Republican Candidates Fight for Spot in Fox News Debate, Right-to-Die Dead on Arrival, Trump Hypocrisy: P.M. Links

|

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don't forget to sign up for Reason's daily updates for more content.

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.

494 responses to “Republican Candidates Fight for Spot in Fox News Debate, Right-to-Die Dead on Arrival, Trump Hypocrisy: P.M. Links

  1. I say we gag ourselves to force Reason to fix commenting. WHO’S WITH ME?

    1. The last time I tried to gag myself I was in traction for a month.

    2. My name is Lt. Juvenile Bluster and I’m putting together a special team, and I need me eight soldiers. Eight Reason-American soldiers. Now, y’all might’ve heard rumors about the armada happening soon. Well, we’ll be leaving a little earlier. We’re gonna be dropped into DC, dressed as civillians. And onec we’re in enemy territory, as a bushwhackin’ guerilla army, we’re gonna be doin’ one thing and one thing only … killin’ squirrelz.

      1. Come on you apes, you wanna live forever?

      2. Stoooooopid mammal, you’ll never get all of the furry tree-dwelling comment destroyers. They’ve plagued my people for centuries

      3. Operation: Acorns are for CUNTS! is a go, I repeat, is a GO!

    3. Gag you with what? Think carefully.

      1. Mexicans, ass sex, and pot?

      2. Seriously, does anyone believe FoE even has a gag reflex?

      3. Duh. A gay spoon.

    4. ” fix commenting”

      Is it the Edit button you demand, or the extermination of the Squirrels?

      1. I’m very much against the edit button. Live with the shame of you’re mistakes, grammer loosers!

        1. OUCH

        2. Looser: not firmly or tightly fixed in place; detached or able to be detached.

          ie “FoE is looser than Epi’s Mom.”

          Loser: One who mocks other’s grammar issues on the internet

          ie “Bob studiously avoided looking in the mirror while noting that Fist was a looser loser.”

  2. Republican candidates are running out of time to improve their poll numbers such that they can qualify for the Fox News debate.

    The losers get MSNBC.

    1. If only.. It would be their “walkof shame”..

    2. If only.. It would be their “walkof shame”..

      1. Vile creatures, those skwerlz..

    3. Paul was not mentioned in the entire aticle…at all. Did he drop out? He has GOT to be polling better than at least half that field that IS LISTED in the article.

      Ahh journalism…aint it grand.

  3. Edward Snowden coming back to the U.S.?

    Who knows. When Putin doesn’t get as much joy out of tweaking the next president with Snowden, the lad might just get kicked out.

    1. Are you kidding? That will never get old for Vladdy. Hell, I bet he’ll give Snowden a seat at the table the next time Kerry pops by to drop off the latest reset button.

      1. If I were Putin, I’d definitely have him around for all of the high-level discussions with the U.S. government. In fact, I might house him in the Russian embassy for a while, just for fun.

      2. Next time maybe they’ll ask Condi to translate it for them. Ha!

  4. Court unseals depositions from 2005, wherein Cosby admitted to obtaining qualudes to give to young women he wanted to have sex with:

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/…..legations/

    1. I need to consult an expert pharmacologist to understand whether this drug could be viewed as a “date-rape” drug versus the normal-course-of-social-drug-use drug. Is Dr. Episiarch available to comment?

      1. He’s more of an expert date rapist.

      2. Roman Polanski is.

        1. Yeah, but Polanski is still cool with the hollywood crowd, because he’s black..

      3. I’m pretty sure all the cool people were doing qualudes in the 70s.

        1. Ambulance used to come to my HS on Friday afternoons for the students who mis-timed their dosage. Libertine-ist decade ever

        2. Ambulance used to come to my HS on Friday afternoons for the students who mis-timed their dosage. Libertine-ist decade ever

      4. The response he gave was that he would give these drugs ‘to women he wanted to have sex with’. But he didn’t say he gave them the drugs ‘without their knowledge’ or ‘without their consent’.

        If you’d asked me if I ever gave drugs to women I wanted to have sex with, I’d say ‘yes’ as well. Because in each case, the woman and I would take the drugs together, both of us willingly, knowing it would make the sex more fun.

        1. You just admitted to rape since women can’t legally give consent when they’re impaired–even if they gave consent beforehand. The fact you were also impaired doesn’t protect you because patriarchy. Fyi…

          1. because they are all retarded.

            1. Agreed. But that’s become the belief and/or law over the past few years.

          2. The 1970s were a more enlightened age. People were assumed to take some degree of responsibility for their actions or suffer the potential consequences.

    2. How’d he get any? They stopped making it in the US around 1982.

      1. He state in 2005 that he acquired the pills in the 70s to give to girls he wanted to have sex with.

        1. I heard on Mark Simone this AM that Cosby said he’d give them ‘ludes (methaqualone, Sopor) or Benadryl (diphenhydramine). If it was Benadryl, that’d be a more certain indicator that he was using it to KO ladies rather than for their pleasure.

  5. Baker appeals cake war ruling. ACLU bravely stands against freedom of association, private property.

    http://www.denverpost.com/news…..g-cake-gay

    1. Phillips’ attorney, Jeremy Tedesco, said Phillips has the same right as an artist would to refuse a commission to paint a Confederate flag.

      Nice.

      1. Sure, if you think rights are available on some basis other than the popularity of the person using them and the position they are taking. If you buy into all of that racist bullshit sure.

    2. I agree that the baker has a right to associate, or not associate, with whomever s/he pleases. Still, opponents would have a better argument if they were just a little bit knowledgeable about Christian scripture.

      There is no scriptural admonition (that I know of) to refuse to associate or do business with a “sinner”. In fact, if one follows Jesus of Nazareth’s example, s/he would love and support them in the same way that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene (who, of course was a prostitute). IOW, the whole idea of refusing to accommodate LGBTJKLMNOP folk is unsupported in scripture and is actually suggested.

      1. *actually discouraged*

      2. That’s . . . not what’s happening here.

        The bakers are not saying they will not serve homosexuals *at all*, only that they will not knowingly participate in facilitating what they consider a sin – in this case, a gay wedding.

        1. Exactly.

      3. s/he would love and support them in the same way that Jesus loved Mary Magdalene (who, of course was a prostitute)

        You mean when he cast demons out of her?

        Luke 8:1-2: The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out.

        It’s pretty obvious from Scripture that loving your neighbor doesn’t mean aiding and abetting their sins.

        Notice what Jesus said after the adultress almost got stoned to death:

        John 8:11: Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

        See also 1 Cor. 5:9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people? 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sisterc but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

        1. That latter verse only applies to sexually immoral christians. Its fine to associate with sexually immoral heathens.

        2. You missed a major part of my point. I said “if one follows Jesus of Nazareth’s example”, but you quoted Paul speaking to the Corinthians who had some specific problems within their congregation itself.

          Nuance is important. Otherwise you end up hating folk that you’re supposed to love. Or you shun those that you should embrace. All caused by legalism.

      4. This is irrelevant. Scripture has nothing to do with it .

        1. Yes it does. To the extent that the baker is using Christianity as their excuse to refuse service, the real teachings of scripture is relevant. Not relevant in a legal/secular sense. But relevant in the sense that their stated reason is bogus.

  6. The failure of the Rolling Stone UVA rape story hasn’t persuaded journalism outlets they should cover sexual assault differently…

    Unlike Erdely, as long as they actually get input from the accused instead of running a one-sided story, I don’t suppose it necessarily should.

    1. it doesn’t clarify what “differently” might mean.

      It provides no clarity on what “journalism” outlets consider best-practices in the first place.

      Reading the piece, it seems that the WaPo, NYT, and other ‘news’ sources used the opportunity to pat themselves on the back and say, “That shit never happens to us because we’re the Pros”

      Why would you change when you’re *awesome*?

  7. Comic fans of Reason: I was called out for claiming that The Killing Joke, as much as I love it, could not be made into a film, because people would be protesting the Joker/Barbara Gordon scenes. Am I wrong?

    1. The protests would just get more people to see it.

    2. As long as Batgirl signs the appropriate consent forms, I don’t imagine there would be much blowback.

    3. Did you follow the recent Batgirl cover controversy?

    4. I only know bits and pieces of that story – is that where a bunch of midgets torture her? Or do they torture her father?

      Either way, so long as they can get Peter Dinklage to play the little sadist, the audience will go along with it.

    5. ANYTHING and everything would and will be protested. However, no one would care.

    6. *sigh*

      I remember when people said the Watchmen couldn’t be made into a film, for narrative reasons.

      I like narrative reasons better than hysteria.

      1. A good adapt’n of Watchmen would require 2 separate movies. The 1st would go from the original costumed-adventurers fad to the dissolution of the Minutemen. The 2nd would go from then to the end. Unfortunately you need Dr. Manhattan for both stories, & breaking up his story into 2 parts like that would be unsatisfying.

        In the movie adapt’n that got produced, part 1 was told in the opening credits sequence as what amounted to a series of comic book frames. That was a brilliant device, & the best part of the movie.

        People said you couldn’t adapt The Mothman Prophecies to a movie either, but I think they did a very effective one, if you like your adapt’ns loose, which I do. Clever work splitting John Keel into 2 characters.

        1. That was a brilliant device, & the best part of the movie.

          I wholeheartedly agree. They did do short films in that era for the directors cut DVD, if I remember correctly.

  8. Negotiations with Iran will continue until at least Friday.

    For a hamburger today.

    1. Maybe someonne should get Iran and Greece to negotiate with each other.

      It’d be like harnessing a perpetual motion machine of uselessness.

      1. Actually it’d be very efficient.

        “We want West to let us have nukes.”
        “OK. But in return, we want West to give us money.”
        “You drive hard bargain.”
        *shake hands*
        “Mr. UN, we are done here.”

        1. You should write a book……Getting to Yes!

      2. Iran produces gorgeous women. Iran isn’t totally useless.

        1. There are gorgeous women everywhere. Iran is no exception.

      3. That would be hilarious, like a one legged person in an ass kicking contest.

  9. The California right-to-die bill has stalled due to Catholic opposition.

    Looks like this bill is ready for…

    [dons sunglasses]

    …its last rites.

    1. You know, you think making David Caruso jokes is funny. But it’s not.

      1. Apparently, Epi does have a gag reflex.

      2. Mocking the greatest actor of our time is no laughing matter.

        1. I liked him in Mad Dog and Glory. That’s about it.

      3. David Caruso isn’t to blame for your lack of a sense of humor.

    2. YEAAAHHHHHHH!!!

    3. Eddie still calls it “extreme unction”.

      1. I believe the term today is the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

        Ask for it if (God forbid) you ever are seriously ill. At worst, you just die with a bit more oil on your body.

    4. Here’s the list of groups opposing the right-to die bill. There are several Catholic groups on the list (thank God), but notice the large number of disability advocacy groups. I guess they’re all either closet theocrats or they have some kind of paranoia that the “right to die” will be a means to pressure disabled people into killing themselves.

      http://noassistedsuicideca.org…..galization

      I don’t think the AP’s focus on Catholics is meant as a compliment to us, but as an insinuation that only theocratic Sky-Daddy bleevers could possibly oppose this enlightened legislation.

      1. Catholics and many non-Catholics believe in “the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” (as the mostly non-Catholic founders put it), and believe these laws are accessible by reason, whether you’re Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist or atheist.

      2. There’s various kinds of evil. Catholicism is one of them.

        1. Whoosh.

        2. Objectivism is another.

        3. Silliness. There is no evil.

        4. I’m not religious, ex Catholic, you are a fucking prick troll. Fuck off.

      3. It’s also a factor of most people believing that everyone should only be able to make life choices they are okay with. A lot of normal insular life folks are terrified of something bad happening to them. They think if they lose the ability to run or have to deal with pain that their lives won’t be worth living. They therefore emphasize with an escape valve to having to live with problems.

        Most disabled folks on the other hand already know what that life is like and have decided its worth living. Therefore they don’t emphasize with an escape valve to having to live with problem. In fact a lot of them have built their identities around overcoming hardships and will feel disgust towards those who’d rather die. Plus there is the implied insult that the lives lived by the disabled aren’t worth living (No one means to say that, but I can’t think of a better word than implied for what it sounds like), and no one likes being told the life they built for themselves isn’t worth living.

        1. You are absolutely correct, sir.

          Chronic pain, and other disabilities, reminds one continuously of the beauty of living. When one lives on the raw edge of existence, that living is more accentuated–more vivid. Yes, it’s a frustrating life, but it is a life lived moment to moment. A life of deeper and more precise experience. And a life that I would not wish on anyone.

        2. Very well said, sir.

  10. Lawrence O’Donnell: We’re All Socialists Now

    O’Donnell asked, “Howard Dean, you’ve been watching Bernie Sanders longer than any of us as a Vermonter. In the middle of John Nichols’ interview with Bernie Sanders, there’s a long section on socialism, and on Bernie being a socialist. And it reminds me of that 1988 moment where Michael Dukakis tried to deny he was liberal because, of course, Democrats must always run away from that word ‘liberal,’ it can never get stuck to it. And here’s Bernie Sanders embracing the term ‘socialism,’ the fact that he is a socialist. He says it more than once in the article, and then does something that no other candidate would ever do, he actually points to other countries and how he believes that other countries do many things better than we do, including Scandinavian socialist countries. How has that worked in Vermont? Has Bernie managed to educate Vermonters to the essential truth that we’re all socialists now?”

    1. Lawrence O’Donnell sure does enjoy the sound of Lawrence O’Donnell’s voice.

    2. Someone needs to get Bernie to drive a tank.

    3. I’m not a fucking socialist. Who is this “we” he refers to?

      1. Look dude, you signed the social contract. You have no choice but to go with the collective now.

        Turns out the social contract is the “I Agree” button in the Apple Terms of Service, so we’re all pretty much screwed.

        1. I didn’t click shit. I’m operating under protest.

        2. I don’t own any shit from Apple.

          1. Nobody owns shit from Apple or anyone, we’re all socialists – the state owns the shit.

          2. I have a couple of Beatles albums from Apple, nothing from that tech company though.

            1. +1 Let it Be.

      2. You’re going to cash Social Security checks, aren’t you?

        Boom. QED

        1. Tell you what. I’ll renounce my right to collect if they’ll stop stealing money from me.

        2. Just like I reject Unemployment whenever I’m out of a job, I will also refuse to accept Social Security checks (if I live that long). I would honestly rather die in the gutter than accept handouts. Seriously.

          1. Can I have your handouts?

            1. Ask the government. As far as I’m concerned that money was stolen from me and I’m not about to go begging to get some of it back.

              1. That sounds like work. Fuck it I’ll just earn my money.

    4. I get a tingle in my leg when I hear Bernie’s speeches. I think it’s urine.

      1. Yes, Bernie’s speeches ARE urine. Golden streams vomited forth in the advancement of the State.

      2. I get a tingle in my leg when I hear Bernie’s speeches. I think it’s urine.

        Hopefully it’s your urine and not Bernies.

        Old man urine…….ewwwww!

  11. The debates will be somewhat watchable if Trump is involved.

  12. John could be right. We need a white Republican President. With all there problems like ISIS, Ebola, and Greece it is obvious Obama is not up to the job.

    Nahhh, John is still an idiot.

    1. What difference at this point does it make?

      /elderly white lady and PB’s favored candidate for 2016

      1. 8% of classical liberals think Hillary! is more libertarian than Rand Paul.

    2. Shreek,

      Stick to the talking points they send you. Your handlers drew the short straw. Be kind to them.

      1. My brother works at an animal sanctuary and says they have to use a water hose
        to corral the animals into a corner in order to clean the cages. I wonder if they do the same for Shreek.

        1. Nahhhh! Shreiky is a coprophage…..he cleans up after himself!

    3. Ben Carson called.. and said you were stupid..

      I still like you though.

    4. Cankles, buttplug loves licking those cankles,

      Are you hoping to lick the Hildebeast’s ass? That’s is pretty disgusting, bro.

      Perhaps you have a weird thing for pants suits attached to a big fat ass. Something…something…something. At least you are good for a laugh ass licker, NTTIAWWT.

    1. Those bastards!!

    2. The funniest part is the other guy. He notices the error, but doesn’t dare say anything, so his face just freezes.

    3. War on Women continues apace!

      1. This is why a woman pres would be great. She could promise a chicken in every pot and a dildo in every drawer. Extinction averted!

  13. Negotiations with Iran will continue until at least Friday.

    For what? Did we loan them money they aren’t paying back?

  14. The authors of the California legislation that would allow doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs lacked enough support to get through committees this year amid fierce religious opposition.

    Religious groups say allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs is assisted suicide and goes against God’s will. Similar opposition helped defeat similar legislation in California in 2007.

    Way to not trample on people’s rights, religious peeps. You taught progressives well.

    1. The problem with assisted suicide is what starts as letting people die morphs into doctors killing their patients. If you don’t believe that, go look at what has happened in the Netherlands.

      The entire issue is a red herring anyway. Doctors cut off treatment and let their patients die with dignity all of the time. They don’t need the government sticking its nose in the middle of it creating a law to encourage it.

      Seriously, who exactly out there is terminally ill and wanting to die but somehow can’t because their evil doctors are keeping them alive? You realize how ridiculous that sounds?

      1. The issue isn’t with withholding treatment. It’s with terminal illnesses like cancer and ALS. Ones that are going to take a while to kill but leave the person suffering, lying half-conscious in their own shit. Why shouldn’t those people be able to get a mega-dose of some barbituate to kill themselves if theywant?

        1. To my knowledge, they commonly put such people on a morphine drip & achieve the same effect. My friend Ed Hughes/Huser got that this spring when he couldn’t take rx for pneumonia again.

      2. Seriously, who exactly out there is terminally ill and wanting to die but somehow can’t because their evil doctors are keeping them alive?

        Strawman down! There are plenty of people who have nothing to look forward to but slow, agonizing deaths. Right now, their options are to go home and put a gun to their head or just suffer while nature takes its course. They should have the right to contract with a doctor to end their suffering in a manner that doesn’t end with them hanging in a closet, or their brains splattered on the wall.

        1. Yeah, your doctor won’t kill you even if you ask him to. And there is good reason for that. Go look at what has happened in the Netherlands. Once the government sticks its noes in and says it is okay for doctors to kill their patients, doctors quickly start doing so and you wind up with them killing the sick and killing anyone who doesn’t affirmatively object to them doing it. It is a slippery slope you don’t want to step on.

          And you forgot to yell RED TONY. If you are going to hurl stupid insults, do it properly.

          1. What other liberties should we abridge because they might be abused? How about gun ownership rights?

            1. You are free to kill yourself. It is just your doctor is not free to kill you, just like I am not free to kill you. All assisted suicide is is giving doctors the legal sanction to kill. That is it. If anyone else gave you an overdose of opiates, they would be guilty of murder, even if you ask them to do it. But with assisted suicide, a doctor can do that legally. It is a really bad idea to give anyone, least of all doctors, who are charged with saving lives, legal sanction to kill people.

              1. If anyone else gave you an overdose of opiates, they would be guilty of murder, even if you ask them to do it.

                And I’m saying they shouldn’t be.

                1. So if you ask me to shoot you in the head, I should be able to do it? I don’t think so. If you want to kill yourself that is one thing. I do not however see how I can ever have the right to kill you absent self defense. How do i know you really mean it? How does that not just become a way for any murder to be legal? Jordan told me he wanted me to kill him, now prove he didn’t.

                  That is the problem with assisted suicide. It opens up all kinds of avenues for abuse. Doctors and families bully people into doing it in the name of money. Doctors kill any person who is unconscious that they view as hopeless and so forth.

                  Sorry, your right to end your life does not extend to me. You have no right to my assistance. Once you start asking me to help you, then it becomes a question of my rights. And I have no “right” to help you die anymore than you have a right to demand I do it.

                  1. How does that not just become a way for any murder to be legal? Jordan told me he wanted me to kill him, now prove he didn’t.

                    Easy. You can’t prove you had consent, you go to prison for murder.

                    That is the problem with assisted suicide. It opens up all kinds of avenues for abuse. Doctors and families bully people into doing it in the name of money. Doctors kill any person who is unconscious that they view as hopeless and so forth.

                    Yes, yes, I get it. Liberty is scary. These same paternalistic arguments get trotted about by progressives all the time with respect to minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, organ selling laws, etc.

                    You have no right to my assistance.

                    I never said I did. I have the right to attempt to acquire your assistance. You have the right to choose to provide it or not.

                    1. RED TONY NOT UNDERSTAND FREEDOM! RED TONY LOVE SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY! RED TONY ONLY PRETEND TO GIVE SHIT ABOUT FREEDOM WHEN GAYS SUE BAKERS! THEN RED TONY PRETEND HE IS ONLY ONE WHO GIVES SHIT ABOUT FREEDOM! RED TONY PROUD OF RED TONY’S SHAMELESSNESS

                    2. Cytoxic, please the adults are talking. You don’t understand the debate and you have nothing to ad to it.

                    3. If you don’t have a right to my assistance Jordan, any law that says I can’t give it is not an infringement on your liberty. So telling doctors they can’t murder their patients in no way infringes on their patients’ liberty.

                      You just gave away the argument. All of my concerns about the slippery slope carry the day because preventing the doctor from helping you infringes on his liberty not yours. And the liberty interest in doctors being able to kill their patients is pretty small and in fact non existence.

                    4. If you don’t have a right to my assistance Jordan, any law that says I can’t give it is not an infringement on your liberty.

                      It’s a violation of my right to attempt to acquire your assistance, and a violation of your right to provide it.

                    5. It’s a violation of my right to attempt to acquire your assistance, and a violation of your right to provide it.

                      That is like saying a law that makes it illegal to feed the homeless is a violation of the homeless’ rights. No. Homeless don’t have a right to food. The law is a violation of the people who want to feed the homeless. Same thing here. You have no right to demand or ask for anyone’s assistance. So a law saying you can’t get assistance is a violation of the person offering the assistance’s liberty not yours.

                    6. So a law saying you can’t get assistance is a violation of the person offering the assistance’s liberty not yours.

                      So at least you concede that laws preventing assisted suicide do infringe on people’s liberty. Good. Glad we cleared that up.

                    7. So at least you concede that laws preventing assisted suicide do infringe on people’s liberty. Good. Glad we cleared that up.

                      Yes it is. It is an infringement on doctor’s freedom to kill people. Sorry, but I don’t see how anyone, least of all doctors has any right or liberty to kill other people.

                    8. You keep using the word ‘murder’ in a mendacious way. Stop that.

                      All of my concerns about the slippery slope carry the day because preventing the doctor from helping you infringes on his liberty not yours

                      It also infringes on mine because I asked him too, just as drug prohibition infringes on the rights of dealers and customers.

                      When we use the SC or pop culture to ram this freedom down your throat are you gonna be a total whiny cunt about it like you’ve been over gay marriage? If so, please leave.

                    9. You keep using the word ‘murder’ in a mendacious way. Stop that.

                      Why stop? It’s good practice for you to see the error of your stance considering that government will always be just as mendacious about its own laws.

                    10. There’s always a fifth and a handful of (insert drug name here)…

                      Proof? Against a dead man? And his huge line of living relatives suing you for wrongful death? Fuckin a, bro.

                  2. Sorry, your right to end your life does not extend to me.

                    Fuck, that’s as wrong as Jordan’s stance. No one’s proposing that doctors be coerced into death assistance.

                    1. Fuck, that’s as wrong as Jordan’s stance. No one’s proposing that doctors be coerced into death assistance.

                      No. We are talking about a law that says I can’t do it. So just exactly how much of my liberty does that take and at what price? I don’t see how anyone has the “liberty” to take someone else’ life, even if that person asks. So how is a law saying I can’t do that an infringement on liberty?

                2. Life is an inalienable right. You cannot sign your right to live away to.another person. There is no violation of any real right here.

              2. All assisted suicide is is giving doctors the legal sanction to kill. That is it. If anyone else gave you an overdose of opiates, they would be guilty of murder, even if you ask them to do it

                This is why I think that the “pull the trigger” moment should be required to be handled by the dying person. If you want to off yourself, you can have a doctor set you up, but you have to do the final act. Anything short of that is murder in my eyes.

            2. Apparently giving doctors special rights nobody else gets is “liberty”.

              1. No, we all have that right, governments just don’t respect them.

              2. Doctors already control access to narcotics. So only allowing them to provide you with an overdose is better than allowing nobody to do so. No libertarian would claim that repealing prescription drug laws would not be the superior option.

                1. I’m kinda with John on this one.

                  I think it’s a dangerous perversion of the healer role to go down this road with practicing docs. There should be a hard firewall between these roles. Out of practice/retired docs or end-of-life specialist is fine with me.

                  The more pressing question is whether we should allow gay assisted-suicide by doc.

                  1. Hey now!

                    Oregon allows gay assisted suicide, therefore by judicial fiat, all states must allow gay assisted suicides.

                    1. Aw, crud…now Christian Suicide Parlors are going to have to cater to gay wedding participants, aren’t they?

                2. No libertarian would claim that repealing prescription drug laws would not be the superior option.

                  Unfortunately so-called libertarians bend on their superior (but minority) principles and allow “just this one special enumerated right” so often that it has become the knee-jerk go-to reaction of contemporary libertarians.

                  allowing them to provide you with an overdose is better than allowing nobody to do so.

                  And they are already allowed to do so and in fact DO almost every single minute of the day. When you get that 60-pill prescription, you can get it filled and take all 60 pills at once if you want.

                  If you’re too scared to kill yourself, then you really don’t want to die. And make no mistake – government would rather see you dead anyway.

                  1. What woodrow chipper said.

                3. Doctors already control access to narcotics.

                  Sorta kinda not really.

                  They’re bowing and scraping to the DEA like everybody else. RXing the dosages required out of context with patient care would get a doc and pharmacist flagged immediately.

                  I have no problem with the doc setting a patient up to pull the trigger and I’m sure quite a few doctors would provide this for their patients, but they’ve got the DEA looking over their shoulders with microscopes.

          2. You are talking out your ass , John, when people are trying to have an intelligent conversation. I often agree with you but in this case you are full of shit.

      3. Why shouldn’t anyone be able to ask a doctor for a prescription for life-ending drugs? Obviously, you should be able to buy them yourself, but you can’t. And the black market is a poor source for times when the dosage is really important.

        I frankly don’t give a shit about what it might morph into when my right to choose when and how to end my life is so royally fucked with by the state. If I can’t go buy medical-grade morphine at Walgreens without a prescription, I want it legal for doctors to prescribe it.

        1. I don’t know Nikki, if you come and ask me to shoot you, why shouldn’t I be able to do it? You consented didn’t you? How is that murder?

          The reason why we say no to that is that we don’t want people, least of all doctors, given a license to kill. Do you have to have the dangers of giving people the legal sanction to kill explained?

          1. Why shouldn’t anyone be able to ask a doctor for a prescription for life-ending drugs?

            I don’t know Nikki, if you come and ask me to shoot you, why shouldn’t I be able to do it? You consented didn’t you? How is that murder?

            Prescription =/= administration!

            Let’s walk down the causation path.
            I just want you to hold the gun steady on my temple, i’ll pull the trigger on the gun.
            I just want you to load the gun, I’ll hold it and shoot it.
            I just want you to hand me the bullet, I’ll load the gun.
            I just want you to sell me the bullets, I’ll unpackage them and load the gun.
            I just want you to sell me the gun, I’ll buy the bullets elsewhere.
            I just want you to manufacture the gun, I’ll buy it from a retailer.

            Where is the line drawn between murder culpability and no murder, John? I draw the line at pulling the trigger. Where do you draw it?

            1. John draws it wherever it ‘feels right’. He has no principles, just whimsy.

            2. That is a bullshit distinction. If I give it to you for the purpose of you using it to kill yourself, I am morally responsible for your death. I don’t get to cop out of it because I didn’t actually administer.

              Beyond that, you have no right to my assistance or for me to give you the drugs. Whether I give them to you or not is about my liberty not yours. So you don’t get a fucking vote when we are debating whether I have a right to assist you. And sorry but I don’t see how anyone has a right to assist in someone’s death.

              1. If I give it to you for the purpose of you using it to kill yourself, I am morally responsible for your death.

                Bzzzt wrong. You are no more responsible than gun manufacturers are for crimes committed with the guns they produce.

              2. Whether I give them to you or not is about my liberty not yours. So you don’t get a fucking vote when we are debating whether I have a right to assist you.

                So if I make it illegal for you to help me, then I’ve enhanced your liberty? Am I missing something here?

                1. So if I make it illegal for you to help me, then I’ve enhanced your liberty? Am I missing something here?

                  No we have violated my liberty. Your liberty has nothing to do with it since you are still free to do what you like and you never had the right to demand anyone’s assistance in the first place. The entire issue is about my liberty not yours.

                  So if you say this should be legal, you need to explain why it is doctors should be free to kill their patients not who patients should be free to kill themselves. Denying doctors the ability to help patients kill themselves is not denying the patients their liberty to do so.

                  1. Your liberty has nothing to do with it since you are still free to do what you like and you never had the right to demand anyone’s assistance in the first place.

                    But what if it’s not a demand and simply a request?

                    So if you say this should be legal, you need to explain why it is doctors should be free to kill their patients

                    Whoa there, cowboy. The “doctors” have to prove they obtained the consent of their “patients” and, since killing is an irrevocable act, we’re talking multiple witnesses and a notary, at the very least.

                    Denying doctors the ability to help patients kill themselves is not denying the patients their liberty to do so.

                    It is in the context of a world in which the “patients” are forbidden by law from obtaining the same means of doing so that a doctor can prescribe. However, the problem here is the Controlled Substances Act, which is not going to be remedied by a “right to die” law.

                    1. But what if it’s not a demand and simply a request?

                      It doesn’t matter. My answer to your request has no effect on your liberty. You are still free to do something regardless of whether I assist you. So a law that says I can’t help you infringes on my liberty to help you not your liberty to do it.

                      The “doctors” have to prove they obtained the consent of their “patients” and, since killing is an irrevocable act, we’re talking multiple witnesses and a notary, at the very least.

                      So what? They are still killing their patients. The consent mitigates the morality of it but it doesn’t change the underlying fact that they are killing their patients. And doing that sets a terrible precedent and steps onto a horrible slippery slope that every country who has stepped on has fell right down.

                      It is in the context of a world in which the “patients” are forbidden by law from obtaining the same means of doing so that a doctor can prescribe.

                      Then the problem is the drug laws and the way to solve that is the change the drug laws not give doctors the right to kill their patients upon request.

                    2. So a law that says I can’t help you infringes on my liberty to help you not your liberty to do it.

                      Agreed.

                      So what? They are still killing their patients. The consent mitigates the morality of it but it doesn’t change the underlying fact that they are killing their patients.

                      It seems to me that your entire issue is with this taking place under the nominal guise of medicine. There is a reason I put “doctor” and “patient” in quotes. The state has anointed doctors as gatekeepers to drugs. I think a lot of people are unable to comprehend or unwilling to allow a system that doesn’t work that way.

                      And doing that sets a terrible precedent and steps onto a horrible slippery slope that every country who has stepped on has fell right down.

                      I don’t think there’s ever been a country that hasn’t done this implicitly or explicitly as a form of population control. The libertarian idea that the law should respect the individual’s wishes to the maximal extent doesn’t even enter into it. I doubt it did in this case, either.

                      Then the problem is the drug laws and the way to solve that is the change the drug laws not give doctors the right to kill their patients upon request.

                      Again, agreed, but do try to keep your thoughts a little more well organized.

                  2. and you never had the right to demand anyone’s assistance in the first place.

                    I don’t have the right to hire someone to do a job for me?

                    Nobody is demanding anything from anybody. The doctor can take the job or not.

                    1. Frank,

                      You completely missed the point. IF you don’t have a right to the assistance, then the government passing a law denying it to you, does not infringe on your rights.

                    2. You completely missed the point.

                      You missed the point.

                      I don’t have the right to the assistance.

                      I have the right to seek the assistance and secure it if I have a willing party.

                    3. Frank not only are you a fucking prick you are an idiot. If you don’t have a right to the assistance, then it being denied to you doesn’t infringe on your rights. it is that simple.

                    4. Frank not only are you a fucking prick you are an idiot.

                      Bravo, John. That’s what we’ve come to expect from you when you paint yourself in a corner and can’t get yourself out.

                      If you don’t have a right to the assistance, then it being denied to you doesn’t infringe on your rights.

                      I don’t have the right to corn on the cob. But I do have the right to seek corn on the cob, and purchase it if I find a willing supplier. Making selling corn on the cob illegal, for no good reason, puts quite a damper on my right to seek and purchase corn on the cob.

                    5. Let’s extend this fantastically logical line of reasoning:

                      I don’t have a right to have my political message printed on a third party’s billboard, only a right to seek to have that message printed there. If I am banned from being sold that billboard space, my right to free speech is not being violated!

                      I don’t have the right to buy my firearms from a third party, only to keep/bear them. Therefore a ban on the sale of firearms doesn’t violate my liberty!

                      &c, &c

              3. If I give it to you for the purpose of you using it to kill yourself, I am morally responsible for your death. I don’t get to cop out of it because I didn’t actually administer.

                morality =/= legality… you’d think that you would have learned that lesson from Obergefell (sp.)

                Beyond that, you have no right to my assistance or for me to give you the drugs.

                Agreed.

                Whether I give them to you or not is about my liberty not yours.

                Agreed.

                So you don’t get a fucking vote when we are debating whether I have a right to assist you.

                Stay on target!

                And sorry but I don’t see how anyone has a right to assist in someone’s death.

                You were soooo close!

                Here’s how you have a right to assist in someone’s death… you don’t own that person. By not owning that person, you do not get to decide whether they live or die.

                Much like the gun example, I could prescribe you a fatal dose of barbiturates, I could prep the needle for you, I could even stick the needle in your arm, and I still haven’t decided whether you live or die. Let’s say I prep everything, and all you have to do is press the plunger to kill yourself. I still haven’t killed you. You still have ownership over your own life. You can still choose to push the plunger or not. If you have last minute regrets, you can still live.

                1. Here’s how you have a right to assist in someone’s death… you don’t own that person. By not owning that person, you do not get to decide whether they live or die.

                  That is a cytoxic level piece of stupid and illogical thinking. My not assisting you in your death is not deciding whether you live or die. You decide that not me. The fact that you can’t get my help to give you what you want does not make me responsible for you not getting it.

                  Again, doctors have no liberty interest in helping their patients die. In fact, no one has a liberty interest in helping someone else die. You own your life. And your deciding to end it is not something anyone else has a right to help you in doing.

                  1. My not assisting you in your death is not deciding whether you live or die. You decide that not me.
                    Agreed.

                    The fact that you can’t get my help to give you what you want does not make me responsible for you not getting it.
                    Right.

                    Again, doctors have no liberty interest in helping their patients die.
                    Where did this come from?? Of course they do! Do vets not have a liberty interest in putting down Fido when he gets hit by a car and is unsalvageable? You’re telling me that the government could ban vets from putting pets down because they have no liberty interest in helping their patients die? Bullshit!

                    “Helping somebody die” is absolutely a liberty issue, no matter how many incantations you chant to the contrary. End-of-life care, whether or not by assisted suicide, is the practice in “helping somebody die” in the best way possible. Don’t give me that bullshit that somehow end-of-life doctors and nurses somehow gave up their ability to practice as their conscience sees fit merely because they’re “helping somebody die.”

              4. Free adults are able to go to a willing retailer, purchase 10 grams of secanol, and ingest it.

                In a free society, the secanol manufacture and the secanol retailer are also able to set terms and conditions upon their secanol customers.

                Of course, this is not a free society and government screws up everything it touches. There is no social problem that government cannot make worse.

            3. Where is the line drawn between murder culpability and no murder

              Um…

              …consent?

              You don’t have a contract, it’s murder.

              Guy hauls an old car away from my property. If he doesn’t have a contract, it’s theft.

              Don’t see the difference.

              1. Of course it’s consent… I was asking John where he was drawing the line.

                Now, I do qualify my answer by saying that I happen to think that in a suicide situation consent must be manifested by the dying person through a final affirmative action to complete the suicide. The doctor’s actions, in and of themselves, should not be enough to kill the patient. The patient should manifest their consent through “pulling the trigger.”

              2. Frank,

                Since when can you consent to my taking your life? Can you take yours? Sure. But your very existence is one decision you can’t contract out to someone else. It is a simple rule, thou shall not kill. I don’t see how your consent can ever make it okay for me to kill you or even if it did I would have such a liberty interest in being able to do so it would justify the risks associated with giving someone the legal sanction to kill.

                1. Since when can you consent to my taking your life?

                  You just don’t ever listen, do you?

                  Jordan|7.7.15 @ 5:13PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                  If anyone else gave you an overdose of opiates, they would be guilty of murder, even if you ask them to do it.

                  And I’m saying they shouldn’t be.

                  Everyone here knows what the law says, John. We are arguing against correctness of the law.

                  But your very existence is one decision you can’t contract out to someone else.

                  Why not? What do I own more than my very existence?

                  It is a simple rule, thou shall not kill.

                  Well, at least you’re being honest about the source of your motivations for a change, but please keep your mysticisms to yourself. I own myself, I’ll do what I choose to myself OR hire someone to do it for me if I so choose.

                  I don’t see how your consent can ever make it okay for me to kill you or even if it did I would have such a liberty interest in being able to do so it would justify the risks associated with giving someone the legal sanction to kill.

                  Do you support the death penalty, John? A court can decide if I live or die without my consent and they can hire someone to kill me, but I can’t hire someone to kill me with my consent?

                  Sounds like you think the government has more claim to my existence than I do.

                  1. Do you support the death penalty, John? A court can decide if I live or die without my consent and they can hire someone to kill me, but I can’t hire someone to kill me with my consent?

                    If you want to have a full blown trial with years of appeal to determine the person consented, sure you can do it. Without that level of procedural protection, no way. Sorry but “Frank told me he wanted to die and signed a piece of paper saying so”, doesn’t feed the bulldog here.

                    Go fuck yourself with your bitching about mysticism. Seriously, you are such an noxious asshole. You know what I meant and it had nothing to do with religion, unless you have suddenly decided murder is okay. God you are a fucking giant prick.

                    1. It’s not murder (or shouldn’t be) if I consent to it, John.

              3. The other thing you people are missing is that since there is no way to ever go back and determine your state of mind, since you are dead, there is no way to ever determine if your consent to your own death was valid. This is why you should not be able to consent to your own murder. Even if in theory you should be able to, in practice you shouldn’t because it opens up too much opportunity for abuse. Your killer says you consented but since you are not around to contradict him, there is no way to ever know if you were coerced or if you understood what you were doing. And no amount of triple notarized swear on the bible bullshit can get around that.

                1. The other thing you people are missing is that since there is no way to ever go back and determine your state of mind, since you are dead, there is no way to ever determine if your consent to your own death was valid.

                  Easy to fix… You have to pull the trigger yourself. If the doctor’s thumbprint is on the plunger, it’s murder. If it’s yours, no murder. Easy breezy.

                2. John, the obvious solution is government suicide camps where you can go to die. But the government doesn’t want to encourage the idea so there will be a strict number of admissions after which you are put on a waiting list. Naturally, the political class will be able to cut in line.

        2. One option may be Helium. Cheap, easy and apparently won’t leave a mess (at least according to a forensic pathologist I know).

          1. Like, balloon gas?

            1. BAN HELIUM!

            2. Yeah. We were having a pretty morbid discussion about suicide one day and she told me it worked well.

              I have no epirical evidence, though 🙂

          2. I know that nitrogen works. N2 is used to blanket petrochemical process vessels to prevent oxidation and is far more hazardous than one would think. Enter a N2 blanketed vessel, take a few breaths, and instant unconsciousness followed by death.

        3. “If I can’t go buy medical-grade morphine at Walgreens without a prescription, I want it legal for doctors to prescribe it.”

          Well, you should just be able to buy medical grade morphine, so…

          Unfortunately I don’t see that argument gaining much traction in the near future because DRUG ABUSE IS EVIL and also THE CHILDREN.

          1. I totally agree. The issue is not your liberty to off yourself. The issue is giving doctors the legal sanction to do it for you. I would think Libertarians of all people would see the problem with the government saying it is okay for someone to murder someone under certain conditions.

            1. Doctors prescribe the lethal dose–they don’t administer it. Big difference. Many (most?) of the terminal people who have taken advantage of Oregon’s Assisted Suicide program don’t wind up taking the lethal dose. But knowing that they can at any time makes their final months more tolerable. How can you object to that?

              1. So I can hand you the gun and tell you how your family would be so much better off if you did it and what a burden you are to everyone and that is okay just as along as I leave it you?

                I think that is a meaningless distinction. It is like saying that the people who work in supply are not morally responsible for deaths in war because they are not in the infantry pulling the trigger. We don’t want doctors to go in the business of killing their patients. Whether it is actually administering the dug or just handing it to you, your right to end your life does not extend to anyone helping you. The moment the issue becomes about me helping you, then the debate is about my liberty to do so, not your liberty. And no one, least of all doctors, should have the liberty to kill someone, even if they are requested to do so.

                1. This is why I object to the whole prescription nonsense and believe any adult should be able to buy as much of any drug as they want for any reason. If I’m tired of living and don’t trust myself to blow my brains out with a gun (that I don’t even own, btw), why shouldn’t I be able to purchase a lethal dose of drugs and take it whenever I want? I don’t want a doctor’s involvement either, but how else can I get a lethal dose that’s certain to finish me off? I didn’t ask to be born and I should be able to check out whenever I want. But not in this insane world…

            2. Christ, John. You’re being purposefully obtuse here. It’s about consent. And if I consent, yes, a doctor should be allowed to prescribe me an OD of narcotics. The government doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it.

              1. You’re being purposefully obtuse here.

                Welcome to ‘talking with John’. Next stop is ‘mendacity increasing with butthurt’, visible from Marriage Equality is Law.

                1. Cytoxic,

                  This is exactly the sort of fine logical distinctions that are completely beyond you. You might as well be reading Greek or a dog looking at calculus equations. I am not even going to try and explain it to you because there is no way you will get it. You just run around and yell buzzwords and insults because you are unable to engage the issue at any deeper level. You don’t think on these sorts of issues, you emote.

              2. It’s about consent

                No it is not. Your consent only matters if I have a right to do it. The question is about my liberty not yours. If it were just about consent and it were about your liberty, I would be obligated to do it for you. And how in the world could anyone be obligated to assist you?

              3. The government doesn’t have a damn thing to do with it.

                The government has EVERYTHING to do with it! They license the doctor AND they confer special legal rights.

                Remember that crazy idea of allowing doctors to prescribe oxycodone? The DEA is effectively killing that “legal right” BECAUSE it isn’t a “liberty”.

                1. If you want to kill off the control of drugs, you won’t get any argument from me. Really that is the problem here. We are so obsessed with making sure no one ever takes any drugs, we are giving doctors a license to kill to get around it. I think letting people just buy the drugs is a better way to go.

                  1. I think letting people just buy the drugs is a better way to go.

                    Of course it is. But 98% of the population are government junkies and can’t get enough government control – makes it easy to absolve themselves of responsibility. Too many people are in love with the idea of government control of drugs – they just want this one teensy weensy little exception.

                    The effect of which is the slippery slope of more government control. For the standard-issue idiot it’s actually consistent reasoning since they want government to have more power and control anyway. For a libertarian it is frustrating to see fellows take the side of “moar gubmint, pleeze”. It is not liberty they are asking for, it is only a government-granted exception which is the exact opposite of liberty. Maybe doc-assisted suicide is doable and has the outside appearance of liberty, but it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

            3. The issue is not your liberty to off yourself. The issue is giving doctors the legal sanction to do it for you.

              You’re talking way over their little heads.

              1. You are not kidding SIV.

            4. “Doctor, I want to kill myself. I’m paralyzed from the neck down and slowly deteriorating in this bed I can’t leave in this room I can’t leave. Please give me something to put me to sleep and then stop my heart. I will permit you to make a video recording of me acknowledging that I make this choice of my own free will.”

              “Sorry, kid, if you can’t do it yourself, I can’t do it for you. Enjoy wasting away for the next howeverthefuckmany months. Toodles, off to the golf course!”

              1. Sometimes life is like that. IF he asked the doctor for any other kind of help, would the doctor be obligated to provide it to him? Since when does your lousy situation create an obligation for me assist you in obtaining your wishes?

                1. Who, besides you, said anything about an obligation? The doctor should be free to either assent or refuse the request.

                  1. So the doctor should be free to kill their patients. Again, since when is saying it is okay for someone to kill someone else not a dangerous precedent and generally a very bad thing?

                    You people amaze me with the hills you are willing to die on. Government sanctioned killing, really?

                    1. So the doctor should be free to kill their patients.

                      No. The doctor should be free to choose to kill their patients

                      when there is documented evidence indicating that doing so would be in accordance with the wishes of said patient.

                      Are you unable or unwilling to recognize the difference between your statement and mine?

                    2. No. The doctor should be free to choose to kill their patients when there is documented evidence indicating that doing so would be in accordance with the wishes of said patient.

                      Bah, that’s what that should have looked like.

                    3. No. The doctor should be free to choose to kill their patients when there is documented evidence indicating that doing so would be in accordance with the wishes of said patient.

                      And since the patient is dead, there is no way to ever know if that consent was not coerced or that the patient understood what they were doing in giving it. As a practical matter, there is no way such consent should ever be valid. You are telling me that we should allow doctors to take their patients lives even though we can never be certain the patient’s consent was valid. Yeah, no dangers there.

                    4. And since the patient is dead, there is no way to ever know if that consent was not coerced

                      So when I leave all my wealth to my girlfriend instead of my rotten nephew, there is no way to know if I was coerced into it, since I’m dead.

                    5. So when I leave all my wealth to my girlfriend instead of my rotten nephew, there is no way to know if I was coerced into it, since I’m dead.

                      No there isn’t, not to the degree of certainty necessary to take someone’s life. Your life is not your property you fucking nitwit. God you people are fucking dense.

                    6. Your life is not your property you fucking nitwit.

                      The Declaration of Independence suggests otherwise. Whose property is my life if not mine?

                    7. not to the degree of certainty necessary to take someone’s life.

                      But to the degree of certainty to have my wealth is just fine? Tell me John, how much wealth is my life worth? Certainly you aren’t arguing that a life is beyond a dollar value? I suppose you’ll next be arguing with the progs when they tell us spending a trillion dollars is worth it if it saves just one life.

                      Your life is not your property you fucking nitwit.

                      HAHAHAHAHA! Spoken like the statist theocrat everyone knows you to be.

                    8. We decide civil cases where only money is involved by a lower standard of proof than cases involving life and liberty. God you are stupid.

                    9. John, why is it, that despite telling you that we understand what the law says and disagree with it, you continue to insist that “because that’s what the law says” is a valid argument?

                    10. And this would be a case where only money were involved as I’d be paying the doctor to perform a legal action (if the law said what it should).

                    11. And since the patient is dead, there is no way to ever know if that consent was not coerced or that the patient understood what they were doing in giving it.

                      Any doctor who believes this will likely not consent to killing someone, even if they ask for it.

          2. The issue is symbolic. They already do it, & nobody’s prosecuted for it. They give you a drip of morphine, increasing the dose as tolerance develops. You’re out of your pain, then out of your life. The excuse is that they’re not killing you deliberately, they’re just taking a medically justified chance that you’ll die so you’ll be comfortable.

            1. It is actually more than that Robert. There is a difference between a doctor doing it within hte privacy fo the doctor patient relationship and him doing it with full legal sanction. In the former case, the doctor has to keep it discreet and is limited in how far many patients he can do it with. In the latter, he has legal sanction and has no such worries. You point is valid and shows there is no reason for this law and only harm will come from it.

              1. In the former case, the doctor has to keep it discreet and is limited in how far many patients he can do it with.

                And will go to jail for the rest of his life for the heinous crime of granting the final wish of a person in immense suffering if he’s ever found out. You left out that part, you mendacious twat.

                1. No he won’t. When has that ever happened? Never that i have ever seen.

                  1. No he won’t. When has that ever happened? Never that i have ever seen.

                    “Rest of his life” was hyperbole, but I assume you’re familiar with the Kevorkian case?

        4. Why can’t I just get the drugs myself without going through a doctor, SLAVERR????

          🙂

        5. Many get that script filled at the gunshop.. others just call the police, and let nature take its course..

        6. Cause John is a Catholic and the Pope hates that shit.

          I’d hope that most folks would like to continue living in a bad situation.

          If I’m in a hopeless medical situation I hope I can access a legal dose of whatever that will spare my survivors from scraping my brains off the window of my truck when I shoot myself.

          I’ts certainly not the way I’d like to go out and I have no plans in the near future to do so, but some people are smart enough to know when the jig is up and want to leave quietly.

          That you are obnoxious enough to think that your wisdom should have some say and what someone decides is idiotic, John.

      4. What’s your argument here, John? That if we create a legal mechanism for people in certain positions to avoid accountability when killing others in certain situations, that homicidal sociopaths will be drawn to those positions and use the legal protections as cover to commit murder? That as the number of sociopaths in the field grows, good people will be pushed out, and the increasingly sociopathic industry will pressure politicians to water down even the limited accountability further and further?

        What libertarian would believe in such rubbish?

        1. No my argument here is that no one should be allowed the power to kill people. And that is all assisted suicide is. It is giving doctors the power to kill people with legal sanction.

          Further, since you are not around, there is no way to ever know for sure if someone actually gave legal consent to their own death. We can’t ask a dead person if they were coerced or were not competent. So as a practical matter no one should be able to give consent to their own death. And without valid consent, you can’t do it.

          I would think even really slow Libertarians would see the dangers associated with government sanctioned killing. But sadly Libertarians seem to be so simple minded and so easily fooled by the right buzz words, they actually will buy into the idea of giving doctors the legal right to kill their patients.

          1. No, dumbass, no one is giving rights to doctors or the state to kill people. If i’m in a bad way and want to call it a day it’s my call and a doc gives me a prescription that helps me get there, taint murder dumb fuck. It’s my call

            Look. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools until 8th grade, I often like your opnions but you are full of shit here.

            You are a conservative Catholic type of dude and seem to be consistent in your posting, which I’m ok with, I know where you come from.

            I’m 60 and I hate to clue you in, but the times they are a changing.

            No matter what you wish for, your world view is pretty much defunct.

            I’m sympathetic yet i engage a lot of kids who are my relatives. They are young and dumb, and impressionable.

            My hope is that they realize social security is a ponzi scheme and demand the dollars they put in go to an account in their name. If this happens, I’d have hope for the nex bunch of kids.

    2. See my discussion above:

      https://reason.com/blog/2015/07…..nt_5423660

      The AP focuses on Catholics in order to push people like you into the assisted suicide camp, but there’s plenty of non-Catholic groups in opposition – especially disability advocacy groups. Why do you think that is?

      1. Because….Hitler?

        I was told the answer to these questions always is Hitler.

        What do I win?!

        1. A Miata, what else?

      2. there’s plenty of non-Catholic groups in opposition – especially disability advocacy groups

        I don’t think you understand how appeals to sympathy are supposed to work. You usually pick a group that’s more sympathetic, not one that’s less.

        1. I’m not sure what you mean.

          I’m pointing out that AP is misleading, at least in its headline – the opposition goes beyond Catholics.

          What point are *you* making?

          1. “Disability rights advocates” are less sympathetic than Catholics.

            Sheesh, man, it wasn’t that confusing.

            1. “Disability rights advocates” are less sympathetic than Catholics.

              Maybe to the AP they are, but not to me.

              1. Let’s play “Who’s on first”, maybe it will make more sense to more people than this conversation has so far.

      3. The AP focuses on Catholics in order to push people like you into the assisted suicide camp

        Exactly. It’s social signaling and propaganda. The AP is gutless and would rather shit all over an opposing group than take a principled stance against substance control.

  15. If Fox had sense, they would just run a YES/NO sanity check for likely GOP primary voters to filter out RINOs, and otherwise rank the candidates based on how they poll against the most likely Dem candidates.

    1. But they don’t, so they’ll hold up a picture of some ISIS guys in Iraq, have the candidates drop their pants, and measure their respective war boners. Top 10 make it in.

    2. I don’t think you’re clear on Fox’s goals, here. They want Jeb V. Christie heads-up debates.

  16. Rich Lowry on why people freaked out about Thomas’s crazy ideas about dignity is pretty good.

    1. Quick and to the point, I like it.

      That Takei’s first instinct was to deny the blackness of Clarence Thomas tells us much about the rancid racial essentialism of the Left, which can’t get its head around minorities stepping out of ideological line.

    2. It really comes down to a purposeful misreading so that they could attack Thomas. Thomas’ argument was merely that dignity is something you give yourself through your behavior, that it is innate to you and cannot be taken away even by oppressive force. The left purposefully misconstrued his statement that ‘even slaves had dignity’ to somehow be a pro-slavery comment because leftists are idiots and are incapable of arguing in good faith.

      The quote in that article from Frederick Douglas is gold since it’s pretty much exactly what Thomas said. It’s weird that people who actually lived as slaves agreed with Thomas (as can be seen in slave hymns from the time which are all about struggling to maintain dignity) while modern progressives actually disagree people like Douglas while hilariously pretending that they’re on his side.

      1. Nope, I say again: they view dignity in the way that Thomas denounces. Takei makes that very clear in his clarification. “I feel Justice Thomas has abdicated and abandoned his African-American heritage by claiming slavery did not strip dignity from human beings.” Thomas argues that dignity is innate and cannot be alienated. Takei and others think the opposite. To them, dignity is a social trait, reflective of how “society” treats you. A minimum wage worker is also lacking dignity, because he makes so little.

        Not that there isn’t also willful misreading of Thomas’s opinion, but it is a pretty clear clash of views.

        …This reminds me, I need to finish Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.”

        1. I have asked before how slavery can be more important to modern blacks than it was to black people who lived a hundred or more years ago, and this is about as close an answer as I think I will ever get. Slavery is an excuse nowadays. Whereas actual slaves saw it merely as a brutal hindrance, modern excuse-makers see it as an all-powerful phenomenon that will dominate the lives of black people until the end of time. They have trampled individualism underfoot far better than actual slavers ever did. The spirit of men was not broken by the lash but by their own overindulgence.

  17. From an ad I saw online today: “27 Unbelievable Celeb Beard Blunders We Would Take a Lawnmower to.”

    I take it our crack AUSAs are on the job?

  18. Spot the Not: Alan Greenspan

    1. The job of the Federal Reserve is to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going.

    2. I stated that I’m a libertarian Republican, which means I believe in a series of issues, such as smaller government, constraint on budget deficits, free markets, globalization, and a whole series of other things, including welfare reform.

    3. I’m a free-market economist from years and years back, and I’ve never veered from that.

    4. The culture of Greece is not the same as the culture of Germany, and to fuse them into a single unit is extremely difficult.

    5. There is a limit to how much the United States Treasury can borrow.

    6. In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value.

    1. Has to be 5.

      1. I agree. There’s a slight chance he’d’ve made mention of the statutory borrowing ceiling like that, but I don’t think he would’ve.

    2. Here’s a quote uttered by no central banker, ever:

      “I think we should stop blowing this bubble.”

    3. Rational Wiki’s article on Alan Greenspan is hilarious.

      Did you know that Alan Greenspan was solely responsible for the economic meltdown because libertarianism? And that nothing says libertarian like being a central banker who helps set interest rates?

      1. The amazing thing about the vilification of Greenspan is that nobody since has done a better job. It’s not like Bernanke and Yellen have led us to the promised land.

        1. And no one in the lead up to the crisis told Greenspan to stop what he was doing. There were very few leftists in those days fretting about housing bubbles, if I recall.

    4. 3?

    5. I wish he had said 5, but I don’t believe it.

    6. I’ll go against the grain and say 4.

      Everyone now claims that was always obvious, yet no one* said it until post-2008 crash.

      *few cranky Eurosceptics had a general thrust near it but not that specific complaint.

    7. The Not is #1. Another fed chairman said that. Sorry, no winners.

      #3 is strange thing to come from a man who was the head of a central bank.

      He really said #5. If you want to have some fun, read some Greenspan quotes in the voice of the Captain Obvious guy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW1d4jCbrsY

  19. I watched Avatar the other day out of boredom. I was curious to see if I could find anything else really stupid about that movie I hadn’t noticed before.

    The conflict is the space Indian village is right on top of the space gold and the space pioneers want it. For some reason, a trade agreement won’t work because the humans don’t have anything the aliens want. OK, that’s a bit hard to believe given the way these things played on earth, so that’s strike 1. It also established that there is nowhere else to get the space gold and that the humans will die without it, which is even harder to believe. Strike 2, movie.

    OK, movie. You got 2 strikes. What else you got?

    It is established that the humans have the technology to travel vast distances and that the alien world is covered in the space gold. So, why even bother talking to or fighting with the space Indians? Just drive a little farther into the jungle until you find another deposit. That’s bound to be easier than a war or pretending to be one of them. The cliche corporate weasel even says that the deposit under the village is just the biggest one for 70 miles. Well, shit- just keep driving until you find a bigger one then! Problem solved!

    Strike 3, movie. You’re dumb.

    “Hello, Mr. Cameron? Yes, I read the script, ah, we got a problem. Your movie only makes sense if all the humans are all drooling imbeciles, which sort of clashes with the advanced technology thing.”

    1. I thought the space gold was called unobtanium? That’s like calling a plot device The Maguffin. And The Core used that lazy name before.

      1. I think the point of the unobtanium was that it fused the whole planet into a superorganism containing all of the memories and even consciousness of everything that ever lived on it. Thus the humans were evil for cutting into an intelligent organism they could not/refused to understand.

        1. But the richest deposits of the stuff were in the floating mountains. The mountains float because the space gold is a room temperature superconductor that levitates in even weak magnetic fields.

          So it turns out they never had to dig up anything. Just lasso a few mountains and you’re done. Wow, this movie just gets dumber and dumber!

    2. Pocahontas In Space.

      Gary North wrote that Avatar’s plot contained all the possible bromides from the Left with the exception of vegetarianism.

      My wife and I did go see the movie just after its theatrical release but we went to see it in 3D because we were already suspicious of the story. The plot itself wasn’t much better than “Gorilla At Large” and “Bwana Devil”, other famous 3D movies.

      1. Dances With Aliens

        Ferngully (rated R)

        The Last Alien

        1. We called it Dances with Smurfs but yeah, same general sentiment.

      2. At the risk of sounding like a SJW, my biggest object to Avatar was that it relied on the tired (and offensive) White Savior trope. In just six weeks this crippled Human becomes the greatest warrior those primitive natives have ever seen. For some reason I expected more from Cameron…

        1. For some reason I expected more from Cameron…
          Well after Titanic, with its tired class warfare stuff, should you be really surprised?

          1. I actually enjoyed Titanic. I thought the standard Class Warfare stuff fit since that’s pretty much how it was back then (more First Class men survived than Third Class women).

            1. Titanic Casualty Figures:

              Third Class women: 76 of 165 saved (46.06%)
              First Class men: 57 of 175 saved (32.57%)

              1. Hmmm…that’s what I get for repeating something a known bullshitter once told me. But the very fact that ANY women drowned is pretty astonishing. And one of the reasons so many Third Class passengers died was because many got locked below decks. Then again, I was told that by the same person who said more women died…

    3. “I watched Avatar the other day out of boredom.”

      Isn’t that like using poison as an antidote for poison?

    4. I’m not watching that stupid movie. I also didn’t watch Titanic. Yet I like other Cameron films, like Aliens or The Terminator. And, of course, his best film, Piranha Part Two: The Spawning.

      1. Oh, wait, I did like another movie of his. The one he made of his vanity project of diving to the bottom of the Challenger Deep. Would’ve been better if he’d been killed at the end–in his younger days as a director, he’s have understood that sort of dramatic demand.

        1. The Abyss was pretty good. It has Michael Biehn playing a soldier!

          1. Yeah, I didn’t really like it that much. I thought it was a little, well, stupid. Not horribly so, but enough that I couldn’t get into it.

            1. There’s just no pleasing you..

            2. uhh young Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio boobies. nuff said.

              1. That’s like one scene in the movie. So even for that, it’s not enough. I suppose he could’ve made Lifeforce 2: The Underwater Adventure.

      2. In retrospect, 80s were the golden era of action movies. Aliens, Terminator, Commando, Conan, Red Dawn, Big Trouble in Little China, Escape from New York, Raiders of Lost Ark and so much more. Then Die Hard to cap off the decade.
        Now even awesome guys like Cameron and Carpenter can’t recapture the awesomeness they had. And I wanted to love Expendables, but man, it missed the target by a foot or so.

        1. As long as this scene exists on film we shall always be in the golden era of action movies.

            1. Couldn’t he at least have spring-loaded the thing?

            1. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again–that was some badass TV. We were talking about that ending for weeks at school.

        2. I’d say movies as a whole peaked in the 70s, but that era really bled into the 80s, so yes, there were some lovely films from then. After that, we began seeing a really massive level of risk aversion that has generated some truly bad films, in great quantity. Reboots, sequels, movies made about games and toys, etc., etc., etc. Boooorrrring.

          1. I’d say movies as a whole peaked in the 70s,

            Not in viewership, though. 75% decrease since the late 1940s.

            1. In quality, originality, and freedom of content. Many 1970s movies could not be made today.

              1. Whoever would have thought that fans of Mao and Castro are a bunch of authoritarian collectivists?

              2. +1 Blazing Saddles

                1. Didn’t anyone tell Mel Brooks that “offending people” is only good when it offends people you don’t like?

          2. There was a good run in the 80’s with movies that truly are in the classics category. Even if a film was merely average, it was still entertaining.

            Now, it’s picking the good bits of meat out of a pile of cinematic shit.

          3. Dunno, lots of them were pretty dour and self-indulgent. Jaws and Star Wars brought back the big spectacle, and that’s what allowed 80s action stuff to flourish.

            Though lots of really good directors got their start in 70s with Corman, so they learned how to

            a) make compelling, short films
            b) make the budget stretch

            Cameron really pulled both off in Terminator. I think he still knows how, he just has no need to, after Titanic and Avatar.
            And on the subject, now it’s common wisdom that it couldn’t fail, but fuck, Titanic was a huge risk. Three hour historic epic died in early 60s, and it took a lot of balls to make one 30 years later.

            1. Many of the movies that people actually watched in the 1970s were not the New Hollywood stuff. The Sting anyone?

        3. I agree, though cheating the time a bit so that T-2 is the cutoff. But I think things are slowly turning around this decade. There is a renewed appreciation for practical stunt work and comprehensible staging and shots. MI 4: Ghost Protes, The Raid films, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, John Wick, and Mad Max are all enjoyable flicks with some great action.

          1. T-2 is basically a Terminator remake, but with bigger budget. Seriously, watch them back-to-back and there’s a whole bunch of beats that are repeated. Which is cool, in a time-travel movie. But my preference is still for the original. The dingy, cramped environment and so many shots in the dark really worked well for it.

          2. While T2 was a technical masterpiece, it was also a terrible sequel.

            What was originally a dark storyline about an inevitable war and humanity’s destiny to overcome became a hopey-changey love fest where Sarah Connor makes it impossible that she ever got pregnant in the first place.

            If anything T2 was the signal that movies changed. We had transitioned out of the dark days of Cold War and constant doom and gloom into the years of the Peace Dividend where popular culture adopted soft glows and rose colored glasses.

            1. constant doom and gloom

              Thank fucking god. *looks at cable TV* Fuck.

              the signal that movies changed.

              Nothing new. Lighthearted 1920s movies turned into grim Depression fare then into New Deal propaganda then WWII propaganda…

              1. Yes totally agree. I was just pointing out that T2 was not the last of the great 80s films but the first of the less awesome, post cold war 90s films.

          3. You could even argue that “True Lies” is the final Big Action Movie that capped off the 80s era that arguably began with Conan the Barbarian. But T-2 is a more than acceptable choice.

    5. You forgot the unpunished insubordination. There’s one part where the women who is one of the leads is piloting an aircraft during an attack on the Navi. She leaves battle in disgust. Apparently abandoning your post is okay because she was never put in jail for it. She later helped the good guys escape.

      A Forbes article noted that Avatar made billions of dollars and left almost no cultural footprint.

      1. She wasn’t jailed because they were mercenaries, not military. But I think she can forget about getting a letter or recommendation for her next job…

        1. Especially since she died. She died didn’t she?

          1. Not sure. I forgot most of that movie the moment I left the theater.

            1. You mean repressed.

  20. The California right-to-die bill has stalled due to Catholic opposition.

    Right-to-die, or right-to-kill? There IS a difference, ya know.

    1. Hey, maybe that will solve California’s budget woes – make dying illegal, then fine people who do it anyway.

      1. “This is why we call Pan ‘The Problem Solver’.”

        1. This kind of fresh perspective you only get by being Slavic. You silly Anglo-German types just can’t see the solution in front of you!

          Although I can’t claim full credit – using dead people as a monetary resource goes back to Gogol and Dead Souls.

    2. It’s right to die.

      1. So how old can kids be when until their parents can’t kill them?

  21. One of out every fifteen of my comments is a winner, and when the squirrels eat that one comment I literally can’t. I just can’t.

  22. Unless he’s personally hiring illegal immigrants, it seems like a bit of a stretch to call him a hypocrite here.

    1. Or he knows it is going on and lets it happen. There is no evidence of either. But Reason is not big on consistency or principle when it comes to a really sacred issue like open borders or the holy of holys, gay marriage.

      1. Where do you stand on artisanal mayonnaise, John?

        Oh, and pot?

      2. At least they’re consistent somewhere.

        I’m sure their less than nuanced Trump Bashing is winning over Millenials or something.

      3. But Reason is not big on consistency or principle when it comes to a really sacred issue like open borders or the holy of holys, gay marriage.

        Hilarious!

    2. Trump has claimed that he contracted out (which I guarantee you he did, since that’s how large construction products work) and that it would have been the general contractors responsible for making sure they were documented.

      That seems like a plausible claim to me.

      1. “That seems like a plausible claim to me.”

        Quit being reasonable!

        (I’m probably being too harsh here, maybe Reason plans on publishing a, narrow, defense of Trump’s and his non-hypocrisy soon.)

      2. He knows how things get built. If he doesn’t, that’s very embarrassing for him.

        1. Frisco shooter proves ‘The Hair’ right,,,, or there’s this- http://cis.org/ICE-Document-De…..se-in-2013

  23. Read Brendan O’Neill on the ridiculous outrage over Rihanna’s latest music video.

    Pop Culture doesn’t corrupt, unless of course it involves something I don’t like such as Cops shows or CSI.

  24. I’m waiting for the IRS to go after people for not liking gay marriage. The Reason Foundation is okay, for now.

  25. Saw Snowpiercer the other day. It was basically City of Ember with some Soylent Green/Matrix mixed in.

    The train part was hard to believe. Wouldn’t it have been far easier to build a stationary shelter rather than a moving one? Is it because the train could always stay in the sunlight and thus stay warmer? Why? A nuclear reactor could easily provide all the energy needed.

    Did they ever think about what would happen if the track was damaged or got blocked? Hope is not a plan.

    1. “Lookin’ for looooove logic
      in all the wrong places.
      Lookin’ for looooooove logic….?

    2. I’ve never seen Maggie Smith look so young….

    3. It was an odd movie, and yes, the train business made little sense.

  26. Worst. Chatroom. EVAR.

    As if it needed repeating…

  27. So Greece. Obama wants a deal and Tspiras wants a bailout….

  28. Today in life imitating rejected Onion articles: Orthodox Jews hire Mexicans to protest gay marriage

    http://rt.com/usa/270874-jewis…..nyc-pride/

    1. Well, if unions can hire homeless people to protest for increased minimum wage, why not? In fact it seems more honest to me, doing it in the obvious manner, and for a better reason than just “we can’t be arsed to”.

      1. The best part is requiring the Mexicans to dress up like Orthodox Jews, complete with fake beards.

        “No, no, no, Miguel! You’re wearing that kippah all wrong!”
        “No hablo ingles, se?or.”

        1. That’s why I love it – “look, we are protesting, don’t take it out on the guys we hired, we want to be here but can’t. Here are some comical props so even outrage brigade gets what’s going on.”

          Fake sideburns is what really sells it.

  29. I went to Ralph’s on my lunch break to pick up some groceries because I knew I’d have some additional work to do tonight. Got all my weekly staples and proceeded to the checkout. In front of me in the line was a Mexican guy, early 20s, purchasing a single pack of gum. He paid for the pack of gum with that card we’ve seen being taken out of Gucci purses a thousand times over: the EBT card.

    This guy was maybe 23 years old and had multiple tattoos on both his arms as well as his neck and ears, including a zip code and an area code on each arm. I was curious so I googled the zip code, which either corresponds with Mississippi or the state of Guerrero, Mexico. I’m betting it isn’t Mississippi.

    Anyhow, he buys his $1.39 pack of gum and proceeds to tell the cashier that, while he doesn’t know the remaining balance, he’d like to withdraw that remaining balance in cash. It was $239.52. She only had the $39.52 in the till and I ended up having to wait an additional five minutes for the manager to come by and add cash to her till. When he left with OUR MONEY, not his, he left the $0.52 in change in the automatic dispensing little change tray. The world gives us such cosmic ironies at times: he doesn’t want any change.

    1. In generations past, this guy would have to be man enough to steal my money from me on the street. No more. Now the agents of corrupt and tyrannical state threaten me with incarceration and violence in order to rob from my pocket and put it in the pocket of a man who does not lack the physical tools to make his own living.

      1. Even worse, used to be someone with neck tattoos could kick your ass*, now it’s completely reversed.

        Cat’s and dogs living together!

        *the average person’s ass.

        1. used to be someone with neck tattoos could kick your ass*, now it’s completely reversed.

          *yoink*

          Consider that stolen.

      2. Cheer up. I’m told that such incidents are quite rare and anyway, welfare is only a tiny percent of public spending. The Welfare Queen is a myth straight from the dark heart of that evil Ronald Reagan.

        One time in Chicago, a 20ish white woman gave me sad puppy eyes and asked for money for the bus. I said no. I saw her again later tapping away on a smart phone.

        Did you see the video of the California surfer guy who used EBT for lobster?
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RN2spQrjyk

        1. “Hey, why shouldn’t he have the right to eat just like a wealthy person?”

          I honestly heard someone on the radio say this in his defense when it made the news a few years back. Personally, I don’t think White people (or able-bodied men) should be eligible for any public assistance. If they’re too dumb to convert their ‘privilege’ into money then they deserve to starve!

          1. White Men have privilege.

            White Women are Oppressed Minority. According to White Women, the most Oppressed of them all, even.

          2. Thom Hartmann criticized the some state legislature for banning certain items from EBT like TV dinners and shellfish. Hartmann said this was “shaming” poor people.

            Ah, is it good to shame people on the dole so they get off it? Not in progtopia.

            http://www.truth-out.org/news/…..hat-to-eat

            1. In California, you can withdraw it in cash straight up. It’s absurd.

              1. There’s an argument to be made that if the government is going to give out “welfare”, it should be a straight cash payment, but that’s it. Other programs (Section 8, etc.) go away.

                Kind of how it would’ve been far cheaper for government to just buy insurance for all the “newly insured” under Obamacare than the idiocy we have now.

              2. Actually, there’s a difference between Food Stamps and EBT. My girlfriend went on EBT (against my wishes) and can only buy food. Her sister has full-on welfare that allows her to withdraw cash for anything she wants. Last month she bought a $300 pair of Beats headphones. Infuriating…

                1. can only buy food

                  You’d be shocked what “only” buying food gets some people. When I worked in grocery as a teenager, the EBT folks ate better than my upper-middle class family did. I remember loading taxpayer-funded steak, lobster, and other high-end foods into Cadillacs, BMWs, and other high-end cars. Perhaps they’ve cut down since then, but the only rules I remember there being was no cigs and no alcohol. Of course, there were plenty of ways around that.

                  1. My GF only gets about $120 a month for her EBT, so she doesn’t buy much steak or lobster. But she does buy lots of unhealthy snack foods. I have to be careful and avoid it since I have moral objections to welfare and prefer to buy my own food.

                    1. My GF only gets about $120 a month for her EBT, so she doesn’t buy much steak or lobster.

                      It sounds like she uses it “as intended.” IME, that’s rare.

                      Most of the EBT folks I was dealing with were living rent-free (parents/significant other paying for housing), working for cash, and using EBT to supplement. $120 a month is quite a bit of spending money when you make enough cash to actually pay for your food.

                      The typical transaction was 2 parts. First part was half of the groceries to run out the EBT balance. The second part was booze, cigs, and whatever they wanted that was beyond their EBT balance. Invariably there was a wad of Benjamins stuffed in a Gucci purse to pay for the second part.

                    2. My GF only works a part-time minimum wage job, but she lives with me rent free and drives a car I bought her. We’re far from flush. Her sister, on the other hand, has two children and a husband in jail so she gets a generous monthly payment from the state. Plus, she’s collecting unemployment (but working for cash under the table) and living rent free with her aunt. She has more spending money than I do. But this is anecdotal and not indicative of most people…right?

                    3. But this is anecdotal and not indicative of most people…right?

                      Keep telling yourself that.

                      I’d also caution you to heed the warning of Robert Greene’s 48 Laws of Power: Law 10: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky

                      You can die from someone else’s misery?emotional states are as infectious as diseases. You may feel you are helping the drowning man but you are only precipitating your own disaster. The unfortunate sometimes draw misfortune on themselves; they will also draw it on you. Associate with the happy and fortunate instead.

                      How to Recognize an Infector

                      1. They draw misfortune upon themselves.

                      2. They have a turbulent past.

                      3. They have a long line of broken relationships.

                      4. They have an unstable career.

                      5. They have a forceful character that sweeps you up and makes you lose reason.

                      6. They have a desire to destroy and unsettle and is chronically dissatisfied.

                      7. Look at the effect that they have on the world around them.

                    4. I was attempting to be facetious in that final line. I’ve known people like you describe above, but she’s not like that. True, her life is more chaotic and tumultuous than mine (just barely), but she wants to improve (as do I). She doesn’t like relying on me for assistance and would like a real career where she can support herself.

                    5. Fair enough. It’s not my place to tell you what to do and the details of your relationship are certainly beyond my ken. But I know that even the most coldly reasonable and dispassionate of men can fall under the spell of a pretty woman and find himself ruined by it years later. I’ve had my own close run-ins with such types.

                      I’ll leave it to you to see it through. But I cannot stress enough the importance of judging deeds instead of words and remaining ever vigilant. At the end of the day, every man is an island.

                    6. “But I know that even the most coldly reasonable and dispassionate of men can fall under the spell of a pretty woman and find himself ruined by it years later.”

                      No. Freakin’. Way.

                      I saw a movie about that when I was young. I can’t remember the name of the movie but it was pretty good. Youngish guy with all his shit together falls for a beautiful girl whose life is a wreck. Little by little throughout the movie his own life falls apart and he can’t understand how any of it is happening. In the end he is ruined.

                      Despite knowing all this, and seeing it coming, it can happen anyway.

                    7. “She doesn’t like relying on me for assistance and would like a real career where she can support herself.”

                      You’re giving her a crutch. People are much less likely to strive for more if they don’t have to work for it.

                    8. “She doesn’t like relying on me for assistance and would like a real career where she can support herself.”

                      You’re giving her a crutch. People are much less likely to strive for more if they don’t have to work for it.

                    9. I’ve just about had it with the squirrels

                2. Michael Savage has a fascinating story of how he went from liberal to conservative. His first job after college was working for a welfare agency in NYC. His job was to go around and buy furniture for people. After the first day, he saw that all the poor people he was helping had much nicer furniture than him.

                  Savage states that his opinions on welfare were partly shaped by his first job out of college as a social worker.[28] He described one incident in which his supervisor had him deliver a check to a welfare client to furnish their apartment, while his own apartment was furnished with cardboard boxes.

                  Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

                  1. Lies! There is virtually NO welfare fraud in the US. I heard that on MSNBC so you know it’s true.

                    1. They don’t consider graft to be fraud. Feature, not a bug.

            2. Damn, she’s as ugly as she is stupid. She actually had the gall to compare lowered taxation on capital gains to SNAP benes.

              /I know, not taking=giving…

      3. “In generations past, this guy would have to be man enough to steal my money from me on the street.”

        I have heard the argument made that that is the real reason for so much public assistance, that without it the streets would run red. There might be something to that.

        1. I have had that thought before – it seems… uncharitable, but yeah I think there is something to it. Not that it’s any excuse for all the police state & regulatory bullshit that keeps so many people down.

    2. Not living in US, was there any way to verify the card is his, rather than something he stole then cashed in?

        1. It did require a PIN.

          1. So it’s debit card, except (I assume, it being govt-issued) it’d take longer to cancel it if stolen. So he could be a proper criminal, who intimidated someone weaker than him to hand over the card, then quickly drained it.
            And, it’s the fault of this site that I find that a more uplifting outcome than the more obvious “dude got EBT, got cash, will do next month, and the system works.”

            1. It is most assuredly his. Despite his identifying tattoo for the La Villita, mexico zip code, he spoke perfect unaccented English. I’d bet the value of the card pre withdrawal that he receives the benefit because his parents as illegal earn money off the books and so he shows as without household income per the state. I’ve seen that more times than I can count.

              1. Over half of immigrant households (usually illegal parent(s), citizen children) receive some forms of welfare, food assistance being among the highest.

                At least his English was good.

                1. And yet Reason, along with half of the commentariat, will continue to deny that.

                  1. “And yet Reason, along with half of the commentariat, will continue to deny that.”

                    Eh, nothing seems to matter beyond “Rights.” Can’t argue with religious people.

    3. When he left with OUR MONEY

      The cry of the collectivist. The entire welfare state you’re bitching about is rationalized off of shared social burden. Sure, it’s someone’s money. Maybe yours, maybe mine, probably 10,000 we don’t know, but it’s his now.

      Don’t help the fascist cunts rationalize it further by adopting their terms.

      1. Fine.

        My money. Fucking my money. What’s insane is coming to the realization that I’d have more respect for the guy if he tried stealing it from me himself. At least that would require him bearing some risk and doing some work.

      2. Most likely, he’s just getting back a little of what was getooked from him.

        1. 23 year old with facial tattoos and am ebt card. Nope, strongly doubt he’s ever paid income taxes in his life.

          Stop rationalizing theft.

          1. You stole California and New Mexico from him! He’s only getting his reparations!

            1. Every resident of the territories gained in the treaty of Guadalupe hidalgo was permitted to remain and become full american citizens. There were very few rancheros living in these territories at the time.

              1. Only because of the damn Comanche… oh, wait, that really complicates things.

                1. I’m unaware of Article IX and the Comanche raids being related to the grant of US Citizenship to residents of the Western territories.

                  1. The Comanche raids led to many rancheros either heading south (or dying).

                    1. That makes sense. So ultimately unrelated to the section of the treaty itself since that merely dealt with making Mexico whole for any incursions into their territories from Comanches originating in the States.

                    2. Right. That was really just the US being gracious in victory.

    4. It is a fucking nightmare that EBT cards can be used for cash. How is that legal in this country?

      1. Apparently there are two types of benefit, food and cash (nominally for paying bills, I guess). It’s not that hard to turn the food benefit into cash, though (generally at less than parity). Really, the money is going to be spent one way or the other. The existence of EBT is far more concerning than the fact that you can get cash from it.

    1. That’s the kind of thing I want to cash in on. Like an institute for adults who want to be deprivileged. We’ll put them through a course of painful restitution for their privilege, then issue them a certificate of deprivilegification upon completion. All for a very high fee, which, in itself, is punishment for their privileged status.

      1. “adults who want to be deprivileged”

        I read that as “Derprivleged”

        Rich in the ways of derp

        1. Either way works, as long as I get paid.

    2. This one time, at summer camp….

      If you can’t score there, turns your balls in.

      1. Can anybody come to Camp No Counselors? The main reason we curate each camp weekend is to ensure a diverse group of like-minded individuals…

        Ummm….you used the word “diverse”. I guess it only applies to physical characteristics?

        1. Superficially diverse.

      2. Horror movie idea: summer camp for adults run by a monster that feeds on hipsters.

    3. Look at the behavior of the Greeks, of the Venezuelans, of the feminists. Infantilization is the result of marxist thinking.

      1. It’s more about cult psychology — a large, collectively-self-policing mass of infantilized followers, a ruthlessly pragmatic and manipulative inner circle of greedy, power-hungry narcissists, and a middle layer of people who hold some of the traits of each class.

  30. http://www.independent.co.uk/l…..73003.html

    Bitcoin could destroy the global financial system, one of world’s biggest banks admits

    1. You Know Who Else wanted to destroy the global financial system?

      1. Dr. Evil?

      2. Lex Luthor?

      3. Alec Trevelyan?

      4. Osama Bin Laden?

      5. Bernie Sanders?

        1. Imagine that!

        2. oopsy, should be “Lennon”

      6. Ben Bernanke?

      7. Bronco Bama?

    2. Bitcoin could destroy the global financial system, one of world’s biggest banks admits says in order to scare politicians and regulators into trying harder to destroy Bitcoin.

  31. Man takes picture of wife in own yard, busybody neighbors call in, cops come knocking on door somehow believing that “he was taking pictures of a 16 year old under duress”. Helpful pic attached. Surprisingly, no dogs shot.

    1. This is more about the idiocy of the neighbor than the cops, though they had no reason to be asking this woman questions. I just mostly linked it for the pic at the top.

      1. It is? The cops are the ones who acted under color of authority.

        1. The cops knocked on the door, accepted when the woman refused to show them ID, and left without shooting everybody. My expectations are diminished to the point where I consider that a good result.

        2. Yeah, but they don’t have discretion to ‘not respond’ in most cases

    2. Cute! Pretty American eagle kisses you on July 4. Good thing it wasn’t a bald one.

  32. So what are the chances of the Dems going full Syriza when shit really hits the fan? Judging by the popularity of Bernie and the behavior of Obama and co. I can really see it. And since the US is the Only Superpower and the Fed is the lender of last resort I can see Americans being even more delusional than the Greeks since the latter are at least aware they have creditors they want to ignore.

    1. I think Sanders has a shot since he’s already promised to tax the ‘rich’ and give more free stuff to everyone else. Unfortunately, to people like him anyone who earns more than minimum wage is rich and deserves to be soaked so that irresponsible people who have made bad decisions get rewarded.

      1. I think the minimum wage people are going to get smacked pretty good. The people who won’t get hit are the rich, Bernie among them.

        It never occurs to the imbeciles that vote for these people that the rich are the ones writing the tax code. Pelosi, Obama, Sanders, Kerry, Boehner, Reed, etc. etc. etc. are worth millions. They are not going to tax themselves. They are going to say they are and then tax the hell out of everyone else.

        1. Pelosi, Obama, Sanders, Kerry, Boehner, Reed, etc. etc. etc. are worth millions. They are not going to tax themselves.

          HORSESHIT!!!!! They are the ONLY ones who care about The Poor, and are giving of themselves by going into government work to make sure that all the racist evil that KKKorporashunz inflict on US is being countered!!! How dare you bad mouth these public SAINTS?!?!

          /level-headed pragprogmatist

      2. Also, kudos to you Antilles about what you said earlier about not taking a dime from the fuckers. I am the same way. I will not take a penny from them in spite of being eligible on several fronts. I don’t want the fuckers to even know I exist and I know taking money from them comes with strings. I too will crawl off into a ditch and die first.

        1. You should take what you paid, with interest. It’s yours.

          1. Go ahead FdA-

            Suck that dick, then rationalize taking the money.

    2. The stupid thing is that we don’t have to go “full Syriza”. We can print our own money. As long as we are just slightly less stupid than Europe and Asia, we can keep this gravy train rolling for quite some time.

      1. I have heard many people say to me that it is precisely because the US can print its own money that we don’t have worry about turning out like Greece.

        It is astounding the number of people who think that governments can create wealth because they can create money.

        I once asked a guy that if a country can solve its problems by printing money, why don’t poor countries just print money until they’re rich?

        He babbled something about corporations and capitalism thwarting the will of the people.

        1. “I have heard many people say to me that it is precisely because the US can print its own money that we don’t have worry about turning out like Greece.”

          They aren’t completely wrong there, just that the US can now wind up much, much worse than Greece has.

          A limiting monetary union could only help us.

          1. Yeah, Greece if we’re lucky. Zimbabwe if not.

    3. Read my anecdote above. We are Greece, except with some viable taxable productive sector for the time being. The largesse and graft is at least as bad.

      1. Thom Hartmann was bringing his A-game derp the other day about Greece. He said it would be just peachy for them to go back to the drachma, because that would make their exports cheaper.

        Stop laughing! Greece has many exports!

        And just think of the influx of tourists!

        Yes sir, Greece would quickly return to the economic powerhouse it once was.

        1. I suppose you noticed how the Greek ‘crisis’ is tearing the markets apart!
          Seriously, on one board, a ‘gridiot’ (can I say that?) claimed Europe was going to lose 80% of its olive oil!
          Oh NOOOS!

            1. It’s Genco that suffers, Vito says “Fuck you, pay me.”

  33. “Gee, I wonder if the Trump hotels employ any undocumented workers?”

    Can’t find out if it is true; does anyone know if Pelosi runs a winery with non-union help?

    1. Sevo, you know the rules: Reason writers only dog-pile on Team Red hypocrisy. You want them to get invited to DC cocktail parties, don’t you?

      If they listened to you, they won’t get to play any of the reindeer games!

      1. The other rule is that the commentariat only complains about Reason writers being big meanies to conservatives, and ignores the multiple posts every day criticizing leftist personalities/positions.

        1. The continued existence of Sheldon Richman’s column makes think there is a thumb on the scale.

        2. “the commentariat only complains about Reason writers being big meanies to conservatives, and ignores the multiple posts every day criticizing leftist personalities/positions.”

          Really? I think the ones who complain, do so like john or winston – repeatedly, giving the impression that there’s more than a handful of them when there’s not.

          I still don’t think there’s much of any bias in the readership as a whole. Yes, we have no genuine progs (i don’t think tony counts) who have the stomach to stick around, but there are certainly liberal-leaning writers and readers.

          I think when people like, say, Tom Cotton gets trashed, most people here are in agreement. Same with McCain, or Lindsey “Glory Hole” Graham. There’s not some mass whining from the SoCon contingent. If there’s any consistent source of griping, its stuff like the typical Culture War throat-clearing, where the writers say, “Pamela Gellar is despicable and bigoted… But…Free Speech!”

          People in general – not just ‘conservatives’ – find this irritating because its not *necessary*, and seems to be done simply to avoid being tarred by the Salons of the world as “islamaphobe apologists” or whatever. Its fucking lame. Just defend free speech. I personally found the same sort of thing irritating when they wrote the piece headlined, “anti-gay pizza”…when the place hadn’t actually ever engaged in a single act of discrimination other than to say something impolitic. Anyway

          1. I’ll agree I was probably painting our little community (that I consider myself a part of) with too broad of a brush, and that the small number of posters who talk about this issue incessantly create the impression that this attitude is more prevalent than it probably is.

            I’ll say on a personal note that I said that mostly because I find the constant moaning from some quarters about “OMG the social signaling and cocktail parties hur hur” cloying, even though there is, as with all things, probably some kernel of truth to it sometimes.

            And I mean, c’mon, the Reason types still get pilloried by the likes of Salon on practically a daily basis for being closet racists and dishonest shills for the rich. I can’t speak for the writers, obviously, but it strikes me as ridiculous that any of them are working at Reason just so they can get in good with the DC Journolist set.

            1. And I mean, c’mon, the Reason types still get pilloried by the likes of Salon on practically a daily basis for being closet racists and dishonest shills for the rich.

              You do know Republicans get these same attacks too, right? Does that mean then that the attacks on them from here are false?

            2. “” the Reason types still get pilloried by the likes of Salon “”

              Of this i am totally aware. Which is why i find the compulsion to throw bones in that general direction to be completely meaningless and unnecessary.

              Maybe there isn’t any editorial requirement to denounce the politically-incorrect here, and its just each individual writer who feels the need to throw a few stones at the ugly things before singing paens to the neutrality of our constitutional ideals.

              I never suggested they do it to “get in good with the DC Journolist set”. I have no idea why they do it. I think they do it because maybe its *just good business* for a political magazine.

              I still think they’d do better by being consistent, stronger advocates for a culture that prizes human liberty above any temporal popularity contests. And consistently mocked “Denouncers” as prudish, juvenile, intolerant minds that don’t appreciate a free society. We’re a pluralistic society, and the idea that we should all be a happy rainbow of love is bullshit. Pluralism is about discord, and we should accept that discord is the price of freedom, not pander to some idea that “wouldn’t it be great if no one felt Trannies were weird”

            3. but it strikes me as ridiculous that any of them are working at Reason just so they can get in good with the DC Journolist set.

              This news just in… “Teafucking Ratbagger” Dave Weigal re-hired by the Washington Post.

    1. He just keeps going and going and going. Nothing outlasts the Energizer Johnny.

      Perhaps he will be back to his normal self later.

      1. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead retarded.

    1. They accidentally put F15s in one of those pictures.

      1. The Daily Mail has sunk to a new low.

        Cancel my subscription, post haste!

    2. Just trying to make future misadventures more fair.

      http://www.thehindu.com/news/b…..059881.ece

    3. Fifth Generation!!!! We have to have it!!!! Fuck Gates for shutting down the F-22 line and fuck the Air Force and their golf courses. Kill the 35 before we have another F-4 on our hands or God forbid another F-111.

  34. Playa,
    Been to see the vid at the tar pits recently?

    1. Video? Doesn’t ring a bell. Did they change it?

      1. 3D, a bit hokey, amazingly balanced on AGW hyperbole.
        Don’t know how recent it is; was downtown a couple of weeks ago with some time to spare.

        1. That’s pretty standard at all of the museums now. The Long Beach Aquarium, which is otherwise outstanding, has a whole exhibit of that nonsense. Same with the Cal Science Center and the LA Zoo.

          1. Playa,
            I said it was amazingly *balanced* about the claims.
            They pointed out that the climate is constantly changing and has been both cooler and warmer than it is now.

            1. Somehow, I misread that.

              1. If you get a chance, you might find it refreshing.

                1. It’s on my to do. 3 kids plus summer, I need activities.

        2. And for some reason you didn’t end up getting drunk with me? I am disappoint.

          1. If you get a chance, you might find it refreshing.

          2. To sudden:
            You might find it refreshing too, and I didn’t have time to get drunk with anybody.

  35. Your intellectually dishonest post of the day: Black nationalist claims “White America” is more violent than Muslim countries, bases this on statistics that hilariously claim Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are less violent than American white people.

    Well…I guess if you don’t count the 400,000 people killed in the Syrian Civil war or the violence that spilled into Lebanon when fighters crossed the Lebanese border with Syria and started killing people.

    If your numbers don’t include ongoing civil wars and genocides, I suspect you’re being intellectually dishonest. I also somehow doubt Iraq has a murder rate of 2.0 per 100,000, since the only way that number would make sense is if you count all the suicide bombings as ‘terrorist attacks’ rather than ‘homicides’ in which case it gives an inaccurate picture of Iraqi violence.

    1. It’s amazing how many people think the what-about game is the height of debate.

      The fact that Christians massacred people in the past does not make it OK for Muslims to do it today. And the biggest reason why there is so much violence in the Muslim world is because Islam explicitly sanctions warfare against unbelievers.

      1. Calling, say, the 9/11 terrorists “Muslim” is like calling Hitler “Christian”: true yet misleading. It is Islamophobia, not a serious attempt to understand the world as it is.

        Neither of those statements is misleading. Hitler professed Christianity and most of his followers were Christians. As for the 9/11 attackers, here’s what the leader had to say to his followers:

        Purify your heart and clean it from all earthly matters. The time of fun and waste has gone. The time of judgment has arrived. Hence we need to utilize those few hours to ask God for forgiveness. You have to be convinced that those few hours that are left you in your life are very few. From there you will begin to live the happy life, the infinite paradise. Be optimistic. The prophet was always optimistic.

        Sounds like Islam to me!

        1. The desperation to claim Islam is less violent than Christianity has led progressives to make some hilarious arguments. Like when Vox claimed Islamic countries are less violent than Christian ones and based this on an argument by a guy who lied about murder rates and ignored terrorism.

          “Let us begin with Sudan, a nation which, according to Fish, has a homicide rate of 0.3 per 100,000, about one-fourth the homicide rate of Canada. I was immediately suspicious when I saw that number, as any intelligent person should be, so, unlike Zack Beauchamp, I did some independent research. Every single source I found regarding Sudan’s homicide rate said that their homicide rate is over 10 per 100,000, with some sources putting Sudan’s homicide rate as high as 25 per 100,000. Even if we take the lower bound and say that Sudan’s murder rate is 10 per 100,000 people, that’s 30 times higher than the number cited by Fish’s book. If the 25 per 100,000 people statistic were accurate, then the real numbers would be 83 times higher than those claimed by Steven Fish.”

          Their numbers were just a bit off.

            1. You have to love the applause when he claims that it is a lie that Stalin murdered people.

            2. I’d like to think I’ve seen the extremes of idiocy on both ends of the political spectrum and then, my goodness, I find I haven’t.
              The amount of fantasy involved in”‘coming to that conclusion” beggars that of David Irving.

        2. It is Islamophobia, not a serious attempt to understand the world as it is.

          Because labeling it with a made-up word that can mean anything you want it to really clarifies things.

    2. I have a buddy from high school who is in the Nation of Islam. I think your average person would be shocked to learn what they actually believe. It’s some of the craziest shit I’ve heard in quite a while.

      1. A secretary at my first job (nice girl who i almost dated) was married to 5% NoG&E Nation of Islam type…

        …then he got shot. The end. But really, she knew the stuff by heart and we’d go out for drinks and she’d give lectures on the theology of the Asiatic Mathematics, etc. It was great stuff, and really made a lot of rap lyrics make more sense.

        1. Did she ever explain the bean pies?

          1. Yes, but i forgot. They were tasty!

            1. You ate one? Wow.

          2. http://www.chicagoreader.com/c…..d=11544239

            FYI the ones i was referring to were things the 5% types sold on the street, and they were like Curry Patties. Not the same thing, but still pretty good.

            1. Be in Chicago in September. Will have to keep my eyes open for one. I’d try it.

  36. Another “fun story of the day”

    Wisconsin’s Jr. Senator thinks First Amendment only applies to institutions

    Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. . . . [I]n this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.

    1. “Baldwin claimed that corporations ? essentially institutions ? should not be entitled to the same freedoms afforded individuals.”

      Typical lefty. God, they are vile creatures.

      1. Half my comment was eaten. She claimed that 1A protections apply only to individuals, not institutions when arguing about Citizens United. Now she claims the opposite with regards to bakers and florists.

        I challenge anyone to give an example of a lefty who is not a shameless liar and hypocrite.

      2. If it’s OK for 1 person to do X, it should be OK for 2 or more people to do X as group.

        How could it be otherwise?

        If it’s OK for me to publish a blog, how could it possibly be wrong for a bunch of people to contribute to the same blog? An action don’t become right or wrong based on how many people are doing it.

        On what possible basis could an individual’s rights differ from a group?

        1. You are making a distinction that neither she nor her supporters recognize. She does not recognize that only individuals have rights. Institutions don’t.

          She takes whatever position advances her narrative. There is no logic, reason or principle in any of her arguments beyond that.

          Like I said, vile creatures.

    2. The Senate version of Sheila Jackson Lee? What a dumb bitch.

  37. New York Times does a nice, balanced portrait of a community on some other planet(Haralson County, GA). Yankee readers react just as you expect in the comments

    1. It amazes me how they can gin up controversy from thin air about things that mean nothing in order to distract from the rape of our society.

      I don’t give a shit about flags, I want to know why Hillary Clinton is not in prison.

      1. The whole thing is about creating a cultural pinata for liberal coasties to beat up on

        as far as i’m concerned, there’s a concerted effort by the mass media to amplify everything about ‘Gays, Mexicans, Blacks and Women’ so as to create a sense that there’s “good people” and “bad people” in America….and you know who the good ones are? That’s right, the ones who are voting for Hillary! no we don’t like her either, but look at what shits those TEAM RED types are?! They hate gays!? They have confederate flags! They don’t like Free Stuff!?

        Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but i think there is actually some underlying effort made to amplify and highlight these issues WAY above anything else that might be considered newsworthy (European welfare state fiscal insolvency? ISIS run amok? Healthcare costs skyrocketing? That stuff can wait)….

        …all for one sole purpose = to create a sense of “you don’t really care about politics = you care about NOT BEING A BAD PERSON. And if you dont TEAM BLUE as hard as you can, guess what you are??””

        I don’t think its all that crazy to be honest. Its just a matter of a few editorial meetings. because they can’t actually say anything Good about Hillary…because polls show if you talk about her *at all*? her numbers go down. So its like children being forced to take medicine. You sing them a song, then the choo choo goes in the tunnel, and SWALLOW IT!!

        1. Call me a crazy conspiracy theorist, but i think there is actually some underlying effort made to amplify and highlight these issues WAY above anything else that might be considered newsworthy

          OMG they’ve been playing this game for decades – why do you think they are where they are? “LOOK OVER THERE, KIM KARDASHIAN DID SOMETHING!” is another facet of the same strategy.

  38. Guy calls Michael Savage claiming to be a Holocaust survivor. Says the lesson of the Holocaust is that Jews should keep their mouths shut and not cause trouble.

    https://youtu.be/UY5Tgdn2wMg?t=1m

    My derpmeter just exploded.

    1. It takes a level of supreme idiocy to make Michael Savage look sane.

    2. The lesson of the holocaust is that Jews should get the fuck out of countries that want to #killalljews, and make sure that Israel survives as a Jewish nation-state in case there aren’t any non-genocidal countries left to go to.

  39. Are cops behind a lot of the shootings in Chicago?

    I’ve not heard of “Melanoid Nation” before but I assume they’re a lefty grievance mongering operation and so I’d like to discount what they are saying but this *is* Chicago they’re talking about and the cops there are capable of anything.

    1. I would discount what they are saying. There is a lot of conspiracy bullshit on that site.

      Also, stay the hell away from the cops in Chicago.

    2. Almost all shootings in Chicago are gang-related. A gang is a group of organized, violent criminals who identify fellow members and intimidate outsiders using special clothing and other symbols of belonging/rank. I’ll just leave it at that.

  40. Trump can only be a hypocrite if he were deliberately pursuing a policy of hiring illegal aliens. He may be, but the article linked does not demonstrate that he is.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.