Morrissey Claims Sex Assault by TSA, Malaysian Jet Debris Found on French Island, Man Arrested for Shooting Backyard Drone: A.M. Links

|

New at Reason: 

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Occupational Licensing Hurts Just About Everyone, Says White House

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

    1. ing

    2. Hello.

      1. huh. Okay, I show up 22 minutes late and there are 120 comments already.

        How did this happen, rufus?

        1. /waves wand. Flies away.

        2. The commentariat doesn’t even have the decency to wait for us late comers.

    3. lacking etiquette!

    4. First!… post of the day

      Hello my lovely carbon creatures of reason.. And Warty.

      1. There is nothing worse than claiming first and not getting it (when nicole is not here)!

    5. It’s 4 minutes after 9 and still no FoE. I’m worried. 🙁

      1. He said he wasn’t coming in the funnies.

        1. Oh, good. That was quite a bit of mopping last time.

          1. I refuse to acknowledge male emissions unless it is spelled cumming, like a Diesel engine.

      2. Maybe we should call a SWAT team in to see if he’s okay. Anyone know his address?

    6. Lame, no content. 2.5 point deduct.

      1. Ahem. The content was implied, based on Fist’s earlier comment.

  1. Dylann Storm Roof is being arraigned on federal hate crime charges today in conjunction with the mass shooting at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

    Thank God. What an injustice if he only got 6 life sentences instead of 6 life sentences plus 15!

    1. So very true….

      /actual progressive sentiment

      1. I’ve seen a prog argue that federal charges are necessary because a racist South Carolina jury will probably acquit him.

        1. His manifesto was definitely very detailed about how he could easily find KKK members and true racists down south.

          /sarc

        2. that racist jury is likely to fry him, unlike an actual prog jury.

        3. Remember in Progland saying all blacks or all muslims, etc are like ____ is racist and bigoted, but saying everyone in the south is a racist knuckle dragging Neanderthal is enlightened, and true.

          1. Well they’re talking about white people. Everyone knows that only whites can be racist. Because they aren’t a real ethnic group and they have ALL teh powerz.

          2. Southerners are the real victims here!

            1. The observation was that hate crime modifiers are essentially thoughtcrimes and that progressives are as guilty of that particular type of thoughtcrime as everyone else. But you go on being you.

              1. Bo is a fine example of what I’m talking about. He no doubt hates racism and bigotry, but still clings to his bigoted biases against the South.

                1. I live in the South, genius, and like it very much.

        4. I wonder if he’ll plead insanity? The alternative would be to say it was some other dude that shot those people, or that every killing was in self-defense.

          Yeah, he might go the insanity route.

    2. Are his being arraigned on federal hate crime charges in conjunction with the kid’s name?

      1. *parents*

        *** gets coffee ***

    3. does this mean the victims are more dead or less dead?

    4. Serious…did Lee Boyd Malvo get charged with a hate crime too?

      1. ^THIS X 10000!!!

      2. Malvo was an immigrant that did what he did out of Love, not hate.

        / Jeb (the prog) Bush

        1. [Malvo testified that]….Muhammad’s goal in Phase One was to kill six white people a day for 30 days. Malvo went on to describe how Phase One did not go as planned due to heavy traffic and the lack of a clear shot

          He should thank those people of color for getting in his way…

      3. A better example of blacks not charged with a hate crime when logical consistency demands that they should been, is the Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. White couple, tortured, raped and slowly killed over the course of hours. The perpetrators even admit to hating white people and having done it for that reason. And the sentences they received for this crimes are a fucking joke. Drug dealers get more prison time than they did.

        1. Actually, while I don’t share the hyper-enthusiasm you guys do for hunting down black racists, I think the Malvo comparison is spot on. He was clearly as motivated by racial hate as Roof.

          1. That’s exactly what we were advocating, FALSE-EQUIVALENCE MAN!!! Thank you for saving the day AGAIN!!

          2. Actually, while I don’t share the hyper-enthusiasm you guys do for hunting down black racists,

            Hyper-enthusiasm? The subject comes up every so often and we talk about it. You see Bo, for most of us here, intellectual consistency is very important. So when we see social justice warriors like you displaying a complete lack of intellectual consistency, we call them out on it and present evidence and sound logic to back it up. I realize that you place a low value on consistency so this may all appear very racist to you. But just remember any time you post here, whomever your talking to is, in all likelihood, smarter than you.

            1. LMFAO

              1. I can see why the guy who responded “THIS X 10000!!!” feels a bit like that comment was about him.

            2. *applauds, hands over bunch of garlands to the conqueror*

              1. *royal wave to the people*

            3. Look at you on this thread alone, you’re so caught up in righting what you see as the racial imbalance in things like blame.

              1. Racial imbalance? No, justice is what I care about. Justice demands consistency. Racial justice, or any other form of pseudo-justice is your game.

                1. If you pat yourself on the back any harder there might be an injury.

                  It’s interesting that your passion for justice flares so consistently strong when you think black racists haven’t been given treated as consistently as white racists. It looks more like emotional tribalism to me, your protestations about how you’re only motivated by cool, Vulcan logic notwithstanding.

                  1. If you can point to some inconsistency I’ve perpetrated that would indicate “emotional tribalism”, I’d love to see it.

                    1. I didn’t say you were inconsistent, I said you were hyper-enthusiastic about one side of that coin.

                    2. I didn’t say you were inconsistent, I said you were hyper-enthusiastic about one side of that coin.

                      That’s exactly what inconsistency is. You say I focus on one side of that coin. Do you even understand the things you say?

                  2. Keep saving the day, F-E Man! You are converting SCADS of undecided voters even now as you type!!

  2. Priest performs exorcism from a helicopter to banish evil from Italian town where several churches have been robbed and defiled

    Worshippers organised the airborne battle against evil after several churches were robbed and defiled in Castellammare di Stabia, near Naples.

    The aerial benediction was carried out to bless and cleanse the town and the surrounding area. Locals say a series of incidents, including the desecration of graves, crosses placed upside down, thefts from churches and Madonnas thrown off cliffs, suggest the presence of devil worshippers.

    1. Well I guess it couldn’t hurt to try.

      1. What they didn’t mention is that crack Swiss Guards were in the copter with sniper rifles, looking for the perps at the same time…

  3. The U.S. intelligence community is bracing for the possibility that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email account contains hundreds of revelations of classified information

    BOHICA!

    1. She said she knew the rules so this is just another right-wing conspiracy; that poor woman.

  4. “Dylann Storm Roof is being arraigned on federal hate crime charges today”

    Well, that’ll teach him. I was worried he was going to get off easy, but not now!

    1. No one has ever accused her of being a brain trust.

    2. And a complete ugster.

    3. “”””What’s the Difference Between Democrat, Socialist?””””

      I find that Socialists are more moderate then Democrats.

      1. Socialists are often interested to argue on the merits. They will even put up a good technical argument sometimes. Identifying as Dem is more about social signalling, loving their people as the good people and anyone outside the party as the bad people. Probably symmetric on the red side.

        1. “Probably symmetric on the red side.”

          I’ve certainly seen plenty of righties get into a real lather against progs, suggesting they’re not as good Americans as true conservative salt-of-the-earth types.

          But I see more conservative than liberal articles talking about their opponents good intentions and legitimate concerns.

          1. That’s because liberals don’t understand conservative positions.

            No word on liberals or conservatives understanding libertarian positions.

            1. Most of the people I know who self-identify as “liberal” or Democrat don’t even know liberal positions until one become the issue du jour.

    4. I don’t know why they bother not admitting it. Its not like everyone doesn’t already know.

      Fuck her, fuck her party, and fuck all of their shills.

    5. It is revealing, I think, that senior leadership of the Democratic Party is no longer capable of, or comfortable with, making a distinction between Democrats and socialists.

      However, it is not too surprising. What was surprising was Chris Matthews asking hard questions at a Democrat.

      1. What was surprising was Chris Matthews asking hard questions at a Democrat.

        Yeah, from what I’ve read recently he seems to have taken a rather unexpected turn.

  5. You Can Buy This Ridiculous Flamethrower If You Are an Insane Person

    As for why anyone would want a flamethrower, Whitehead pointed to agricultural uses, pyrotechnics, and, of course, “a lot of people just use it for a whole lot of fun.”

    “We get a lot of people that do, like, machine gun rentals, and own guns, and they’ll also offer like a flamethrower package.” One of their customers also rents tanks. “People will come up there, rent tanks, run over cars, shoot flamethrowers. That sort of thing.”

    But is it legal? “We haven’t run into any trouble whatsoever.” They’re not federally regulated, according to Whitehead. “They’re not even considered a firearm.”

    “In California, you’re required to have a flamethrowing permit, and then in Maryland it’s just against the fire code.” So they just don’t ship to those two states. “The other 48, it’s open game.”

    1. How long until a flamethrower is used in place of scary black rifle by some whackjob?

      1. Ban the flamethrower! If it saves just one child!

      2. Good luck sneaking into a movie theatre with that bad boi.

      3. I wonder if shooting the tank would blow them up, vidyagame style?

          1. Why not, it happened often enough in WWII.

            Do you think there are new safety systems that might prevent that?

            1. I’m going off the myth busters shooting gas tanks and compressed cylinders.

    2. Being an avid consumer of weapons (some of which MAY be considered ridiculous), even I cannot get behind a flamethrower. They are scary, true, and that has value, but they have to be as terrifying for the user as it is for his objective. I would not want to be NEAR that fucking thing…

      1. It is better than a snow shovel.

        1. Doesn’t it just glaze the surface, making it even more slippery?

          Of course if you spend an inordinate amount of time on an area, it will melt completely, but you’ll run out of fuel right quick, I’d imagine.

          1. I am sure using a flamethrower on a driveway is a terrible idea, but it is still better than a snow shovel.

          2. It takes a lot of energy to melt snow and then evaporate the water. So, yes, the most likely effect would be to turn a patch of snow into a patch of ice covered snow.

          3. Army Engineers Helped Save Inauguration Day for JFK

            “Friday will be cold and windy with some sunshine and a high of not more than 35 degrees.” That was the Washington, D.C., advanced weather forecast for John F. Kennedy’s Inauguration Day, 20 January 1961. “Some rain, possibly changing to light snow,” was later predicted for the 19th. Still, inaugural planners remained confident that whatever happened, their plans to cope with adverse weather would surmount anything Mother Nature might have in store. What actually transpired taxed local and federal resources to the maximum.

            Snow on the afternoon of the 19th became so heavy that federal workers were sent home early.

            In the end the task force employed hundreds of dump trucks, front-end loaders, sanders, plows, rotaries, and even flamethrowers to clear the way.

      2. Any advantages to using it instead of a woodchipper to clear noxious brush from one’s property?

        1. Oh I see. “brush from one’s property” must be code for “judges from one’s courthouse”. I’m forwarding this post to my friend Preet.

      3. No shit Monty. Putting highly flammable or explosive liquids under pressure and then introducing flame to the situation is not a good idea.

        1. So, your against cars then? 😉

          1. Solidly.

            Ban them.

    3. This could be the center of a great theme party.

      1. That reporter is savagely cute.

        1. Cept for that fuckin Dudley Moore ‘do….

    4. Something about carry a tank full of flammable chemicals on my back makes me a little leery of flamethrowers.

      1. Snipers used to like to target the flamethrower operator’s backpack…

    5. I needs it

    6. Is the Bangalore torpedo legal, too?

    7. How else are we going to kill The Thing once it gets out of Antarctica?

  6. Kentucky resident William Meredith has been arrested for shooting down a mysterious drone that was hovering in his backyard.

    He could have just brought it down using the Colonel Voice.

    1. “Ah say there drone, would you please land so that I may protect my beautiful daughters from yore electronical gaze?”

  7. Farmers in France have been spreading manure in all kinds of weird places

    Farmers are spraying manure over cars in protest over falling food prices.

    They’ve also been spreading liquid waste in front of supermarkets and blocking main roads with tractors in France’s Moselle region.

    French farmers have been hit by lower meat consumption, reduced demand from China and a Russian ban on EU food imports.

    It has been estimated that around ten per cent of farmers face bankruptcy.

    1. Poo flinging EU member monkeys.

    2. What the fuck is wrong with the French?

      1. Outrageous accents?

      2. I think you answered your own question.

        They are French.

        1. Also, why is this news? They do this a few times every damn year.

          1. Over tiny little issues and against people who clearly have no connection to their half-baked grievances. Petty little people.

    3. They’d probably get an EU arts grant for that performance

    4. That’s not how shit works.

      1. I saw what you did there…

    5. I’ve always wanted a big car instead of my Honda Civic.

    6. Mad lib: The French are protesting with tire burning, manure spreading, and _________ .

      1. Cheese surrendering?

      2. farting in your general direction?

      3. Baguette Burning?

      4. other normal daily french activities?

    7. Fucking A. It’s like every sector of workers and every professional class in France are socialist weasels down to a man. Echoes of the French Revolution I suppose.

      1. A nasty place too. The only country I’ve visited in Europe I would just as soon forget about.

        1. I would tend to agree. I have very dear friends in France whom I visit every few years and the village I stay in is very nice, probably because there’s only a few hundred people living there and it’s in southern France, where the socialists don’t hold a whole lot of sway. But pretty much anywhere else I went I was treated poorly and once I was literally spat upon for not speaking French but mainly because I was an American not speaking French I reckon.

          My bad for learning German and Dutch instead of French, what an ignorant American I am.

          1. Paris is hands-down the worst experience I have ever had outside the US. I was 16 years old and pervs would follow me around in their cars – then I got mugged and that perv tried to take me home too. What a horrible, horrible place.

            1. Are you a man or a woman? Just wondering, French pervs probably don’t differentiate all that much.

              1. I am a man.

                I might add that at the same age I wandered all over places like Berlin and Munich without incident. And boy did I get an earful about the French from my German friends on the way back to Germany.

                1. And boy did I get an earful about the French from my German friends on the way back to Germany.

                  You’ll hear a similar spiel from Austrians when you ask them about the Germans. But basically everyone on the continent is in agreement about the French.

            2. I had an absolutely lovely time in Paris last year, so much so that I have difficulty believing all of the Paris scare stories floating around. That I went in August when 3/4 of the city was out of town on holiday might have something to do with it, though.

              1. I don’t get why people dislike France. When we lived in Germany, wife and I spent a lot of vacation time there, and had no difficulties at all. We went to Paris last fall and had a great visit. Do people do stuff to piss off the French or what?

                1. Do people do stuff to piss off the French or what?

                  Not speaking French is highly frowned upon in their culture. That particular facet of Frenchness is pretty well documented in addition to all the anecdotal experience to back it up.

    8. No, no, they were just doing it to cover up the collective b.o.

  8. Trump shows staying power with surge ahead of first debate

    Some Republicans gleefully scripted Donald Trump’s political obituary in the wake of his scathing comments about Sen. John McCain’s military service earlier this month, hoping that his freewheeling presidential campaign had finally imploded.

    Predictions of his demise were apparently premature. Instead, Trump is gaining momentum ahead of next week’s first Republican debate, a new Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll shows.

    The poll shows Trump with his greatest support yet nationally, as nearly a quarter of Republicans surveyed said he would be their choice as the party’s presidential nominee in 2016. He has opened up a double-digit lead over his closest rival, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who trails at 12 percent.

    You know who else had longer staying power than expected…

    1. Why are we talking about this guy who consistently tops GOP polls?

      1. We never talk about Hillary or Sanders. We must all be team red die-hards here, huh Bo?

          1. I don’t pay you to think.

            1. You don’t pay me at all.

              1. That’s not what your mother said last night

    2. Peter North?

    3. Jackson Browne?

      1. Nice.

    4. The Rolling Stones?

    5. Ron Jeremy?

    6. John Holms?

  9. Have Republicans Learned to Love the Berlin Wall?

    “A former White House official and Reagan aide is demanding that Mexico maintain a Berlin Wall to keep its own citizens from escaping…The assumption of a deep moral difference between restrictions on entry and restrictions on exit is indeed unjustified.Those who try to distinguish the two often point to the analogy of private property: I have no right to keep you prisoner by forbidding you to exit my property, but I have every right to forbid you to enter.

    But the analogy is a bad one. The government of a country, dictatorships aside, is not the owner of all the land within its borders. That land, or most of it, is divided into privately owned parcels. So when the government restricts entry, it is acting as a third party to forbid immigrant A to enter the property of citizen B, even if citizen B wishes to welcome immigrant A as a guest, a customer, an employee, or a tenant.”

    http://c4ss.org/content/39221

    1. the Berlin Wall was to keep easterners in, not westerners out.

      1. The post and even my excerpt is all about how that distinction is not one.

        1. it is absolutely a distinction. The Berlin Wall was, in essence, the creation of a prison. People were shot trying to get out, not rewarded with state benefits for breaking in. Ignoring reality does not make for a sharp argument.

          1. “So when the government restricts entry, it is acting as a third party to forbid immigrant A to enter the property of citizen B, even if citizen B wishes to welcome immigrant A as a guest, a customer, an employee, or a tenant. What difference does it make whether this restriction on travel is being imposed by A’s government or by B’s? In either case the restriction is an invasion of the liberty of both A and B.”

            1. that argument is along the lines of the old Buckley story wherein a man pushing little old ladies into traffic and a man pushing little old ladies out of traffic were both characterized as men pushing little old ladies.

              1. Not at all. The Buckley analogy rests on the level of generality being lifted, in the one I presented it stays at the same level.

              2. Just what are you expecting here, wareagle?

                1. I like how it’s not enough for Warty to predictably post downthread whining that everyone’s not following his 13 year old girl concerns, he has to come up here because it wasn’t working, again.

                  Warty’s video:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIs5StN8J-0

        2. Hey, BOTARD!! How many people have died swimming to Cuba from America to defect to that country?

          1. I’m not sure what you think your comment proves. People would rather live in America because it is more free. I’m arguing we should make it even more free.

            1. I’m surprised you didn’t want to ban the Gulf of Mexico because its racist, you fucking libtard!

              1. Libtard, hehe. My actual liberal friends who think I’m an apologist for Robber Barons and such would like that.

                1. Still want to ban the Gulf of Mexico tho, dontcha?

      2. And I expect that what the wall the US builds will be for as well. There’s no political will to keep Central Americans out, but the ruling classes do feel a strong sense of ownership of Americans, as evidenced by their nearly unique tendency to tax Americans living abroad.

        1. There’s no political will to keep Central Americans out,

          And a strong political will to acquire more undocumented Democrats.

          1. Here’s what it comes down to. A lot of ostensible libertarians here are really more anti-Democrats than anything else, so when a liberty arises that they (incorrectly) think is going to create some inherent advantage for the Democrats then that liberty must be argued away.

            1. *adjusts tinfoil hat*

              Go on….

            2. No, liberty is to be voted away. Chiefly by the party that seeks to control and regulate everything and everyone in every way. The liberty that bequeaths a right to immigrate is positive liberty, which isn’t a species of liberty at all.

              1. It’s a positive liberty to say you can’t use force to stop me from travelling to associate with others? Interesting.

                1. It’s positive liberty that you can force those other people to associate with you and enjoy their property.

                  1. Force you associate with immigrants and have them enjoy your property?

                    1. Ever hear of public accommodation laws?

                    2. Then oppose public accomomodation laws, we’re talking about the right to travel to associate with willing people.

                    3. I do oppose them. But we live in a system presently where people are forbidden from fully applying their own rules for the use of their own property and their own labor, of their own self. Thus, open borders would create a situation where no one can discriminate and they can’t even rely on the government to half ass exercise that right on their behalf.

                      we’re talking about the right to travel to associate with willing people.

                      That’s a contractual right. The willingness of the people you want to associate with is irrelevant when they aren’t allowed to exercise their unwillingness.

                    4. “open borders would create a situation where no one can discriminate”

                      What are you talking about? Non-discrimination law are separate things from border laws.

                      Are you saying we should oppose immigration because the existence of non-discrimination laws means that people might, under those laws, have to associate with, among everyone else, immigrants? That’s like saying that because there are laws forbidding discrimination against people on religion we should ban religion.

                    5. What are you talking about? Non-discrimination law are separate things from border laws.

                      How’s that?

                      Are you saying we should oppose immigration

                      No. I’m saying there does not exist a “right to immigrate”.

                      That’s like saying that because there are laws forbidding discrimination against people on religion we should ban religion.

                      Go on…

    2. There is no right to movement in a market/private property based world

      The only place you have a right to move on is your own property. All other property requires the permission of the property owner.

      1. “So when the government restricts entry, it is acting as a third party to forbid immigrant A to enter the property of citizen B, even if citizen B wishes to welcome immigrant A as a guest, a customer, an employee, or a tenant.”

        1. Unless you have property directly on a border or your own airport the government is doing no such thing

          1. So if you live in Washington and I live in SC and I hire you, as long as the government stops you at the airport in Seattle they haven’t prevented you from coming to work for me?

            1. I know you’re not likely to get it but:

              So when the government restricts entry

              So if you live in Washington and I live in SC

              This is called moving goalposts

              1. Your argument is that the government doesn’t stop immigrant A from coming to voluntarily rent from/work for B because they stop them at the border miles away from their property line, how’s that different than my example? Because you call the point of stoppage ‘a border?’

                1. But the government does stop the property owners between SC and Washington form exercsing their rights to control their property and who uses it.

                2. govt stops the illegal immigrant. I realize this distinction is a tough one for some here to grasp; nonetheless, it is a distinction. There are plenty of immigrants who come here to work for someone or to go to school, and govt does not stop them.

                  1. So government allows some immigrants from from coming to voluntarily rent from/work for B and stops others because it labels the latter ‘illegal.’ But the whole point is ‘what’s the justification for this?’ You can’t just point to the label as the justification when that’s the entire question.

                    1. This is the same argument that we had yesterday.

                      We all believe that a person has a right to restrict entry to their personal property.

                      Most libertarians do not have a problem with a notion of a gated HOA that collectively sets limits on who may enter, under what conditions, and might even set conditions on who you may contract with (e.g. a collective bargain with a gardening service or a trash collector). The resident’s rights are not being infringed. They have been consciously abrogated to the HOA either at its formation or by buying into it from another owner. This is not just HOAs, one can also analogize from people setting up a partnership which carries all sorts of conditions on use of facilities, exit clauses, etc.

                      Those making a moral case against immigration restriction need to explain which differences make the USA different from an HOA. I have heard plenty of explanations why the USA as a contract is illegitimate, and if that is the argument then people should just make the argument that “The USA may not enforce borders because it is an illegitimate entity”. However among those who are not anarchists, I have yet to see a reason why people abrogating decisions around immigration to the USA are infringing on free movement/association. Just because you have these rights, doesn’t mean they override others personal property rights that they have collectively put in the control of a property manager, HOA or government.

                    2. An HOA is not analogous to government, the whole point is that things that private groups can do are sometimes things governments can not. This is a pretty critical distinction in discussions of rights.

                      For instance, your HOA would mean that government can rightly suppress all kinds of speech and expression within the HOA (in fact, they often do just that). You wouldn’t argument the same for governments, would you?

                    3. Nicely put.

                      Like it or not, the US as an entity has a border, analogous as far as I can tell to the boundary of private property. So why can’t the US, in principle, control who crosses its border?

                      If it can, then I think the argument isn’t about the natural right of every person on the planet to cross that border. Its about what restrictions the US should have, and how they should be enforced.

                      And, oddly, few to no people (not counting anarchists) seriously believe there is really a natural right to cross national boundaries, because the open borders folks concede pretty freely that the US should be able to bar criminals and the diseased from crossing the border. Such a stance begs the question of why someone who has a disease, or has committed a crime in another jurisdiction, loses their natural right to cross the US border.

                    4. Like it or not, the US as an entity has ownership of considerable land. So why can’t the US, in principle, control what people say or do on it?

                    5. If we were talking about what the US can or can’t do on land it owns, that would be a good question.

                      But we aren’t. We are talking about whether the US can or can’t restrict travel across its borders.

                    6. Since you’re drawing on the analogous right of private property owners to exclude others from their boundary you should realize that the right to control what goes on inside your boundaries is of the same stuff.

                      In other words, if you’re going to say ‘of course the US can exclude someone from it’s borders, a private land owner can do that!’ then you need to answer why ‘of course the US can control lots of activity on its lands, a private land owner can do that.’

                      I don’t have that problem because I think governments are fundamentally different, they can’t infringe on voluntary, non-aggressive behaviors period.

        2. So when the government forces private property owners to allow immigrants to use their property, motel, store, parking lot etc etc it is acting as a third party forincg immigrants onto property that the owner does not want them.

          And unless you are moving from neighboring property, any movement will require more then just the two property owners permissiong,. Going from Chicago to Mexico city will involve getting the permission of thousands of property owners. You may get this permission but it is certainly not a right.

          1. “And unless you are moving from neighboring property, any movement will require more then just the two property owners permissiong,”

            This would be true for natives and non-natives. We’re talking about government forced use to prevent initial entry.

            1. Exactly, and natives…or citizens have decided other citizens can use the public means of transportation in their own country provided they meet certain requirements and non-citizens can not unless they meet the requirement of obtaining a visa

              1. You can say the same about all kinds of restrictions on liberty-the natives…or citizens, have decided to restrict this or that liberty. It doesn’t make it right in either case.

                1. You can say the same about all kinds of restrictions on liberty-the natives…or citizens, have decided to restrict this or that liberty. It doesn’t make it right in either case

                  A group of people does have the right to restrict use of their property. Whether they are a country, HOA or a shopping mall. You can advocate changing the restrictions, being a member of the club, otherwise, buy some land on the border where you don’t have to violate any of them.
                  I highly doubt people are going to willingly give up the right to restrict access to the public accommodations that they’ve paid for to build and maintain. It’s just never going to happen, no matter how great an idea a few people might think it is.

                  1. I’m glad you see though that the same pernicious type of thinking is involved in governments using coercion to force people to do or not do business with someone as is involved in immigration restrictions. They’re all examples of government using force to police voluntary, non-aggressive behavior between consenting adults.

                    1. I’m glad you see though that the same pernicious type of thinking is involved in governments using coercion to force people to do or not do business with someone as is involved in immigration restrictions. They’re all examples of government using force to police voluntary, non-aggressive behavior between consenting adults.

                      No, I don’t “see” any of what you think is coercion. It’s very simple. Citizens have the right to restrict use of public property. If you don’t want to follow the restrictions, don’t use public property, or work to change or eliminate the restrictions by changing the minds of your fellow citizens. You don’t have the right to use my tax money to make a special accommodations for your immigrant worker, and the non-citizen worker sure as hell doesn’t have any right to use them.

                    2. “Citizens have the right to restrict use of public property.”

                      So should restrict rallies in public parks? Marches on public streets? Make cell phone use by drivers criminal?

                      Or do you think, like me, citizens should only place restrictions on public property in line with the NAP?

                    3. Or do you think, like me, citizens should only place restrictions on public property in line with the NAP?

                      Now that you’re making a moral argument, are you conceding that a group of people has the right to restrict use of their property to members of that group?

                    4. “are you conceding that a group of people has the right to restrict use of their property to members of that group?”

                      A national government cannot place restrictions on certain behavior regarding its property without violating rights. I imagine you think this when it comes to, say, a speech in a public park, right? If I were going to have a rally in a public park and the main speaker was a non-citizen, would you say the government could restrict the speaker because of they don’t like what he says? I don’t think you would. Likewise I’d say if they restricted him because he was from outside the country it would also be violative of a right (my right to free association, his to freedom of movement).

                      Or let me it another way. Do I have a right to have goods I order come across the border? Or does the public, owning the border as you say, have the right to restrict those goods if they so choose?

                    5. A national government cannot place restrictions on certain behavior regarding its property without violating rights

                      There is nothing magical about the words “national government” that changes anything. It’s still a group of people that own and enforce property claims. You might want a group of Russian soldiers to peacefully use a highway to march up and down. You have no more right to allow it than I do to not allow it.

                    6. There is something magical, or rather critical to it being a government. As the Declaration rightly says, governments cannot use their powers to infringe certain rights without becoming illegitimate. So a government that uses it’s power to, say, infringe the right to property has become illegitimate.

                      So when a government restricts the speaker in my hypothetical because it doesn’t like what he has to say then I think everyone here agrees that it has fallen into this area, and this applies even though the government, or the people, own the park. I’m saying the same applies if it bars the speaker because he travelled from outside the country, because I think the reason why the government can’t suppress my speech and why it can’t suppress his travel falls under the same principle: governments cannot restrict the right to engage in non-aggressive voluntary behavior.

                    7. governments cannot restrict the right to engage in non-aggressive voluntary behavior

                      Trespassing does not fall under that category, so I believe we’re done

                    8. Your argument is circular. We’re arguing whether government should criminalize non-aggressive movement across it’s border, whether it should treat it as a criminal matter, a trespass. You don’t win that argument by saying ‘of course they should because it’s a trespass!’

                    9. We’re arguing whether government should criminalize non-aggressive movement across it’s border,

                      Let’s start by deciding whether a private property owner can “criminalize” (that is, resist with force or the threat of force) non-aggressive movement onto and across his property (which, naturally, includes his house, his fridge, and his bedroom).

                    10. A private property owner, of course.

                    11. I mean, I can see the anarchist argument to the minarchist that there should be no public property whatsoever. But if there is to be public property, then the question is, how should it be used? Should it be used to restrict voluntary, non-aggressive behavior by adults, or not? I think the answer should be it should not. So when it comes to, say, public roads, I think we should put minimal regulations on them prohibiting only behaviors that would directly threaten others. And I think the same thing about borders.

                    12. But if there is to be public property, then the question is, how should it be used? Should it be used to restrict voluntary, non-aggressive behavior by adults, or not? I think the answer should be it should not.

                      I would agree with you, but the point is you have already conceded the moral case. NAP taken to its logical conclusion obviates a coercive government. Once you accept that there may be a coercive government or a non coercive entity (HOA) you cannot play the “Freedom of Association/Movement” card. Either people are allowed to invest these decisions around non-members (immigrants) or they do not in which case even an HOA or Corporation is illegitimate.

                      The argument you make is a practical one- one that I share, btw. It is best that a government, HOA or other collective entity minimize its interference in these affairs because even if it is necessary to have some coercion, we understand that Bad Stuff happens when we abrogate all these duties to that government. But then you cannot sit on a moral high ground insisting that people are acting immorally rather than trying to explain why giving these people freedoms is more important than the inconveniences (perceived or real) that they inflict on other members of the club.

                    13. There’s tension between the NAP and minarchism, no doubt. I don’t think this means minarchist are hypocrites or have ceded the moral high ground, there’s arguments about why you can have the coercion involved in police, roads and maybe borders and still be on safe moral grounds to argue that none of these should be used in ways that further restricts voluntary behavior. That’s a pretty long discussion though.

                      I think the more important point is that under either the NAP or minarchism the government using coercion to stop person A from going to work/rent/buy from person B is going to be condemned. Under the NAP you’d be able to, or obligated to, point out that the government facilitating that person’s goings by building roads is also wrong, but if the person, immigrant or not, can go to B via voluntary permissions of then his travel is a right that government cannot oppress.

                    14. Under the NAP you’d be able to, or obligated to, point out that the government facilitating that person’s goings by building roads is also wrong, but if the person, immigrant or not, can go to B via voluntary permissions of then his travel is a right that government cannot oppress.

                      And this is where you and I part ways. You are completely ignoring the property owner’s (i.e. the American Citizen’s) property rights. The tension is not between Freedom of Movement and Preference. The tension is between people who want to use their Freedom of Movement and the Property Owners. It is not immoral for property owner to restrict the use of their property- otherwise property rights don’t exist.

                      We can set aside whether the government is illegitimate or not. But if the owner is in the contract, then every restriction you place on that owner is completely contractual- they have agreed to a method of arbitrating how their property will be used and they have every right to try and manage it with just the same moral justification to property as if they owned it outright. Whether they choose to let people through or bar access is not immoral- IT’S THEIR PROPERTY.

                    15. If you’re basing your argument on ‘it’s the property owners’ [citizens collectively] property, of course they can control who enters’ then you have to answer why the same justification can’t be used to justify all kinds of government restrictions on activity within its borders. If it’s just about the property owner a property owner can not only exclude people from the property they can control all kinds of activity within the property too. If you’re not singing up for all of that what’s your point of distinction?

                    16. If it’s just about the property owner a property owner can not only exclude people from the property they can control all kinds of activity within the property too.

                      You are exactly right. This is why, if you are going to be a minarchist, you need to accept that you have given up a huge amount of moral ground. You have said that it is ok for people to cede all sorts of personal rights to arbitration by the government. That means you need to be very careful about writing your contract of incorporation. The US did a pretty good job, but its practice has weakened substantially over the years. And, of course, that contract put specific power in the government to regulate exactly the immigration you feel it is immoral to regulate.

                    17. “that contract put specific power in the government to regulate exactly the immigration you feel it is immoral to regulate”

                      Actually, it only explicitly granted the power to make laws governing Naturalization, not immigration. It’s been read to grant the power you’re pointing to from an intepretation resting on an idea of ‘inherent sovereign powers,’ which is one that invites some other government powers that I’m betting you’d be less pleased with.

                      But back to your point, are you arguing from a legal positivist position rather than one of natural law and rights (my position)? You seem to be, as I take your most recent comment to be saying that, at the least, once you set up a government at all then rights become a matter of whats in the charter and no more. If I’ve misinterpreted you I’m happy to be corrected.

                    18. But back to your point, are you arguing from a legal positivist position rather than one of natural law and rights (my position)?

                      No I am arguing from a natural rights position. The natural right to property.

                      Again, what is the magic that turns rights to control my personal property or rights to control my property as part of a collectivization agreement, to suddenly no rights to assert control over that property?

                    19. The magic is when it involves government, and if you don’t accept that magic you open the floodgates to accepting anything that you get a majority of decisionmakers to say is the law. A nation is not a HOA because not everyone joins the HOA or ‘social contract.’ The basis for the authority of the HOA is that everyone involved has agreed to and voluntarily signed up to be governed by the HOA. Nations are not like that.

                    20. But explain that magic to me. How, from a natural rights perspective, do we suddenly go from “I have property rights” to “My property rights are subordinated to someone’s freedom of association”.

                      I have explained a logical connection where a person’s property rights and their right to associate (through contract). What natural rights explanation intervenes to break the connection I made?

                    21. I explained it when I said “A nation is not a HOA because not everyone joins the HOA or ‘social contract.’ The basis for the authority of the HOA is that everyone involved has agreed to and voluntarily signed up to be governed by the HOA. Nations are not like that.”

                      Nations, being different in that their authority is not exercised by voluntary consent of all involved, are different and hence different principles apply. Just like how the government must respect the speech rights of someone on its property but a private owner does not, or how a government must respect the right to carry on its property, but a private owner does not, etc.

                    22. (Cont’d)

                      Is there a moral obligation for an HOA to allow anyone to use a park owned in trust for the owners? After all, allowing anyone access would allow the unrestricted use of guest’s freedom of movement and association. By your logic it would therefore be immoral for the majority of residents to try and keep their park private. But this basically says that by collectivizing property in a trust, you lose the moral right to control that property. It makes no sense.

                      Likewise, if 1 equal partner in a business wants to sell the business but 2 others decline, it isn’t an infringement on “Freedom of Association” for either the 1 seller or their potential buyer. It may be a good idea or a bad idea to sell the business, but it is up to the property owners and their contractual obligations to decide. The rights to freedom of association do not apply.

                      Again, I think free immigration to work/live is a good idea. This is because market forces will improve our overall economy and make it more efficient. But as part owner in this nation, I have no moral obligation to make this move, and neither do my co-owners. It is a completely practical argument, and they are no more or less immoral for how they decide their property will be used.

                    23. I think the HOA analogy is a very good one, but one that strengthens my point while undercutting yours. HOA’s can restrict all kinds of activity beyond just entry within the property they control. Do you really think that’s a model for our national government’s powers?

                    24. Do I think it is the best model? No. Do I think other peopel should be allowed to contract as they decide? Absolutely.

                      Do you think that HOA’s are somehow morally illigitimate?

                    25. I don’t think they are morally illegitimate, just that they are poor models or analogies to governments. The Declaration of Independence says, yes, that to be legitimate the government has to reflect the will of the people ruled. If it stopped here we would have the principles of a HOA. But it goes on to say that if the government, even in expressing a majority of the will of the people ruled, violates natural rights then it is also illegitimate. This wouldn’t apply to a HOA, obviously.

                      So I think a principle is this: privately owned entities can run their organizations however they want, publicly owned ones have a restriction: they can’t run it in a way that violates natural rights.

                      So the question then is, what are natural rights? For myself, the best way to determine them is to ask ‘does the behavior involve voluntary, non-aggressive actions? if so then it’s a natural right and government cannot use force to restrict it.’ I don’t know if that’s the best in some cosmic way, but its the best I’ve found so far.

                    26. But it goes on to say that if the government, even in expressing a majority of the will of the people ruled, violates natural rights then it is also illegitimate.

                      But again, this is now a contractual problem. People have used their natural rights to contract together.

                      And again, you are ignoring my property rights. It would certainly maximize my freedom of movement if I could go traipsing across anyone’s property. Somehow you are saying that something “public” no longer has property rights, so therefor it is illegitimate to balance them against someone’s property rights.

                    27. I’m not ignoring your property rights, I’m operating on a distinction between private and public property. Private property owners can set whatever restrictions on their property they wish, but, as the Declaration of Independence says, public property owners cannot set restrictions violative of natural rights.

                      You’re essentially making a social contract argument, which is exceedingly odd for a libertarian.

                    28. You’re essentially making a social contract argument, which is exceedingly odd for a libertarian.

                      No I am making the argument for an anarchist. If you are a minarchist, you are by definition a Statist. And once you let that camel’s nose in the tent, you are just arguing price.

                      as the Declaration of Independence says, public property owners cannot set restrictions violative of natural rights.

                      But the DoI is not the contract. It was the nullification of another contract. And that document very specifically includes property as one of the rights to be protected. The Constitution, and subsequent jurisprudence, very clearly places limits on peoples’ liberty and recognizes limitations on who is a party to the contract who is not.

                      Now, if you are going to argue that the Contract does not allow for Immigration restrictions, I’d be very interested. But you still haven’t shown me why the participants in the contract are morally (via natural rights) or contractually obligated to give up their property rights.

                      I’m not ignoring your property rights, I’m operating on a distinction between private and public property

                      But it is not a distinction with a difference. Public property is merely property put in trust by private entities. They still own a say in how that property is administered. Where in the contract does it say that they cannot mutually decide (as provided for in the contract) whether or not to restrict its usage?

                    29. To finalize my argument, I want to shoot a hole in it. Someone (Warty?) way back when put up an analogy:

                      Let’s say you buy the property around some dude and put up a fence saying, “You are free to do whatever you want, associate with whomever you want and move wherever you want, but you may not cross my land.”

                      Now is this a morally acceptable situation? If the encircled person wants to exercise freedom of movement and association, then he must aggress against that person’s property rights.

                      Somewhere in this, I think there is room to find a natural right to an easement for transit. If you can logically accomplish that (I’m not sure how, but I lean towards finding it) using the NAP, then you pretty much blow my argument out of the water, as well as create a path for a moral objection to immigration restriction.

                    30. I’m not clear what your comment here has to do with our discussion. Are you saying your position has to find the easement right? Mine? My position is that whatever else private owners of property can do with their property, public owners cannot place restrictions on non-aggressive, voluntary behaviors, and these behaviors include entering from another country.

                    31. My position is that whatever else private owners of property can do with their property, public owners cannot

                      What is a Public Owner? I am a part owner in several public companies- are they encumbered to maximize association and association at the cost of their property rights? How is a public government different than an HOA?

                      Basically, if you are truly arguing from a natural rights perspective, you need to explain how the rights over my property somehow become restricted as soon as I join with a bunch of other people in a government. I don’t see it.

                    32. Government’s assert their authority over everyone in their jurisdiction, that’s how they are different. The nation is not a big corporation or HOA. You join a corporation or HOA as part of a conscious decision, therefore you can’t complain that any of it’s policies are oppressive. Nations are not like that.

                      I mean, think about the implications of your decision. HOA’s routinely restrict what its members can do with and within their own property areas, is that really how you think our national government should work?

                    33. The nation is not a big corporation or HOA. You join a corporation or HOA as part of a conscious decision, therefore you can’t complain that any of it’s policies are oppressive.

                      Technically, so does an HOA. The only reason an HOA cannot exert additional authority is that it cannot appropriate property rights already owned by the government.

                      And your arguments about what makes a government “different” just seem to be arguments about why the Constitution is unenforceable. That is, illegitimate. There is no reason why jurisdiction, franchise and seviceability limits of a government suddenly make my property rights null and void. At least none that you’ve demonstrated.

                      FWIW: I believe there is everything good about maximizing the rights of personal association and movement. And I believe it is the best if we blow up our borders and let anyone willing to follow the law in (I do not believe they should easily get franchise, however). I see those as practical considerations, not moral. Just as it may be practically worthwhile for an HOA to allow all comers, rather than gating the community off.

                    34. public owners cannot place restrictions on non-aggressive, voluntary behaviors, and these behaviors include entering from another country

                      Every country and likely most every person in the history of the world disagrees in practice with that statement. Where do you derive the authority for this idea that because you put an adjective in front of owners that they suddenly can’t place restrictions on any activity they see fit on their property?

                    35. “Where do you derive the authority for this idea that because you put an adjective in front of owners that they suddenly can’t place restrictions on any activity they see fit on their property?”

                      Again, so your position is that ‘the people’ (the government) can place restrictions on any activity they see fit on ‘their property?’ That’s a pretty authoritarian position to take.

                    36. Somewhere in this, I think there is room to find a natural right to an easement for transit. If you can logically accomplish that (I’m not sure how, but I lean towards finding it) using the NAP

                      Well consider this; Someone enters your home uninvited. You promptly tell them to leave, but in order the leave, they need to walk on your property they can’t just teleport away, they have to cover those 8 or 9 feet to door and then across your yard. By telling him to leave, you are in effect granting him an easement, albeit a restrictive easement obliging him to leave by the least intrusive means available to the property owner, but in that regard it’s just like the more typical easements we are familiar with. Proper easements are absolutely compliant with the NAP.

            2. We are talking about government usurping property owners rights and the borders of their property and combing it into 200 or so national borders. When instead the US should have up to 300 million borders and the world up to 7 billion borders.

              The present movement of people is allowed by socialism, that is government taking individual property owners rights and merging them into a single border as in the USA when there should be up to 300 million borders many of which have to be negociated in order for your immigrant to get from one property to another.

              The right of free movement is a socialist idea.

              1. If there should be 300 million US borders then each owner, not the federal government, should decide on the question of entry, right? The problem then would be when the federal government prohibits the crossing at any point.

                “The right of free movement is a socialist idea.”

                So you’re taking a kind of anarchist view here, that public roads are socialist?

                1. “””So you’re taking a kind of anarchist view here, that public roads are socialist?”””

                  I thought you were, you are the one saying that you can go from Washington to SC is a right, how is it a right unless the roads are socialist.

                  If you argue that the roads belong collectively to the people of the US then its hard to argue that the people don’t have a right to put restrictions on who can use the roads

                  1. No, I think the minarchist argument is that there is a role for government and that role is facilitating rather than inhibiting freedom and liberty. The only thing that justifies the roads is that the only restrictions on their use will be ones combating aggressions on other people’s rights.

                    Whether the border ‘belongs to the people’ or not doesn’t help you. The police ‘belong to the people,’ but a libertarian thinks they should only combat direct aggressions on others while allowing non-aggressive voluntary behaviors. Immigration falls into this area.

                    1. The problem with your minarchist argument is that you demand rights without negotiation from those you want those rights. You want roads to get you from Washington to SC without property owners along the way restricting your movement.

                      There is no right of movement on other peoples property without their agreement. And anyone not a fool will not give unlimited rights since unlimited rights will lose you your property. If someone else has unlimited rights to use a road then its not your road anymore

                      So any movement will be restricted and those restricting will come from agreements done with individual property owners. Sometimes those restrictions will be smaller, some larger, some so restricted that few will use that particular road. But it just shows that there will be no right to use the road and you nor I can set the conditions of that use by ourselves.

                      So the right to go from Washington to SC is socialism, the right to go from Chicago to Mexico city is socialism. Now if you think this right is important enough you need to negotiate with the people to see what they want, since now your minarchist world has a touch of socialism, and then the people have a right to set the rules of that movement since you are moving on the collective peoples authority

                    2. “You want roads to get you from Washington to SC without property owners along the way restricting your movement.”

                      Yes, just like I want police and contract enforcement but once established I don’t want them used to inhibit voluntary, non-aggressive behavior. See?

                    3. But it is aggressive behavior, peoples property are being used without their permission.

                      You seem to think that freedom only goes one way, you have a right to movement , property owners don’t have a right to stop your movement on their property

                      Or you create a government road, but don’t allow those who come under that government to decide the rules on who uses that road and how.

                      The Free Market is based on negotiation, not on top down rights and certainly not on one way rights that you can go from point a to point b but nobody who owns the property along the way can restrict that movement or that you create a government road and nobody who is subject to that government has any say on how it will be run.

                    4. It’s the same with the courts and the police, right (they’re not funded by bake sales)? The idea is that they are violations of the NAP but violations that are minimal and that further and protect liberty rights overall. But that doesn’t mean they should be used for further NAP violations, far from it. The same applies to roads.

                      But again, if roads ceased to be public tomorrow the argument the author and I make, that the government should not determine who goes where, at the borders or anywhere else, still stands.

                    5. You’re making a moral argument, not one that explains any basic human right.

                      I would like for Farmer Brown not to shoot at me when I peacefully walk across his property because I’m not harming Farmer Brown in any way. Farmer Brown doesn’t care and Farmer Brown does have the right to throw me off his property or do whatever he pleases to keep me off of it. And yes, the U.S. is just a collection of Farmer Brown’s with a very large shotgun.

                    6. Rights are moral arguments. They are moral arguments that don’t involve balancing.

                      If you have the right to speak in a public park then others, labeled ‘government’ or not, cannot restrict you from doing so (without violating the right).

                      Likewise, if you have a right to go from point A to point B without aggressing against anyone on the way, then others, labeled government or not, cannot restrict you from doing so.

                      My point is that both of these examples are just two different forms of the same basic right: the right to engage in voluntary, non-aggressive behavior.

                    7. If you have the right to speak in a public park then others, labeled ‘government’ or not, cannot restrict you from doing so

                      So, you think ISIS #2, unlucky bastard that he is, has a right to peacefully speak in a public park in the U.S. The logic you are using leads to a bizarre fantasy world that nobody occupies and nobody ever will occupy.

                    8. You think an ISIS supporter can have his speech in the park restricted? What?

                    9. The context is immigration. Non-citizens. You think an non-citizen ISIS supporter can’t have his speech in the park restricted?

                    10. Should they be able to restrict his speech not because of his status but because of its content? I mean, why can’t they since as you say they own the property?

                    11. Should they be able to restrict his speech not because of his status but because of its content? I mean, why can’t they since as you say they own the property?

                      I take it you’re introducing the red herrings because you don’t think the citizens of a country don’t own the country and thus can not restrict access to their property in ways they can not restrict access to other owners of the property. This is tiresome, and really, pointless. No time in the history of man has any country club…much less country operated in the manner you are prescribing. And there’s a good reason. Because it’s fucking stupid

                    12. Likewise, if you have a right to go from point A to point B without aggressing against anyone on the way, then others, labeled government or not, cannot restrict you from doing so.

                      So, you think that peaceful trespassing is a right. OK. It’s too bad the rest of the world doesn’t live in this place.

                    13. “you think that peaceful trespassing is a right”

                      No, by non-aggressive I mean with consent of the owner.

                    14. You think the citizens of a country don’t own their country then?

                    15. “Peaceful trespassing” is when you’re trespassing and unaware of that fact. When the person tells you to leave and informs you of your trespass, and you don’t, that’s just regular aggressive trespassing. There’s nothing non-aggressive about that.

                    16. That’s an interesting non-sequitur.

    3. Wow that is botarded even by your standards.

      1. It’s from a pretty well known libertarian site, so I understand if it upsets you.

        1. CITATION NEEDED

          Hint: “Slate” is NOT a libertarian site…

          1. It’s from the Center for a Stateless Society.

            1. Goddamn, you are a TARD and a half!!

              “It’s from a pretty well known libertarian site..”

              “Okay, what is it?”

              “It’s from the Center for a Stateless Society.”

              “Hmmm, never heard of that one before. Guess I should check it out…”

              *googles site. clicks on it*

              *Banner*
              “The Center for a Stateless Society.”
              *directly underneath*
              “A LEFT MARKET ANARCHIST THINK TANK & MEDIA CENTER”

              *sighs….*

              What the fuck do WORDS mean to you, BOtard?
              How the fuck does ANY of that translate to “well-known libertarian”?!?!?
              Are you a native speaker of English? Is English, in fact, your mother tongue?!?

              1. What do words mean to me? I know what the words market anarchist means, so I guess I’m up on you there.

                1. For fuck’s sake, you sure as FUCK do not know what “libertarian” means! The FIRST article I saw on there was how Naomi Klein understands free markets MUCH better than Ron Bailey.

                  Anarchist =/= Libertarian

                  Liberal =/= Libertarian

                  Pedantic Dipshit Contrarian = Bo

                  1. Market anarchists are a common subgroup of libertarians Monty.

                    1. Hey, maybe in your neck of the woods… Now explain away the “LEFT” part of the banner (which I sense is FAR more dominant in their worldview than “market anarchist”) and make the claim that you aren’t, in fact, a fucking troll.

                      And how many “libertarians” at , say, THIS website would describe themselves as “market anarchists” do ya suppose?

                      This being an actual well-known and mainstream libertarian site and all…

                    2. YEah, this fits a mainstream “libertarian” website:

                      “A branch of market anarchism is left-wing market anarchism such as mutualists or Gary Chartier and Kevin Carson, who consider themselves anti-capitalists and self identify as part of the socialist movement.”

                      Fuck your disingenousness, dickhead…

                    3. “Now explain away the “LEFT” part of the banner”

                      Are you so oblivous to libertarian circles that you’ve never heard the term ‘let-libertarian?’

                    4. I haven’t heard the term “let-libertarian”. I have heard the term “left-libertarian” though, and you are not that. And neither is a fucking “left market-anarchist” which as I pointed out above is DEFINED as anti-capitalist and socialist, which does quite well at describing you.

                      And I don’t think its ME that is oblivious to libertarian circles…

                    5. I think it’s unfair to describe Bo as either anti-capitalist or socialist.

                      Look, I think Bo’s wrong on some things and that he spends way too much time unsuccessfully convincing everyone of the existence of “closet Republicans” on HnR, but to say he’s in favor of wealth redistribution and government control of capital is ridiculous.

                    6. I don’t think its ridiculous and if you went to that website you would see where his sympathies lie.
                      I think he would like you to think he is an anarcho-capitalist but he is in fact honest enough to admit to being a left market anarchist. And the definition is what I have noted above.

                    7. I didn’t say I was a left market anarchist, I said C4SS was such a site, and that left market anarchist are well known parts of libertarianism. Reason and C4SS cross publish stuff all the time.

                    8. Left-libertarianism also has virtually nothing to do with modern libertarianism. Its origins are in socialist anarchist movements of the 19th century. Anti-capitalist to its core, In the same way that ‘classical liberals’ ended up ‘libertarians’ after a couple hundred years ‘libertarian socialism’ is now a part of the socialist anarchism pile. More in common with Chomsky than any major ‘American libertarian’ thinker.

                  2. how Naomi Klein understands free markets MUCH better than Ron Bailey.

                    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…oh shit I need to sit down.

                  3. Anarchist =/= Libertarian

                    That would depend on which “anarchists” you are talking about. Libertarian is a sort of umbrella term for different schools of thought. Minarchist statism is not a fundamental prerequisite to libertarianism, some people who hold liberty as the highest value feel that monopolist state entities are not conducive to liberty. You may feel that anarcho-capitalism can only end badly and lacking in liberty, but that’s an objection of practicality, not principle. Yet it is the adherence to principle, that places one under the libertarian umbrella.

    4. So, the argument is that government has no right to regulate immigration?

      1. The argument is that governments should follow the NAP. Coercion shouldn’t be used against someone unless that person is directly aggressing. It doesn’t have a ‘immigrant’ exception.

        1. TThen you get rid of public roads since they were taken from property owners

          You get rid of public accommodation laws.

          You get rid of the right of movement since every property owner has to be consulted on the route you want to take.

          You end up with the problem that if you don’t want that immigrant on your property anymore you will have to get some other property owner to take them.

          Too many people look at all the ways government restricts movement when in fact government has put even more effort in allowing movement even when property owners object. It certainly is not a one way street, and without government the “right of movement’ has a very small area

          1. I’m not sure what you think you’re getting at. The argument by the author is that federal government restrictions on where people go and what they do is wrong. No one is arguing that private property owners can’t put such restrictions up, in fact the author says exactly that they can.

            If we got rid of public travelways tomorrow the argument that it should not be the government deciding who moves where would still stand.

            1. So you subject the people to a government and then don’t think that the people have a right to decide how that government is run. Your government can build a road across my property and I have no right to object to a 10 lane superhighway next to may garden cottage and I have no right to ask for restrictions on that road.

              And I have no right to decide on who gets to eat at my garden cottage sub shop, or stays at my garden cottage bed and breakfast, etc etc

              1. “So you subject the people to a government and then don’t think that the people have a right to decide how that government is run.”

                They can’t decide to run that government in a way that violates natural rights, yes. Whatever sin is found in the building of the road would be compounded in running it in ways that violate other natural rights.

                And again, if we abolished all government roads tomorrow the point still stands that the government should not restrict the movement of non-aggressive persons.

                1. And again, if we abolished all government roads tomorrow the point still stands that the government should not restrict the movement of non-aggressive persons.

                  The BO hologram from the future:

                  “If you are seeing this, it has come to pass. Our race is extinct”

                  1. We have to sacrifice freedom for security, huh?

                    1. Never head that phrase, but a species, country, or world that won’t or can’t protect their own property generally don’t survive.

  10. Why aren’t libertarians rejecting Rand Paul’s fight against Planned Parenthood?

    The 300-odd young libertarians packed into Catholic University’s student center were the elect of the elect. They’d scored invites to the Young Americans for Liberty annual conference because — according to an email pitch to sponsors — they could be “the future congressmen, entrepreneurs, policy makers, and activists that will restore our republic.”

    And they were not fans of Planned Parenthood. In a short evening of conversations, no young libertarian activist said he disagreed with Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) effort to bar any federal funds for the family planning group. At a bar near the conference, one table echoed with arguments about the ethics of abortion, and the politics of Paul’s move.

    ABORTION!!!!!!

    1. I love the smell of abortion in the morning.

      1. That just sucked the life out of me.

        1. That’s what she said!

          1. Thread winner

      2. I believe Hinnception has been achieved in the comments over there.

        1. Better there than here, at least according to a Cato poll indicating 91% of hargle bargle glarble.

    2. “effort to bar any federal funds”

      Maybe that had something to do with it? Sheesh.

      1. You don’t get it Bo! If you believe something is a right then everyone else has to pay for it!

    3. I love how they assume libertarians think like one gigantic vagina. As if libertarians have one unifying theory or point of view.

      We don’t do group think like progs.

      1. Except this isn’t an abortion question this is a government funding question. I doubt you’ll find too many principled libertarians that think healthcare is a right to be universally supplied by the government.

        1. Yes, I constructed the sentence ‘As if libertarians have one unifying theory or point of view’ poorly.

          Better suited for periphery issues.

        2. It should be regulated as a public utility to counteract the doctor’s labor union- the AMA.

      2. “We don’t do group think like progs.”

        Also, we have principles. And intellectual honesty.

        This is why we are a complete mystery to them. They will never understand.

        1. There’s a strong case to be made that libertarians are born far more than they are made. Many are genetically predisposed towards the methods of thinking that lead one down the libertarian path. Libertarians tend to do much better at formulating abstract ideas and thinking systemically and with logical consistency, as compared to any other political or philosophical group they’ve examined.

    4. Old friend Weigel actually did some work on that article, going so far as to quote Rothbard and Raimondo.

      Of course, the slant of the piece is “A couple smart libertarians agree with liberals, why don’t they all?”

      I also think it was purely accidental that he managed to properly frame libertarianism as more inclusive than either the Elephants or Donkeys.

    5. It is amazing to me how fucked up this whole argument is.

      Stopping public money from going to a group is not the same as fighting that group. It is fighting welfare and the theft that facilitates it.

      —-

      Oh FFS. I just clicked the link. It is a fucking David Weigel article. I refuse to read that. It is going to be packed with nuclear-grade stupid.

      1. “Stopping public money from going to a group is not the same as fighting that group.”

        It’s a fundamental blindness the Left has on these issues, though. Fundamental.

      2. +1 Bastiat

  11. A fun story from Obama’s Kenya trip, from Popbitch:

    Security for Obama’s visit to Kenya must have been immense. In recent years Kenya has really suffered from Somalia being its neighbour. But how does Al-Shabaab infiltrate? Turns out the easiest way to get explosives in is to bribe a member of the border police not just to turn a blind eye, but to actually sit in the car and accompany it into position.

    Recently an Al-Shabaab car was driven all the way into the police HQ in Mombasa. They parked up, the policeman and terrorists got out… but then the car failed to detonate. So was just stuck in the car park.

    Coincidentally, a carload of FBI agents had just turned up for a meeting, carrying devices which send out an alert when they get near explosives. A quick search turned up the car bomb. But they couldn’t work out how to defuse it.

    So the police drove it off to a quarry to be destroyed. Right through one of Mombasa’s busiest markets.

    1. Why did he insist on going there? Sounds like a huge risk.

      1. Because he is the honorary King of Kenya.

  12. Dylann Storm Roof is being arraigned on federal hate crime charges today in conjunction with the mass shooting at Charleston’s Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

    I do not believe “hate-crime” is something that should exist. It seems to me that it punishes thought and words. Only actions should be punishable by law. Thoughts and words cannot be legitimately punishable by law in a “free” country that has explicitly barred all levels of government from legitimately infringing on the right to think and speak.

    1. I’m not a fan, but the idea is it punishes motive which isn’t quite unheard of in our legal traditions.

      1. Sooooo, disliking black people is morally equivalent to premeditatedly murdering someone? WOW, how did I miss that memo?!?!?

      2. Is killing someone because of his race worse than killing someone because it was fun? Both may be premeditated, and both are intentional. Why is the former so much worse than the latter that the former has to have its own charging statute?

    2. it is also an effort to politicize crime.

      1. Bingo. And Bo approves…

        1. “I’m not a fan” = “approves”

  13. Meanwhile in Canada…

    Going topless is suddenly hot again

    Susan Rowbottom told CBC’s Radio West she was sunbathing at her local beach when an RCMP officer approached her and told her to cover up.

    “Hopefully this comes to the RCMP’s attention that they can’t enforce laws that don’t exist,” she told the station.

    That’s the thrust behind Saturday’s protest in Kitchener.

    Alysha Brilla, and her two sisters Tameera and Nadia Mohamed have named the event Bare With Us. They say a cop told them to cover up while riding their bikes down the street.

    “One of the aims of the rally is to desensitize people to the female breast in a non-sexual context so that people can disassociate breasts from sexuality.”

    1. people can disassociate breasts from sexuality.

      Not as long as I live and breathe, no.

      1. Do national geographic titties turn you on?

        1. Uh, why… no.

          /faps furiously

          1. I see naked people all the time. You do get desensitized to it. I doubt you could get enough women to go topless in America for that effect though.

            1. You do get desensitized to it.

              YOU might. Me, not so much.

    2. Warning: story says group of sisters were protesting and there are no photos. Sad.

      1. IKR? I am highly disappoint.

    3. The most popular phrase in 2015: ‘I’d lick those’.

    4. “One of the aims of the rally is to desensitize people to the female breast in a non-sexual context so that people can disassociate breasts from sexuality.”

      The stupidity hurts. You’d need every woman’s cooperation in the Western world 24/7 to do that. It’s like sexual communism.

      1. except it’s even less likely than sexual communism unless climate change gives us perpetual summers

        1. that works too, but I meant to just type communism

      2. The stupidity hurts. You’d need every woman’s cooperation in the Western world 24/7 to do that. It’s like sexual communism.

        That, and you’d probably have to ban breast feeding, for males at least. Can’t have those young boys getting some kind of Pavlovian sexual response to something that feed them in their infancy!

    5. And then they will wonder why fewer people consider them to be sexually attractive.

      1. I’d love to be the last man on Earth that finds breasts sexually attractive.

    6. I have a friend who wants me to head to Chicago to do the naked bike ride with her. Not sure I am going to go, though, because I don’t want to see all people naked, just the ones I want to see.

      1. naked bike ride

        That just seems ridiculously uncomfortable.

        1. Especially in Chicago.

        2. It was June, so I missed it. Oops. Oh well I fail to see the attraction anyway. http://chicagonakedride.org/press

    7. When Hell freezes over.

    8. “One of the aims of the rally is to desensitize people to the female breast in a non-sexual context so that people can disassociate breasts from sexuality.”

      Feminism is trying to control my boner!

  14. Drudge Report Falls For Fake Story About ‘Antichrist’ Pope Merging Islam And Christianity

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content…..Z0cdG.dpuf

    1. I understand you better knowing you like to read a site called Right Wing Watch.

      1. I like to read a lot of sites, sorry that bothers you.

        1. He didn’t say it bothered him.

          1. WHY WOULD YOU THINK I’M PLAYING A “GOTCHA” GAME WITH REPUBLICANS WHEN ALL I READ IS TOWNHALL AND MOONBATTERY ?!?!?

    2. Got a link to the actual Drudge story?

      It looks to me like he is pointing out that many people think that, not that he does or that he fell for anything.

  15. Swarms of Locusts Trigger State of Emergency in Southern Russia

    “Behold His Mighty Hand!”

    WARNING: Audio auto-start

  16. Civil Rights Groups Want To End Prosecution of Illegal Border Crossing

    “Furthermore, the prosecutions almost exclusively target Latinos, leading directly to the disproportionate representation of Latinos in the federal prison system,” the letter reads. “DOJ should not be in the business of immigration enforcement, particularly when the strategies are unproven and highly problematic in their implementation.”

    Overall, however, the organizations charge that such prosecutions are simply wrong.

    “Most importantly, criminalizing migration is profoundly immoral,” the write. “The causes of migration are complex and varied, and migration per se poses no threat to public safety. Our nation can find far more humane and compassionate ways to respond to people crossing our southern border. “

    1. a law that is almost exclusively broken by latinos is likely to result in prosecutions that almost exclusively target latinos, no?

    2. migration per se poses no threat to public safety

      Stampedes are fun

      1. Say people who set up the de facto segregation of housing in places like Boston and Chicago.

    3. “civil rights”, “social justice”, “microaggression”

  17. WAY OT:

    I would like to commend all the regular commentators here who have quit feeding the Hihn troll. It has made the threads so much easier to read. Arguments over principles is great. Mind numbing reposts of the same tired points and the pointless arguments with it are boring.

    So THANKS.

    (snicker)
    (laughing)
    (snort)
    (sniffle)
    (sneeze)

    p.s. Could someone change me please?

    1. Did Hihn escape the GOP Plantation too?

      GIT HIM BEFORE HE RUNS OFT!

      1. He escaped the GOP Plantation and drove straight into the Progressive Plantation.

      2. Only Palin would jump to defend the opinions of a mentally-ill anti-Semite.

  18. Someone’s written about Spy magazine’s coverage of its favourite short-fingered vulgarian, Donald Trump (gotta join Pando, soz)

    1. Not to be creepy but I was think about you the other day and was wondering, how did an Australian become a regular on a discreet American website?

      1. Discreet? reason?

        Flouncing across the internet, getting picked on by judges? You, sir don’t know the meaning of the word discreet, do you?

        1. Fine. I’m going to do a man on the street report and see how many people have heard of this pathetic little rag/blog.
          /huffs off

          1. RealClearPolitics often links here, which is how I discovered the site a few years back.

      2. Not to be creepy

        Us creeps know what that means.

          1. I know that you know that I know. Just sayin’.

      3. I’m not creeped out 🙂

        I stumbled across Reason years ago (a link? Google result? Can’t remember) and really enjoyed the prose (I loved suck.com, which Gillespie used to write for), the breadth of issues, and I was of course down with the philosophical approach*. The comments section had a combination of humour and insight that was a bit above the usual crud online. It’s late night here but my insomnia often keeps me up, so I lurked for a bit and then decided to plunge in. While some of the people here are jackasses, there are quite a few people I’d hang out with in real life (whether they’d hang out with me is another matter…)

        * and by “philosophical approach” I mean “cocktails”

        1. I’m not creeped out 🙂

          Even with me here????

          Amazing.

          /shakes head in utter non-comprehension of the Antipodal sense of esthetics.

        2. The comments section is what keeps me here too. It’s the attitude that no single idea is the “party line,” which is so refreshing.

        3. While some of the people here are jackasses

          I apologize on their behalf.

        4. Similar to how my Guyanese ass ended up a regular visitor 10 years ago. Was browsing sites researching atheism because I didn’t know many fellow atheiats in real life. The reason foundation was a bit more into that back then. Ended up at the magazine and enjoyed the comments for the new ideas as nerdy bent.

          Unlike most I tended to be horrified by a lot of stuff. End the drug war? Are you insane? Leave Saddam alone? But he’s a threat!

          I got seduced to the datk side hanging around here foe the free speech articles and such that I was sympathetic to. Once I’d heard the NAP expounded on a few times and sat down and thiught about it, I dug it a lot. It probably helped that I’d had an Objectivist teacher for ‘Ethics on Engineering’ a few years before.

        5. Similar to how my Guyanese ass ended up a regular visitor 10 years ago. Was browsing sites researching atheism because I didn’t know many fellow atheiats in real life. The reason foundation was a bit more into that back then. Ended up at the magazine and enjoyed the comments for the new ideas as nerdy bent.

          Unlike most I tended to be horrified by a lot of stuff. End the drug war? Are you insane? Leave Saddam alone? But he’s a threat!

          I got seduced to the datk side hanging around here foe the free speech articles and such that I was sympathetic to. Once I’d heard the NAP expounded on a few times and sat down and thiught about it, I dug it a lot. It probably helped that I’d had an Objectivist teacher for ‘Ethics on Engineering’ a few years before.

          1. I didn’t know you are Guyanese. This place is more international than I knew.

          2. I didn’t know you are Guyanese. This place is more international than I knew.

            1. The Squirrels hate this dialog. Please stop

            2. The Squirrels hate this dialog. Please stop

                1. Damn, Swiss.

                2. Damn, Swiss.

                3. Damn, Swiss.

            3. I also went to FIU for 4 years. So I have some Florda Man in me.

              Wait…let me rephrase that.

              I am part Florida man.

  19. Libertarian moment?

    “The State has noticed in the past few years that it has become commonplace during trials for attorneys for defendants, and especially Mr. Justice, to refer to State’s attorneys as ‘the Government,’ ” [prosecutors wrote.] “The State believes that such a reference is used in a derogatory way and is meant to make the State’s attorney seem oppressive and to inflame the jury.”

      1. Yeah, it’s an older local story, that somehow got picked up two years later.

  20. Grease overflow at McDonald’s closes portion of road

    “Our grease traps underneath the building overflowed,” said Alicia Sharpe, general manager of the McDonald’s located at 1177 Dexter St.

    Milan Area Fire Chief Bob Stevens said the flow of grease was contained. He said his department and Department of Public Works crews got the call around 10:49 a.m.

    “When it puddled, vehicles were moving through, tracking the grease out of the parking lot onto the roadway,” Stevens said.

    The slick conditions caused officials to close the southbound lanes south of the restaurant. The road reopened shortly after noon.

  21. Glenn Loury, John McWhorter Discuss the Religion of Antiracism, and Its Current Pope Ta-Nehisi Coates
    …McWhorter is chiefly there to put forth what I’ll call the Ace of Spaces Conjecture that most of tribal signaling — genuflecting to Ta-Nehisi Coates, for example — is not a form of politics, but is properly understood as a form of religion. You’re not supposed to ask about the parts of Ta-Nehisi Coates’ claims that don’t make sense, in the same way you’re not really supposed to ask how Noah fit all those animals on the ark. These are not political arguments, he asserts, but “sermons.”…

    1. I haven’t read anything by Glenn Loury in a long time. I still remember the NY Times hatchet job on him.

    2. the “Conversation” about race that we are so often told we need to have, the tacit idea is that black people will express their grievances and whites will agree–again, no questions, or at least not real ones.

      That’s been my experience. At college I had several professors and classmates who’ve said “We need to have a conversation about race in this country” and each time I said “Let’s have one right now.” And this is exactly what happened, I got yelled at for being a privileged whitey and then when I would respond, I was ridiculed and yelled at some more because I was deemed to be in no position to talk about race, because of my race. It’s pathetic.

    1. “Recorded in Self-Made Hand-Hewn Cabin in the Woods ”

      aka: a lean-to made of PBR cans

    2. His dedication and hard work are evident as he keeps his fingers on the pulse of what his fans want and need via Social Media ? trending and exemplifying the Millennial in him.

      Wouldn’t it have been easier for him to just read the Reason-Rupe Polls?

  22. Bubbles has a sad:

    What has thumbs and no habeas corpus entitlement? Chimpanzees. A Manhattan Supreme Court judge ruled Thursday that chimps are still viewed as property, not people, under the law.

    The lawsuit was filed by the Nonhuman Rights Project, a group that wanted two research chimps ? named Hercules and Leo ? out of confinement.

    1. Jerry disagree.

      1. Jerry, just want a cig Boss.

    2. Right turn, Clyde

      1. Best Eastwood movie ever made.

        1. Escape From Alcatraz and Unforgiven are pretty great, too.

    3. Fuck off, Ricky!

  23. Obama Warns Support on Iran Deal ‘Getting Squishy’ Amid Pressure

    President Barack Obama said opponents of the nuclear accord with Iran are “putting the squeeze on Congress” as the administration works to keep supporters in line.

    Confronting a tougher than expected fight to ensure the agreement survives congressional review, Obama and other administration officials made phone calls and in-person appeals to Democrats they are counting on for backing.

    In a conference call with political allies Thursday evening, Obama said critics of the deal are spending $20 million on advertising as members of Congress return to their home districts.

    1. Alas, poor Obama. He’s shocked and dismayed that money might be spent to sway public opinion.

      Good thing he was appointed POTUS by the League of Unicorns, lest a campaign force him into such unsavory tactics.

      1. He’s shocked and dismayed that money might be spent to sway public opinion [in a direction he doesn’t like].

        He’s totally cool with it being spent in his favor.

  24. Politifact: More than half of California drivers’ licenses went to undocumented immigrants, NumbersUSA says

    The group NumbersUSA said that this year, more than half of all drivers’ licenses issued in California went to undocumented immigrants. By the state’s own tally, that is correct. What the group doesn’t mention is that this is the result of a substantial state effort. First, lawmakers made it possible for over a million unauthorized residents to apply for a license, and then the state spent millions of dollars to speed the application process.

    The statement had the right numbers but needs additional information. We rate the claim Mostly True.

    1. half of California drivers’ licenses went to undocumented immigrants,

      And, voila! they now have documents?

    2. California should be an economic powerhouse with that influx of cheap labor

    3. “The statement had the right numbers but needs additional information. We rate the claim Mostly True.”

      Politifact hasn’t been worth nearly as much since the Congressional Quarterly stopped participating after the first year.

      There’s no way the additional information they complain about not being there in this factoid impacts the underlying truth of the statement. It’s not like NumbersUSA left out something pertinent. This is just another case where Politifact didn’t like the results, so they knocked it down a number in the their rating system and explained it away with a barely plausible excuse.

  25. An official spokesman for the Transport Security Administration (TSA) said security camera footage confirmed that nothing out of the ordinary had occurred.

    “Wink-wink-nudge-nudge!”

    1. What did they think he might of been smuggling? Awful fucking whiny “music”?

      1. Not all his music is whiny.

    1. The Cowboys have little business complaining after what happened against Detroit.

      Chalk it up to the ‘mysterious ways the universe balances things out’.

  26. “You’ll have to measure time by `Before Obama’ and `After Obama'”
    …”When that happens, it will change everything. … You’ll have to measure time
    by `Before Obama’ and `After Obama,'” Lee said during the panel. “It’s an
    exciting time to be alive now.” …

    “Everything’s going to be affected by this seismic change in the universe,” he
    said…

    1. Before Obama, people blamed Bush. After Obama, people still blamed Bush.

      1. Before Obama, Republicans hated women. After Obama, Republicans were racist women-haters.

    2. These people are so creepy. The guy is a president (and a pretty shitty one at that) he’s not Zeus coming down from Mt. Olympus or something.

      1. I swear to god sometimes I think Obama could execute 1000 babies on live tv with a sword and the next day there will be a panel of experts who are pontificating on why Bush made Obama do that.

      2. From the site linked:

        “”Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus.”

        — Politiken (Danish newspaper)”

        1. You know, I’d like to believe the outlandish praise of Obama is just a global trolling session for which I didn’t get the memo…

        2. + 1 Beatles

    3. Cults of personality creep me the fuck out.

      1. And it’s not the personality that gets me. It’s the cult, there’s so so many practitioners.

  27. This guy changed the world: We won’t see the likes of Jon Stewart again
    We take Jon Stewart for granted now, and expect way too much from him. Stop and thank him for restoring our sanity

    I’m one of the college kids who in 2003 and 2004 grabbed onto what seemed like certain cultural anchors of sanity in what felt like a world gone mad. I remember the sense of despair as the Bush administration systematically took apart the social safety net, as Serious Pundit after Serious Pundit queued up to take their turn explaining why we absolutely had to cave into the neocons’ desire for a pointless war in Iraq, as every day revealed a new headline emphasizing that America was firmly in the hands of the religious right and the establishment left was enthusiastically welcoming our wingnut overlords.

    Good satire then was like water in the desert. We were thirsty for any reminder that we hadn’t gone crazy, the world had, that the policies of our leaders were in fact as monstrous and deranged as they seemed to be. That things were not OK. The Onion, “The Daily Show,” “Arrested Development” ? those were the comic voices that defined my coming of age, and I remember them all coming from a stance of incredulity, of “Can you believe this shit is really happening?”

    1. systematically took apart the social safety net

      if only

      1. Holy shit! How is adding Medicare Welfare Part D and paying $10,000 to each first time home buyer taking apart the social safety net?

        I hated Bush because he was the biggest Big Gov POTUS since LBJ.

        1. Yet you worship Obumbles.

          Sometimes it is almost as if you are a dishonest shit.

        2. I hated Bush because he was the biggest Big Gov POTUS since LBJ.

          And then Obama topped both of them, yet you continuously defend him.

          1. Obama topped both of them

            I propose two metrics for determining the Biggitude of a President’s Gov-ness.

            (1) Total spending.

            Bush: (2001 – 2009): $22,682TT, averaging $2,835TT/year.

            Obama: (2010 – 2015) $21,316TT, averaging $3,552TT/year.

            Looks to me like Obama’s Biggitude is $717BB/year bigger on average, or 25% bigger.

            http://www.taxpolicycenter.org…..opic3id=23

            (2) Increase/decrease (I know, I know) in size of the federal register.

            I’ll let somebody else do this one.

            1. Perhaps more subjective, but you could “measure” Big-Governmentness by what the President’s policy machinations are. For example, with the promulgation of the individual mandate under the ACA, President Obama was proposing that the U.S. government’s power is plenary under his interpretation of the Commerce Clause (to compel people to enter commerce in order to be regulated). That’s as statist an interpretation of the CC as it gets. Scary as hell that SCOTUS barely struck down that interpretation.

            2. I hear most black guys are 25% bigger.

      2. In the Saloniverse, Queen Carlotta has proclaimed every day as Backwards Day.

    2. as every day revealed a new headline emphasizing that America was firmly in the hands of the religious right and the establishment left was enthusiastically welcoming our wingnut overlords

      lol

    3. as every day revealed a new headline emphasizing that America was firmly in the hands of the religious right and the establishment left was enthusiastically welcoming our wingnut overlords.

      What country is he talking about? Like America America?

    4. I actually clicked on the link to see who could have possibly written such laughably ignorant nonsense. I shouldn’t have been surprised that it was that passive-aggressive twerp Arthur Chu.

      Also, LOL at this comment:

      Stewart going from B-list entertainer to our generation’s Cronkite

      Talk about the greatest indictment of both the Baby Boomers and Milennials in one stroke. The shout-out to his ho-bag friend Zoe Quinn was a nice touch, too.

  28. There’s a rumour that a UK company is developing a reality show in which contestants
    live under Sharia law.

    What do you think this ought to be called?

    1. Behind the Veil

    2. 19 Virgins and Counting

    3. Britain: 2030

      1. or Coming to America II

    4. Coming Soon! Consult local listings.

    5. The episode where sonebody drinks somebody elses Orangina from the house fridge and they hack off his/her hand will be ratings gold.

      1. Reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit “Real World Hoboken”

    6. Stoned Again!

    7. No bacon no beer?

    8. Ocalalalalalalalalala.

  29. ACLU exec slams Rand Paul for not being a libertarian on abortion

    Some may object that Sen. Paul isn’t violating his libertarian principles because he’s simply working to stop government funding for the organization. But that’s not the issue. Rather, Paul is using the video opportunistically as a step toward his ultimate goal: preventing a woman who has decided to have an abortion from getting one.

    Federal funds should pay for all abortions, but they don’t — they only cover abortions in cases where the pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or resulted from rape or incest. So why is Paul making all this fuss about defunding Planned Parenthood?

    Sen. Paul has made no secret that he wants to make abortion illegal. He has promised to support any legislation that would end it. In March 2013, Paul introduced the Life at Conception Act, which, had it passed, would have defined human life as beginning at conception, granted fertilized eggs the same legal status as people, and outlawed abortion in all circumstances. The only exception Paul thinks there should be is if denying the abortion would cause the woman to die. And even here Paul is late to the game, only conceding that exception two years ago.

    Uh, fuck off.

    I can just as well accuse the ACLU of being anti-civil liberties for being hostile to gun rights and Citizens United.

    1. They were split on CU, as I recall (the marxists showing their true face and the actual liberals taking the right stance). But guns, yeah.

    2. Do liberals not understand that abortion has literally nothing to do with libertarianism? If a baby is alive, then terminating it would be murder, hence a violation of its rights.

      I’m pro-choice for a portion of the pregnancy, but late term abortions are clearly homicide. There’s a reason America is basically the only country on Earth with no questions asked abortions as late as we have them. You can’t find another country with our liberal abortion policies for very good reasons.

      1. Doesn’t matter if you’re the reason it’s trapped in there…it’s trespassing!

        1. Exactly. If some 2 year old is living in your house and not paying rent, you ought to be able to kick the fucker out on the street. Everyone understands that.

      2. “has literally nothing to do with libertarianism?”

        Theoretically, perhaps. But the Libertarian Party has consistently taken a pro-choice position, for example.

        1. So what? When we’re talking about democratic theory, do we factor in the policy positions of a certain political party that has a similar sounding name to the concept?

          “Well Plato said that republic has features X, Y and Z”

          “Oh yeah, well then how do you explain the Republican Party’s stance on abortion?”

          Derp.

          1. So if we were talking about what the Left believes and someone cited the platform of the Democrat Party you’d object?

            1. Irish was talking about libertarian theory and what it covers, and you chime in with “Nuh uh, the Libertarian Party is consistently pro-choice” as if that’s a response to what libertarian theory actually discusses.

        2. And the LP is wrong.

          Seriously, we have fundamentally different premises, both of which comport with the NAP.

          I just think an unborn child’s right to live greatly outweighs the nine months of not-so-involuntary servitude of the mother’s body (given the foreseeable consequences of the her and her partner’s actions).

          1. But nature is sexist for making women bear consequences for their actions. It’s not fair! To even things out, they should be allowed to practice infanticide. You only oppose it because of male privilege.

            1. Of course, the male involved must, at the very least, pay child support or go to prison. And he doesn’t have any legal say in whether to abort the child – it’s entirely up to the mother whether the father must face the “involuntary servitude” of paying for the child. Yet, one doesn’t hear anyone on the pro-choice side make the case for the father’s “right to choose.”

      3. You can’t find another country with our liberal abortion policies for very good reasons.

        Actually, Canada’s is more liberal than ours. You can have an abortion all the way up to the end of the pregnancy, although most of them are early-term.

  30. “I have thrown myself into a new world?one in which fluffy chatter and frivolous praise are replaced by disciple-like devotion …”
    Barack Obama must be elected President of the United States. It’s his worldview, his clarity of judgment, and his just plain right-mindedness that resonate with me. Figuring that my efforts were best spent raising money for the campaign, I have thrown myself into a new world?one in which fluffy chatter and frivolous praise are replaced by a get-to-the-point directness and disciple-like devotion. It’s intense and intoxicating. …

    …Then, in a moment of divine intervention, he saw me, clad in my red stop-sign of a dress, back-tracked ever so slightly in his procession, grabbed my hand, and gave that brilliant smile of his. I literally said out loud to the woman next to me who witnessed my good fate, “I’ll never wash this hand again.”

    1. Goddammit, stop creeping me out with these stories. The Moonies have nothing on Obamabots.

      I wonder how this idiot bitch is going to feel when a housing project is built next door to her home, her property values plummet and she ends up underwater on her mortgage. In her mind it will no doubt be Bush’s fault.

      1. I wonder how this idiot bitch is going to feel when a housing project is built next door to her home, her property values plummet and she ends up underwater on her mortgage. In her mind it will no doubt be Bush’s fault.

        Maybe she’ll feel charitable that her house was burglarized and her new neighbors get to enjoy some of her privilege.

        1. Yes. She can comfort her young child with that thought after he/she comes home from school having had the shit beaten out of them.

    2. See, and this is why I keep saying Obama’s great talent is the fact that he’s utterly incompetent. If someone who knew what they were doing were thrown the cult of personality he was, they’d be able to pull a Caesar. Obama gets cultish devotion from some people but utterly fails to use it to his advantage.

  31. OMBama Yoga – “Invoke the Spirit of Obama’s Own Phrase”
    … The silver-tongued Barack Obama’s words are on tee shirts selling at Om Time, an oasis of tranquility sandwiched between the Colorado Democratic headquarters on one corner, and the center for the Obama campaign on the other, along with a slice of tattoo shop and art gallery garnish. “The Union may never be perfect but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected,” proclaims the tee-shirt in the Om Time window.

    It hangs just south of the shri shrine, and the peace and love tee shirts you’d expect. Walk by quickly and you’d think the silk-screened image of Obama’s close-shaved head was Ghandi’s….

    1. The greatest (worst?) cult of personality since FDR. Congratulations, America.

  32. What drives the angry man-child to harass women online? The answer is pretty simple

    There’s a better, more likely explanation for their results: some people who are feeling bad about themselves try to regain a sense of mastery by picking on someone they think is down the social pecking order from them.

    In other words, these guys are bullies. They pick on women not because of some elaborate hardwired mating game, but because men are socialized to think women are weaker and somehow inferior to men. They pick on women because they think women are a soft target. In addition, men are socialized to think that failure is emasculating. They pick on women for the same reason kids at school like to bully the nerdy kid or the fat kid or the gay kid: To feel bigger and better than someone else, to get that rush of power over someone else, to kill a perceived weakness inside of them, to trick other people into thinking they’re big and tough.

    1. Yeah, if you’re going to shoot something in Zimbabwe and you don’t bag Robert Mugabe then you’re really just wasting your time

      1. RACIST.

  33. “Prepare your heart to fill with hope; Prepare your mind to embrace the change!”
    Between now and November 4…
    Let’s spend one minute a day…
    Envisioning Barack Obama…
    As our President…
    Prepare your heart to fill with hope…
    Prepare your mind to embrace the change…
    Envision Barack victorious on election night…
    …Taking the oath of office…
    On Inauguration Day…
    Believe that this great moment in American history is already a reality…
    Say the words to yourself…
    To your family…
    To your friends and neighbors…
    Say it to the world…
    Your vision is a sacred trust…
    You are a sanctuary of a sacred vision for a renewed America…
    Envision it…
    Say it…
    Feel it…
    Believe it…
    Make it our reality…
    Manifest Obama, America!

    1. A beam of light will fill your head,
      And you’ll remember what’s been said
      By all the Dem hacks this world’s ever known.

  34. “No one saw him coming … like Jesus being born in a manger”
    “Lord, we have again come to you in prayer, and you have heard our cries from heaven, and you have sent us again from the state called Illinois, a man called Barack to heal our land,” said Younginer, a 62-year-old retired information systems worker at Coca Cola in Atlanta. “We pray that you will build a hedge around him that will protect him from those who would do him harm.”

    Younginer, like many others, is convinced that Obama was destined to be president. The mere fact that he won the presidency against the odds has caused some Christians, particularly African-Americans, to see the hand of God in his victory after so many years of struggle.

    […]
    [Lawrence Carter, dean of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel] said many people look for a sign from God when times are turbulent. And, he said, there are many elements to Obama’s win in which Christians can find spiritual significance.

    “It is powerful and significant on a spiritual level that there is the emergence of Barack Obama 40 years after the passing of Dr. King,” said Carter. “No one saw him coming, and Christians believe God comes at us from strange angles and places we don’t expect, like Jesus being born in a manger.”

    1. You should write a book, man. Collect all this shit.

    2. Stop it, Johnny, fucking stop! I don’t want to know that such people exist.

  35. WATCH: Debbie Whatshername Schultz freezes like a deer in the headlights when asked what’s the difference between socialists and Democrats

    On MSNBC’s Hardball Thursday night, host Chris Matthews stumped DNC Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) when he asked her what the difference is between a Democrat and a socialist.

    “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” Matthews asked, leaving Wasserman Schultz at a loss for words.

    “I used to think there is a big difference. What do you think it is?” Matthews tried again. “A Democrat like Hillary and a socialist like Bernie Sanders.”

    Wasserman Schultz again was unable to answer and instead tried to tell Matthews what the difference between a Democrat and a Republican is.

    “What’s the big difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” Matthews again asked.

    “You’re chairman of the democratic party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist,” Matthews reminded her.

    Schultz, however, was able to tell the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.

    “The difference between a Democrat and Republican is that Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed and the Republicans are strangled by their right-wing extremists,” she said.

    1. …Democrats fight to make sure everybody has an opportunity to succeed…

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure they fight for equal outcomes, not opportunities.

    2. Ummm, wasn’t that linked like an hour ago?

      1. In his defense, he presented it better.

      2. If it was, I didn’t see it.

    3. She’s truly a dumb chick.

      Can they ever make a lucid argument without resorting to the ‘right-wing extremist’ crap?

      1. No, she just knows how to play the TEAM card.

      2. She’s an automaton that repeats talking points.

        1. She is shreek?

        2. “She’s an automaton that repeats talking points.”

          That’s exactly what happened. Chris Mathews asked her an unscripted question that she was unprepared for. So she just grabbed the closest question from her list of rehearsed talking points and used it.

          She’s a talking parrot put in her role in order to drum up additional fund raising from wealthy Jews. Her placement was designed to appease Democratic Jewish voters who were upset with the Obama administration’s soft support of Israel.

          1. I thought Israeli issues were a lot lower on the Democratic Jew’s list than the conservative’s list. You know, low enough that he or she wouldn’t change parties even if the Democrats were especially hostile to the Israeli government.

          2. Hey ! I’ve had a couple African Grey Parrots, and they were both more clever than Wasserman-Shultz. One of them was definitely a better talker.

    4. She may not be the brightest bulb in the drawer, but goodness is she nice to look at.

      1. Now your just trolling.

        1. No, he really does seem to like the uggos. If she was attractive he wouldn’t be interested.

      2. She looks like an old washcloth with poodle hair stuck to it

        1. She looks like half way through Kenny G’s sex change operation, the surgeon just said “Aw fuck it.”

  36. Last night I switched my routine and tried this Steve Reeves workout.

    1. are you actually doing this as prescribed because it seems to border on over-training. I can see splitting it into two workouts and hitting each twice a week, and the short rest periods are reminiscent of the Vince Gironda approach.

      1. yeah it does seem like over-training – took forever to get through all the sets. It did work for Steve Reeves though.

        And no, I’m not following it per se – just wanted to try it out to mix up my current routine.

        1. one way I could see doing it is in line with a protocol I saw in Ironman magazine some time back – the same weight for all three sets since the rest periods are short. The first two are basically warmups and the third on each exercise is the money set. Otherwise, damn that would be a bear of a workout that taxes your respiratory and nervous systems more than the muscles.

    2. That does look like a lot to hit all at once but would be a great routine breaker?

    3. Enjoy your crippling soreness. When you can walk again, work up to that kind of volume over a few months.

      1. I’m actually pretty okay today… last night, however, was a completely different story.

        1. Tomorrow will be the worst day of your life, the day after that a little better. DOMS is the acronym.

    4. one additional Steve Reeves bit #NOHOMO:

      Incidentally…many of the hardcore lifters at York considered Steve’s training approach and exercises to be sissified at that time. In fact someone at the gym questioned whether Steve was really strong or not. Upon hearing that comment Steve was quoted as saying “I can be as strong as I want to be. Follow me.” Without another word he loaded a 7 foot Olympic bar to approximately 400 pounds. Then he reached down and with his arms fully extended to span more than six feet, gripped the lip of the 45 pound plates with only his fingers and preceded to dead-lift the enormous poundage. This demonstration of the fingertip or Snatch-grip dead-lifting quieted his doubter’s big time.

      http://www.criticalbench.com/s…..merica.htm

      1. The Reeves deadlift is fun. It’s a little less impressive than it sounds with the old deep-dish York plates that he was using, but it’s a good trick.

        1. mmm… deep dish pizza

    5. I bought Starting Strength for son who is gearing up for High School Football. I read it and decided to do the program too. Definitely getting stronger fast – the squats are giving me trouble because my busted up shoulder doesn’t go as far back as it should.

      1. Nothing in the world is worse for patellar tendons than the abominable half squat things that high school football coaches teach their kids. You’re doing that kid a huge favor.

        the squats are giving me trouble because my busted up shoulder doesn’t go as far back as it should.

        Four options: 1) If it’s not too painful, say fuck it and continue to do the low bar squats. 2) Do high-bar squats while you increase your shoulder’s range of motion. 3) Say fuck it and just do the high-bar squats. The low bar version is better, but it’s like 5% better or something. 4) If your shoulder if super fucked up, get a safety squat bar.

        1. You guys had to set him off…

          1. And unlike you, we learn things…useful things, from Uncle Warty.

        2. I’m going to keep doing the low bar squats while trying to loosen the shoulder. I find the low bar squats don’t bother my knees.

      2. Starting Strength is my go-to book…

        1. Rip’s the man – and a libertarian.

    6. Last night I switched my routine and tried this Steve Reeves workout.

      I’ve been doing the Christopher Reeves workout routine for years.

        1. Your narrow gazes are so rewarding.

  37. France is furious over Gisele Bundchen’s burqa disguise

    Bundchen and her kid sister wore the traditional Muslim clothing ? during the holy month of Ramadan ? so the supermodel could have secret work done on her boobs and her eyes.

    Blasphemy!

    1. And intersectionality with cultural appropriation!

    2. How can a place on a map get mad?

      1. It’s France – all of them are always furious about something.

      2. You have never been to France, have you?

  38. Morrissey says he was sexually assaulted by a U.S. airport security official.

    He was such a sweet and tender hooligan.

    1. At least Morissey is still fresh!

  39. Enjoy some Barrence Whitfield and the Savages…you savages:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X2FkMN9s6A

    1. Nice. Firing it up on the Echo in the office.

    1. I’m shocked that the princesses aren’t all 200 pounds.

    2. I think he did a better job with the men than the women, impressive.

      1. I don’t think he’s attracted to the princesses…just my guess

        1. I thought the same thing.

  40. Spot the Not: wacky fashion history

    1. For most of history, only actors and prostitutes wore makeup.

    2. Wigs came into fashion after a French king started wearing a wig to cover up his bald patch.

    3. The reason the bottom button of a sport coat is not meant to be buttoned is because a fat English king did it first.

    4. Sport coats are descended from English fox hunting jackets.

    5. The flip flop is based on a sandal worn by Egyptian slaves.

    6. The necktie was popularized by Croatian mercenaries 400 years ago.

    1. I’m going to say #1, makeup has been around forever, and a lot of time you had to be wealthy to purchase it.

    2. I’m going with #2.

      1. No, 6 is real. “Cravat” derives from Hravatski*, the word for Croatian

        * or something like that

        1. Damn, then I’ll go with the fat guy one.

          1. That would be King Edward, I’m pretty sure.

    3. I’m going to say 4. The cut and fabrics are very different

      1. Nope. The sport coat is taken from the hacking jacket worn by English fox hunters.

    4. 1. I know that the others are true, and Egyptian women wore makeup.

    5. 3 is the not

    6. The Not is #5. Although ancient Egyptians wore a sandal similar to the flip flop, today’s flip flop is based on a Japanese sandal that was a favorite among US soldiers returning from occupation duty.

      Although ancient Egyptian royalty wore makeup, in the rest of the world, makeup was rarely worn by people except actors and prostitutes. Ancient Greek actors wore heavy makeup so their faces would visible to people seated far from the stage. In the US, makeup only became fashionable in the early 20th century due to the rise of movie stars.

      The wig was popularized by French king Louis XIII who went bald prematurely. His son and successor continued the trend and eventually, everyone who could afford a wig in 18th century Europe was wearing one. Wigs also prevented lice since the lice would migrate into the wig and die when the wig was boiled.

      King Edward VII started the trend of leaving the bottom button of a sport coat unfastened. He did it because he got too fat to button it but didn’t want to be fitted for a new coat. His entourage copied him, and so a trend was born.

      Sport coats are indeed descended from 19th century sport jackets worn for hunting and boating. Hence the name.

      And as IFH pointed out, the reason a necktie is also called a cravat is because that is from the Croatian word for Croatian. Croatian mercenaries were hired by various countries during the 30 Years War.

  41. Spot the Not: macho names

    1. Max Fightmaster

    2. Flex Plexico

    3. Stirling Mortlock

    4. Dick Pound

    5. Thorfinn Skullsplitter

    6. Wolf Bloodaxe

    1. No takers? You make me sad.

      1. Introducing Staff Sgt Max Fightmaster:

        Staff Sgt. Max Fightmaster, a computer technician, is one of thousands of Army National Guard and Reserve members who could soon be called up to active duty in Iraq.

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/re…..on-notice/

        I bet he got a ton of teasing in boot camp.

  42. I see we’re all having a grand time playing with Tulpa this morning. Carry on, then.

    1. I’m not… *grins sheepishly*

  43. ENB’s fine writing skills yesterday gave several people the impression that “libertarians” support taxpayer-funded abortion for all. You’re doing a heckuva job, Lizzie.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/211630/#respond

    1. Go easy on her. She waded into the comments and made it clear she didn’t support federal funding for PP. I think she is honestly trying to improve her craft by reading the criticism by the commentariat.

      1. Well she could have bashed republicans so many other ways which is what the pupose of the artucle was anyways. Why look for ways to attack them for agreeing with you?

        1. Why look for ways to attack them for agreeing with you?

          Because she doesn’t agree with people who want to shift funding to worse places?

          1. Because she doesn’t agree with people who want to shift funding to worse places?

            I suppose those people might exist outside of ENB’s head but she couldn’t be bothered (or find) a link to those “some Republicans”. I have no idea why libertarians should be concerned that cutting government spending might later lead to the money later being shifted to something else. For example, eliminating the Dept of Ed is right even if the entire budget later ends up in a Defense Department “droning brown children” program.

      2. The whinertarians are determined to whine about the secret cosmohomocommie conspiracy. It’s probably best to let them do it in peace.

        1. In retrospect, it does feel like I’m white knighting a little bit, I just respect the writers that engage with the commenters.

          1. What she wrote yesterday was not that complicated, so if a person read the entire piece and did not comprehend the points she was making, that is their fault. Disagreeing with something and not understanding something are not the same.

          2. There’s a reason we still adore Lucy.

            1. DON’T TALK ABOUT LUCY!!!

              *sobs onto keyboard*

      3. Readers shouldn’t have to wade into our beloved comments for clarification of ENB’s “nuance”.

        She should return to writing sponsored content for feminine hygiene products. “A woman’s got to know her limitations”

        1. Readers shouldn’t have to wade into our beloved comments for clarification of ENB’s “nuance”.

          I agree and I think she does too. Nobody is perfect, but at least she responds to the criticism in the comments. I think that will make her a stronger writer overall.

          1. I might agree if her job title was “intern”.

            1. I didn’t like the article very much, but it was still better than most anything several other regular Reason writers routinely post.

              1. ^^This. ENB sometimes jumps to ridiculous conclusions not remotely based on her premises, but she generally writes and argues in good faith… The same cannot be said of certain *cough*Shikha*cough* other Reason writers.

                I think a good test of each writer would be to have them write a debate article on their pet topic. ENB would write a piece arguing both sides of abortion. Shikha would write on both sides of immigration policy. Shackford on both sides of gay marriage.

                A good writer can write a convincing piece from the devil’s advocate point of view. A shitty writer just projects when playing devil’s advocate.

                1. I think Shackford’s done a decent job of looking at gay marriage logically and at its opponents in good faith.

        2. You fucking idiot. The only reason you had to wade into the comments for nuance is because you refuse to actually read what she wrote.

          1. The fucking idiot here being SIV, of course.

            1. I linked to where OTHER people think that’s what she said, you illiterate moron. I offered no criticism yesterday of ENB’s garbled mess of signalling to TEAM SCRAPEJOB.

              1. Oh, so you’re not stupid enough to believe that ENB wrote that Planned Parenthood should be federally funded, then? That’s good. You’re making progress.

              2. Latching onto someone else’s shitty analysis makes it okay.

          2. Look, Warty, the author is dead, and it’s up to the commenters to decide what each post is about. Regardless of their reading comprehension skills, general butthurtedness, or other problems.

            1. I’ve always wondered just what his obsession with old women in unflattering underwear is about. What do you suppose is going on there?

      4. I’m with Florida Man on this one. I was slagging on her some yesterday, but it was mostly just her being sloppy.

    2. That would be the case no matter what she wrote, unless she explicitly wrote, I DO NOT SUPPORT FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

      The culture war is devoid of reading comprehension and facts.

  44. This is for the commenter named Tak Kak, who was wondering in yesterday’s PM links about visiting Perth.

    A great brewery to visit in Fremantle.

    – Whilst in Fremantle, why not have a tour of a decommissioned Australian Navy Submarine?

    Also, Freo, as the locals call it, is full of great bars and pubs. Just walk around, you’re bound to stumble into many of them.

    In fact, just go to Freo. The rest of Perth is meh.

    … continued

    1. If you have time, yeah, go over to Rottnest Island and check out The Quokkas.

      Also, if you appreciate the female form and dive-bars as much as I do, head on out to The Darling Range Hotel, especially between 5pm and 7pm, when they have skimpies pouring pints behind the bar.

      I don’t actually live in Perth, but I will be there next week. Contact my email if you want further information.

      Also, when the fuck is an Australian Reason Meet-Up going to happen? It can’t just be me and Invisible Furry Hand. And I’m not even Australian!

      1. Well, I was there last year and no one had any suggestions.

        1. Yeah well you went to weird places. Come to Sydney next time RavNat and we’ll go on the razz

          1. Weird!!?? One of the places I went to was at your suggestion! 😉

            1. what a naughty little scatterbrain i am…

          2. And, might I add #1: it was a great suggestion – thanks!

            And, might I add #2: WTF is going on with the Ashes??!!

            1. The side is ageing, and Pup doesn’t seem to care anymore. Smith should be captain, a few young ‘uns promoted into the side, and Boof should put a rocket up ’em. OTOH, at least we have a bit of excitement

              1. It’s just odd that there have been three one-sided tests but the series is 2-1.

  45. Another ban we don’t need

    http://nbc4i.com/2015/07/31/se…..-caffeine/

  46. For Bo:

    Things You Learn as a Virgin in Your 20s

    It’s everywhere. From movie posters to music on the radio to commercials for everything from cars to clothing, sex is ever-present in the marketing schemes of our corporate overlords. As much as virgins try to ignore it, society seems keen on rubbing its corrupt genitals in our innocent faces.

    Except, I’m not buying it. I’m 25, and I’m still a virgin.

    For many people who have reached this point in their life without doing the deed, there’s a degree of choice involved: They’re “saving themselves” for religious reasons, or waiting for “the one.” Those people might still have a pleasant, fulfilling first time. But if you’re like me?meaning, celibacy isn’t your intended goal?then you quickly start to realize that your first sexual encounter will probably be awkward, rushed, and riddled with false expectations.

    1. The Bo character doesn’t like being called a virgin. Be nice.

      1. We all know from Warty’s experiences there that college students are of course virgins!

    2. your first sexual encounter will probably be awkward, rushed, and riddled with false expectations.

      And your 200th…unless that’s just me.

    3. your first sexual encounter will probably be awkward, rushed, and riddled with false expectations.

      And your 200th…unless that’s just me.

      1. Even the 400th time?

      2. Maybe if you had called that squirrel the next day this wouldn’t have happened

  47. Should the Chechen women face charges?

    For ISIS’s sake, the proper punishment is good ol’ fashioned outlawry, so no.

    1. Hell no, they shouldn’t.

      The Chechen government should sponsor a contest, with an extra prize for whoever can scam the most money from ISIS.

      1. I support this 100%.

  48. Does anyone know where ProL and Pl?ya Manhattan are?

    1. In court? Polishing their woodchippers? Trapped in Warty’s dungeon? A camping trip with STEVE SMITH?

    2. Florida and California.

      Pro Glib has been around lately, right? I emailed with him recently, so he’s not dead. Probably. Yet.

      1. Good. I wanted to see the light leave his eyes in person.

        1. say what?

    3. Did Playa take Bo’s criticisms to heart?

      1. And start spending time with his actual, rather than virtual, family? It’d be a sea change, but maybe a meaningful one.

        1. LOL, the fact that you would even type such a comment is beyond all hilarity. You can’t be real. I once thought you were an actual person when we had a discussion about Rand Paul but now I see it’s a parody. There’s no way someone could really be this stupid.

    4. Playa’s been around at least a few times this week.

    5. I’m coming off the tail end of a 120 hour work week. I had some deadlines to meet before my upcoming vacation, where I’ll be not paying attention to my family in Hawaii for a week..

      1. Have fun. Sounds like you earned it.

  49. Catfished ISIS? Talk about some brass ones. Well played, ladies.
    OT: The Hill’s 50 Most Beautiful

    Some really nice-looking lads and lasses in there, some highlights:

    – The redhead Republican is a good start

    – Two brown beauties I need HM’s input on

    – I would like Gilmore’s opinions on the guy who makes his own bowties

    – An attractive stern guy into CultFit who gives off a Patrick Bateman vibe

    – An attractive Log Cabin Republican

    Some lowpoints:

    – ALL THE WRINKLY OLD PEOPLE, WTF

    In the interest of fairness, I will state that I look almost exactly like #6, Sen Mark Heinrich. Except…wait. I’m way younger than him. Shit. I hate my life.

    1. Why is Michelle Obama in there?

      Matt Dornic looks like a skinny, well-dressed George Costanza, is that what passes for “beautiful” in D.C?
      Rep. Seth Moulton looks like every middle-aged guy ever, and I don’t want to insult Reason commenters…but, again, is that “beautiful”?

      1. Noted shit-heel Paul Begala said DC is Hollywood for ugly people.

        1. I guess “most beautiful” is pithier than “least likely to make you vomit uncontrollably just by looking at them”

          1. Damn. See, I know I’m like a 4 to women, maybe a 5 at best, so you’ll never see me posing for shots in some “pretty people we like” list.

            1. I admit I’m a harsher critic if I don’t like the person. Conversely, if you’re nice and not a douchey politician you probably deserve better than a 5.

      2. I’m not insulted. I like to laugh at this stuff. MO’s a definite butterface. There are some cuties up there IMO.

        I don’t think the list is shown in any sort of ranked order.

        1. Yeah, I went through the first 7 or 8.

          Some real cuties, no doubt. Damned if I’m going to click through all 50, though. Fuck that.

    2. Ugh. As if anyone in D.C. needs more ego stroking.

  50. Color me surprised:
    Spain’s “Google tax” has been a disaster for publishers, new study shows
    .

    Spain commissioned a study of the effects of the “Google tax” and found that it reduced traffic on average by 6%. The tax is expected to cost publishers 10.9M USD overall, most of it on the small publishers whose traffic went down 14%.

    In addition to Google News shutting down in Spain, several small Spanish news aggregators also shut down.

    Will Spain learn or is shooting themselves worth it just to stick it to Google?

    1. The perennial effects of protectionism. If only the global public would ever learn.

  51. Catch 22 Venereal Diseases

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.