Donald Trump

GOP Debate: Donald Trump Renders Political Correctness Meaningless

"I don't want to be so politically correct," said Trump.

|

Trump
Todd Kranin

During the GOP debate last night, Sen. Marco Rubio made a comment about the fundamental goodness of most Muslims—some of whom serve in the U.S. military and risk their lives to protect the country. 

In response, Donald Trump defended his stridently anti-Muslim rhetoric: 

"Marco talks about consequences. Well, we've had a lot of consequences, including airplanes flying into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and could have been the White House. There have been a lot of problems. 

Now you can say what you want, and you can be politically correct if you want. I don't want to be so politically correct. I like to solve problems. We have a serious, serious problem of hate." 

Does insisting that not all Muslims are radical jihadists fall under the umbrella of political correctness? If it does, the term has lost all meaning. 

"I'm not interested in being politically correct," Marco Rubio countered, and rightly so. "I'm interested in being correct." 

But the idea that political correctness is ruining America and making it impossible to fight Islamic terrorism is a central belief of Trump's supporters—and some others on the right, as evidenced by this national security panel at CPAC. This is a considerable exaggeration. It's true that legal enshrinement of politically correct dogmas—mostly on college campuses—curtails the free expression rights of some Americans. But Trump uses the term so broadly that he's essentially saying common decency is too PC. 

The right, it should be noted, has its own version of political correctness. Later in the debate, Trump said this: "We should pay our respect to the police because they are doing a phenomenal job and they don't get enough respect."  But the notion that the police are beyond reproach is just as much of a politically correct dogma as anything the left believes. 

Related: How Political Correctness Caused College Students to Cheer for Trump 

NEXT: Reason Live Tweets the GOP Debate

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. “I’m not interested in being politically correct,” Marco Rubio countered, and rightly so. “I’m interested in being correct.”

    Dude, fist bump.

    1. The man who said “I had rather be right than President” was both wrong, and never President.

    2. After I been earnin $8768 this-past/five weeks and-a little over, $10k lass-month. it’s realy my favourite work I have ever had. I actually started 7-months ago and pretty much straight away was earning at least $87… p/h. I follow
      this website,
      =============== http://www.PathCash30.com

  2. This presidential race is so stupid.

    1. Hold my beer.

      1. Forget all this election bullshit. You wanna be president?

        Ok Candidates, line up. Each of you take a lit M80. The candidate who holds onto it until it explodes, wins.

        1. *tries to hold M-80 between pinkie and ring fingers, closes eyes, lies back and thinks of 1.6 million dollars and 4 years of solid vacation time*

      2. Trump beer?

    2. “I know you are,” Trump sneers, ” but what am I?”

  3. There’s being “politically correct” and then there’s being a decent human being. Not slaughtering people for having the wrong skin color or religion falls under the “being a decent human being” category.

    1. being a decent human being

      Unfortunately from what I can gather libertarians aren’t decent either because they want the economy to collapse, women, children, blacks and gays to starve to death in the streets and will allow corporations to poison our food and water.

      1. Libertarians are selfish bastards who care more about themselves than they do about me.

        1. Or your dammed roads!

        2. Or, as AliceBowie would have it, because libertarians aren’t OK with the government taking our money and giving it to whoever the government chooses to then we’re heartless bastards.

          Never for a minute realizing that a) he/she could always give all the money they have to the government – no need to wait for the tax man to tell you to, and b) you know . . . private charity.

          1. private charity

            So anti-social of you.

      2. If the corporations are poisoning our food and water doesn’t that make the starving in the streets a wash, morally?

        1. Well Libertarians hate roads and want to give corporations free reign which is not contradiction at all. Just like how libertarians are both ignorant rednecks and elite business leaders.

          1. Winston proves that not only blacks and Jews can be subjected to hatred-driven bigotry, based on bullshit by those eager to be manipulated.

            Next he’ll be saying that libertarians want to repeal the rich subsidizing 40% of the entire middle class share of income taxes … or force a 64% tax increase on the middle class, so they pay their own way … or repeal the quarter-trillion-dollar subsidy of Medicare from income taxes (a less direct middle-class gravy train).

            Why, we might even call out Obama as a psychotic liar for saying a $50,000 school teacher pays a higher income tax rate — 8% — than millionaires and billionaires — 28%. (gasp)
            Is that it? Does Winston fear his own gravy train is threatened?

            IRS data
            https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13in11si.xls

            1. Making a routine practice of unintentional self-parody makes it harder to recognize the real deal.

            2. Winston proves that not only blacks and Jews can be subjected to hatred-driven bigotry, based on bullshit by those eager to be manipulated.

              Sarcasm, motherfucker, do you speak it?

              1. Sarcasm, motherfucker, do you speak it?

                (laughing) I know how to perform it.

      3. While I think you’re joking, I think it’s interesting how the Government has actually poisoned food and water within recent memory yet this is still what most on the socialist left believe can’t happen.

  4. In Trump’s universe, there’s only hate-speech and PC speech. If you’re not uttering racial or religious slanders, you’re only doing it because it’s PC.

    By this sort of thinking, anyone who isn’t a member of Stormfront is a SJW.

    1. I guess I require a safe space now…

    2. So he is a SJW after all…

      1. I mean SJWs do think that “there’s only hate-speech and PC speech.”

        1. Or he’s on Stormfront. That’s kinda their view also. If you’re not railing against the niggers and kikes its because either you’re a race traitor or a coward.

          1. Personally I find it very disturbing that the only difference between modern prog attitudes toward race and Stormfront is in which racial group is terrible and deserves to be discriminated and ignored.

            1. I mean the argument is that racists have power and people without power can’t be racist. This ignores how anti-Semitism is often based on how the Jews supposedly control everything. Didn’t Heinrich Himmler defend the Holocaust as being pre-emptive defense? Or the Rwandan genocide was in part due to Hutu resentment of Tutsi power under the Colonial regime. Or that even anti-black racism in America was heavily predicated on the notion that the Black Man is out to kill the White Man and Rape His Women.

              1. I’ve always wondered if they’ve thought that through.

                Because according to their ‘racism is power’ theory, the guy who posts virulent anti-black screeds on Stormfront is a racist – while in the United States – but would be *an oppressed minority who could not possibly be racist if he did the exact . . . same . . . thing from a desk in Nigeria. Because all of a sudden he wouldn’t be part of the dominant culture but a minority.

                1. They would probably say that thanks to past British Imperialism White Nigerians are still part of the dominant culture…

                  1. And these guys also ignore the past history of discrimination against Indian and Chinese immigrants for supposedly being exploitive merchants in Africa and Asia…

                2. They DON’T actually think that.
                  If you view it all from within the context of their Gramscian-Marxist political framework, you don’t have to actually espouse consistent principles. Language is a tool for manipulating the political reality to benefit the downtrodden. You don’t HAVE to have consistent rules for both sides. You have to fight on the side of the oppressed, and making up mendacious bullshit is a perfectly legitimate, even encouraged means of doing so.

                  1. Hence, there is a double standard for blacks and white, because THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE. That’s THE WHOLE POINT. It’s designed to create a double standard to as to tip the scales in favor of their “side”.

    3. What you call hate speech is just Trump’s normal conversational tone. What the fuck you looking at? You want a piece of this? I’ll fucking break you in half, you little maggot. Get outta here with that shit. And that’s just how he reacts when somebody says good morning to him.

      1. KILLER FACT: Trump actually requires his staff to say ‘good morning’ to him just to guarantee an opportunity to berate them for doing so.

  5. Perhaps the reaction of Trump would get less traction if we weren’t always continuously, unceasingly warned about Islamophobia!! every time terrorists attack us.

  6. Not slaughtering people for having the wrong skin color or religion falls under the “being a decent human being” category.,

    Both skin color (a proxy for race) and religion are important in understanding the course of human events. AFIK, humans always trivialize one way or another. You think you’re about it all, like John Lennon with Yoko in a Park Avenue flat, but you aren’t. No, that’s wrong, you’re just like them.

  7. When Muhammad began his movement, he made choices he later regretted in his old age. We shouldn’t make those same choices, ourselves. The candidates are all cretins, and Trump the epitome.

    1. References desperately needed there.

    2. From what little I’ve managed to glean about the Koran, without having actually read it, the latter part is the ‘hate’ portion while the early sections are more ‘forgiving’ in tone; the comparison I’ve heard is it’s a reverse Bible.

      Obviously, my knowledge is basically useless but this is something I’ve heard over and over again from Pro-Muslim groups who are trying to compare the two.

  8. So the libertarian moment. One of my criticisms of Gillespie was that I thought that “anti-government” sentiment would more likely lead to support for some strongman to Get Things Done rather than to support libertarianism. And well we have Trump whose does fit the bill. Oh and many of his opponents also want some strongman to save us from Trump…

  9. I feel like this is an over the top backlash. Right wing nationalism only pops up when the left hours too far. I think in history it’s always been in reaction to the left. It’s not right, but a bunch of blue collar families that struggle see him as sticking up for them while a large part of society shouts white privilege.

    1. *goes to too far. Please edit button.

    2. Not sure about always but it is definitely the case in Italy and Germany.

      1. Yeah, I said that out of hand. I can’t either though. Only on in the cases where the left had such overwhelming violent force did they beat it down. Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba.

      2. Or the BNP in the UK (and what the UKIP seems to be evolving towards).

      3. I’m not sure that’s entirely true. I think the surge of left-wing and right-wing extremism in that time were both largely a result of the perceived failure of liberal democracy and capitalism, and particularly in Germany, the loss of WW1.

  10. “But the notion that the police are beyond reproach is just as much of a politically correct dogma as anything the left believes. ”

    people are people

  11. Doesn’t seem like anyone on the stage said “all Muslims hate the US.”

    Unsure what the point of this article is.

  12. “…Does insisting that not all Muslims are radical jihadists fall under the umbrella of political correctness? If it does, the term has lost all meaning. …”

    OK, this refers to a statement by TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP,
    and it will come as a complete surprise to those who read Reason.com since they have never covered anything about
    TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP,
    Hint, Robbie, next time your left index finger gets anywhere near the “T” on you keyboard, chew it off and spit it out.
    We will all thank you.

    1. Did someone mention Trump?

      1. Sixes are Trumps.

        *carefully arranges dominoes*

  13. ” Trump uses the term so broadly that he’s essentially saying common decency is too PC. “

    I don’t think its a “decency” issue at all, but more a “common sense” one.

    I don’t think trump’s comments are stupid because they’re “offensive”, they’re stupid because they’re inaccurate and simply factually misleading.

    Sure there are some moozies who want to blow up Great Satan America. Nothing Trump proposes provides any whiz-bang solutions to that. Just moaning in a “politically incorrect” way about it aint going to help anyone. Its just being a dick ‘because you can’.

    By contrast, i think Obama & Co’s pandering pretense that “its EXTREMISM! nothing to do with Islam, per se” is equally stupid horseshit.

    in the end all of this is stupid and as nothing to do with PC, or Islam, or foreign policy or anything other than political signaling.

    Whatever Rubio says, Trump will say, “I’m not a pussy like him” and say something 3X more harsh – even if its the same fucking basic point. All he’s saying to everyone is, “Rubio’s ‘political’, I’m not. You want less political shit, so here you go”

    1. that said =

      i didn’t hear a word of the debates, so i avoided a torrent of stupid that would probably make me change my mind.

      1. I watched it, and found myself nodding along with all of your post. So nicely done, you summarized the issue very well for not having seen it in context.

    2. Resolving domestic terror likely has little to do with foreign policy and much to do with immigration policy. In principle, identifying the groups most likely to commit terror and limiting their exposure to the country should resolve the issue as well as it can be resolved — certainly better than invading and occupying countries in the Islamic world will.

  14. “we’ve had a lot of consequences, including airplanes flying into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and could have been the White House. ”

    Trump has evidently never heard of Oklahoma City. Or Waco. Or Ruby Ridge. Or the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Or Jonestown.

    Gosh, it’s almost like Trump is more ignorant than not.

    1. Trump has evidently never heard of Oklahoma City. Or Waco. Or Ruby Ridge. Or the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Or Jonestown.

      What the fuck are you babbling about?

      1. I’m just talkin bout Trump! Damn right. Who is the man that would make the biggest deals to engreaten his brother man?

      2. How the real terrorists are the right-wingers.

        1. Except he listed only one right wing terrorist. Waco was a government massacre ala Wounded Knee or Warsaw. Ruby Ridge was at best a case of police brutality and more accurately described as entrapment and murder by the feds. I didn’t follow the whole Malheur National Wildlife Refuge thing closely, but from what I can tell it was all civil disobedience until the feds started shooting people. Jonestown was a bunch of left wing nutjobs and not a terrorist attack at all but a mass murder/suicide.

          1. I’ve never seen any write up of Ruby Ridge where the right wing extremists were in the wrong. Some people thought the Apocalypse was about to happen, and they stockpiled weapons and tried to live off the grid. I don’t agree with their beliefs, but they weren’t hurting anybody or breaking any laws, beyond maybe homeschooling their kids.

            And the feds came in guns ablazing anyway. I have yet to hear a decent lefty explanation for Ruby Ridge beyond they deserved it for being crazy,

            1. Randy weaver was a white supremacist therefore he deserves to be shot, and have his wife and baby son killed in front of him.

              1. No, they killed his dog first, shooting from ambush, then his teenage son. Then they laid siege to his home, and taunted him about his son’s death with loudspeakers. When he went out to the barn to look at his teenage son’s bullet riddled corpse, they shot him in the back from 200 yards away. As he ran back to cover, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi fired a single shot into his wife’s head. She was holding their infant daughter in her arms. The highly trained sniper would later claim that he had accidentally put a bullet right in the forehead of unarmed woman holding a baby. This explanation was accepted uncritically by the mainstream media and the political complex. Horiuchi has not spent a single day in prison for what to me is plain and simply cold blooded murder.

                I know people love to snicker at Godwin arguments, but calling Ruby Ridge a rightwing terrorist attack is like calling Kristallnacht an example of Jews being riotous hooligans.

          2. I think maybe he was trying to say there are extremists everywhere, but is having trouble coming up with examples.

            1. Some day, when our grandchildrens’ children are living in dhimmitude, and someone dares mention Islamic terrorism, some good little dhimmi will invoke the mythic ‘Oklahoma City.’ A hush will fall over the room, for although no one will know what the ‘Oklahoma City’ was, they will have grown up understanding its mystic ability to, once invoked, prove that only Christians are terrorists and the long history of Islamic violence isn’t representative of the Religion of Peace. They know not how the incantation of ‘Oklahoma City’ works, or how it gained such mystical powers, yet they know their dhimmi ancestors would often invoke it, frequently while sticking their fingers in their ears and shutting their eyes.

    2. . . . and could have been the White House. “

      Oh, why couldn’t we have been that lucky.

      Though, thinking about it – I have to wonder how much control those guys actually had over the planes. I mean, you’re already over DC, the WH isn’t that far away and if its not distinctive enough, the Capitol building is and the Pentagon? Those guys are just doing what they’re told – if you have a beef with someone, take it up with the people who make the policy you hate.

      1. Tell us more about the holographic planes,,,

        1. The plane wings flap and the laser coming out of the tail is collecting everyone’s personal data through retinal scans.

      2. “Oh, why couldn’t we have been that lucky.”

        Bush wasn’t in the White House at the time. The First Lady was. I’m not sure the scenario where everything is the same + sympathy towards the president for his dead wife killed in the terrorist attack would be “lucky”…

    3. I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about since you’re including Waco and Ruby Ridge in that list. These things don’t prove what you think they prove.

  15. But the notion that the police are beyond reproach is just as much of a politically correct dogma as anything the left believes.

    The Left has the Campus Rape Epidemic and Jackie Coakley. The Right has the War On Cops and “GI Joe” Gliniewicz.

  16. So today Shikha complained about Obama “feting” Modi. But when Obama visits Cuba surely he will be feting Castro?

    1. With Shikha’s irrational hate of all things Modi, I’m beginning to think there is some history there. Like they dated in university or something.

      1. Did she date Bobby Jindal too? I mean bitching about his apostasy and that her reaction to his running for President was far more hysterical than even Trump’s entrance?

      2. Shikha’s just mad because there are still some Indians in India. Well, about a billion of them. They could all be here, but Rethuglicans.

      3. With Shikha’s irrational…

        That’s redundant, professor.

  17. Oh well, Gary Johnson was nice reading about while it lasted. It’s back to Trump TV!

    In other big news:

    General Butt Naked lives!

    1. And he’s a libertarian! Libertarian momen… oh, liberian… well, that’s close, right? Liberian moment!

        1. Liberian, not a Lieberman

          Ugh, that guy is a slimeball. I’d rather hang out with the Liberian warlord.

          1. Well, that kind of goes without saying for *any* option.

    2. Have they caught Kony, or should I hold off my vacation plans to San Diego?

  18. So who will write the Libertarian Case for Hillary? Or as I like to call it the “Why Hillary Clinton, not Trump, is the TOP MAN who will Get Things Done”

    1. I see that shit here and I’ll burn every fucking issue of my Reason magazine, and then piss on the ashes.

      1. Considering that they wrote published “Libertarian Case for…” the two main parties for at the least the last two elections and for at least the last mid term election I’ll be looking forward for the video….

      2. H, every presidential election cycle, the editor finds someone who will write a ‘damning with faint praise’ article on whatever candidate is offered by the D’s and then it’ll be ‘balanced’ by an article suggesting libertarians could hold their nose and vote for the R candidate. It’s a sop to those who claim Reason is a GOP rag.
        If you take it personally, you’re going to end up like Winston, plotting revenge from a bunker someplace.

        1. I’ll be in my bunk(er).

          1. I’ll save my bile for Jack, commie-kid, Alice, Tony, turd and the the others who are willing to impose their choices by government guns.

      3. I see that shit here and I’ll burn every fucking issue of my Reason magazine, and then piss on the ashes.

        Oh, it’s coming like a freight train, fella. It’s a forgone conclusion.

        Hillary is for open borders. Trump is against them. Therefore, Hillary.

        But in the end, they’ll all just punk out and say they’ll be voting for Johnson.

        1. And Trump is your guy?

  19. Ha!

    I have MeTV on right now and they just ran a promo where Johnny Carson says in his monologue: “You can’t open a newspaper without seeing ‘Trump'” followed by the superimposed phrase ‘some things never change’.

    1. Well Back to the Future Part II featured a take on 2015 and an alternate 1985 where a Trump-like Biff controls the US….

  20. So two politicians reciting bumper stickers at each other is worth writing a news article about?

    Nothing else going on?

  21. OT.
    For those who contend that highly progressive earnings taxes are not pernicious, I suggest slogging thorough the last four chapters of “No More Champaign, Chruchill and his Money”, Lough ( http://www.amazon.com/No-More-…..+his+money )
    Post WWII, the Brit tax rate on high earners was 97.5%. After Churchill left office, he spent far more time in efforts to avoid the taxation (which I think he instituted; the book isn’t clear) than he did writing. Given his turgid style, you could claim it was better spent, but he did have unique access to certain information that I think needed to be spread.
    He also spent who knows how much employing ‘advisers’ to game the system and negotiate with the “Inland Revenue Service” agents; an obvious example of the frictional costs of such tax rates.
    As a result, as far as I can tell from the book, he never paid more than 22%, but at a tremendous frictional cost. The tax attorneys’ retirement bill!

  22. Does insisting that not all Muslims are radical jihadists fall under the umbrella of political correctness?

    Has Trump, or anyone, said that all Muslims are radical jihadists? Do you know what the word “generalization” means?

    “I don’t want to be so politically correct,” said Trump.

    Butt hurt because he trashes political correctness?

    Below is Pew Research on political views of Muslims in various Muslim majority countries. Check for support for “Making Sharia the Law of the Land”. I think the numbers for support of Stoning of Adulterers and Death for Apostates are particularly interesting.

    http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0…..ut-sharia/

    Perhaps you want to live in a world where adulterers are stoned to death. I don’t, and I consider it a problem that tens of millions of people do.

    1. “Perhaps you want to live in a world where adulterers are stoned to death. I don’t, and I consider it a problem that tens of millions of people do.”

      A problem for whom?

      1. For the people stoned. For the people living under such rule. And the people, like me, who are fond of civilization, and don’t want that shit spreading.

        1. buybuydandavis|3.11.16 @ 12:50AM|#
          “For the people stoned. For the people living under such rule.”
          Uh, they don’t seem to mind, by the revealed preferences. So I’m gonna call bullshit.

          “And the people, like me, who are fond of civilization, and don’t want that shit spreading.”
          Goody for you. Please buy your own plane fare to go over there and tell them you are really, really concerned.

        2. If those people don’t want to live that way then those people need to get off their arses, pick up a rifle, and fix the problem.

          We did so after far, far less provocation.

          Oh, and I don’t live in the part of the world where adulterer’s are stoned to death by a fucking breadth because there’s a significant percentage of the adherent’s of the ‘religion of peace’ (aka Christianity) that would be just fine with jailing you for life (and killing you if you resist) over such a thing.

          It wasn’t that long ago that things like adultery, cohabitation, inter-racial marriage, etc would have gotten you a hefty jail sentence if your neighbors didn’t get to you first.

          Islam is not a uniquely violent religion – its just in a particular phase that *all* the ‘judeo-christian’ religions have gone through (sometimes, as with Islam and Christianity more than once). Even Judaism has had its violent past with atrocities not only explicitly condoned by God but *ordered* by Him.

          The Irish threw bombs at each other for decades over who went to what church.

          Hell, fucking Buddhists will kill you in certain parts of the world today.

          1. Islam is not a uniquely violent religion – its just in a particular phase that *all* the ‘judeo-christian’ religions have gone through (sometimes, as with Islam and Christianity more than once).

            True. But that’s missing the point really. Think of it this way: assume you want to offer providing shelter for a refugee in your home. Your family is typically modern: you aren’t married but have a kid and your gay cousin occasionally visits with his boyfriend. You don’t know a lot about the refugee, just their name, age, country of origin, and religion. Would you prefer to give shelter to an atheist, Buddhist, or Muslim? I think it’s pretty clear that the atheist or Buddhist is statistically a better bet, because there is a good chance that someone who labels themselves a Muslim would be offended by how you live. That’s because religions are not neutral choices like whether you prefer chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but actually express something about how you relate to the people around you.

            I don’t think bans on Muslim immigration are a good idea, for practical reasons. But if they were effective, they would certainly be legitimate, and no different from other bans we have enacted in the past.

        3. Lemme put it another way:
          I was in London last year, in a very nice hotel. When we went to the bar, the bar was wareing out the coffee-making machines to provide drinks to a bunch of people, all of which women were wearing rags on their heads.
          They could have all taken them off and stamped on them as I would have encouraged them to do; ignorant religionists should always be encouraged to dump silly bleefs.
          None did; they chose to wear that badge of stupidity, and it is not my job to correct them, nor to provide funds to engage in military action in the hopes of ‘saving’ them.

          1. ignorant religionists should always be encouraged to dump silly bleefs.

            Of course, noting that there is nothing in Islam proper that requires head covering or face veiling, which probably evolved from the desire of upper-class women to protect their skin from darkening under the blazing Arabian sun, as fair complexions have and continue to be a standard of beauty around the world.

            1. “Of course, noting that there is nothing in Islam proper that requires head covering or face veiling, which probably evolved from the desire of upper-class women to protect their skin from darkening under the blazing Arabian sun, as fair complexions have and continue to be a standard of beauty around the world.”

              HM, it may well have evolved from those sorts of utilitarian concerns, but by now it certainly seems to be ‘silly bleefs’.
              Not a whole lot of sun load in the lobby of a London hotel in October. Similarly, not a whole lot of ‘dirt’ concern regarding pork, regardless of concerns long past.

            2. Its less ‘fair complexions’ as ‘not the same complexion as the peasants’. Why, for example, well tanned has been popular in the US for a long time – its a sign of lot’s of leisure time and money to spend it in agreeable climates.

              While, at the same time, the female field workers around where I live cover their heads and arms all day long.

              1. I’m sure Heroic Mulatto considers tanning (voluntary or involuntary) a form of cultural appropriation and blackface, while he also considers avoiding tanning an imposition of racist beauty stereotypes. You can’t win with people like him.

  23. So where are the articles on how Obama visiting Cuba will oust Castro? I mean FDR recognized Stalin, traded with him and visited the USSR and that liberalized Stalin didn’t it? And it’s not like the Cold War happened…

    1. Libertarians actually support free trade with Cuba. There’s no good reason to keep the embargo beyond some Cuban expats in Florida don’t like the idea of free trade with Cuba. But Florida is a swing state, so we need to keep Cuba embargoed, even if it doesn’t make a lick of sense,

  24. Life is so instantaneous it can sort of fuck reality up.

    1. …also swirly pasta in melted Venice is awesome.

      1. ,,, and giant bears in human flesh are pretty fuckin cool. pretty fucking cool these giant human bears. I love that man.

        1. good night reason… you fucking parallelAgram of stupendously swell waves of paradise dudes and .3 supergirls.

        2. my bro in law is a humongous polar bear of a grizzly man and I think the creature is a walking fucking shaggy awesome bear of a man. and i love that bear, man

          1. if reason was a bear den it would be a grizzly hive of monster love which it is, kind sir.

            1. agile put some things in a pan and created some muck about monster food and shit was delved into and life was existed patently so sweetly, my fucking fine swine. Fucking Sammy adams made some nitro beer and the pour was scientific sort of but didn’t cut the drugs very tightly, Sammy whammy.

  25. reason is fountain
    of universes and
    time effervescence
    reason is the long travail
    of centuries winding their
    wails into the thuds of
    gated realities
    reason manifests the known
    of the now while the merging
    times squabble on the rocket decks
    of tomorrow, man

    1. And then Donald Trump came along and took a shit all over it.

  26. odd stars alight the letters
    in the hollow shadows
    finding the dreams of past
    occurrence the person searches
    stoops and halts at the roots of
    the tallest granite ledge
    turning into the grains of massive
    nows the beasts splurge on the rising
    upswollen renegades who ride the
    winged screams from fallen minds and
    melted horizons

  27. It’s almost as if claiming that every Republican that ever for ran public office was a sexist racist might have inured some people to such false claims. So when an actual sexist racist shows up everybody just ignores those claims.

    Maybe we could use this as a learning experience, and pass this experience on to future generations. I’m thinking we could tell them of the tale of the Xir who cried Turtle.

    1. “It’s almost as if claiming that every Republican that ever for ran public office was a sexist racist might have inured some people to such false claims. So when an actual sexist racist shows up everybody just ignores those claims.”

      Reminds me of the inflation of the term “rape”. At a stage not long ago, feminists mocked the notion of “real rape”. Wait a while, and they’ll want to distinguish based on severity themselves. But given their own posturing, they’ll probably have to refer to “ultra rape.” There seems to be a law of contradiction.

      1. … regression to the truth.

  28. “I’m not interested in being politically correct,” Marco Rubio countered, and rightly so. “I’m interested in being correct.”

    Now I’m sorry I skipped it!

    The right, it should be noted, has its own version of political correctness

    As does the Paulista Cult, It’s an integral part of the Tribal Mentality. Imposed conformity. Groupthink. Puppetry,

  29. I mean, I’m not for intervention usually, but at this point, we do have to kind of consider the option of wiping out Muslim men from the Middle East now that we’ve spent 30 years kicking that bees nest for no reason. I mean we’ve spent all our money making basically a whole continent want to murder us. I wish we would have just left them alone, but at this point I really have no problem with murdering most Muslim males and freeing their female sex slaves. Is this an inappropriate position for a libertarian? At what point is war acceptable? At this point with so many f ups in our foreign policy, I feel like all out war on Islam might be a necessary option.

    1. Oh, murdering most males of basically a whole continent is an undertaking so sane, it knows no limitation to any political philosophy.

      1. Oh, murdering most males of basically a whole continent is an undertaking so sane, it knows no limitation to any political philosophy.

        Believing that shows no limitation to any moral depravity.

    2. People need to recognize that “The Final Solution” has been tried — they fing went for it (to most of humanity’s ever lasting shame) and it didn’t work. Mass graves, concentration camps, gas chambers, on and on and they only made it through a couple million Jews.

      There are 1.6 billion Muslims. While I’m fine with combating those who have declared war on us; killing enough Muslims to make them give up the struggle isn’t even an option on the table. It’s so far out of the realm of possibility that even toying with such notions is counter-productive to the very dangerous problems facing all people in this conflict.

      1. It would help if we stopped our aggression against Muslims. Our leaders are fucking stupid enough to pledge our military force to keeping Israel the only nuclear power in the area …. thus becoming unpaid recruiters for ISIS. If Arab and/or Muslim nations are fobidden to have nukes, why would Israel need them … except for more aggression? duh

        Same thinking led to 911 and Pearl Harbor, sticking our nose into matters that don’t concern us.

  30. It doesn’t dominate politics. But within the frame of GOP politics, yeah, it’s something like “politically correct”.

  31. Alert King Obama’s special Elite Hate Speech Unit!!!

  32. Let’s try the same kind of statement with some other groups that have historically been discriminated against for integration:

    “Does insisting that not all communists are genocidal maniacs fall under the umbrella of political correctness? If it does, the term has lost all meaning.”

    “Does insisting that not all former Nazi party members are genocidal maniacs fall under the umbrella of political correctness? If it does, the term has lost all meaning.”

    “Does insisting that not all febrile visitors from countries with an Ebola infection are carriers of a deadly disease fall under the umbrella of political correctness? If it does, the term has lost all meaning.”

    The fact is that immigration into the US is not a right. In immigration, government can discriminate based on arbitrary criteria that would be utterly illegal if used with citizens. And excluding entire groups of people because we think a minority of members have a propensity for violence or intolerance can be reasonable. Immigration or visiting the US is not a right, the US has a surplus of applicants, and we can apply arbitrary criteria to whittle down the applicant pool.

    Having said that, I think excluding Muslims from the US is unnecessary and ineffective as public policy. But that is an entirely separate debate.

    1. There are apparently people here at Reason that believe that the right of association in the Bill of Rights is somehow universally applicable.

      The idea being, I suppose, that everyone is actually a U.S. Citizen or at least entitled to the same rights as a Citizen. I mean, as an idea those rights should be universal but like so many of these beliefs there would need to be a great many fundamental changes to the United States before these types of things could be implemented.

      Even if those that believe this got their way, and the U.S. considers everyone a Citizen, you would need to conquer the Earth and *make* other Countries agree that they’re really the United States and not, say, Australia or North Korea. So essentially, the only way this could happen in a Libertarian way is if the entire planet suddenly said ‘You know what guys, you’re totally right!’. I see that happening tomorrow!

      1. Theory of sovereignty. One goes that each state is sovereign only if and because it accepts what the rest of the world is doing. Among other things, that collides with the idea of equal laws, since you end up with “citizen” who have quite different abstract and concrete rights. It’s a kind of state-level stoicism. Not very convincing. Interesting to note, that it goes back to the problem of legitimacy, but from the top: if there is no “consent” of one highest power, then there are no states. (Compare “autonomous state” and autonomous individual. Linked to question of whether there are “states’ rights” [federalism].)

        1. if there is no “consent” of one highest power, then there are no states

          Only true for free states, where the “highest power” is the “consent” of the governed.

      2. I mean, as an idea those rights should be universal but like so many of these beliefs there would need to be a great many fundamental changes to the United States before these types of things could be implemented.

        Are you American? “Endowed by a Creator” has been the rule for over 200 years.

    2. The fact is that immigration into the US is not a right

      Yeah, but you atheists have no say.
      Likewise the faux Christians who define rights as “God-given” but only when it’s convenient to their own agenda.

      1. Us atheists have the same say as everybody else.

        1. Rational Exuberance
          Us atheists have the same say as everybody else.

          Not as atheists, says this atheist. Why I also compared with phony Christians. But thanks for clarifying.

  33. So much for “reason”. This post just shifts the discussion away from Muslims to cops without discussing the matter.

    People can’t make the obvious connection that the increase in rape and sexual assault in Europe is coming from Muslim immigrants without being called racist. Is that PC bull$hit? Yes, yes it is.

    You don’t do justice to the common error of noting an exception. People all the time – all the time – say [there is an exception to the general rule, therefore the general rule is invalid]. And they are wrong. So when the PC crowd says it – and they say it a lot – then yes, it is part of PC.

    PC is about getting people to shut up so important but uncomfortable truths won’t be discussed.

    Uncomfortable truths like, Islam is incompatible with western culture.

    1. Uncomfortable truths like, Islam is incompatible with western culture.

      Islam provides the moral foundation for libertarianism. The entire concept of retaliatory or defensive force came from Muhammad. Christ STRONGLY opposed self defense, even preached for literal submission.

      No self-defense here:

      38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

      When you hear the bullshit about kill all the infidels — which is ONLY in the Old Testament — that passage in the Quran is only if the infidels are attacking the temple. And once turned away, the infidels may nor be pursued because it’s no longer self defense. Don’t forget, the Quran is the Third Testament in Islam, with Muhammad n the same thread as Moses and Jesus. Jesus replaced much of Mosaic law for Christians, , just as Muhammad replaced much of Christ for Muslims (both Jesus and Muhammad seen as prophets in the same string, Abrahamic)

      .

      1. Islam provides the moral foundation for libertarianism

        Bullshit.

        1. Islam provides the moral foundation for libertarianism

          Bullshit.

          Which facts have befuddled you into such a carefully reasoned “response?”

  34. Here you can find one of the very popular movies streaming app for your iPhone, iPad devices. Using Mobdro application you can enjou TV shows, movies and more.
    http://mobdroiphoneipadalternatives.com/
    http://mobdroiphoneipadalterna…..-download/

  35. Downloadmobdroapk blog can make to download Mobdro APK file free and watch movies, TV shows, videos for free.
    http://downloadmobdroapk.com/
    http://downloadmobdroapk.com/m…..-mac-free/

  36. Enjoy world wide movies, videos, TV shows and news on Mobdro TV applicaiton.
    http://mobdropcdownload.com/
    http://mobdropcdownload.com/mo…..ndows-mac/

  37. Watch latest movies, TV shows, News and more on Mobdro application. You can be daily update with latest movies, and News.
    http://mobdroforpcwindows.com
    http://mobdroforpcwindows.com/…..ro-for-pc/

  38. Trump isn’t the only one who uses PC as an excuse to be a crude asshole. Cruz and Carson both use it heavily, Carson the worst of the three. Coincidentally or not, all three are also major liars.

    Carson just endorsed Trump, as an obvious suckup angling to be Trump’s VP nominee. A Trump/Carson ticket is the only GOP disaster greater then Trump alone.

  39. I’m pretty sure this is a landslide victory for Shikha in the ‘tard-tweeting contest. She has little competition at her level.

    shikha sood dalmia @shikhadalmia

    I think his sniffles are the result of a bad nose job! Maybe his health care plan will fix it!

    Few entries in the wit column, but some good work from Slade, a random one from Ed, who seems to excel at things like “alt text” and tweet-wit, but not ‘whole sentences’.

  40. Slade continues to offer gems

    Re = “Undecided“….

    (Stephanie) Slade
    ?
    @sladesr

    Or possibly between voting for one of these guys and killing themselves. (I sympathize with this cohort.)

  41. Some people seem unhappy that trump doesn’t rise to their imagination of him

    Nick Gillespie Retweeted
    Matt Oswalt
    ?
    @MattOswaltVA

    very proud of Trump for answering that Muslim womans question without calling her a fat cunt #debate

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.