to mind. It was precisely in reaction to that that we adopted the Weinberger/Powell Doctrine that was particularly successful right up to the point that it was discontinued.

          3. I am not interested in being fair. I am interested in being right.

            Buy that man a drink!

      3. He has been decent on trade.

      4. I’d say the only thing I can think of right now that he did that was right was ending don’t ask don’t tell. And even that he let congress do all the heavy lifting.

        1. Easing Cuba relations is the only thing I can think of. The Republicans should be ashamed that they didn’t do it.

          1. Ending DADT and the attempt to bring the relations with Cuba in line with how we deal with all other minor dictatorships are the only two good things I can think of.

    2. Only if it’s from a McVeigh type.

      If it’s a Muslim, we’ll hear the usual crap: Islam means piece, only a few are extremists, blah blah blah, it’s all white men’s fault anyway, slavery, blowback, crusades, blah blah blah.

      Islamic terrorism will never be taken seriously in this country until one of our cities gets nuked. Which probably won’t ever happen, but there’s a finite chance of it, if small

    3. When that happens, Rubio, and countless people like him, will be calling the shots.

      Nah. Guys like Rubio kid themselves that they’ll be the ones calling the shots. They’re useful for handing over power. But, once power is handed over, what the fuck good is a lawyer? To the extent he’s willing to go along with the program to provide a veneer of legitimacy, he’d be a comfortable accessory. But, the ones calling the shots would be the ones with talents better suited to that particular form of government.

  10. San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Arrested For Intervening Between Police And Her Client

    SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) ? San Francisco’s public defender has released a video showing police arresting a deputy public defender outside a courtroom for intervening in an interaction between police and her client.

    According to Public Defender Jeff Adachi, Stansbury arrested Tillotson for refusing to let her client be questioned without the presence of his attorney.

    In a press release, Adachi called the arrest ‘outrageous’ and said after Tillotson was led away she was handcuffed to a wall in a holding cell for approximately an hour.

    During the time Tillotson was not present, Stanbury photographed and questioned her client and another man who did not have an attorney present, acccording [sic] to Adachi.

    1. Tillotson refuses and Stansbury then tells her she can either step aside or be arrested for resisting arrest, according to the subtitles on the YouTube video.

      ???????

      1. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we’re done.

    2. I’m puzzled as to why she didn’t just have any evidence resulting from the interrogation thrown out. Attempting physical intervention against police officers is risky biz even if justified.

    3. “San Francisco Police spokesman Officer Albie Esparza said Tillotson was detained for obstructing officers and said the incident was an active criminal investigation.”

      Obstructing officers. Interesting. So if a lawyer advises his client to be silent is that obstruction also? If a person is accused by the cops and refuses to confess, even if they are innocent, is that grounds for arrest?

      I would think, don’t laugh, that this is one case where qualified immunity could be defeated. No way Stanbury can claim to not know that the accused have a right to council.

      1. The remedy for violation of the right to an attorney is throwing out the evidence obtained during questioning, not physical intervention. It’s unclear as well whether the accused voluntarily eschewed the assistance of counsel, which he has every right to do.

  11. The new normal.

    Gunmen have killed one person and injured three police officers at a free speech debate in Copenhagen attended by a controversial Swedish cartoonist [Lars Vilks], officials say.

    The French ambassador was also present at the seminar?.

    The debate, which took place in a cafe, was described on a personal website of Lars Vilks as a talk on whether any limits should be placed on artistic expression or freedom of speech.

    A description of the event asked whether artists could “dare” to be blasphemous in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks by Islamist gunmen in Paris last month.

    Note the ability for a small minority of a small minority to essentially place a continent under siege and guarantee that people are hesitant to ‘blaspheme’ against their chosen religion.

    It’s absolutely true that the vast majority of Muslims will never even consider doing anything like this, but given the frequency of such attacks I don’t know how anyone can claim this has nothing to do with Islam.

    1. BBC News has just reported a shooting at a synagogue in Copenhagen.

      1. Are the Danes bombing ISIS?

          1. Oh, I remember hearing about that. BBC did a segment on one of their World News shows. It was interesting.

    2. So far this year, more people have been murdered in Chicago by street gangs than radical Muslims in all of Europe, which has what, 100 times the population?

      Under siege? Please.

      If one of these fools responsible for shooting innocent people in the US claimed to be a libertarian, would that implicate libertarianism in the murder?

      1. You are Obumbles here trolling us, aren’t you?

        Apples and oranges.

        Libertarianism advocates for the NAP. Libertarians argue constantly for self ownership and freedom of conscience, so no.

        Islam advocates killing blasphemers. High profile Islamic leaders frequently put out orders for killing such people, so yeah.

        1. Pretty much every religion, including Judaism and Christianity, advocates killing blasphemers. It makes no sense to single out Islam.

          The only reason the West doesn’t use religion to justify our killing is because we’ve gotten comfortable with using nonreligious justifications for that purpose.

          1. Congratulations!

            I am more convinced you are Obumbles now because that post contains absolutely nothing of value whatsoever, and a good bit of pure falsehood. You got everything wrong.

          2. The only reason the West doesn’t use religion to justify our killing is because we’ve gotten comfortable with using nonreligious justifications for that purpose.

            Cool, then what’s your rationale for why Indian Hindus don’t engage in terrorist attacks against Pakistan? Why don’t the Japanese Shinto engage in global attempts at violent conversion?

            I’m also not entirely sure how you can say that ‘we’ve’ gotten comfortable using nonreligious justifications to engage in killing. Poland is majority Catholic. How many people do the Poles kill using non-religious justifications?

            1. why Indian Hindus don’t engage in terrorist attacks against Pakistan

              India and Paki have had skirmishes many times. And Hindus aren’t above using violence against Muslims unfortunate enough to have been stuck on the Indian side of the partition. Ask your devout Hindu pal Modi about that.

              Why don’t the Japanese Shinto engage in global attempts at violent conversion?

              Shinto has in the past been used to justify violence, mass killing, genocide, and other atrocities. The relatively recent past, as in the past your grandparents lived through. Study frakking history. What changed? The Japanese have gotten materialistic, just like us.

              Poland is majority Catholic. How many people do the Poles kill using non-religious justifications?

              Is one of us in Poland? You know damn well who “we” is. ISIS is going to have to work long and hard for the next few years to kill as many Iraqis as the US-led coalition did.

              1. I like how you begin in media res. Or are you arguing that the mob of 2000 Muslims who burned the Hindu pilgrims alive while they were trapped in railway cars was a false flag attack?

              2. India and Pakistan’s conflicts certainly don’t go back centuries to the invasion of the Indian subcontinent by Muslims and decades of brutal oppression and slavery of Hindus (some Islamic leaders were acceptable, Akbar for example, but you can’t really talk about the India/Pakistan conflicts without noting its origins in Islamic expansionism into the subcontinent).

              3. Here’s another question for you, Devil Uno:

                Out of Christianity and Islam, which one’s holy texts specifically argues for an authoritarian theocracy managing everything from exploiting taxes from religious minorities to suppression of dissents, and which one had some weird anarchist hippie declare ‘Render Onto Caesar’?

          3. It makes perfect sense to single out Islam because they are the ones doing it and telling us explicitly that that is why they are doing it.

            The Christians and Jews aren’t doing it because they mostly don’t believe that shit. The religious in those two faiths are essentially secularized. They have kept the best parts of their faith and ditched the barbarism. Islam has done the opposite, so yeah, I am singling them out. They are savages.

            “It makes no sense to single them out.” Titty-fuckin’ Christ, that is the dumbest thing written on the internet today.

            1. In fairness, I don’t think it’s right to assume individual Muslims adhere to the worst aspects of that faith either. Most American Muslims are very secularized, and large numbers of European Muslims are secularized as well.

              The primary problem is that Islam, unlike other religions, maintains a minority of adherents who will kill anyone that offends their faith.

              It’s wrong to attack all Muslims as being responsible, but it’s irresponsible to pretend Islam is not suffering a unique problem.

              1. Well put.

                I am not so sure that the minority is small. When muslim students at universities in the US will not criticize Islamists for fear of being killed by their fellow muslim students we have a serious problem. Actually that holds true for large numbers of the Muslim population as a whole. We don’t hear them criticizing the barbarism because A) they are afraid to and B) because they sympathize. I am not sure which is the more popular reason.

                Again Devil, I am singling out Islam. I won’t assign collective guilt, but large numbers of Muslims are red eyed, bloodthirsty savages seemingly straight out of the seventh century. No other major religion suffers that problem.

            2. Then we agree in principle. Islam isn’t any worse than Judaism and Christianity. The problem is that people who claim to believe in it actually do believe in it.

              1. Islam isn’t any worse than Judaism and Christianity.

                Untrue.

              2. Actually, it is. Yes, the problem is that people who claim to believe in it actually do, but additionally it is more savage in philosophy. There is no ‘turn the other cheek’, no ‘all equal in the eyes of the Lord’, no forbidding laying the sins of the father on the son. Christianity and Judaism teach ideas that are germinal to western civilization. In fact I would say that Libertarianism is the logical outcome of those ideas. Without those religions it may never have come about.

                There are no ideas in Islam that have the potential to mature into something more civilized. It was founded by a common thief, murderer, and pedophile. It is the religion of the sword, of banditry and rape.

                Look, I singled them out again. Just makes no sense……

                1. I forgot this little gem.

                  Islam encourages, no, requires its followers to lie their asses off in any way they can in order to get over on infidels. In addition to requiring savage behavior it also requires dishonor.

                2. There are no ideas in Islam that have the potential to mature into something more civilized.

                  Yet somehow in AD 1000 the Islamic world was far more civilized than the Christian world.

                  Mohammed was a pretty bad dude by modern standards, no doubt, killing his rivals and stealing their land. The folks who wrote the Torah were no choir boys either though…. it was also largely written to justify killing neighboring tribes and stealing their land. Yahweh pretty explicitly commands that the Hebrews commit genocide against the Canaanites (real genocide, as in killing every single one of them, including women and children), something that Allah never did in the Koran.

                  Even if you let Christianity off the hook for the Old Testament’s bloodthirstiness, it’s hard to ignore the fact that as soon as it became the dominant religion in Europe it was used to kill people and take their land too! Seems to be a common theme, hardly all attributable to Mohammed.

                  1. In AD 1000 the Islamic world was pretty bad by modern standards too. They only are considered civilized in comparison to their contemporaries.

                    You didn’t address my point. I never said that Judaism and Christianity didn’t have bad ideas. I said they had good ones that germinated the enlightenment and secularization. Ideas and principles that defeated barbarism. Talking about what happened before that and a few of the things along the way is moot. Christianity was a powerful tool in the fight against slavery. Yes, some used it to justify slavery, but in the end it was more effective at defeating it because it shaped the conscience of the western people and thus they found slavery intolerable.

                    Islam contains no such ideas and has a stranglehold on its societies as a system of law, society, and religion. There are more chattel slaves in the world today than at any time in history. The vast majority are in the middle east being bought, sold, and owned by Muslims. Where is the Muslim movement to abolish slavery?

                    You can beat that horse until your arm falls off Dingbat. It is not gonna get up and whinny, its just going to keep dead sharting.

                    1. Do you know anything about Islam beyond your FoxNews pamphlet?

                      In Islamic law, the topic of slavery is covered at great length. The Quran (the holy book) and the hadith (the sayings of Muhammad) see slavery as an exceptional condition that can be entered into under certain limited circumstances. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim. They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins. According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.

                    2. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war

                      You realize that extremist Muslims consider themselves to be in a state of constant war with nonbelievers, right?

                    3. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves

                      Which is exactly what’s happening to the Yazidi and Kurdish women and girls.I’m not sure how that supports your argument.

                    4. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war could become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim. They also consider manumission of a slave to be one of many meritorious deeds available for the expiation of sins. According to Sharia, slaves are considered human beings and possessed some rights on the basis of their humanity. In addition, a Muslim slave is equal to a Muslim freeman in religious issues and superior to the free non-Muslim.

                      Well now – that’s mighty white of ’em.

                    5. You are aware that anyone outside of the ummah was considered fair game for slavery right? That the Arabic slave trade was an insanely oppressive and massively destructive system for both India and non-Islamic Africa? That, outside of several Islamic scholars, there was little in the way of an anti-slavery movement anywhere near that of say, the British, in Islamic society? That many Islamic countries continued the practice of slavery into the 20th century?

                    6. That many Islamic countries continued the practice of slavery into the 20th century?

                      Why the past tense? Slavery is still practiced de facto in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, as 1,000s of exploited Filipina, Thai, and Indonesian maids and Pakistani and Indian construction workers can tell you.

                    7. I’m being extremely generous because technically they have at least have laws on the books forbidding slavery now. Of course, so does Mauritania, and that doesn’t stop them.

                    8. HUMAN TRAFFICKING OMIGOD

                      Hilarious. I’m sure it sucks for them but it’s not slavery.

                    9. Oh, as long as Devil Uno doesn’t consider it slavery, the forced labour of individuals isn’t slavery. How very arbitrary of you. Please, continue to try to move those goal posts around.

                  2. And there it is. “A thousand years ago, Christianity and Judaism were bad like Muslims are today, so there!”

                    Talk about sins of the father, this is sins of the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather.

                    1. Christianity and Judaism are the same as they were 1000 years ago. The people who purport to be Christians and Jews just don’t take them seriously anymore.

                      We have Jews today who milk the Holocaust for all it’s worth, and scream “genocide” whenever anyone looks at them cross-eyed, when their own frakking scriptures that they affix to their heads and kiss and shit have Yahweh commanding their ancestors to commit no-kidding genocide against the Canaanites and steal their land! How one can say they take their religion seriously anymore, without breaking into laughter, is beyond me. And it’s a good thing they don’t.

                    2. Do you know what that whooshing sound was?

                    3. We have Jews today who milk the Holocaust for all it’s worth, and scream “genocide” whenever anyone looks at them cross-eye

                      … and the mask slips, ladies and gentlemen!

              3. Islam isn’t any worse than Judaism and Christianity.

                In principle, not really. The problem is that, unlike Judaism or Christianity, Islam has both references in its sacred texts (the hadiths much moreso than the Koran) that can be used to justify slaughter of non-believers and a fundamental belief in the perfection of its original incarnation absent context.

                Hence, Islamic radicals can look to Islamic belief and find ample justification for their actions. Jews or Christians trying to do the same don’t have much logical support for that argument.

          4. Pretty much every religion, including Judaism and Christianity, advocates killing blasphemers.

            Don’t know why I’m bothering but…

            If you wrote this in the past tense you would be accurate but irrelevant. Writing in the present tense at best makes you a talking point repeater.

            1. Unless Yahweh came out with a Bible 2.0 or something, I’m pretty sure it still advocates killing blasphemers (and a lot of other people).

              This is like saying that the PRC government doesn’t take communism seriously anymore, so communism isn’t bad anymore.

              1. And, we’re done.

                It’s like trying to argue with Jim Marrs over the Kennedy assassination. Any single sentence would require about 10 paragraphs to unravel and refute.

                1. Weak. If you have an argument share it. Otherwise go back and hide under your bed before the evil Muslims get you.

              2. Well, looks like you’re right. Some guy yelling “Yaweh Akbar, praise be to Joseph Smith!” is shooting up a theater showing “The Book of Mormon”.

              3. You are attempting to single out Islam as a philosophy, separate from its followers behavior, and claim that it is morally equivalent to other religions.

                Hogwash.

                The behavior of the followers of other religions behave differently precisely because of the things their religions teach. The ideas they teach foster enlightenment and secularization.

                The behavior of Muslims is precisely because of what their religion teaches. It does not foster secularism and enlightenment. It fosters barbarism.

                1. The behavior of the followers of other religions behave differently precisely because of the things their religions teach. The ideas they teach foster enlightenment and secularization.

                  Right, it just took Christians a couple of thousand years to realize that they were doing the opposite of what their faith was teaching! (at which point they had already moved on to secular justifications for killing people and stealing their land).

                  Does Islam at least get a handicap for starting 600 years later than Christianity? To be fair you should be comparing today’s Islam to Christianity in AD 1400 and Judaism in 500 BC.

                  1. Again, I don’t give a frothy fuck about being fair. I care about being right.

                    The 600 years behind doesn’t hold water. The nature of the religion, it being bereft of redeeming ideas, means that it has not progressed in 1400 years and 1400 more will make no difference. FFS they still can’t make graven images so all of their art is geometry, exactly like the ancient celts. Words have magic, images have souls blah blah. It is the most primitive kind of thinking a human can engage in. That is even codified into their laws. If they survive another 1000 years they will still be chopping off heads over blasphemy.

                    I am done here. It doesn’t matter what you see or hear, you are going to defend them.

                    Bad choice.

                    1. FFS they still can’t make graven images so all of their art is geometry, exactly like the ancient celts.

                      That’s patently false. Islamic art has a rich history, including many devotional religious images (and pictures of Mohammed). There are Muslim iconoclasts of course — any other religions run into that problem at some point in their history? The Amish don’t have graven images and refuse to let you even take a picture of them for religious reasons, I guess we have to go in and straighten them out too.

                      This idea that you have that Christianity somehow “held the seeds” of the Enlightenment is ridiculous. I can find just as many seeds for Communism in the New Testament, you wanna give Christianity credit for that too?

                      At no time in Western civilization did we stop killing people and stealing their stuff, we just gradually shifted the justification for the killing and stealing from religion to secular concerns when we got wealthy and had no need to wait for the afterlife.

                      And that hasn’t changed to this day. We’re just as willing to massacre anyone who interferes with sucking the sands dry of oil as our forefathers were willing to starve the Native Americans by extinctifying the buffaloes. And you and “Irish” will cheer that massacre on, yippee. Proud to know you both.

                    2. And that hasn’t changed to this day. We’re just as willing to massacre anyone who interferes with sucking the sands dry of oil as our forefathers were willing to starve the Native Americans by extinctifying the buffaloes. And you and “Irish” will cheer that massacre on, yippee. Proud to know you both.

                      Who’s this ‘we’? Also, buffalo weren’t ‘extinctified’. And the primary people currently ‘sucking the sands dry of oil’ are known as the Saudis.

                    3. And that hasn’t changed to this day. We’re just as willing to massacre anyone who interferes with sucking the sands dry of oil as our forefathers were willing to starve the Native Americans by extinctifying the buffaloes. And you and “Irish” will cheer that massacre on, yippee. Proud to know you both.

                      LOFUCKINGL! Yeah, okay, idiot.

                      Want evidence I wouldn’t justify a massacre of innocent Muslims? Here’s a blog post I wrote regarding a Muslim 8 year old getting arrested by the French government for ‘advocating terrorism.’

                      The relevant part:

                      Following the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the French state responded in the manner all states respond to such things – by launching an unmitigated assault on the basic rights of its own people in order to desultorily proclaim that it is doing ‘everything in its power’ to ‘protect’ them. This hysteria has now reached such a cacophonous din that eight year old Muslim boys are being harassed by French policemen for ‘supporting terrorism.’ Personally I question how an eight year old could ever manage to support terrorism. Did he offer ISIS use of his favorite blanket? Maybe Al Qaeda members are grimly plotting mass homicide while he hides them in his tree-house.

                      There I am defending a Muslim being oppressed by the French government. Want to retract your claim that I support genocide?

                    4. In fact, here I am earlier in the thread:

                      In fairness, I don’t think it’s right to assume individual Muslims adhere to the worst aspects of that faith either. Most American Muslims are very secularized, and large numbers of European Muslims are secularized as well.

                      The primary problem is that Islam, unlike other religions, maintains a minority of adherents who will kill anyone that offends their faith.

                      I am well aware that most Muslims do not support the actions of their more, shall we say, exuberant co-religionists. However, that doesn’t change the fact that Islam is unique in having a large enough group of violent and oppressive members that they can run a dozen Islamic theocratic governments while exporting their violent filth to the rest of the planet.

                      Secular Muslims, and often heroic Muslims, are deserving of our support precisely because they are desperately striving to reform a religion that will murder them for their ‘apostasy.’ To refuse to acknowledge the horror at the heart of modern Islam is a betrayal of those legitimately heroic Muslims who are desperately trying to reform their faith.

                      If, as you claim, Islam has no problem, then why is Malala Yousafzai fighting for the right for Muslim girls to get an education? You are betraying heroic, righteous Muslims like her by denying the evil perpetrated by the men she is fighting.

                    5. If, as you claim, Islam has no problem, then why is Malala Yousafzai fighting for the right for Muslim girls to get an education? You are betraying heroic, righteous Muslims like her by denying the evil perpetrated by the men she is fighting.

                      Also, why do people like Irshad Manji and Tarek Fatah receive death threats and actual physical confrontations for daring to suggest that Islam should move towards secularism?

                    6. He’s not coming back. Metaphorically, what happen to his argument was this.

                      (He’s the one in pink)

                    7. Why are you engaging a troll?

                    8. The Amish don’t have graven images and refuse to let you even take a picture of them for religious reasons, I guess we have to go in and straighten them out too.

                      Actually, ‘we’ already did. Munster Rebellion, 1534. Radical Anabaptists, precursors to the Amish and Mennonites, attempted to carve out a theocratic authoritarian city state to await the end days. It did not go well for them.

                    9. The Devil Uno: You are ignoring huge differences between the Bible and the Koran.

                      The Bible was written by dozens of people, said to be “inspired” by God, in a handful of languages in different cultures over hundreds of years. The Old Testament is more violent than the New, which is said to supersede the Old in many ways. There were well-publicized arguments about what to include. Almost nobody reads it in the original languages.

                      The Koran is said to have been written by one man, taking dictation from Allah (who speaks archaic Arabic and has a master copy of the Koran in Heaven). The earlier parts of the Koran tend to be less violent than the later parts. Muslims are expected to read it in the original language.

                      The gist of all this: the Bible is inherently more open to interpretation. Thus, to say that both the Bible and the Koran advocate killing blasphemers may be technically true, but is irrelevant. No Christian clerics of note advocate it. Few Christians support the idea. It almost never happens.

                      On the other hand, plenty of Muslim clerics support the death penalty for blasphemy (and apostasy and much else). A large percentage of all Muslims do, too. And it happens all that time.

                    10. The gist of all this: the Bible is inherently more open to interpretation.

                      Bullshit. You’re just willing to ignore or very charitably interpret the Bible’s many bloodthirsty and atrocity-commanding passages because you like Christianity and feel comfortable with it. So when Yahweh commands the Hebrews to exterminate the Canaanites down to the last woman and child, that’s just attributed to a miscopied character, or a poorly translated phrase, or an allegory, or an emanation of a penumbra, etc etc etc, whatever it takes to avoid the obvious meaning.

                      The Koran on the other hand gets no kid-gloves treatment because you want the Muslims to be bloodthirsty killers to justify your preferred foreign policy which requires killing scads of them and denying them self-determination.

                      BTW, the author of the Torah claims to be Moses. So either Moses wrote all five books, or the Holy Spirit inspired the real author(s) to lie while writing scripture.

                    11. The Devil Uno, you are of course ignoring the fact that Christians haven’t followed those bloodthirsty passages for hundreds of years, while Muslims are following the bloodthirsty passages in the Koran every day, with widespread support of Islamic clerics.

                    12. I get it. You hate American culture. What I don’t get is how that morphs into defending one that is worse by any measure.

                  2. Holy shit, where’s Irish? Someone’s stupid enough to repeat this ‘head start’ idiocy.

                    If this were true, Hinduism would have been an extremely enlightened religion by the 16th century. But they were still practicing sati until the British banned it. In fact, sati had actually become more commonplace over time in response to historical conflicts, not less.

                    In fact you can easily argue that Islam has regressed into a more radical and fundamentalist since the shift away from ijtihad in the tenth century and other conceptual changes. Religions aren’t on some Marx-esque march of history and progress, they’re influenced by a mass of factors including culture, history and needs of the followers, etc.

                    1. Good point about Hinduism.

                      Yes, Islam has regressed, because the 20th revival has gotten it “back to its roots,” and its roots are violent and totalitarian.

                      The fact that most Muslims aren’t actively supporting terrorism is small comfort.

                2. The behavior of the followers of other religions behave differently precisely because of the things their religions teach.

                  I think the distinction is that Judaism and Christianity recognize context. At its core, the same doesn’t apply to Islam. So, a Christian or a Jew today, can look at a religiously plural society and have no problem with that in principle. A Muslim looks at such a society and sees a system in need of Islamic dominance. Because that is how it was dealt with in the Koran and hadiths.

                  Never mind the fact that, in the context of the time, Islamic dominance was probably closer to religious pluralism than what was being practiced by Christians. That context is filtered out of the discussion.

      2. You’re an idiot. The shootings in Chicago do not threaten American free speech because they are not organized around any particular principle and have no goal.

        The killings in Europe are actively designed to frighten people into silence by assuring them that they will be killed if they speak in a manner not approved of by a minority of psychopathic extremists.

        Europe is gutting its free speech laws in reaction to this and European states have become an active enforcement arm of the Islamic blasphemy police by declaring criticism of Islam to be hate speech.

        If one of these fools responsible for shooting innocent people in the US claimed to be a libertarian, would that implicate libertarianism in the murder?

        If every two weeks there was a shooting by libertarians designed to silence criticism of libertarianism while at the same time transnational libertarian terrorist organizations slaughtered their enemies in a dozen different countries, then yes.

        1. Also, there is an ongoing attempt to evict all Jews from Europe and kill those who remain. Being a Jew in Europe is becoming progressively more dangerous, being gay in parts of Amsterdam or France now opens you up to potential assault or murder, and critics of Islam are frequently besieged in their own homes or shot to death in the streets.

          You’ve had multiple political assassinations carried out by radical Muslims (such as both Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands), you’ve had other attempted political assassinations (the gay mayor of Paris was stabbed in the chest in 2002 for being a homosexual), as well as frequent attacks on European synagogues. The fact that you’re comparing drug violence in Chicago to widespread political assassinations, death threats, fire bombings, and a low-level anti-Jewish genocide is absurd.

          A Chicago drug dealer who kills his rivals is not going out into the broader world to murder politicians and forcefully deny his countrymen free speech rights. It is not the same thing.

          1. A Jew in Europe is more likely to die in a bathing accident than be killed by a Muslim terrorist. I had no idea libertarians were such scaremongers.

            The gun grabbers who claimed schoolchildren were endangered by a lack of assault weapons bans had far more justification for that claim than you do for this one.

            1. Devil Uno, you seem like the kind of person who would describe Kristallnacht as a party that got out of control.

              1. Because a rudimentary understanding of statistics and orders of magnitude make one a neo-Nazi.

                1. No but your complaints about Jews ‘milking’ the Holocaust, sudden whining about their religious texts and attempts to handwave off anti-Semitic behaviours makes your antisemitism pretty obvious.

            2. A Jew in Europe is more likely to die in a bathing accident than be killed by a Muslim terrorist. I had no idea libertarians were such scaremongers.

              Man, look at the way these bathtubs are driving Jews out of an entire city.

              The Jewish Community in Stockholm was already on high alert after receiving two bomb threats last summer. The group operates synagogues, a library, a community centre, and a school, along with a range of other activities and events.

              Jewish groups in Malm? and Gothenburg have also seen an upsurge in threats in recent days after four Jews were shot dead by a French jihadist in a kosher supermarket in Paris.

              Many Jews have left Malm? for Stockholm in recent years, often because they haven’t felt safe in the southern city. But Lena Posner K?r?si said she did not expect increased threats to prompt Jews to flee Sweden.

              Fucking bathtubs!

              By the way, this is how the Holocaust started. These things don’t begin with death camps. They begin with individual racist murders, threats of violence, and firebombed synagogues. The death camps or mass slaughters are the final step.

              It’s sickening that you’re arguing we should ignore the increasing anti-Jewish violence just because they haven’t been rounded up and collectively killed yet.

              1. That’s your evidence for a holocaust? An unquantified claim that could more aptly be applied to white flight in Detroit or Chicago or the Bronx or a dozen other places in the US?

                Please, explain how the Holocaust proceeds from a couple of anonymous bomb threats and some murders, when the vast majority of the European population considers even mere anti-Semitic attitudes, let alone acts of violence against Jews, to be hideous.

          2. a low-level anti-Jewish genocide

            sort of like a couple of straws is a low-level haystack.

            1. sort of like a couple of straws is a low-level haystack.

              In 20 years when no Jews are left in Europe, I hope you remember the time you glibly ignored the constant threats of violence being visited on them today.

              For someone who claims I advocate anti-Muslim genocide, despite the fact that I have done no such thing, you are awfully calm when presented with an organized attempt to drive an entire ethnic minority out of a continent.

              1. I really hope this is an attempt at parody. Really. Cause if it’s not….. wow.

                For someone who claims I advocate anti-Muslim genocide

                Where did I claim that?

              2. Devil Uno will remember and celebrate.

                I saw hatred of western culture, accusation of westerners killing and stealing land, defense of a murderous totalitarian culture, and antisemitism. I should have goaded them with the Palistinian/Jewish business. I bet they would really tear off the mask then.

                All based on an inability to grasp some not very complicated concepts or make some mildly subtle distinctions. Typical proggie bullshit. Either really dumb or really young but certainly well indoctrinated.

                Occutardianism.

                1. I would totally take you and Irish up on a bet about there being no Jews left in Europe 20 years from now, but it’s probably unworkable. Too bad, I could use a replacement for the Social Security benefits I’ll never see.

                  Keep in mind, there were still Jews left in Europe after the Holocaust, with an entire war machine and popular racist ideology backing it up. Not sure how a couple of cartoonist shooters are going to outdo the Third Reich, but you guys seem knowledgeable.

      3. And how many of the victims of Chicago’s street gangs were other gang members? Not sour you can compare a turf war to what’s going on in Europe…

  12. I was gonna put “right people” in scare quotes, but I just get so tired of those.

    1. The right people or the scare quotes?

  13. Dude makes a lot of sense man. WOw.

    http://www.BestAnon.cf

  14. Ok, what the fuck are the latter day saints doing now?

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/14/…..index.html

    1. Give them back the holy land of Palmyra, NY, and everything thing will be square, OK?

      1. HA! And their wives back, too.

      1. Islamic Cat https://m.youtube.com/results?q=cat stevens wild world&sm=1

  15. “The PATRIOT Act was passed in the wake of 9/11 to give intelligence officials expanded surveillance tools for use in fighting terrorism. Several key provisions of the law are set to expire this year.”

    What the shit? No, the Patriot Act was passed to extend power over the American citizenry, not to fight terrorists.

    1. I have been saying that to anyone who would listen since it was being debated in congress. Almost everyone I said that to looked back at me like a cow having calculus explained to them.

      1. Almost everyone I said that to looked back at me like a cow having calculus explained to them

        “Is this thuh part ware wee tel peepul too eat mor chikin?

    2. To be fair, they do see many American citizens as terrorists.

  16. Yet somehow in AD 1000 the Islamic world was far more civilized than the Christian world.

    Islam, the Dallas Cowboys of religions…

    1. Jerry Jones would make a good Caliph.

    2. Yet somehow in AD 1000 the Islamic world was far more civilized than the Christian world.

      That’s technically true, it’s what’s happened since that’s so perplexing. The Islamic world is still kicking around AD 1000 where everyone else sort of moved on.

      1. That’s exactly why I compared them to the Cowboys. “Have you heard we won a bunch of Super Bowls in Clinton’s first term?

      2. They started to modernize after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Mustafa Kemal). Then we found oil in Arabia and Iran, and suddenly decided maybe the Arabs don’t need this democracy thing after all, at least not until we’ve sucked their oil reserves dry. Hence our championing of democracy in oil-free places like Afghanistan and Syria while propping up a dictatorship like the House of Saud.

        The worst thing that could happen to the West would be for Saudi Arabia to decide to modernize their economy and society and slow down the oil extraction so as to keep some for themselves. And we make damn sure nothing like that ever happens.

        1. They started to modernize after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Mustafa Kemal)

          Turkey isn’t a synonym for “the Islamic world”. Also, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was in part due to the Arab Revolt, a extremely reactionary movement against the perceived irreligiosity of the Ottomans. The Arab revolt was as part of a greater Islamic zeitgiest which saw a return to hardline Islam as a way of combating colonialism, be it the Arab Wahhabi against Turkish colonialism or the Indian Deobandi against British colonialism.

          But I’m sure they didn’t cover that in the antiwar.com half-remembered article you’re spouting bullshit from.

          1. Irreligiosity. That’ll by my band name.

        2. Bretton Woods to petrodollar. You can keep you monarchy if you settle oil transactions in Dollars. Nasty shit on both sides.

        3. The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 10:32PM|#
          “They started to modernize after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (Mustafa Kemal). Then we found oil in Arabia and Iran, and suddenly decided maybe the Arabs don’t need this democracy thing after all, [more irrelevant history]”

          Uh, you left out the man on the grassy knoll and Elvis’ alien love-child from your conspiracy.
          Courtesy 1.5.

          1. The best part of these fundamentalist Islam apologists is that they claim we’re the ones being mean to Muslims, but all of their arguments deny Muslims any agency in their own history.

            Apparently Muslims are just mindless, vacant ciphers waiting to be moved about through the machinations of a cruel, evil west. They have no ideas of their own, no desires of their own – they just hang out until we ‘make them’ behave according to our will.

            1. You’re right; I’d sort of missed that aspect: The West *denied* Muslims the ability to form democracies?
              Uh, OK. Majic Spellllllllllz?!

            2. Apparently they all want democracy because Devil Uno says so. Someone better tell that to General Sisi’s supporters.

              1. Hey, how’s that democracy in Egypt doing these days? Remember that whole Arab Spring thing?

                Who ended it?

                Who funds the people who ended it?

                1. The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 11:47PM|#
                  “Hey, how’s that democracy in Egypt doing these days? Remember that whole Arab Spring thing?
                  Who ended it?
                  Who funds the people who ended it?”

                  What’s your point? Do you think there was general support here of Obo’s failed attempts at ‘legacy’ on the African littoral?

                2. Hey, how’s that democracy in Egypt doing these days? Remember that whole Arab Spring thing?

                  Who ended it?

                  Who funds the people who ended it?

                  You mean the Democracy where they elected a radical fundamentalist Islamist who immediately set about eliminating the rights of the Egyptian people, including rights that Hosni Mubarak had left alone?

                  That Democracy? The Democracy where the two highest vote getters were Mubarak’s right-hand man and a Muslim fundamentalist?

                  This is the point – Democracy in the Arab World (except, happily, in Tunisia) has a strange tendency to result in the election of the next totalitarian dictator.

                  And I don’t even know what you’re going on about regarding Americans ‘ending’ the Arab Spring. The Arab Spring was ended by the fact that many of the groups elected were radical Islamists who sparked civil wars in their countries. That’s why Morsi was overthrown by Sisi.

                  In other cases, the Arab Spring was ended by native dictators, such as Assad. Given that we actually funded Assad’s opposition, I don’t know how you can blame us for his success at combating the revolution.

                  1. Assad is currently funded and armed by the Russkies.

                    He was also our pal until a couple of years ago, though that’s long since down the memory hole.

                3. Remember that democratically elected Egyptian being removed from office by the military that was backed by a lot of the population? Clearly those people would have wanted to accept the democratic concensus and live under Morsi if only the U.S. didn’t provide Egypt with foreign aid.

            3. They do have desires of their own, desires we stomp on whenever they are perceived contrary to our interests. You think that might cause people turning more deeply to their religion in reaction? We go absolutely apeshit over Obama overstepping his constitutional bounds with executive orders, but all those Muslims are supposed to just bend over and take it when the govt we sponsor and prop up issues whatever dictatorial edict it feels like.

              -CIA overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran and subsequent propping up of the murderous dictator Shah.
              -Propping up murderous dictator Mubarak in Egypt for decades.
              -Propping up murderous dictators of the House of Saud, who do many of the same things we condemn ISIS for, still today.

              Oh wait, sorry, that’s “irrelevant history”. What a joke you people have become.

              1. Funny how Devil Uno likes to ignore all the ‘irrelevant history’ that doesn’t conform to his preconceived notions.

                ‘Murderous dictator’ is equally applicable to the Shah’s populist successor. There certainly weren’t any Egyptians complaining when they democratically elected a radical or when say, Anwar Sadat decided to play nice with Israel. The Saudis will just magically turn into a secular state if the West just lets them. No history of religious fundamentalism there.

                Nope, every problem in the Middle East is a product of the West, even problems where they are the direct result of the actions of actual Middle Easterners making choices, not the West. That’s certainly not robbing them of agency.

              2. Oh, good! We need a Saturday evening pinata to kick around; the return of twit!

                The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 11:41PM|#
                “They do have desires of their own, desires we stomp on whenever they are perceived contrary to our interests.”
                OK.

                “You think that might cause people turning more deeply to their religion in reaction?”
                Sorry, amateur psycho analysis was passe along about College frosh; sell that line of bullshit elsewhere.

                “We go absolutely apeshit over Obama overstepping his constitutional bounds with executive orders, but all those Muslims are supposed to just bend over and take it when the govt we sponsor and prop up issues whatever dictatorial edict it feels like.”
                Uh, Obama no like Constitution, therefore something and stuff?

                “-CIA overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran and subsequent propping up of the murderous dictator Shah.”
                Yep, there is that.

                “-Propping up murderous dictator Mubarak in Egypt for decades.”
                You mean giving Egypt ‘foreign aid’, I’ll bet.

                “-Propping up murderous dictators of the House of Saud, who do many of the same things we condemn ISIS for, still today.”
                Propping up in sort of like not sending the Marines in?

                “Oh wait, sorry, that’s “irrelevant history”. What a joke you people have become.”
                What a pathetic bullshitter you’ve become.
                Wait! Do I detect, possibly, a hint that supporting Israel might be the next line of BS?

              3. CIA overthrow of Mossadeq in Iran and subsequent propping up of the murderous dictator Shah

                Mossadeqh was opposed by many Iranians who actually appealed to the British to oust him. He supported oil nationalization and had convinced parliament to grant him 18 months worth of ’emergency powers’ which basically made him dictator. Mosaddeqh was transforming that country into a Communist dictatorship. They wouldn’t have been better off with him in charge. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

                Propping up murderous dictators of the House of Saud, who do many of the same things we condemn ISIS for, still today

                And if the House of Saud were deposed, what would happen to Saudi Arabia? Some new fundamentalists would take over.

                Our alliance with the House of Saud is a travesty. If we weren’t aligned with them, though, the country would be just as bad off as they are today.

                Propping up murderous dictator Mubarak in Egypt for decades

                This is a joke, right? Everyone who has run Egypt for the last century, whether they were our friend or not, has been a murderous dictator. Morsi was a murderous dictator. Sisi, who came into power on his own, not with our help, began his reign by slaughtering Muslim brotherhood members.

                Do you really think our propping up Mubarak prevented Egypt from becoming a secular democracy?

                1. You’re not really contradicting anything I said. You’re just justifying our interventionism by saying democracy would produce results we don’t like.

                  Well, no shit. That does tend to happen. Democracies make mistakes.

                  Like, for instance, that one democracy that enslaved millions of people on the basis of their race, while also killing off most of another race and stealing their land. Too bad nobody who knew better intervened and set up a dictator over those idiots, right?

                  Oh wait, it was probably just their religion that was the problem. Somebody should have stamped that out too.

                  1. The Devil Uno|2.15.15 @ 12:31AM|#
                    “You’re not really contradicting anything I said. You’re just justifying our interventionism by saying democracy would produce results we don’t like.”
                    Perhaps, possibly and I gave you that one. One out of ten or so leaves you in a mess.
                    Keep trying; I’m sure you’ll end up entirely buried

                  2. You’re just justifying our interventionism by saying democracy would produce results we don’t like.

                    Or those people living there don’t like. Please, continue to rob Middle Easterners of all their agency in order to hack together your theory.

                    Like, for instance, that one democracy that enslaved millions of people on the basis of their race, while also killing off most of another race and stealing their land.

                    What a convincing argument. We should allow democratically elected individuals to crush the rights of their citizens, engage in blatant corruption and become populist dictators because of past wrongs. You really have nothing but ad hominems don’t you?

                    Oh wait, it was probably just their religion that was the problem. Somebody should have stamped that out too.

                    Because Christianity had nothing to do with the abolitionist movement in Devil Uno’s fantasy world.

        4. Your conspiracy theories based on your Eurocentric ignorance aside, that still doesn’t explain how the ‘more civilized’ society suddenly stagnated for hundreds of years.

          It’s almost like Timur Kuran has a book about how Islamic legal and financial inflexibility leads to economic stagnation…

          1. Your conspiracy theories based on your Eurocentric ignorance aside

            Interesting accusation. Please, don’t leave it aside, share your evidence.

            Such a learned fellow. Perhaps you know of the Christian moral teachings on charging interest on loans. Well, at least what they were until they became inconvenient and were jettisoned to satisfy secular concerns.

            1. The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 11:45PM|#
              …”Perhaps you know of the Christian moral teachings on charging interest on loans”….

              Oh look OVER THERE!
              Did you have a point other than a slimy attempt at misdirection?

            2. Yep, prohibitions on usury are exactly the same as having entire legal and financial structures dedicated to you from your holy book and demanded it be held up as sacred.

              1. Clever equivocation. Back then, any interest-charging was called “usury” (as opposed to the modern definition as excessive interest charging). Prohibition on charging ANY interest does pretty much dictate the financial structure and economic system. We’re not talking a minor restriction here.

                The west started advancing when the merchants said forget Christianity, we’re charging interest.

                1. The Devil Uno|2.15.15 @ 12:38AM|#
                  “Clever equivocation.”
                  Not-so-clever misdirection. You lose. Fuck off.

                2. And again, you are completely ignorant as to the differences between Christian and Islamic teachings on economic structures. You think that prohibitions on usury equate to complex religious legal rules on how to manage everything from a company to banking to inheritance laws. If you think usury is not a minor restriction, than Islamic rules towards commerce is totalitarian.

                  But again, you don’t actually know anything Islamic legal structures, nor do you understand anything about the development of capital in the West.

              2. Still waiting for an explanation of the non-Eurocentric knowledge I am lacking, Mr Titor.

                1. The Devil Uno|2.15.15 @ 12:39AM|#
                  “Still waiting for an explanation of the non-Eurocentric knowledge I am lacking, Mr Titor.”
                  Yes, if you wait for an the answer to an irrelevant question, why, you might well wait a while.
                  Now, did you have a point?

                2. Please, you’ve spent the entire thread being torn apart by people pointing out your historical ignorance and deliberate dishonesty to support your viewpoint. You know extremely little of history but continue to spout off empty catchphrases you think are ‘winning’ arguments. It speaks for itself.

          2. I’ve yet to read that one, but “What Went Wrong” (Lewis) suggests the decline was certainly not forced on Islam by the West withholding knowledge of Democracy, as an example.
            And buried in that book is a point I find particularly compelling:
            The West has integrated women into social groups by fits and starts, but by now, there is little limit to what women may accomplish.
            HIH do you expect to ‘compete’ with another culture with the heads of half your population wrapped in some rag?
            I was in London late last year, and I just wanted to scream ‘Take that miserable rag off your head!’

            1. There was no such knowledge to withhold. The West didn’t know shit about democracy during the time period in question, and the vast majority of Europe had no experience with it 100 years ago.

              BTW, the West also conquered 75% of the world while essentially treating women like property. I’m assuming that’s what you’re referring to rather than a headwear fixation.

              1. We get it, you’re boring and predictable whining

                1. *We get it, your boring and predictable whining about the West is just a shitty Tu Quoque.

                  Damn phone.

                  1. It’s not tu quoque to dispute someone’s claims of superiority.

                    1. Considering your constant attempts at ad hominem fallacies and calling us names, we’re not the ones with claims of superiority.

              2. The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 11:53PM|#
                “There was no such knowledge to withhold. The West didn’t know shit about democracy during the time period in question,”
                OK, one more pile of bullshit; you’re batting a thousand.
                No one knew about this AT ALL:
                “Ancient Greek Democracy”
                http://www.history.com/topics/…..-democracy

                “and the vast majority of Europe had no experience with it 100 years ago.”
                Oh, LOOK! More misdirection! What a surprise! What an ignoramus.

                “BTW, the West also conquered 75% of the world while essentially treating women like property.”
                No kidding? 75% of the world? When?
                “Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace (10 December 1815 ? 27 November 1852), born Augusta Ada Byron and now commonly known as Ada Lovelace, was an English mathematician and writer chiefly known for her work on Charles Babbage’s early mechanical general-purpose computer, the Analytical Engine.”
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
                “QUEEN ELIZABETH I”
                (sorry, lok it up yourself)
                Want more shitpile? I can keep it up all night long. I LOVE schooling ignorant assholes!

                “I’m assuming that’s what you’re referring to rather than a headwear fixation.”
                Yes, shitpile. The rag worn to show that females are property under Islam.
                I’m assuming that’s what you’re referring to rather than a headwear fixation.

                1. Want more shitpile? I can keep it up all night long. I LOVE schooling ignorant assholes!

                  Hell, we could even go back a bit earlier to Eleanor of Aquitaine or Catherine the Great.

                  We could also count Empress Theodora of Byzantium or Anna Komnene, who almost became Empress, lost out, and wrote a history of the First Crusade.

                  Women in the Western world have literally never been treated as badly as women are treated in Saudi Arabia today. Never.

                  1. “Women in the Western world have literally never been treated as badly as women are treated in Saudi Arabia today. Never.”
                    I cannot BELIEVE that asshole somehow presumes that the treatment of women by the west, even 2- or 300 years ago, approximates the treatment women get under Islam today!
                    It takes an ignorance borne of willful stupidity to make such a claim. An ignorance approximating the stupidity of our newest troll.

                2. You took an entire continent and centuries of history and came up with a couple of measly examples (most of whom are women who inherited a throne because there were no male heirs available).

                  1. The Devil Uno|2.15.15 @ 12:53AM|#
                    “You took an entire continent and centuries of history and came up with a couple of measly examples (most of whom are women who inherited a throne because there were no male heirs available).”

                    And you can’t even counter the ‘measly examples’ I offered when I offered more.
                    Are you proud of being a sleaze-bag? Were you born a pile of shit, or did it take you many years of effort to learn to be so?
                    Fuck off, whoever you are.

              3. BTW, the West also conquered 75% of the world while essentially treating women like property. I’m assuming that’s what you’re referring to rather than a headwear fixation.

                The West did not treat women like property in the 1800s. They weren’t treated as well as today, but comparing Western treatment of women in 1850 to Islamic treatment of women today is one of the worst false equivalences I’ve ever heard.

                Women could vote in Wyoming as early as 1869. There were literary masterpieces produced by women throughout the 1800s.

                Abigail Adams’ relationship with John Adams would be inconceivable in the Middle East today since they treated each other essentially as equals.

                Women were treated badly in the west in the 1800s compared to how they should have been treated. They were still treated vastly better than in Muslim societies today.

                1. I see Tulpa has re-emerged from whatever slim pit he was hiding in since the last time he made an assclown out himself here. It’s sad, really.

                2. I wasn’t talking about the 1800s, but let’s go there for the sake of argument.

                  If John Adams wanted to beat Abigail every night, there would have been absolutely no legal repercussions. That he chose not to does not change the way Western society treated women in general at that time. I’m sure there are some Saudi men who treat their wives with respect and think the cultural stuff is bullshit, too.

                  1. The Devil Uno|2.15.15 @ 12:50AM|#
                    “If John Adams wanted to beat Abigail every night, there would have been absolutely no legal repercussions”

                    So, stupid isn’t enough? Now you’re doubling down?
                    Let’s see a (believable) cite for that claim.
                    I’m waiting…

                3. “Women were treated badly in the west in the 1800s compared to how they should have been treated. They were still treated vastly better than in Muslim societies today.”

                  Actually Irish, this is a true statement if you change that date to almost any I can think of. To my knowledge women were never treated as badly in the west as they are today in the majority of the Muslim world. Treatment which I add is codified in the Koran, another reason Islam is philosophically inferior.

                  1. Oh. I didn’t read up where you said just that.

                  2. You’re obviously a Koran expert, but you may try rereading the Bible some time. There are some large parts that you seem to have missed.

                    1. Clearly I got at least one thumb in your eye.

      3. That’s technically true, it’s what’s happened since that’s so perplexing.

        Not so perplexing. See “What Went Wrong,” Bernard Lewis.

    3. Meh. They were civilized because they had conquered civilized areas that kept a lot more of the Roman and Greek knowledge than Western Europe, which was mostly an outpost of the Roman empire, if Romanized at all. Spain in particular, was an essential part of the Roman empire

      And look what happened to Averroes, one of the greatest thinkers of that era – he was banished and his works burnt, but embraced by Christian Europe

      1. Yep, and the ‘Boys won their Bowls because they fleeced Minnesota for Herschel Walker.

      2. Assuming that’s true, it applies equally to the Christian powers that had conquered half the world by the time of the Enlightenment.

        Southern Boy really can’t get around this, which is why he took his ball and went home.

        1. Hi tulpa.

          1. You’re right. We’re getting rusty.

            1. I’m not sure. There’s more than a whiff of Bo hanging around that troll.

              1. I’ve never seen the two in the same room together.

                Which means, Illuminati Confirmed.

          2. Ha! I thought his style seemed familiar.

            The Devil Uno. What is that – some kind of really challenging card game?

            1. Hey I had the computer version of that game, but it only ran on Devil-DOS.

            2. It’s Bo.

              1. They are similar, but I stand by my assessment.

                1. Ok, let’s see. No Bo on an article this open to taking shots at GOP. Awful handle using thinly veiled pun as an attempt at self fart smelling humor. Lured in by vague libertarian arguments followed by driving off a cliff degree of logic. Girly stabs at insults. Still think Tulpa?

                  1. I’m thinking our newest troll is working up to THE JOOOZE!
                    Murkin, perhaps.

            3. I think it means ‘The Devil You know’, as in we know him already, a sock puppet for probably Bo. To much occutardianism for Tulpa.

              1. If you spent half as much time shoring up your arguments as you do on trying to decipher identities, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

                1. The Devil Uno|2.15.15 @ 1:00AM|#
                  “If you spent half as much time shoring up your arguments as you do on trying to decipher identities, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

                  If anyone here spent a quarter of the time doing so for a sentient being, that sentient being would realize it was dealing in bullshit.
                  I’m gonna presume sentience isn’t among your attributes? Sort of like reading English?
                  You are a pathetic example of a troll. I gave you 1.5 earlier; much to high. You have been handed you hat regarding every claim you have made; begone, asshole!

              2. My money is on Tulpa. Bo is tiresome, but this sock is bringing the militant stupidity that is Tulpa’s trademark.

                1. Dances-with-Trolls|2.15.15 @ 1:13AM|#
                  “My money is on Tulpa. Bo is tiresome”
                  I hope you’re right! I swore I’d never engage that insufferable Bo again.

                2. He better sue “Irish” and Southern Boy for trademark dilution then.

        2. The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 10:25PM|#
          “Assuming that’s true, it applies equally to the Christian powers that had conquered half the world by the time of the Enlightenment.”
          I’m no supporter of any religion, but bullshit is bullshit and you have a lot of it.
          The Christian powers conquered nothing which at the time or since was or is considered ‘more civilized’; they mostly warred among themselves.

          “Southern Boy really can’t get around this, which is why he took his ball and went home.”
          Get around that pile of bullshit? Sorry, I’m betting your stupidity was more than SB was willing to suffer on a Saturday night. Don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back for no reason.

          1. The Christian powers conquered nothing which at the time or since was or is considered ‘more civilized’; they mostly warred among themselves.

            The Age of Colonization never happened? It’s frakkin weird that all those countries in Africa and South America speak English or French or Spanish. Must be more of that “irrelevant history” I keep hearing about.

            1. The Devil Uno|2.14.15 @ 11:56PM|#
              “The Age of Colonization never happened?”

              Id English not your first language? Here’s what you responded to:
              “The Christian powers conquered nothing which at the time or since was or is considered ‘more civilized’; they mostly warred among themselves.”
              Read that again.
              Now, you can either try again, or perhaps admit you’re a fucking idiot.

        3. I left because you bore me and I wanted more crawfish bisque. You are a run of the mill proggie full of run of the mill proggie bullshit talking points.

          It was easier to sit and eat said delicious bisque while watching you get flayed by people far out of your class.

          1. Far out of = above.

  17. I’m bored and awake. Therefore I will spam this blog with videos of the dead cats of Syria.

    1. My sweet cat almost got killed today by a fucking shit cat the next farm over. 15 years ago we paid to have this fucking wonderful hovel built on 8 quiet acres in the middle of fucking Ohio nowhere and then some horrible fucking idiot dropped off a kitten in 1999… I was running at the time a very successful home sign business and this almost dead tiny child of a cat crawled through the woods into my work area…

      15 years later I defended this wonderful creature from a most certain death with my anger and a snow shovel yesterday… the strange cat 20 acres over decided that my cat had to die and I just cannot allow this…

      And because of this same cat attacking my sweet cat girl over the last 3 years I am forced to do the ultimate deed… I will KILL a cat for the first time within the next few weeks. I CANNOT have my lady CAT who has been here for years and years lacerated and throat-checked by some horrible fucking feline…

      A single shot from my rifle will end this assassin cat’s life this week.

      I do NOT want my old girl who is feral mostly because she loves me ONLY and no vet can touch her to suffer a torturous wound from a despicable younger fucking cat who wants to kill her…

      The country has quiet secrets…

      1. A mangled, bleeding pussy has forced many men to snap. Got get em Agile.

        1. Well I have to admit the crazed eyes of a former miltary fucking creature doffing his/her military ethos is appropo considering my world is very tomatesque…. I create sweet meals of glory for my hot wife and the children… I love and live for sizzling steakage and burritos and those spiced delights of magik…. yet this life is live and live is lifed. and vectors are spliced and splicing leads into the quiet mountains and there are no fucking mountains around here so I have no fucking idea where that is going….

  18. Just the fact that the Pat Act has been in effect, means there is a government infrastructure for enhanced, extra-Constitutional surveillance of US citizens.
    If we shut it down, that infrastructure is still going to be there. You can’t put the genie back on the bottle, and you can’t uncook an egg.

    I have no confidence that the DemocratsandRepublicans are even capable of stopping it, leave alone willing. This infrastructure, the computers, the agents and enforcement arm will always be tucked away in the pentagon basement by any number of channels.

    The Party does not give up power.

    1. and you can’t uncook an egg.

      Well, not until now:

      As usual with boiled eggs, the protein-rich egg whites began unfolding, then folded back together in a firmer way?going from “clear and mucus-like to white and rubbery”. The researchers then untangled those proteins by adding urea, a primary ingredient in urine.

      So, it sounds like if we just piss on the government, we can get rid of the Patriot Act.

      1. bwahahahahaha xlnt

    1. Cats mean planets of the living. That is all… Cats on that planet does not mean that planet is great or the best planet. Cats on the planet does not mean that life is imaginorgasmic or flute-like. Cats on that planet could mean the planet evolved into certain levels where these cute furry pseudo-thinking shit sticks that ate all the fucking asshole mice lived right up until some horrible fucks made atoms collide unnaturally… Cats are cool and they want their humans to live with them and I do NOT think cats approve of fucking horrible shit-eating terrorist fucks!

      1. I do NOT think cats approve of fucking horrible shit-eating terrorist fucks!

        Agreed.

        1. Cats don’t even approve of their owners.

          1. Bam I do think my cat likes me on a very rare occasion…. My sweet wonderful cat hates everyone else and I am just not fucking happy about this and I DO fuking tell my cat on clear summer nights that I wish she was more..well , friendly? and she flips me off with her paw and slinks off into the night until all the company is gone…

            She doesn’t even like my wife or my offspring. I try to tell her that my wife is cool and my very own children are cool and she flicks her fucking tail and disapproves like a motherfucking what the fuck… How does a single fucking cat dismiss and entire family and yet this fucking drunk asshole of a miserable shit STILL love my cat?

            I do love my cat so. And she loves me. And neither of us understands this. And it is not at all strange.

            1. I do love my cat so. And she loves me. And neither of us understands this. And it is not at all strange.

              Beautifully put, AC

  19. Why do we need yet another patriot act when our soldiers are already designed to fight for our country?

    Without a patriot act soldiers are sent hither and yon to fight shit… so we roll on this renewed patriot act shit and then somehow… well… soldier kids hired from the many schools across the nation are imbued with what all soldiers are imbued with… fight.for.your.country.dummy…

    Why a fucking dumbass PATRIOT ACT, then? Kids in poor rural areas need jobs… they don’t need a fucking PATRIOT ACT to become a pharmaceutical worker, you fucking shit-sucking dummies. They will go and fight your dumbass wars because they want to buy a home in suburban ‘Murica and marry some dummy and then make kids and then become a fucking silly grandwaa…

    Shit is predictable… no PATRIOT ACT necessary you fucking limp-wristed shit-jugglers!

  20. How the FUCK does Agile Cyborg do this every stinking night? This is my first time on anything other than beer…mad respect, AC!

    1. I do think that these threads draw strange men and women and the clouds we live within swarl and swirl and lift and loft and when the juggernaut releases we are filled with life and light and the blessed poets you all are light upon stones floating in the midsts of pleasurainbows…

      1. The literal world ruins everything

      2. I just like cats and beer.

  21. The man is fucking gifted.

    1. Your vulgar pretense is delightful and decidedly mad and i so wish a Reasonoid comet to strike your delicious wolrd with a thousand puns of love… I do so fucking meant pounds but puns is strangely awesome I am so fucking fucked up at this point dear man

  22. I’m gonna keep beating this dead horse until someone tells me to quit!

    Obo SHUNNED at Silicone Valley hoo-ha:
    “Obama acknowledges strains with Silicon Valley”
    […]
    “These strained relations between the White House and Silicon Valley were placed in sharp focus Friday after the chief executives of Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo declined White House invitations to attend the summit ? and a private lunch with the president.”
    http://blog.sfgate.com/techchr…..on-valley/
    A companion article, written by a veteran Obo ass-sniffer on the Chron staff, suggested pretty strongly that no body gave him a rubber chicken to save the day, and even the applause lines had people sitting on their hands. All this after the advance-man puff about how Obo was ‘re-engergizing’ the Dems!
    Tim Cook showed up, taking one for the team I guess, but no other CEO did, and I’m guessing the CEO lunch was not free to the CEOs, meaning Obo took it in the wallet at the same time.
    Slime ball has to recognize his act is wearing out, even with Obots.

    1. The nexus should rip but it won’t precious sevo. The latent heaving gluts connecting the nervous systems of power into the radiant energy circuits was designed decades ago… our America is a result of nervous connectivities between science and political manufacture.

      America is the hack none of our greatest philosophers expected… and when our country fails the entire planet falls.

      1. America is the hack none of our greatest philosophers expected… and when our country fails the entire planet falls.

        This.

  23. How very goddamn terrible it is that people should get high.

  24. Human pleasure rips common relativity… Current existence can be defied throught the fucking askance. the fucking askance. What is this? a surreal indifferant challenge of the sold on science or the indifferent challenge of the new space poetry where we don’t need this fucking currency of normal art to hold us back from connecting to the infinity beyond.0 I don’t pretend to know what is happening and I do think I am floting into very strange places and I am so fuckin grying to behaved…….****

  25. My shit is fukd and I do have to Buy a tircket into a morphing vestige…………………………….I do love the REASONs and the brightst fuking people in the the fuckin galaxy post on this stone tablt and i will travel and i do love the intellignce of my borthers and sitsers here……

    1. ..I do love the REASONs

      Drink!

  26. Sierra Nevada. Mixed Danish tobacco and sensemilla. Edge of the mighty Pacific.

  27. Amash off to a proper start.

  28. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing, http://www.wixjob.com

  29. Hey you guys I have found the perfect job as a full time student, it has changed my life around! If you are self motivated and social media savvy then this is ideal for you. The sky is the limit, you get exactly how much work you put into to it. Click on this link to get started and see for yourself……….
    ????? http://www.netpay20.com

  30. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!
    ……….. http://www.Moneykin.Com

  31. my neighbor’s sister makes $83 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for six months but last month her payment was $13320 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit http://www.jobsblaze.com

  32. my neighbor’s sister makes $83 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for six months but last month her payment was $13320 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit http://www.jobsblaze.com

  33. my neighbor’s sister makes $83 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for six months but last month her payment was $13320 just working on the computer for a few hours. visit http://www.jobsblaze.com

  34. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Get Paid Up To $37.75 Per hour
    Easy Work, Excellent Pay. Work Flexible
    Hours. No Experience Required.
    Move to a better life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    If you are interested,
    Visit this web-site,
    ================ http://www.netcash50.com

  35. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

  36. my roomate’s aunt makes $68 every hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for six months but last month her check was $20790 just working on the computer for a few hours.?????? http://www.jobsblaze.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.