Bitcoin

Lawman Johnny Lawsky's Legacy: Bitcoin Firms Flee New York

Ten startups have turned off their services in the Empire State to avoid applying for a BitLicense.

|

Johnny Lawsky

Bitcoin companies had until last Friday to make an unenviable choice: Either spend about $55,000 applying for a BitLicense—and commit to shelling out for ongoing compliance fees—or get the hell out of New York State.

Many are getting the hell out of New York State.

One of the last to announce its departure was Genesis Mining, which explained its move in a blog post:

While advocates for the BitLicense say they want to protect consumers, what the act really does is stifle innovation. It's complex, expensive, and comes with a set of guidelines that make it nearly impossible for any startup to comply with.

While 22 companies submitted applications, 10 announced they were shutting off service for customers in New York State rather than apply for a BitLicense. The list includes Kraken, GoCoin, ShapeShift, LocalBitcoins, and BitFinex.

In a blog post, LocalBitcoins explained it simply didn't have the money to participate:

As the Bitlicense is time consuming, expensive and difficult to obtain for anything but large companies we've taken the decision to protect our US based traders and not allow New York based users to use our service.

The Bitcoin exchange Coinsetter, which applied for the permit, shared some details about the process with New York Business Journal:

The 30-page application included a $5,000 fee to Financial Services, and an additional 20 pages of rules to follow, according to [founder and CEO Jaron] Lukasiewicz. Over the past two years, he estimates his company spent $50,000 in legal fees and other labor costs to prepare for and complete the paperwork.

The BitLicense was established by New York State's top financial regulator, Benjamin Lawsky, who announced he was stepping down immediately after the new permitting process took effect to become a private consultant. (Lawsky maintains he won't do any business with cryptocurrency firms.)

For more on why the BitLicense is a destructive new regulatory regime that duplicates rules and procedures already in place—and will give Wall Street a leg up in an industry that otherwise has the potential to drain power and influence away from Wall Street—watch out my recent Reason TV story, "Bitcoin's Regulatory Nightmare Is About To Get More Frightening."

NEXT: Opening a Gym in New York? First Wait Six Months and Spend $50K To Prove You're Not Really Selling Sex.

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. Doing business in NY means paying extortion fees.

    And paying. And paying. Ad infinitum.

  2. OT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKfdS38aBSk

    More slut walk hilarity with Rebel Media and Lauren Southern. Bonus: Weirdo MGTOW losers explaining how they’re totally not doing chicks any more while one of them holds a sign saying ‘Women are programmed to ruin men’s lives.’

    I also love the fat bald guy with a lisp holding a sign that says ‘My kink is consent.’ They’re still not going to sleep with you, buddy.

    It’s like a smorgasbord of really stupid people.

    1. yeah and that fat black haired girl with the sandwich board. she was stupid and unattractive too. maybe they should hook up

  3. I see a familiar name on that Village Voice cover.

    1. She’s a seasoned, respected journalist! Why are you surprised to see her writing articles for quality periodicals?

      1. +1 Columbia School of Narrative Distribution

    2. Match the Ridiculous Groupie Sex Story to the Famous Musician

      By Anna Merlan.

      The story is not worth reading, of course, because it is just pointless gossip – by Anna Merlan.

  4. Maybe it’s the phrasing of the questions, but a recent poll shows that most respondents think religious freedom of private persons should take priority over “gay rights.”

    And to my surprise – and relief – 80% of atheists and agnostics think a wedding photographer should be able to choose whether to help out at a gay “wedding.”

    http://dailysignal.com/2015/08…..y-wedding/

    1. That last part *is* surprising. Most of my fellow atheists have always seemed too far down the ‘secular humanism’ rabbit hole to support freedom of association.

      1. I suppose it wouldn’t be too hard to imagine a scenario where the Agnostic Bake Shoppe is forced to make a cake to celebrate Rev. Thomas Turnipseed 30th year in preaching the Gospel of Jesus.

        And so long as the Agnostic Bake Shoppe isn’t forced to put any words on the cake, then they have no right to complain! And it’s religious discrimination if they refuse to make the cake out of anti-Christian animus.

        1. Meh.

          Pay me enough and I’ll sing “Jesus Loves Me” in any venue you choose. (Or “Mohammed Loves Me” or “Amon-Ra Loves Me” for that matter.)

          Of course, my singing voice makes Rosie O’Donnells sound like operatic quality by comparison.

          1. How much for Amon-Ra?

            …Seriously.

        2. And so long as the Agnostic Bake Shoppe isn’t forced to put any words on the cake, then they have no right to complain! And it’s religious discrimination if they refuse to make the cake out of anti-Christian animus.

          And of course they can’t discriminate in this manner, and haven’t for decades in every state because it is federally protected (unlike the gayz).

          I’m sure you’ve been regularly decrying government recognition of Christian marriage because it might lead to atheist bakers being sued, even when it is totally off topic.

          1. “I’m sure you’ve been regularly decrying government recognition of Christian marriage”

            I have.

            1. But not because some bakers might get sued under some completely unrelated (and shitty) law but because it is principled in its own right. Unlike Eddie.

              1. I support fellow travelers regardless of the reason they are right.

              2. “completely unrelated”

                You’ve gone a bridge too far.

                If you’d said *philosophically* unrelated, you could then have endured a barrage of evidence that the political success of the SSM movement has increased the amount of “I want cake” cases. You could have said that on the plane of libertarian purism, there’s no connection, and the events in the real world were philosophically irrelevant.

                But you’ve claimed that it’s *completely* irrelevant, meaning you’ve undertaking quite a challenging task – showing, for instance, that there’s no *political* connection between the SSM movement and all these I Want Cake suits which have spontaneously (and according to you, coincidentally) sprung up everywhere.

                And you’ll have to explain away the Obama administration lawyer’s concession at the Supreme Court that state-recognized SSM will endanger the tax-exempt status of many Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) colleges.

                And you’ll have to find some way to wish away the Colorado Supreme Court’s citation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s gay-marriage decision in order to bolster the I Want Cake argument.

                You sure have your work cut out for you!

                1. you could then have endured a barrage of evidence that the political success of the SSM movement has increased the amount of “I want cake” cases.

                  You mean the ‘barrage of evidence’ that exists solely in your twisted mind?

                  showing, for instance, that there’s no *political* connection between the SSM movement and all these I Want Cake suits which have spontaneously (and according to you, coincidentally) sprung up everywhere.

                  It’s been explained and demonstrated many times. It’s too bad you’re too much of an asshole to listen to reason.

                  1. So, let’s see…a Maryland tour company closes down, on the advice of counsel, to avoid “discrimination” suits from gay couples, right after Maryland voters approve gay marriage.

                    The Solicitor General of the United States acknowledges that a Supreme Court decision for gay marriage will endanger the tax-exempt status of many private colleges.

                    The Colorado appeals court, shortly after Oberdorfer, cites Oberdorfer in support of requiring Christian bakers to make gay wedding cakes.

                    And I’ve been showing many other examples here.

                    And I’m not going to put up with references to my “twisted mind” from an advocate of legalized infanticide.

                    1. Again, it’s called anti-discrimination law. Feel free to help change it.

                      “Cites Oberdorfer” is totally vague and not meaningful. That doesn’t mean it was essential to the decision. That MaryLand tour company also should simply not have shut down. They should have tested it.

                      We legalized gay marriage in Canada 15 years ago. If you would like to find data supporting your doom-mongering, I’d recommend looking there. I am tired of listening to the bullshit people like you put out. You are wrong every. Single. Time.

                    2. You’re right, the Canadian government has *never* denied accreditation to a college simply because it requires students to abstain from extramarital intimacy (marriage being defined in the traditional opposite-sex way)

                      http://thevarsity.ca/2015/07/2…..l-matters/

                      and never prosecuted anyone in their human-rights tribunals for criticism of homosexuality

                      http://www.thegospelcoalition……an-witness

                      So, sure, if you want America to be like Canada, then by all means keep supporting same-sex marriage.

                    3. Ride ’em papist!.

                2. Of course you seem to ignore that the most famous case, the New Mexico one, all occurred when gay marriage was not legal there. Kinda shows one doesn’t need the other, huh?

          2. “And of course they can’t discriminate in this manner, and haven’t for decades in every state because it is federally protected (unlike the gayz).”

            OK, so your claim is that even before gay marriage called attention to the issue, atheist bakers have been required to cater “Muslims will convert America!” dinners.

            Why not check out atheist sites to find examples of such oppression.

            Go ahead, I’ll wait…

            1. His claim is that you and your ilk are raising Cain about anti-discrimination laws being extended to cover gays in some states (you’re trying to link this to recognition of gay marriage because you seem to want to go back and fight that more than you want to fight the anti-discrimination laws, but the NM photography case shows the two are separate) but you and your ilk didn’t seem to be raising much fuss about the much wider anti-discrimination protection religious people have and currently do still receive. Then you try to answer “but have you heard about any religious Christians invoking anti-discrimination law, I haven’t, therefore that shows it’s just a problem with teh gayz!” But all this shows is that religious conservatives make a really big fuss over gays and/or you tend to listen to them a lot, because there’s lots of examples I can cite where religious Christians have sued invoking the anti-discrimination laws out there protecting them.

              Here’s some:
              Baker v. Home Depot (2nd Cir., 2006)
              EEOC v. Mesaba Airlines (D. Minnesota, 2009)
              Harrell v. Donahue (8th Cir., 2011)
              Delelegne v. Kinney Systems, Inc. (D. Mass., 2004)
              EEOC v. Chi Chi’s Restaurant (D.C. Md. 1996)
              Buonanno v. AT&T, 313 F.Supp.2d 1069 (D.Co., 2004)

              You haven’t heard about them because when Christians sue and win under the laws you decry when a gay person happens to invoke them no one makes a fuss and/or you don’t register it. But it goes on all the time.

            2. Why look to an anecdote when we know the law? Religious discrimination in public accommodation is illegal according to the CRA of 1964.

              Your argument misses the mark. Simply put, states have been extending non-discrimination in public accommodation to homosexuals long before gay marriage legalization. This is a reflection of increasing social tolerance. There’s no putting the genie back in the bottle here even if gay marriage is overturned. Ban gay marriage and bakers still will have to sell to gay people in many states.

              Interestingly, religion is a protected class under these laws. So, should we perhaps ban religion so that we no longer very unjustly force private business owners to accommodate people with whom they disagree religiously? That seems the only fair option in front of us.

    2. Another day, another gay wedding post from you. Sorry, gay “wedding”.

      1. And the poll is probably untrustworthy due to the fact that it’s from Caddell Associates. Pat Caddell is a former Democratic strategist under Carter who has gone REALLY far to the right on social issues and is very religious.

        He’s basically predicted the Democrats would lose every election since 2004. He’s a very odd guy and I wouldn’t trust his poll numbers.

        I’d love to think people support free association, but that has not been my experience around most atheists.

        1. He’s a very odd guy and I wouldn’t trust his poll numbers.

          Dammit, we had an anti-nut punch going here and now it turns out to likely be bunk.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Caddell

            Here’s his wikipedia page. He’s basically used his polls to attack Democrats on EVERY ISSUE in the last 10 years. He actually claimed the Democrats would have a better chance of winning in 2012 if Hillary replaced Obama as the candidate.

            He’s made a lot of very odd claims. I’d like to look closer at the methodology, but Caddell is not someone whose polls I would take at face value.

            1. I *did* say “maybe it’s the phrasing of the questions.”

        2. I’d love to think people support free association, but that has not been my experience around most atheists people.

        3. Pat Caddell is to Democrats what David Brooks is to Republicans.

      2. So gay rights has gone from OMG THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR TIME to “eh, you’re still talking about *that*?”

        1. I tell you what other social issue is getting way too much play – marijuana?

          I mean, who cares? I myself don’t know anyone who faces prison for a marijuana offense, and I don’t know anyone who uses MJ and other cannabis products to mitigate severe medical conditions, so why should I even give a shit?

          1. /sarc, by the way

            1. OK, fine. You can have the floor under two conditions:

              1. Give us an “OT”.
              2. Stop responding to yourself over and over.

              kthxbai

              1. kiss

                1. my

                  1. fat

                    1. white

                    2. ass

                    3. And unless you’re the editors of Reason, you don’t set conditions on who has the “floor.”

                    4. You’re a nasty person and not worth arguing with.

                      Again.

                      thx

                    5. I know you are, but what am I?

                    6. You answered that at 10:01 I think.

          2. I mean, who cares?

            Nobody seemed to care about free association until suddenly gays started getting the same protections as minorities. I am sympathetic to the argument but how do you reverse the last fifty years of civil rights legislation?

            1. Tar and feathers?

            2. If you’re in a hole, stop digging. Then you can consider how to fill up the hole again.

              1. “If you’re in a hole, stop digging”

                Feel free to follow your own advice.

                1. OK, let’s put it this way.

                  It’s 1964. The Civil Rights Act is up for debate. Private discrimination based on race will be banned!

                  Then Senator Claghorn, segregationist Southern Democrat, takes the podium.

                  “Mah friends,” says Senator Claghorn, “the logical implication of this bill is that bakers will be forced to bake cakes for homosexual weddings, photographers will be required to cater these weddings…”

                  [shouts of “boo!” and “sit down, you old fool!”]

                  The New York Times runs an indignant editorial saying that “showing that there is no depth to which they will not sink, the segregationists have suggested that the logic of this bill will force businesses to cater to homosexuals who wish to celebrate their relationships. This sort of absurd fearmongering illustrates how desperate these racists are. Of course the scenarios conjured up in the fevered imaginations of the segregationists will never happen!”

                  Fast forward to 2015 – these scenarios are indeed happening, but “how do you reverse the last fifty years of civil rights legislation?”

                  derp derp derp

                  1. What are the Knights of Malta doing about the menace of restaurants being forced to serve hamburgers on Fridays?

                    1. Shorter OMC: I am not a Christian and cannot in any empathize with those weirdos.

                    2. This exactly.

                      Tons of libertarians recoil at the thought of empathy for all, and for some idiotic reason choose to reserve their empathy for counter-cultural non-traditional values.

                      This makes no sense to me. It’s like they are libertarians on accident not because the ideology resonates with them. They are Team Blue emotionally, but use libertarian thought processes to justify it when occasion permits.

                      The reason the Enlightenment occurred and Western Europe experienced revolutions and rejection of monarchy was because the printing press was invented and the Bible was translated.

                      Western Civ is an expression of Christian values. At the heart is freewill, which means every individual gets to choose for himself. This paradigm has radical implications at fundamental levels such as contracting, which aggregates into freemarkets.

                      The core difference between Team Blue and Team Red is belief in Freewill. Do you take the blue pill or red? If no freewill, then humans are just chemical robots to be controlled and don’t have inalienable rights. Not that Team Red is actually a correct implementation of their values, but its theory is correct. Team Blue is just Marxism, another form of determinism.

                    3. (continued)

                      The battle that rages is between freewill and determinism. Full recognition of what determinism implicates politically hasn’t been achieved in the public consciousness. Most atheists are barely able to understand “Choice is an illusion”, let alone come to the conclusion that the state needs to control all these hairy apes. Marxism is the inevitable ideological destination of atheism. Humans are imperfect bastards. If no freewill then their screwups don’t deserve to be made, and society can pushdown their values onto the individual. In that scenario, humans don’t deserve the space to experiment and learn from their errors. There is no magic essence that grows, its just a biomechanical robot making mistakes that Top.Men have already understood and prohibited.

      3. Oh, and Rhywun? You could have called it “an upbeat story reflecting well on my atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters,” but I suppose such an interpretation would have required a bit of charity on your part.

    3. There is no conflict between gay rights and religious freedom. There is simply no right, gay or otherwise, to force someone to officiate or bake for your wedding.

      1. Yes, yes, the view from the exalted heights of libertarian idealism is certainly very invigorating.

        In the plane of reality, meanwhile, the Colorado appeals court just cited Oberdorfer in support of the I Want Cake cause.

        1. There something special about lectured about ‘on the ground reality’ by a cat-licker.

          “On the ground” rights are absolute. Feel free to help us change the accomodations laws. You and the rest of your cult can kiss my ass if you want to use those laws to argue against gay people getting marriage equality.

          1. “You and the rest of your cult can kiss my ass if you want to use those laws to argue against gay people getting marriage equality.”

            You realize that, to the activists, “marriage equality” means *and has always meant* forcing businesses to cater their commitment ceremonies?

            They’ve never left the matter in any doubt.

            Leave it to clueless libertine-ians to cloud the issue.

            1. Considering lots of states had sexual orientation laws when they didn’t have gay marriage recognition that seems to leave a little doubt there. But I imagine overcoming doubt is something you’re particularly good at.

      1. I see you, baby, shaking that asterisk.

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

  5. The BitLicense was established by New York State’s top financial regulator, Benjamin Lawsky, who announced he was stepping down immediately after the new permitting process took effect to become a private consultant.

    Let me guess: He is going to become a consultant for banks and maybe even pick up a Board Membership or two?

    1. It’s the Chicago New York Way.

  6. The list includes Kraken…..

    So New York has had to RELEASE THE KRAKEN!

    I haz a sad :*(

  7. Come on guys, no one has even reference this yet? I am disappoint.

    1. Best Movie Ever Made…? or ONLY Movie Ever Made?

      1. The name’s “Plisskin”.

        1. No “I heard you were dead” comment?

          Standards must be maintained, people!

  8. OT: has this come up yet?

    In the speech, Rubio said he would return Cuba to the list of state sponsors of terrorism and require the Castro regime to “carry out meaningful political and human rights reforms” or lose its new diplomatic and economic benefits with the US.

    I’m no Cuba expert, but really… how much terror can they afford to sponsor?

    1. It’s a pathetic joke to have Cuba on a terror watch list while we continue to be buddy/buddy with the fucking Saudis.

      The Saudis are responsible for terrorism all over the planet and are funding radical Imams in dozens of countries, and we’re keeping the Cubans on a terror list when they haven’t done anything on that front in years and years.

      Today, 95% of all terrorist attacks are Islamist attacks and most of the rest are Marxist attacks in places like India. Meanwhile, we actually provide financial support to the Saudis while lecturing the Castros about supporting terror? Really?

      You have to do something really stupid to make me defend the Castros against your accusations, but Rubio managed it. I can’t think of any active terrorist organizations of any importance being funded by the Cubans.

      1. ^This.

        There are legit reasons to have sanctions on certain countries, and terrorism sponsorship may be one of them, but the ‘state sponsor’ thing is just an arbitrary “shit list” which undermines US diplomacy and credibility.

      2. Canadian tourists?

      3. I think Cuba does still support the FARC and maybe Polisario Front. Why this should concern the USG is a mystery to me.

        1. “I think Cuba does still support the FARC and maybe Polisario Front. Why this should concern the USG is a mystery to me.”

          I’m sure they still give money to some shitty Marxist groups in South America like FARC, but honestly how many people do FARC kill annually? FARC is not what it was in the ’80s or ’90s. It doesn’t do a whole lot in modern times.

          Compare that to our ‘allies’ the Saudis, who are probably responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths every year due to their funding of violent Salifists.

          1. The FARC is still pretty active. Colombia’s idiotic government is trying to negotiate with them instead of destroy them and that has given them room to breathe. But your point still stands.

      4. The government of Cuba did sponsor terrorism, from Che in the ’60s until at least the ’80s, supporting various violent Marxist groups in Africa. Granted, that was a while ago, and I’m not sure how much they’ve done in recent decades.

        I believe the Saudi government does fund extreme madrasses around the world, but AFAIK the Saudi money supporting actual terror groups comes from individuals in Saudi Arabia. It’s officially illegal, and maybe it’s winked at, but it’s not official support in the way Cuba’s was. I’m no friend of the Saudis, but in an important way they’re less egregious offenders, and realpolitik requires dealing with them in a different way than we deal with Cuba.

        1. “The government of Cuba did sponsor terrorism, from Che in the ’60s until at least the ’80s, supporting various violent Marxist groups in Africa. ”

          And? Why is it relevant if they did this until ‘at least the ’80s?’ They shouldn’t remain on a terror list due to terrorist funding 30 years ago.

          “I believe the Saudi government does fund extreme madrasses around the world, but AFAIK the Saudi money supporting actual terror groups comes from individuals in Saudi Arabia.”

          Yes, but those ‘individuals’ are SAUDI PRINCES. They are top government officials in that they are part of the Saudi Royal family.

          The Saudis also conveniently look the other way at the various businessmen who fund terrorists. The actual Saudi government is in bed with terrorists in modern times far more than the Cubans are.

          1. I don’t disagree with that. Just trying to add some nuance, explaining more than advocating. If it were up to me, major foreign funders of terrorism would be wet work for the CIA, Saudi royal family or not. And I’d tell the Saudis privately that if an Islamic nuke ever goes off in the US, Mecca becomes a big, glassy, glow-in-the-dark hole in the ground.

          2. Is a prince, especially in a place like Saudi Arabia where iirc the monarch has lots of wives and lots of sons, necessarily a ‘government official’ in a monarchy?

            1. Bo brings in the stupid.

        2. You left out the part where Saudi Arabia funds madrassahs that indoctrinate tons of people, and supported the Taliban in the ’90s and continue to support Pakistan’s terrorist government.

    2. If we just hang in there ANOTHER 50-60 years, I’m sure our current Cuban policy will work.

      Fucking Republicans!

    1. I overheard two people at a table near us at a restaurant yesterday talking about the Hillary emails. The gist of the conversation:

      Woman #1: I can’t believe this is even a story. Why is this even a story?

      Woman #2: The Republicans and Faux News will try to make a big deal out of anything about Hillary because they just hate her so much. They’re afraid she might really fix a lot of what’s wrong with this country, you know? They try to complain about ridiculous things, like her having a home computer — who doesn’t have a home computer? — was against the law when she was Secretary of State. They hate her and are so damned afraid of her. What’s next? An expose that she used tampons? (both chuckle)

      Woman #1: Oh good, so you also think this is all going to go away, and we can get back to the real stuff for the election?

      Woman #2: Oh, some people will try to keep it going for as long as possible, hoping they can hurt her, but like everything else they claim there’s just nothing there. So yes, nothing to worry about.

      1. At first I thought that was depressing, but on reflection, it’s not: it means Hillary has a lot further to fall.

        OK, it is depressing that these women don’t seem to grasp the difference between “using a computer” and “a Secretary of State inadvisedly and perhaps illegally disregarding laws regarding handling of classified material”….

        1. I think you mean:
          “SoS destroying evidence”.

          1. That, too.

      2. “This message paid for by The Campaign to End Womens Sufferage.”

        1. OK, that killed the sad I had after reading C.A.’s post. 🙂

  9. “While we’re sure that the protection from New York law enforcement is valuable, it comes at a price that exceeds the market opportunity of servicing New York residents,”
    .
    Is this guy saying straight out that the New York Department of Financial Services is running a protection racket? I suppose you could parse that to mean he is getting ‘protection from’ in the sense of ‘this is the place where I get my protection’ and the ‘law enforcement’ he is referring to is the NYDFS itself – but I would think a regulatory agency is not normally referred to as ‘law enforcement’. It sure sounds like he saying a ‘fee’ paid to Financial Services protects you from all the other badge-wearing mobsters in New York.

    1. No, he’s trying to say that the “cost” of not doing business in NY is not having customers in NY. And everybody wants to such NY cock.

    2. The Political Class – in general – runs a protection racket. Create laws that require the bureaucracy to fill in the details, then said details will cost everybody lots of money, pay the politicians to get your group a little relief, etc. Protection racket. The bureaucracy are the leg breakers, the enforcers, while the Political Class are the dons that will hear your complaint/give your relief for an unprescribed favor in the future or money now.

  10. New York officials: feature, not bug.

  11. Have fun with economic obsolesence and not having money NY. Seriously, you are not stopping the crypto-economy. Wall Street will be changed, much in the way letter mail was changed by email, and your BitLicense will not stop it. The only meaningful thing you are doing is cutting NY out of the future.

    NYC: overrated dump, or most overrated dump?

    1. NYC: overrated dump, or most overrated dump?

      Neither. Yuppie Amusement Park.

  12. He looks like a Vorta. This is not a compliment.

  13. So apparently I missed the Unwed Mother of All Abortion threads yesterday. Anyone got the highlights or should I just save it for when I have trouble sleeping?

    1. Here

      I made like 3 posts in that 900 post thread and it went fucking crazy.

      1. I see that they brought out the parasite argument not even 20 posts in. Had to be a blast.

        1. My favorite part is that the first post is this:

          “”Batten down the hatches!!! It’s an ABORTION THREADDDDDDD!!!!!!!!

          *panicked screams*”

          He knew what was coming.

          He knew.

          1. 10 AM on a Friday? It never had a chance.

    2. I did not not bother opening it.

  14. #NotYourAsianSidekick is a civil rights movement for Asian American women

    http://www.theguardian.com/com…..n-feminism

    1. What’s wrong with being a fantasy sex toy?

    2. Asian-American women, by definition, aren’t mail order brides.

      So are modern feminist slogans all created by going to a frat party with a recorder, writing down all the stuff you hear drunk 20-somethings say and slapping a “we’re not that” in front?

  15. How is it even possible to honestly argue against the main purpose of government today being to operate as a parasitical mafia like entity, just sitting around waiting for someone to do something useful and generate a profit, and then shaking them down for protection money?

  16. Let me guess, the Winkleheimervlossenschueller boys will purchase and comply with the licensing scheme, which I bet they were instrumental in crafting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.