ISIS Launches Attacks in Egypt's Sinai, FBI Says Fire at S.C. Church Likely Caused by Lightning, No Star Trek Where Star Trek's Boldly Gone Before: P.M. Links

|

  • "Star Trek"

    The ISIS affiliate in Egypt launched a coordinated attack on multiple checkpoints in the Sinai Peninsula in which more than 50 Egyptian soldiers were killed.

  • The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton says it expects to have raised $45 million this quarter. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush has released a list of donors to his educational foundation, which raised $46 million between its founding in 2007 and the end of last year.
  • Brian Doherty has the latest news on Defense Distributed's lawsuit against the State Department over "munitions export controls" the lawsuit asserts violate the First and Second Amendment.
  • A fire at a predominantly black church in South Carolina was likely caused by lightning, according to the FBI, which is working with the National Weather Service.
  • The surviving New York prison escapee says he and his partner conducted a "dry run" of their prison break, but found themselves at a manhole that was too close to residential homes. They chose a manhole just a block from the prison instead.
  • Why is there no new Star Trek on television?

Follow Reason on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. You can also get the top stories mailed to you—sign up here.

NEXT: Teacher Stomped on the Flag During Lesson About Free Speech. He Was Fired.

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. Shatner doesn’t need alt anything.

    1. Hello.

      Is it 4:30 already?

      My time flies while doing absolutely nothing.

      1. Shouldn’t you be working-on your TDF picks?

        1. Yeah. I should!

          Lots to choose from!

    2. Well, there actually is an alt-Kirk. In fact, more than one.

  2. SSM, “I got mine” edition: now that comparing gay marriage to bestiality is off the table, the hip new thing to do is to equate polygamy with date rape and securities fraud.

    1. Apparently, everyone has their own line in the sand after which Slippery Slope Apocalypse.

      1. I would bet that Dan Aykroyd thought that the line “cats and dogs living together” was supposed to be a joke.

        1. That line was actually ad-libbed by Bill Murray and wasn’t in the original script. Sorry about being so technical, but it’s a compulsion.

          1. Attribution is important, Anti. Plus, it’s much more a Murray line than an Akroyd line.

    2. All the arguments against polygamy are ludicrous. I linked a Jonathan Rauch article on the subject the other day where he argued that polygamy obviously won’t work because no liberal democracy has ever had legalized polygamous marriage.

      Which completely ignores that until relatively recently no liberal democracy had legal gay marriage either.

      And I just realized that’s a new Jonathan Rauch article you’re linking to. Apparently Rauch is obsessed with this topic since he seems to have been writing about it for about 3 years without changing any of his arguments.

      1. Ha

        “am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. One of these things, as they say on Sesame Street, is not like the other.”

        So Jonathan Rauch apparently believes the MRA line about High Status verses Low Status men and also thinks women are basically just baubles to be collected at will by the rich and powerful. You know, very few women would actually want to share their husband with three or four other people, but Rauch appears to think women have no say in the matter.

        1. Low-status men are entitled to wives, Irish. Otherwise it’s like Saudi Arabia up in here or something.

          1. Charity pussy or GTFO!

            1. Charity pussy or GTFO!

              Hey, ladies!

              1. I think you mean socialized pussy. As we all know, “charity” is a racist-codeword.

                1. Why, son, it’s practically a dawg whistle!

        2. Plus, in a world of no-fault divorce many polygamous relationships would not last so people would be in and out of the dating market. His entire argument is predicated on the idea that 100% of people mate for life.

          It also ignores that theoretically you could have some sort of chain marriage system if we got government out of marriage entirely and allowed freedom of marriage contracting in which a man could marry 3 women and each of those three women could possibly have multiple other husbands. In which case no gender imbalance would result.

          1. He also acts like polygamy is somehow only for straight people, and like we would have to separately legalize gay polygamy. He’s a retarded douchebag.

            1. Legal Gay polygamy makes the most sense to me. It just legally recognizes frat houses.
              *runs away*

            2. That’s just the gay lifestyle.

              /ducking

              1. It’s all Greek to me.

                1. I see what you did there.

                  AND I DON’T LIKE IT!

                  1. Use more lube and a muscle relaxant next time.

            3. The reality is that polygamy would likely be more common among gay male relations than any other. Too lazy to grab the SFGate article from a couple years back, but homosexual male marriages have a vastly higher percentage of open relationships than any other variant. Something around 45% IIRC.

          2. His entire argument is predicated on the idea that 100% of people mate for life.

            Interestingly enough, the reality so far in my limited experience (so really not valid data, just empirical) has shown to be anything but ‘mating for life’ with gay marriage. I have a number of gay and lesbian co-workers who have married in the recent past, since CA permitted, and it’s amazing how many of them have already divorced or are in the midst of divorce. It seems that almost all the males I work with (including my boss) are in the divorced/divorcing categories. This is less so at this point with the women, but even their percentage still seems high by comparison to straight marrieds at our workplace.

            1. He’s talking about straight people mating for life.

            2. I have a number of gay and lesbian co-workers who have married in the recent past, since CA permitted, and it’s amazing how many of them have already divorced or are in the midst of divorce.

              I’ve been trying to work up a pun about U-Haul divorce (“U-Fault divorce”, meh) and keep coming up with nuthin’.

              Where’s sarc when you need him?

              1. Most of the gay marriages are going to end in nasty divorces with one or both parties feeling totally screwed by the family court system. They wanted government marriage and they are going to get it good and hard.

                1. “Most of the gay marriages are going to end in nasty divorces”

                  Good grief. Listen to yourself

                2. How are the courts going to know who to screw when two men or no men show up? It’ll completely throw off their paradigm.

          3. a man could marry 3 women and each of those three women could possibly have multiple other husbands. In which case no gender imbalance would result.

            Pssst. You need to check your math.

            1. But then those other husbands could also have more wives. So you’d have lots of chaining but there would be no gender imbalance because everyone could theoretically have multiple relationships.

              1. So you’d have lots of daisy chaining

                FTFY

                1. Wait are we talking about the Human Centipede? /confused

            2. Maybe it’s 3 men married to the same 3 women, so each has multiple partners but the numbers are the same for each gender?

              1. Seven Brides for Seven Brothers

                /the new social scene

        3. Does he ignore the possibility of polyandry?

          Assuming that only men would want multiple spouses is sexists.

          1. I would totally split the sex chore and mr. Fixit time with other dudes in an open but comitted polyandrous marriage. Need a hand with a project? Guilt your co-husband into it.

            1. Any person who would consider being a co-spouse in a polyamorous/polygamous relationship is a piss poor libertarian. My view is that you can spot the budding libertarians in kindergarten by their unwillingness to share.

              1. That’s known as the One Dick Policy, and it’s considered emotionally unhealthy and discouraged in the polyamory community. No idea how many polyamorous are also libertarians, so I really can’t say. Me, for one, but I probably don’t count. TANLW.

              2. What if your cospouse looked good naked and everyone enjoyed double-tapping everyone else?

                1. I’m philosophically opposed not merely to polyamory, but to any amorous behavior itself.

            2. Guilt your co brother-husband into it.

              FTFY

              1. Does it matter? Presumably adult incest will be legal also.

          2. He certainly doesn’t discuss it. He basically thinks polygamy in the US would operate exactly as it operates in significantly less developed, more religio-traditional societies.

            1. And he has a graph to prove it! He has a graph of places polygamy is legal vs. not legal and basically argues ‘See! The places with legal polygamy are worse!’

              He never considers that all of those polygamous societies are very patriarchal and it is only practiced by men. In a sexually egalitarian society like the good ol’ USA, there is no rational reason to assume legalized polygamous marriage would matter in the least.

              It’s also funny that he talks about how no liberal democracy has ever allowed the practice as if Sweden, the US, Germany, and Australia would immediately revert to kleptocratic dictatorships where everyone lived in yurts if we allowed polygamy.

          3. Look, his point is that rich men will steal all the walking uteri from the other men, and where will they be then? The working man needs to own the means of reproduction. I guess non-liberals can’t understand social justice like he can.

            1. He’s a conservative.

              1. Dammit, you’re right. I was thinking of a different asshole with a J name.

        4. I guarantee that the second Western polygamy becomes dominated by women hoarding men (which I forecast will be its actual adaptation in the contemporary West due to male thirst), it will become the new chic cause celeb among the progresserati.

          1. Or, of course, polygamous marriages of gay men or gay women.

            1. Main thing I remember about gay women is that it made us laugh in Chinese class.

              Oh, wait, that’s “g?i w?men”. Never mind.

        5. There’s a solution to this. Find gay men who want multiple husbands. Going against that will be sexist and a horde of internet peoples will go on a rampage until the SCOTUS rules it’s legal. So, legalized polygamy, there you have it.

        6. Perhaps the low status Rauch could share a high status wife with several other low status husbands?

        7. Because the polygamy gap is widening…rich men with more wives are moving to the suburbs and building new schools.

        8. Five women agree to be someone’s wives = Those women are denied courtship by lower class men.

          How should be define Hugh Hefner’s relationship? Exploitation, because some burger flipper can’t date his multiple girlfriends?

      2. He’s obscenely dickish on the subject. Totally misrepresents deBoer’s column from last Friday as well, as if deBoer didn’t have good arguments.

        1. The other issue is regarding bisexuality. What if I’m into both dudes and ladies? Theoretical Bi Irish does not discriminate. So why shouldn’t someone who likes poles and holes get to marry one of each?

          1. Well…because of securities fraud.

          2. My dad had a friend that was bi. She had a boyfriend and a girlfriend and they all lived together.

            1. Well, you’re from Florida, so that’s normal, yes?

              1. Pretty much standard.

            2. I have some friends with that situation.

            3. In college I was seeing a bi-sexual girl. Foolish kid that I was I asked to marry her and she said that was okay, provided I also marry her girlfriend.

              *breathes into paper bag*

              1. I was in a similar situation with a girl in college… my response was “you’re not bi.” It should have been “let’s find out if you roommate is bi, too!”

          3. You shall hitherto be referred to as Birish.

              1. Can we assume your gf, Molly Soda, is down with this? She looks like the kinda girl who wouldn’t mind.

                1. Was this addressed at me or Birish? Because I have no gf, but if I did, a soda containing molly might be the frontrunner.

                  1. A picture of Birish and Molly together

                    1. Holy crap, LD, warn us first!

          4. Maria Bello, the actress, came out last year as both bi and poly.

            The assumption that polygamy would only exist with men having multiple wives is just weird. Of course they’d be women with multiple spouses, some of them exclusively male, others not.

            1. To each their own, but I don’t understand any group marriage arrangement. It seems like it would be attractive to the type of people in a work setting who like to hold meetings before every decision. Then, in reality, one person ends up making the decision most of the time but patronizingly pretends that it was a collaboration, while everyone else just wants to get the heck out of there.

              1. To each their own, but I don’t understand any group marriage arrangement.

                Agreed. Seems like hella lots of paperwork and headache for a good old-fashioned orgy.

              2. This brings to mind the ’60’s communes with open relationships.

                Yeah, I’m super bossy IRL and cannot tolerate that hyper-democratic style of over discussing everything.

      3. My argument against polygamy is based on evidence: every society that practices it, sucks. It leads to large numbers of men without wives, which tends to produce social turmoil.

        1. There is no such fucking thing as society. So ‘”society” cannot have rights, nor can policies be good or bad for society.

          The only thing that matters is whether or not the government exists to secure the rights of free individuals living their lives as they see fit.

          1. Here, you dropped this mic. Let me dust it off for you, sir!

            *buffs the knob*

            1. I’d like to see you referred to in the future as “Knob-Buffing Hamster of Doom”.

              /TIYTANFL

          2. The government exists to steal your money and trample on your rights. Does that count?

        2. “every society that practices it, sucks” Funny, that’s my exact argument against monogamy as well.

        3. I don’t think you can simply ascribe the characteristics of polygamy in other cultures onto the postmodern West. The postmodern West is a vastly different bird than those (where polygamy grew out of ancient religious practices and scriptures). Sure, you may get your share of East African and even breakaway LDS polygamists, but polygamy will come to the West and it will come in the form of polyandrous polygamy. It won’t be one male with multiple wives, it’ll be one female with multiple husbands. One need only look at trends in the sexual market and sexual fetish porn to see its inevitability. The cuck porn fetish of wife sharing, women’s increasing promiscuity/immodesty and high partner count, and the thirst of dudes who seemingly have decent looks and good prospects in life having to completely prostrate themselves in exchange for self-entitled and poor prospect women that a mere generation ago would be relegated to a lonely life of spinsterhood and kittens.

          Polygamy will come to the US. But it will come in the form of polyandry.

          1. One need only look at trends in the sexual market

            Are we looking at Arnold Schwarzenegger screwing his maid? Charlie Sheen and his harem? or the Sister Wives TV Show?

            1. Perhaps the three sexual market trends I identified immediately after that sentence would be a place to start.

          2. Where do you live that it’s like this?

        4. We need to distinguish between consensual polygamy and patriarchal polygamy, though — if we’re talking about the latter, it does introduce problems (though probably not worse than serial monogamy as practiced among the rich today), but it’s also not analogous to SSM, and doesn’t deserve protection on those grounds.

          Under consensual polygamy, for some rich old fuck to get a fourth wife, all three existing wives would have to agree. It’s not likely to result in a major problem, since most people wouldn’t even be allowed a second spouse.

          1. I don’t see rich old fucks being the real market for polygamy. They tend to not have the libido to warrant multiple wives (not to mention the first wife or two will be there almost entirely for the inheritance and therefore veto the addition of sister wives).

            You’re right about patriarchical/traditional polygamy: it will suffer in the courts from the coercion and duress involved in such arrangements.

            1. As well it should. Libertarians tend to think of state-sanctioned “marriage” in contract terms. For reasons of dominant tradition and the state of the law under which existing marriages were established, in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a commitment to monogamy should be assumed as a term of the contract. Marrying a second wife would a breach, unless both parties to the existing marriage agreed to amend those terms.

              1. My primary beef with contemporary marriage is that is not a conventional contract: i.e. the party that breaches the contract via adultery can often reap financial benefits for the breach. I used to hope that gay marriage would the resulting gay divorces may bring contract law principles back into the sphere, but no longer.

          2. This topic is amusing.

            All these libertarians never read any Heinlein?

            1. Admittedly, no. I’m not big on science fiction. Not huge on fiction generally, though I’m working my way through Michel Houellebeq right now.

            2. I’ve read Heinlein. I have no problem with people having whatever private arrangements they want. However, I think it’s a legitimate issue whether such arrangement should be made official, with the full force of law and social approval.

            3. As a Heinlein fan (obviously), I would say that Heinlein was a proponent of keeping private lives private (as Papaya indicates).

        5. My argument against polygamy is based on evidence: every society that practices it, sucks. It leads to large numbers of men without wives, which tends to produce social turmoil.

          I think the stonings, amputations, and beheadings are more intrinsically linked with the backwards social culture than the polygamy.

          That is to say; I think ‘structured and rigidly enforced polygamy’ is considerably different from just ‘polygamy’.

        6. Sounds like the kind of argument a progressive, socialist, or theocrat would make.

          Supplying young horny men with pussy is not a proper function of the state.

      4. “he seems to have been writing about it for about 3 years without changing any of his arguments.”

        Like a broke-in pair of shoes..

      5. Apparently Rauch is obsessed with this topic since he seems to have been writing about it for about 3 years without changing any of his arguments.

        Reaction formation?

    3. It’s no use belonging to an exclusive club if there aren’t some on the outside looking in.

    4. Because it’s those icky fundy Christians practicing polygamy.

      1. I think it’s really this. It’s social signalling and snobbery.

        1. I actually compared polygamy to Four Loko (alcohol and caffeine combination drunk by the Snooki Class, as opposed to high-class Irish coffee) on another board, and needless to say people didn’t like the comparison.

      2. Nah, that’s not Rauch’s shtick. He’s being reflexively defensive about the slippery slope.

      3. Because it’s those icky fundy Christians practicing polygamy.

        Actually, no, one of the reasons for the hostility of most fundy and evangelical Christians towards Mormonism is the practice of polygamy. I may be mistaken and will accept any corrections but to the best of my knowledge the only sects identifying as christian that practice polygamy today are breakaways from the Utah Mormon church based on the belief that that sect’s ending the practice was contrary to God’s will.

        1. And muslims. Don’t forget the muslims. And certain very, very orthodox jews but they keep that on the DL as much as possible.

          1. Well, yeah, but muslims and certain very, very orthodox jews don’t exactly self-identify as christian.

            The fact is that most fundies and evangelicals do not recognize Mormons as christians, but then some of them don’t recognize Catholics and Episcopalians as christians either.

            A lesser facet of the antipathy of Southern sects to Mormonism is the fact that Joseph Smith was a radical abolitionist as well. Brigham Young reversed that policy leading to the generally legitimate charges of racism against the church from the 1850s thru the 1970s.

            I think Ted’s point may be directed towards some notion that “progressives” are some kind of Antichrist in the culture wars, while the fact of the matter is they are mostly nothing but the “Christian Left”.

    5. Polygamy is only equivalent to SSM if both existing spouses agree to accept a third, or have at least pre-emptively agreed to let a spouse unilaterally add another. Otherwise, not all the adults involved are consenting.

      1. Who here is suggesting anything else?

        1. Here? No idea, because we don’t usually get into the details. But I think the image in people’s heads in the general public involves unilateral additional marriage, which is the source of a lot of the considered opposition.

      2. The law should allow any conceivable collection of consenting adults join into marriage.

        1. Well, yes. I was putting emphasis on the question of consent, not on specific numbers or sexes.

      3. Polygamy involve multiple partners, SSM involve the same sex. They’re not mutually exclusive.
        A gay man might want multiple gay wives / husbands.

    6. Oh man. I read that article not knowing Johnathan Rauch wrote it. I wholeheartedly disagree with his assessment, but understand why he came to that conclusion. He’s been the most consistently engaged with the right on gay marriage, well before it started to become a mainstream issue. He’s spent almost my entire lifetime deflecting the slippery slope argument, and I doubt it’ll be easy for him to disengage from it.

      He seems to make the same error that opponents of repealing sodomy laws did. “If this is legal it will end up prevalent and we’ll have no more heteros bearing children/wives for low status men.”

      1. “If this is legal it will end up prevalent and we’ll have no more heteros bearing children/wives for low status men.”

        But views like this are so far beyond speculative, I rarely find myself taking them at face value.

    7. Other than both being “not straight marriage” I’m not sure what the two are supposed to have in common; or why one is supposed to lead to the other.

      1. If Obergefell had been decided on different grounds, I might agree with you. But there’s absolutely no reason Kennedy’s opinion should be restricted to two-person groups.

      2. Because if the definition of marriage changes from “one man and one woman” to “any two people,” why not “any three people”? Why not a brother and sister? What about age limits? Don’t they “discriminate” as well?

        The way the decision was written, I think challenges to laws that forbid all those things are inevitable.

        1. “What about age limits? Don’t they “discriminate” as well?”

          Age limits between consenting adults? First I’ve heard of it.. Some cougars are hawt. Over 45 is where I start to discriminate..

          1. Hey, if “marriage” can be redefined, why not “adult”? There’s no law of the universe that says being 21 or 18 is the only definition. Why not puberty? Why not earlier?

            1. Bar/Bat mitzvah is at what? 12 or 13?

              People accept things as they are, not realizing that adolescence is a social construct. Children were expected to take responsibility for themselves at puberty in the past.

            2. Uh, adult is already just arbitrarily and inconsistently defined by law. Why can someone join the army and vote at 18, but not drink until 21? Why can you fuck at 16 in a lot of places but not take pictures of it until you’re 18?

    8. So much for love wins, human dignity, “don’t be an asshole to people,” etc.

      The misogyny that bubbles up in these denunciations is also fun to observe. Apparently, when it comes to polygamy, women really are reduced to caring only about money and security, which is why rich men will get all the women.

      1. Apparently, when it comes to polygamy, women really are reduced to caring only about money and security, which is why rich men will get all the women.

        “In this country, first you get the money, then you get the power,THEN you get the women.”

    9. My favorite aspect of this is how for years when conservatives said “if you say people have a right to gay marriage you will end up saying they have a right to polygamy” progs would roll their eyes and say “that is ridiculous” or accuse conservatives of hating gays and equating them with polygamists. And then sure enough the Court declares a right to gay marriage and now the Progs are all saying “of course polygamy is the next cause”.

      1. Behold: here is the reason John Rauch wrote what John Rauch wrote.

        1. No. Rauch is not all Progs. And everyone knows polygamy is the next cause. I doubt it will succeed because our elites don’t like polygamists and they like gays. That is how you determine if you have a right now, if the elites like you and your group. If they do, then you have a license to fuck with anyone you like. If you are like the polygamists or the evangelicals and they don’t, go fuck yourself and get ready to get stepped on. That is how our “republic” works now.

          And when the judges decide they like someone else better than gays, get ready to go back in the closet Jesse.

          1. The book of Mormon is faring well.. give it time..

          2. Rauch is a conservative who has been (somewhat unsuccessfully) selling the idea that gay marriage wouldn’t mean de facto polygamy to conservatives. I’m assuming that his article in opposition to polygamy is largely because his credibility is on the line for those claims the second the first person starts agitating in favor of polygamy.

            My point is that his article is written for people like you because he is ultimately sensitive to your concerns about the legalization of gay marriage in the US. And it wasn’t meant as a jab at you, just that you’re his target audience. People are commenting on Rauch here without having that as background.

            1. The only group of people who probably want and would make polygamy work are gay men. My guess is once people like Rauch realize gays actually want and will take advantage of polygamy, he will change his tune. He is only objecting to it now because he thinks Mormons and Muslims are the only ones who want it.

              And for the record I think polygamy ought to be legal after this. I don’t think anyone has a right to a marriage license but if we are going to say gays do we damn well better say polygamists do. That wouldn’t be good, but at least there would be some internal logic and consistency to it beyond “gays are fucking great and should get everything they want”. And any gay person who argues against polygamy should be called out for being the bigot and hypocrite they are.

              1. Rauch has been consistent about this for as long as I’ve been reading him, which is 15 years now. I doubt he’s going to change his position on the issue.

                At least in my experience gay men are more likely to have an explicitly open relationship than straight couples (rather than the man having “an understanding” with his wife who has no idea that they have an understanding), but straight women are more likely to have dabbled in some form of polyamory where multiple people are part of the relationship. Again this is just my experience and may not be representative.

                1. The position of hte leftist gary rights advocates has been consistently against polygamy. That doesn’t mean it won’t change and certainly Rauch’s will change with it.

                  Beyond that, if it doesn’t change it should. As horrific as the decision was, to not apply it to polygamy and make it a special case and logic only used when it benefits gays and no one else, would make it worse.

                2. And the gay community assured everyone that legalized sodomy would never lead to gay marriage. How did that work out?

                  At this point why should anyone believe anything the progs say? The point is to make anyone who objects to homosexuality a criminal or at the very least unemployable and unable to own their own business. That is it. That is the end game and people like Raunch won’t stop until they get there. And likely they will.

              2. John, Rauch is gay. He might know a thing or two about whether gay men care about polygamy.

            2. The bottom line is Jesse, this decision if you don’t apply to polygamy makes the Constitution a special document for the protection gays and no one else. The courts will apply logic in a case for the benefit of gays they won’t apply when it benefits any other group. As bad as the decision is, that aspect makes it worse. I am sure you don’t see an issue with that, but I do.

              1. I am sure you don’t see an issue with that, but I do.

                I don’t think I’ve made a statement here one way or the other about my personal preferences on the legality of polygamy. My understanding of the ruling is that the logic used by the court necessitates the eventual recognition of poly-marriage, but that wasn’t a necessary outcome of legalizing gay marriage. I think Rauch was correct in his argument but wrong in how the justices eventually ruled.

                Polygamy isn’t something I see myself getting involved in, but I support people having the best tools at their disposal to organize their personal/financial lives in the way most beneficial to them, so I default to supporting their cause if they take it up.

                1. It doesn’t necessitate it because there is nothing that forces future courts to follow it when it comes to polygamy. And likely they won’t. The entire case is nothing but a special benefit for gays. That is it. It will likely never be applied to anyone but gays. IF there is any precedent going forward it is that the Courts will protect you just as long as it likes your group and no further.

            3. My point is that his article is written for people like you

              yes Jesse, people like me. Justice Kennedy already informed me that by virtue of my not being gay, I am a second class citizen. i am aware of that. You don’t need to remind me that I am one of those people. I apologize if I have not been sufficiently respectful of your superior political and moral position. I am just a lowly straight, so of course I don’t’ fully understand the error of my ways.

              1. Take a deep breath John and read the words just after the ones you quoted:

                My point is that his article is written for people like you because he is ultimately sensitive to your concerns about the legalization of gay marriage in the US. And it wasn’t meant as a jab at you, just that you’re his target audience.

                John Rauch is a conservative and gay and I think you’d find him very agreeable. That’s not a bad thing. I disagree with him on this issue, but I generally hold him in high esteem. Please don’t try to turn this into a personal attack on you because it absolutely isn’t.

                1. Rauch just wants his pony. That is really all it is about. And his assurances are frankly insulting. “Don’t worry the progs and the courts won’t go for polygamy” Yeah, just like they are not going to go after Churches and anyone who doesn’t toe the line.

                  I am sorry to be sensitive about this. But this decision is going to result in people losing their businesses and quite likely churches being told to toe the government mandated line or close down. Sure they can always just give up the tax exemption but a good number of them would go bankrupt if they had to pay taxes. So effectively it will be “accept gay marriage or close”.

                  That is tragic. It isn’t tragic to you. And frankly I don’t go to church so it probably shouldn’t be tragic to me. But it is. And what is most tragic about it is that very few if anyone is going to care.

                  1. Rauch just wants his pony.

                    You’re judging Rauch on what the PM Links? Yeah, you know just what a man who has spent decades trying to make space for gays in conservative politics and a solution to the gay marriage question that is equitable to the faithful AND gays.

                    That’s fine. You’re being sensitive about the issue and THAT isn’t unreasonable. You lashing out at everyone you disagree with, making gross assumptions about their positions and then lashing out at the arguments you’ve imagined they’ve made is obnoxious and ultimately a piss-poor representation of your position.

                    1. Sorry Jesse,

                      But nothing people like Rauch has ever said have turned out to be true. And I honestly can’t see him caring or doing much beyond scratching his chin and saying “gee that is really shame” when people are stomped on after this. And they are going to be stomped on. You can practically see the drool running down the left’s chin over this.

                      The bottom line is this Jesse. You and the rest of the gay community got what you wanted at the price of likely destroying religious freedom in this country. You may not want that to be the price but that is the price. And that fact needs to be pointed out at every opportunity. I frankly don’t understand how you can be happy knowing the cost of this whole thing. I sure as hell wouldn’t be even I were the one benefiting from it. But you and Reason and everyone else on here is. Sorry but “I didn’t want it to work out this way” wouldn’t make me feel better about it no matter how much I benefited from it.

            4. Rauch, a conservative?

              Writer for The New Republic, The Atlantic and National Journal? Member of the Brookings Institute?

              You’ve got a very strange definition of ‘consevative’—it’s pretty much ‘not conservative at all’.

        2. “Behold: here is the reason John Rauch wrote what John Rauch wrote.”

          Alex -@- HaroldCallahan ? 13 hours ago
          That’s a valid point. I don’t personally have an interest in this fight for polygamists rights. I have won my fight for my rights. Since this has zero effect on me personally, or my marriage I have no objection to you fighting for your rights to marry as many men, women or both as you want. Go fight the good fight! Good luck to you! =)

      2. John, I think you should read the article. He is holding the line.

        1. I wasn’t talking about the article in particular. I know I am not sufficiently gay friendly and thus one of those sub human hater types. But I can read. I figured you knew that and understood what I was saying. Sorry for the confusion.

  3. A fire at a predominantly black church in South Carolina was likely caused by lightning…

    God loves the rebel flag.

    1. “Behold His Mighty Hand!”

    2. He dun an brought down that faar from heaven on them fagarts!

    3. He was trying to collect the insurance.

      1. Winnah!

    4. God loves the rebel flag.

      Apparently, Hillary loves the bible. It’s the biggest influence on her thinking she says:

      At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.

      – Hillary Clinton, 2014

      1. I didn’t see the teachings in there that guide you towards being a lying corrupt scumbag.

      2. “At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking”

        That is a low blow to Christians.

      3. She studied it so carefully because she was looking for loopholes.

        /old joke

  4. Kalashnikov USA open for business.

    Kalashnikov USA announced on Tuesday that it is now selling AK-47 assault rifles and shotguns that have been manufactured at a U.S. factory.

    The Kalashnikov USA web site provides a menu of two rifles and two shotguns, all semiautomatics. One of the rifles features a curved, banana-style high-capacity magazine with 30 rounds.

    Thomas McCrossin, CEO of Kalashnikov USA, told CNNMoney in January, at the SHOT Show in Las Vegas, that his company was going to manufacture the guns in America as soon as a factory was established. The company has not told CNNMoney where that factory is located.

    The Kalashnikov USA brand is owned by RWC in Pennsylvania. The company’s slogan is, “Russian heritage, American innovation.”

    The company was established by the original, Moscow-based Kalashnikov Concern to export its guns into the U.S. But that plan was stymied by President Obama’s anti-Russian sanctions, to punish Russian businesses for President Putin’s war in Ukraine.

    1. Can I still get a mural on the stock of Putin riding a bear?

      1. Putin riding a bear

        Wait-I thought Russia had a bunch of laws about that sorta thing…

    2. USA! USA! USA… Um, wait a minute.

    3. I have been lucky enough to fire an AK-47. It was a wonderful experience.

      1. Same here. They’re awesome.

        1. Not if you really want to hit something, one shot-one kill.

          But they are probably one of the best bullet hoses out there.

          Drop it in mud, stomp up and down on it, and then shoot it. Plain and simple.

  5. Why is there no new Star Trek on television?

    Pro Libertate once suggested a The Office style mockumentary version of Trek. I like it. The confessional can be crewmembers’ personal logs. Imagine the possibilities.

    1. Give that LARPTrek guy a camera and put him in a room with the TNG cast.

    2. Set on Utopia Planitia maybe?

      1. Why not just put it on a holodeck while you’re at it? Anyway, that’s where Keeping Up with the Cardassians is set.

    3. “The Office style mockumentary”

      “Yeah, I’m gonna ask you to fly into the Klingon Zone and rescue one of our starships. Yeah. And, ah, if you get caught we’re to disclaim all responsibility. So if you can evade capture, that would be great. And, ah, if before you go you could fill out two copies of the Tachyon Protocol Systems report, that would be great, just in case you don’t come back from the mission. Yeah.”

      1. That would be “Office Space style”.

        Three guys standing in the holodeck, beating the shit out a malfunctioning tri-coder?

        It could work.

  6. Residential schools. Canada’s dark racist past:

    “…The majority of colonial era bureaucrats were educated in the arts and the social sciences at universities where the leading academics were sympathetic to the theory of eugenics that held that people with dark skin were inferior to people of British and European origins. That sentiment guided the development of social and economic policies that related to native peoples who lived under colonial rule. It would also have guided the government policy that forcibly removed young children from native Canadian families and placed them in residential schools.”

    http://www.quebecoislibre.org/15/150615-6.html

    1. The last segregated school in Canada shut down in the early 1980s?

  7. vWhy is there no new Star Trek on television?

    They haven’t been able to find a gay Kirk and transgendered Spock yet?

    1. They haven’t been able to find a gay Kirk and transgendered Spock yet?

      Are you suggesting that in ST:TOS Kirk wasn’t gay and Spock wasn’t transgendered – or at least confused?

      1. Gay for green chicks maybe.

    2. Giant. Space. Salamanders.

      1. Where’s lizard when we need him?

        1. Been fishing… And you mammals never really *need* me

    3. Sulu fills the gay quota.

      1. Yeeeessssssss

        1. What about Chekhov? Remember his classic line:

          “Captain! They put creatures in our rears!”

          1. THAT’S NOT EXCLUSIVE TO THE GAYS.

      2. Oh My!!!!

      3. Sulu wasn’t gay. He got all sweaty with Mudd’s women, after all.

  8. The presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton says it expects to have raised $45 million this quarter. Meanwhile, Jeb Bush has released a list of donors to his educational foundation…

    Wonder if any donors overlap.

    1. It’s called insurance.

  9. Whitehouse “crackdown” on for-profit colleges begins today

    Quotes on the headline are mine.

    The Obama administration is cracking the whip on for-profit colleges.

    Starting Wednesday, the Department of Education will make sure students don’t take on more debt than they can handle by holding schools accountable for the return on investment of their degree programs.

    I laughed.

    1. Comedy gold!

    2. Because that doesn’t happen at “not for profit” colleges?

    3. Are they holding allegedly non-profit colleges to the same standards?

      1. I’m still at the office, don’t make me laugh out loud.

        1. You should bitch at Medical Physics Guy, too.

          1. For some reason, it harder to restrain myself when I read yours. Maybe it was the buildup.

    4. Yes, let’s allow abuses at public institutions while holding private ones to standards that are intended to destroy them. So wise.

  10. Arab supercar

    Asking the top speed of the world’s first Arab supercar is beside the point. The 0-60 times, or horsepower, too. Those numbers won’t matter by the time you notice the seats are stitched with gold thread and headlights are trimmed with diamonds.

    When did the company think, “diamonds, what we need is headlights made of diamonds”?

    Ralph R. Debbas, W Motors CEO, laughs: “Diamonds in the headlights are something we don’t need at all, actually. It was a true marketing gimmick that we integrated. But people talk about it.”

    W Motors styles itself as the Arab world’s first supercar manufacturer, and has major plans to build its name in the oil-rich Middle East, which has so far lacked a credible motor industry.

    1. which has so far lacked a credible motor industry.

      Because your supercar will be designed by the Arabs, built by Pakis and test-driven by Nepalese.

    2. Is it just my age showing, or does the large rim/skinny tire thing just not look as good as more traditional wheel proportions?

  11. …the lawsuit asserts violate the First and Second Amendment.

    The two most troublesome amendments!

  12. Americans don’t come to Quebec anymore:

    http://coolopolis.blogspot.ca/…..treal.html

    I’m guessing, in addition, they got tired of being told off by the odd retarded separatist.

    1. I must have done something wrong. I don’t think any separatists told me off on either of my trips to Quebec. On the other hand, my French is really shitty.

      1. “On the other hand, my French is really shitty.”

        I’ve heard French people say that Kay Bek Wah isn’t really French anyway. Is this so?

        1. It’s ‘rural’ (la campagne; the dialect being ‘joual) French the French will say.

          The irony with the French linguistic zealots that draws the ire and ridicule of the French is grammar taught in the schools is poor.

        2. Francophone Quebecers feel like shit when they’re not understood in Paris. Also, movies and TV programs from Quebec are shown with subtitles in France.

          1. Yeah. Quebec produces decent movies though.

              1. and beautiful women.

        3. I walked into a d?panneur in Quebec City (link goes to the webpage of the d?panneur I’m talking about) and greeted the clerk in French. He responded in English.

          When I paid for my purchase of a shit-ton of beer from Quebec (because Quebec brewers make excellent beer), I asked him why he responded in English, and if it was because my French was that bad. He responded with, “Yes, I could tell you don’t know French as soon as you said ‘Bonjour’. But that’s OK, I know English, I had the same problems with English, and I want you to buy my beer.”

    2. I travel to Quebec regularly. I guess I’m doing something wrong.

      1. Mange t’a poutine, maudtit d’hostie Yank.

        There. I did it for you.

    3. Has there been a downward trend since Bill 101? I know it was incredibly intimidating for me living there at first to not have any public transit or road signs in English, as well as many store signs in parts of the city. That’s a barrier not many casual tourists want to have to overcome. It would be interesting to compare the trends to, say, Ottawa.

      1. All the road signs in Quebec are in French with the exception of the directions to the US. It’s always “USA” not “?tats-Unis.” There might be a message in it.

        1. What’s interesting about the road signs is well into Vermont and Ontario (and I think NY; I forget) you see some signs in French; which makes sense given the importance of road safety. In Quebec, you get little or no English; which we used to have.

          All part of the ‘English will overtake French ergo we need to suppress it as much as possible for our future’ paranoia.

          1. I’ve spent a lot of time in the North Country (i.e. NY bordering Quebec) and I don’t remember any French signs.

            I am surprised that there are French-only signs in Quebec (I’ve never been). Yet I recall most signs in Ontario are bilingual – and I’ve never been east of Toronto. That speaks volumes.

            1. There is a decent amount of signs in French along I-87 up until the Adirondacks or so.

      2. 1976 destroyed the Montreal economy. Until the cloud of separatism – even if they claim it’s not a real threat – disappears, Montreal will remain stagnant. Bill 101 is a scourge on civil liberties though they refuse to see it as such.

        And they keep beating that regressive linguistic horse for political expediency doing stupid things like going after big corp demanding they change their software and signage into French all under the guise of ‘respect’.

        Which is anything but.

    1. Taken before his time. RIP.

    2. I’m surprised more stories like this don’t end up TV dramas. These folks should be household names.

  13. The surviving New York prison escapee says he and his partner conducted a “dry run” of their prison break…

    They learned that from the Fox show of the same name.

  14. “A fire at a predominantly black church in South Carolina was likely caused by lightning, according to the FBI, which is working with the National Weather Service.”

    So is NWS to be charged with a hate-crime?

    1. If this isn’t a cover-up, I don’t know what is.

    2. Only if they failed to predict the lightning.

    3. Thor is such a racist.

    4. It’s like everything named Storm is out to get black people. Stormfront, Dylann Storm Roof, actual fucking storms.

  15. A fire at a predominantly black church in South Carolina was likely caused by lightning, according to the FBI, which is working with the National Weather Service.

    Clearly, Zeus is a neo-confederate. I bet we can expect more of this race war pantshitting for generations to come.

  16. Google Photos Identifies Two Black Users As ‘Gorillas’

    Alcine, a computer programmer, said he believes the glitch was caused by a faulty Google algorithm

    However, he should still sue Google for being RACIST!

    1. Alcine, a computer programmer, said he believes the glitch was caused by a faulty Google algorithm, noting, “This could have been avoided with accurate and more complete classifying of black people, especially darker-toned people of color like myself and my friend.”

      So. Fucking. Tedious. Image recognition is HARD! Give the algorithm a fucking break. It’s awkward and nothing more.

    2. he should still sue Google for being RACIST!

      Don’t be silly. The algorithm is racist. Google should subject it to a tribunal.

      1. have you seen the photo?

        it’s not that surprising the algorithm produced the wrong answer.

        — not because the two black people look like gorillas, but because the lighting and staging of the photo was very bad.

        1. So, you’re saying they look like gorillas under certain conditions?

          RACIST!

      2. White people got no algorithm.

  17. Monopoly to be turned into a film

    Even JJ Abrams can’t save this one.

    1. Sales of the board game must be slumping.

    2. They’re already rebooting Atlas Shrugged?

      1. I actually forced myself to watch some of the third installment the other day. What a travesty.

    3. Enh… Clue was pretty good.

  18. Ha, this is great:

    Hank Baskett explains Transgender Cheating Incident

    Saying he “messed up,” Baskett told People magazine that he was at the grocery store in April 2014 when he saw a couple smoking pot in the parking lot. So of course, he approached them in hopes that the random strangers would sell him some of the drug. They gave him a phone number to call, he did and was given an address, and then he showed up at the home.

    If you are buying what he’s selling so far, just wait: Baskett’s story gets even more bizarre. He claimed that once he arrived at the house, he immediately used the restroom (because that’s always the first thing you do at a stranger/drug dealer’s house). When he emerged from the can, he saw “something I thought I would never see in my life”: two transgender women, one of them naked, making out. One of them walked up to Kendra’s hubby and groped him through his gym shorts.

    So, sounds like he fully intended to cheat, until he saw penis.

  19. I was told that Ouzo can make you crazy; seems there might be something to that:

    “Less than 24 hours after he wrote a conciliatory letter to creditors asking for a new bailout that would accept many of their terms, Tsipras abruptly switched back into combative mode in a television address.
    Greece was being “blackmailed”, he said, quashing talk that he might delay the vote, call it off or urge Greeks to vote yes.”
    http://news.yahoo.com/greece-d…..ector.html

    1. What’s the discrepancy? He’s a bullshit artist. So, conciliatory when talking to the guys that can give the bailout, firebrand when address the mob of Greek idiots.

      1. He’s entertaining, at least, from the outside looking in. Still, I feel sorry for the Greeks who did nothing to contribute to this mess.

        1. LynchPin1477|7.1.15 @ 4:58PM|#
          “He’s entertaining, at least, from the outside looking in. Still, I feel sorry for the Greeks who did nothing to contribute to this mess.”

          I do, to, but it seems there aren’t many.

      2. ^This.

    2. I was told that Ouzo can make you crazy

      NEW DRUG PANIC

    3. Even if Greeks vote “yes”, why would any other European country believe he’d be sincere about putting in the reforms? Even if he resigns, his party’s still in control, and they’re not doing it either.

  20. So I heard on the radio today that Tiger Woods has been shacking up w/ Jason Dufner’s ex-wife, Amanda Boyd, who he divorced in April. That has to go over well in the PGA tour clubhouses. Am I surprised? Hell no, because Tiger Woods is one of the worst human beings alive.

    1. I agree that he’s a creep, but he’s single, she’s single, not sure what the problem is there.

      It was pretty hilarious watching him get his ass kicked by a 15 year old amateur though.

      1. I thought the story was that it was an affair while she was married.

      2. I’m thinking Woods and Boyd were bumping uglies while Woods was seeing Lyndsey Vonn and while Boyd was still married to Dufner. That’s why I have a problem with it.

        And as for Woods’ golf game, good lord. He didn’t fall off a cliff, he rode a jet propelled motorcycle and crashed off the cliff.

        1. He was on the decline before his wife beat the shit out of him (IIRC, he changed swing coaches about a year before), but he’s been unrecognizable since he came back. He plays like he’s 75 and losing mobility.

        2. If that’s the case, then yeah, it’s pretty lousy for sure.

        3. “I’m thinking Woods and Boyd were bumping uglies while Woods was seeing Lyndsey Vonn and while Boyd was still married to Dufner. That’s why I have a problem with it.”

          Holy crap, and I thought keeping score in *gold* was confusing!

          1. golf, not gold, though in their case there’s a connection.

  21. 35 percent of Americans would expatriate

    More than half of millennials, a whopping 55 percent, said that they would consider leaving the U.S. for foreign shores.

    Obama’s Legacy!

    1. Only because all other countries have better healthcare and well, everything else, because they aren’t greedy capitalists like Murikans.

    2. All that means is that Americans care more about cash than nationality. Not a bad point of view.

      1. Or, they view themselves as autonomous and not beholden to patriotism. Not bad either.

    3. That’s until they start looking for apartments…”OMG, like, where’s the walk-in closets?”

      1. That’s not a walk in closet? that’s the bedroom.

    4. Yes, yes, just as 60% would go to Canada if X is elected to the presidency.

      They ain’t going nowheres!

    5. This is why we need an Iron Wall, comrade! And a Fugitive Citizen Act.

  22. Why is there no new Star Trek on television?

    Because Picard got promoted to admiral, but dammit, he belongs in command of a star ship!

    1. Something something “The Search for Spock Data”

    2. God I always hated that trope. Like every captain doesn’t secretly long for pushing papers in some safe office somewhere.

  23. “Why is there no new Star Trek on television?”

    One of the reasons, I think, is because the show always depended on a certain amount of optimism.

    The original show was wildly optimistic in various ways–in the future, a Russian and an American would be serving together, a black woman would be treated as an important part of the crew, and a drunken Scotch-Irishman would be put in charge of Engineering…

    The Next Generation was optimistic in its own ways, too, particularly with the idea that humanity would learn to be compassionate in the future and would justify its own existence in the future despite its barbaric past (our present).

    One of the reasons there’s no new Star Trek now? The orthodoxy now has it that humanity has no future–it’s a failed experiment and the universe would be a better place without us. Especially in the face of environmental threats, optimism is seen as morally wrong these days. Showing people in a world where humanity has solved its problems through technology is tantamount to treason.

    And, unfortunately for Star Trek, optimism is its vital source. There cannot be a dystopian Star Trek.

    1. The orthodoxy now has it that humanity has no future–it’s a failed experiment and the universe would be a better place without us.

      Peak Oil was the 70s. Ozone was the 80s. The idea that humans don’t belong on Earth has been around for the entire time ST was on tv.

      1. Yes. But now it’s religion. Those ideas were new back then. Now my generation has grown up with them as gospel and we will cast out the unbelievers.

        1. good point.

      2. That stuff was minor compared to global warming. Ozone depletion and peak oil were minor by comparison. And it wasn’t treason against leftist orthodoxy at the time to suggest that there might be technological solutions to those problems.

        And the point is that the idea that technology will solve climate change is now tantamount to treason on the left. We can’t wait for technology to solve our problems–we have to make gigantic sacrifices in our standard of living now. And anyone who writes anything to the contrary is the enemy.

        You want to write a show about how humanity thrives in the future with simple technological innovation? What are you–a filthy capitalist?!

      3. So the Borg has completed its assimilation?

    2. Ken, that is actually a really good insight. I think it’s the reason why so many fans consider the reboots to not be “real” Star Trek.

      1. I think that there’s a level of “depth” that is missing from the reboots. In essence, new Trek is checkers and old Trek is chess.

      2. I agree – all current drama must be dark and composed of characters with questionable morality. That doesn’t suit Trek at all.

        1. In modern storytelling, dark is a stand in for deep. That goes to Trshmnstr’s comment, too.

    1. “Nick, I’m an Associate Editor, not a comedian!”

  24. Why is there no new Star Trek on television?

    Khaaaaaaaaaaann!!!!!

    Seriously though, the reboot of wrath of khan sucked.

    1. Yes it did.

      I saw it at a friend’s place. After the movie was over, I insisted we find the original Wrath of Khan and watch it to help purge the horror of the reboot.

      1. I’ve been saying ever since the end of the first reboot movie that they need to connect the old series with the new reboot universe through a mirror universe movie! It hasn’t been done to death (DS9 aside) like most of the storylines in Trek, and it can connect these new movies back to something a little more recognizable as Trek. New Kirk fighting to save the Federation from being overrun by technologically superior evil humans from another universe. It would be great!

    2. HOW COULD IT NOT? The original is as close to perfect cinema as you can get.

  25. Hmm… found out that a woman I was madly in love with – and had a mild fling with – is getting married. This news is upsetting me more than I thought it would – even though the last time I hung out with her was four years ago.

    I guess some people just stick with you.

    1. Maybe you should have hung out with her more. When you don’t call a woman for 4 years, they take it totally the wrong way. Wiminz!

      1. She moved to another city… and is also terrible at calling or messaging back. Like many things our friendship just kind of drifted away.

        1. Same sort of thing happened to me. My best friend here moved to another city and we eventually lost touch. I mean that’s different than being in love, but I did really like her. My wife likes her also and even talked me into calling her on her birthday last year. Last time I’ve heard from her.

          Out of site, out of mind, you know. Unless you do social media. And I don’t. Nothing is worth exposing yourself to social media, not even friendship. Or even love. Derpbook or death, I’ll choose the eternal dirt nap.

    2. It should pass quickly. Imagine her getting fat.

      1. And her boobs sagging. And menopause.

      2. She did become fat – not being cruel here – from a size 2 to a size 16. Nothing that a good diet/exercise program couldn’t fix but hey, who listens to me for weight loss advice?

        1. You *are* humungus, after all.

    3. A friend of mine once gave me some advice on forgetting women. “There’s no woman you’d be able to remember after a gallon of orange juice and a fifth of vodka.”

      I found other ways to forget about women.

      1. More women is the best way. Always worked for me.

        1. ^^ This ^^

          Similar thing has happened to me 2x. Some years later I discovered how lucky I was. I really dodged a couple of bullets by accident.

    4. Crash her wedding, you idiot. Confess your love in the middle of the ceremony and make a gigantic ass out of yourself. I can’t believe I have to tell you this.

      1. That always works on movies. Great idea. Just do it, LH and post the video here!

        1. And tear a crucifix off the wall and use it to lock the doors to keep the congregation from stopping you. Then, you and the bride jump into the back of a city bus, and suddenly start to realize what you did as a hypnotic theme song begins.

          Yes, please post it.

      2. Yeah listen to Warty and Hyperion. It will be just like the movies. You won’t get arrested or have a restraining order put on you or anything. it will have a totally happy ending.

        1. It’s easier to get away with crashing a ceremony when your presence causes everyone to flee in terror

        1. Is that Bruce Wayne’s Aunt Harriet from the old Batman TV show alongside the speaker?

    5. Best way to get over a chick is to get over another.

      TIWTANLW

      1. Brilliant!

    6. Gee you guys made me feel better already – ah, the healing power of snark.

  26. The FBI has been working with the National Weather Service to determine whether the heavy storms in the area contributed to the fire.

    The Freedmen’s Bureau will be joining them soon. Followed by Federal troops as soon as the blue uniforms are delivered.

  27. Things are too tense here. Here’s a cat, here’s a butt.

    1. Dammit, Warty! Now I’m *really* tense!

    2. Trigger warning on the delicious, I mean offensive, camel toe.

    3. That’s a really cute cat. I called my wife over to show her and I clicked on the wrong link. Ouch, that fucking hurt, damn you!

      1. “Honey, come look at this pussy!”

        1. I larfed.

    4. I hadn’t figured you to on that appreciated the simple things in life

  28. Today was release of Batch #(? 3) of the Clinton Emails

    (*why this ‘dribble out’, i still can’t understand. anyone remember why a judge determined that a progressive release of bundles of email was considered the ‘fair’ way of dealing with her attempts to limit exposure? it makes no sense to me.)

    apparently these are the most-boring of the bunch, but many think that they may be the most damning of Clinton’s tenure as Sec. State, as she seems preoccupied with PR stunts and media-management rather than anything to do with diplomacy, and apparently spent a lot of her time gabbing with aides about how she should stage-manage herself vis a vis Obama

    1. State Department strikes Philippe Reines email address, even though he was working for the government back then. He must have had his own email server as well.

    2. I love that Hillary holds up the Kissinger/Nixon relationship as the ideal to show what a big-time, super-important politician she is.

      And based on the photo included, Hillary is now actively going for the Palpatine look. Maybe Bob Dole’s ’96 team can give her pointers on how to make the shark look more palatable.

  29. Spot the Not: sad ends of great minds

    1. proved the existence of atoms; committed suicide after years of ridicule

    2. proved that the square root of 2 is irrational; killed by an angry mob

    3. proved the benefit of hand washing; died at 47 in an insane asylum

    4. developed various vaccines; died penniless at 50

    5. invented nylon; committed suicide at 41

    6. solved a 350 year-old math theorem in his teens; killed in a duel at age 20

    1. I would guess 3.

    2. 5. It’s too delicious. Created nylon and then hangs self with nylon rope.

      1. Five is true. IIRC he committed suicide with a fast acting cyanide concoction he invented using his knowledge of chemistry.

  30. According to Bo, christians in India are just as brutal and oppressive as ISIS.

      1. Bo Cara Esq.|7.1.15 @ 2:37PM|#

        Yeah, that after hundreds of years of ISIS level intolerance Christians eventually developed James Madison really proves your point over hers.

    1. Oh. Speaking of, according to the mentally ill Bryan Fischer of the AFA, we’re going to get attacked by ISIS and it’s all SCOTUS’ fault for allowing gay marriage.

  31. Oh my God, this Jonathan Rauch quote is hilarious:

    “The ban on polygamous marriage quite easily passes this test, too. The government’s interest is as compelling as they come, and the policy is tailored quite appropriately to fit the goal. Remember: it’s legal for a man to live with multiple women, have sex with multiple women, and even raise children with multiple women (or men!). All the government is doing is denying plural relationships the specific government benefit of a marriage license. This is a well-tailored way to prefer and institutionalize monogamy, without making private consensual conduct illegal.”

    You could make the exact same argument about gay marriage:

    “The ban on gay marriage quite easily passes this test, too. The government’s interest is as compelling as they come, and the policy is tailored quite appropriately to fit the goal. Remember: it’s legal for a man to live with multiple men, have sex with multiple men, and even raise children with multiple men. All the government is doing is denying gay relationships the specific government benefit of a marriage license. This is a well-tailored way to prefer and institutionalize heterosexuality, without making private consensual conduct illegal.”

    What an idiot.

    1. The left is perfectly happy with social engineering as long as it’s their preferred social engineering.

      1. Trust me, in five years he will “evolve” and become a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of polygamous rights when he realizes that the polygamy that comes to dominate the US is a single woman of mediocre at best attractiveness, with a domineering personality, and an inability to form genuinely romantic pair bonds due to 50 too many lifetime sexual partners combined with 4 weak willed, porn-addicted, evolutionary dead ends who play the role of provider slaves and emotional tampons while their shared wife continues working the field and getting it on with legions of men that she really wishes would marry her but won’t return her phone call after the creepy one night stand where this chicks four hubby’s watched him bang her.

        My view of the coming world would make Huxley’s dystopia look like Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.”

        1. “Polygamy” bears too much baggage from that weird Romney-cult in Utah.

          The word you’re looking for (and they cause the left will shortly rally behind) is “polyamory.”

          1. Hell, by the time that issue comes to the forefront (I still think we’re a good 5-10 years away from it gaining traction, first comes the trans-movement), they might not even bother with the pretense of neutrality, opting to merely refer to it as polyandry and suggesting that polygyny simply cannot be allowed within the framework because of patriarchy/religion.

            1. I can see it. Polygamy allows men to exercise their privilege over several women, intensifying their oppressive power, while polyandry gives women authority over their sex lives, helping disperse some of that masculine oppression.

              1. I would be such a kick-ass SJW. I probably should be. I know how to speak retard pretty well.

            2. Hey. Put aside your projections for just a moment, long enough to hear that polyamory is A Thing, and has been around for long enough that some of these families have teenagers and used to talk about their babies and new relationships on Livejournal. Community and community standards have already been established, and it resembles none of your apocalyptic assumptions.

              I mean… take a deep breath. It’s going to be okay, really.

              1. Sure it is a thing Hamster. So are a lot of things. There are communities of Pakistanis where they send their 11 year old daughters back home to forced marriages. And there are Mormon communities where they kick the teenage boys out on the street lest they compete with the old men for the young girls. So I guess we should be granting government recognition to all that as well.

                Jesus fucking Christ is their any Lefty Culture warrior cause who boot you won’t lick?

              2. I don’t mind polyamory. Didn’t mean to give that impression. I don’t even have an objection to communal marriage between consenting adults. But it will be amusing to watch Rauch walk back his objections in a few years when it becomes the latest progressive cause du jour.

                1. You know he will spitoon.

                2. It annoys me that it will be seen as a progressive cause. I would prefer that it be seen as a libertarian one.

                  Didn’t mean to give that impression.

                  Oh, I didn’t mind anything you said. I was more talking to Sudden, but neither did I particularly mind anything he said. More just trying to reassure him that his fears are, from my experience in the matter, groundless.

                  Not that this is a guarantee that the SJWs won’t fuck it up. SJWs could fuck anything up, even love and sex. Especially love and sex.

                  1. Polyamory won’t just be embraced under the social justice model of judicial process for sex crimes, it will be all but mandatory to ensure affirmation can always be attested by several parties.

                    1. Nonsense. We’ll all be in FEMA camps by that point, and sex will take place behind the latrines – standing up – or with a license that only the wealthy can buy.

                  2. I was more talking to Sudden, but neither did I particularly mind anything he said. More just trying to reassure him that his fears are, from my experience in the matter, groundless

                    I understand and appreciate what you’re saying. I’m not sure reassurance is what I need as I know I’ll never enter into any such relation. As previously stated, I don’t share. And I actually believe such arrangements should be legal and permitted to be marriages because free people are welcome to do whatever manner of things I consider idiotic so long as it doesn’t infringe anyone else’s rights. That doesn’t mean I’ll not criticize the practice and what it reveals about the continuing decline in Western culture.

                    1. I’ll take what I can get and be happy with it. Always knew I was a degenerate anyhow.

                    2. You’re a female, no? Cue everyone else lecturing me on double standards and disparate treatment of men and women, but I generally don’t think polyamory a bad deal for one-man/multiple-women arrangements. That sort of relation has a considerable historical context for it and even traces all the way back to the animal kingdom with a single alpha pack leader dominating the sexual spoils. My issue with it is more polyandry, and my broader point was that I don’t think the left will embrace polyamory unless it devolves into a situation characterized primarily by polyandry (and I do believe that will be the natural progression with the current state of the west).

              3. polyamory is A Thing, and has been around for long enough that some of these families have teenagers and used to talk about their babies and new relationships on Livejournal.

                Sure it’s a thing. Everything is a thing. But it is niche and not particularly concerned with agitation towards cultural embrace as of now (not merely tolerance nor acceptance, full on embrace, as is the only acceptable course for SJWs). Current established community standards will evolve over time as they always do to the point where the values that define the community now will seem antiquated and outmoded in only a decade’s time.

                Moreover, I continue to see more men willing to be walked all over and treated like garbage for the faintest glimmer of hope of wrestling a thrice-annual romp of dead starfish lights-off vanilla sex with a woman whose own value appears to my eyes woefully beneath his. This is the petri dish in which polyandry as the norm will grow.

          2. But polyamory already has a meaning, and it’s not a legal issue. You can gave as many sex partners as you want, already. Once it comes to marriage, then it’s polygamy/polyandry.

            Though, of course, probably “polyamory” will be pushed because it sounds better, and actual dictionary definitions will be tossed out the window.

            1. After this decision, being free to do something isn’t really freedom. Gays were free to have sex with each other and be married. According to Justice Kennedy and most of the people eon this board, they were not free until they also had government recognition and sanction.

              So the fact that people are free to screw and live with whomever they want isn’t good enough Papaya. Sorry.

              1. It’s like an old Bob Hope joke: homosexuality is now legal, but I’m going to leave before it’s mandatory.

    2. Rauch Rules for Debating:

      1. Claim that any arguments your opponent makes are proof of homophobia.
      2. Win court case.
      3. Adopt the identical fucking argument your previous opponent used against your pet unicorn when someone takes your previously won court case to its logical extension.

    3. The Left is perfectly willing to throw away millenia of tradition and well thought out concepts, embrace the hedonic kultur de jour, and worry about the consequences later…or never.

    4. The guys sounds like a giant douchebag.

    5. The bottom line is Rauch and people like him like gays and don’t like polygamists and therefore there is a compelling reason to ban polygamy. That is all there is to it. Gays are fashionable and thus have rights. The moment they for whatever reason stop being fashionable, gays will be in no better shape than the polygamists. You see it is all about what makes Rauch and people like him feel good about themselves.

    6. “I’ll just create a wall of words so utterly specious that only an idiot would buy it and hope that no one on my side of the political fence calls me on a transparently bullshit argument that would get a teenager flunked out of community college.”

  32. A fire at a predominantly black church in South Carolina was likely caused by lightning, according to the FBI, which is working with the National Weather Service.

    And by the transitive property of racial guilt, whites are still responsible because global warming.

    1. It really kinda depends on the church

      1. I love Boondocks. It’s a showcase for how laughably simplistic cultural (and in Huey’s case, actual) Marxism is. I doubt that’s how it’s intended, but it’s how the show pans out.

    2. Has anyone researched the electrician? Does he have a Lynyrd Skynrd shirt? Could be a white nationalist.

  33. I started watching Generation Kill – the 7-part HBO series. So far I’m pretty impressed – but only watched the first episode.

    Will I be disappointed as the series goes on?

    1. No.

      But Colbert does get to be an annoying whiny bitch too often later on.

  34. TVLand pulls Dukes of Hazzard

    The Parents Television Council weighed in TV Land’s decision Wednesday. Although the organization said they did not oppose the reasoning behind TV Land’s actions, the council blasted the network and its parent company, Viacom, for “blatant hypocrisy” they say the media company demonstrated.

    “Restraint and responsibility do not infringe on the First Amendment and do not encroach on Free Speech rights. If TV Land is willing to pull The Dukes of Hazzard, out of concern for its harmful impact on our society (and it is good that Viacom is publicly acknowledging its programming can have a harmful impact on our society), they cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to refute the compelling evidence of harm from the violent and sexualized media content they continue to produce and air with impunity.”

    “Harmful impact on society”.

    1. See, this is what I’m coming to love about family-values conservative groups. Not their policy prescriptions, certainly, but the fact that they’re willing to shove some of the obnoxious culture war tactics back in the faces of the progressives who invented them. For example, the salami tactics for gradually criminalizing abortion is an example straight out of the gun control playbook. And here is a socon organization pretty explicitly forcing a company to put up or shut up if they’re going to insist on bowing to the left’s manufactured outrage. It’s like… well, it’s like watching Jimmy and Timmy slug it out.

    2. Fahrenheit … wait, what temperature does the Internet burn at?

      That’s right… Fahrenheit OVER 9000!!!!!

    3. The hilarity being that the Dukes encapsulate the benign spirit of the flag as a cultural symbol, in this case of literal rebels against a corrupt local government, rather than some fearful relic of white supremacy.

      This species is embarrassing.

  35. A fire at a predominantly black church in South Carolina was likely caused by lightning, according to the FBI, which is working with the National Weather Service.

    That was white supremacist lighting.

    The surviving New York prison escapee says he and his partner conducted a “dry run” of their prison break, but found themselves at a manhole that was too close to residential homes. They chose a manhole just a block from the prison instead.

    They were afraid of getting robed. Close to the prison is much safer.

    Why is there no new Star Trek on television?

    Maybe because the other four iterations were all PC shit, perhaps? Star Trek was edgy in its time especially with a black female officer in a miniskirt. A gender-neutral girlfriend for Riker which was there to lecture us about “tolerance” (in the 90s!) was not.

    1. “They were afraid of getting robed.”

      An understandable but unreasonable fear. Outside of prison, joining up with white supremacists is completely elective.

  36. There are communities of Pakistanis where they send their 11 year old daughters back home to forced marriages. And there are Mormon communities where they kick the teenage boys out on the street lest they compete with the old men for the young girls.

    As bad as Progressives may be, neither the Pakistanis nor the fundamentalist Mormons are communities for which they have any level of sympathy.

    In fact, the first platform of the Republican Party (the major advocate of Progressivism at the time*) in 1856 had as its third plank:

    Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism ? Polygamy, and Slavery.

    *one might say, a time when It was possible to argue that Progressivism might be a good thing.

    1. I am pretty sure the Progs in the UK are quite sympathetic to the Packistanis and were quite happy to let gangs of them rape hundreds of young girls in Rotherham.

      The Progs are sympathetic to anyone or any act no matter how vile if it gets them power.

      1. John, not to put too fine point on his, but you are plainly and simply full of shit.

        The authorities in Britain who were afraid of offending minority sensibilities come from the entire political spectrum.

        1. No they were bullied by the progressive PC culture. You are the one who is full of shit. Do you think it is Tory or conservative culture to say you can’t accuse Muslims of rape for fear of being a racist?

          What the hell is the matter with you Issac?

  37. Racist lightning – altert FBI Hate Crime unit

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.