Belgium Releases Bombing Suspect, Georgia's Religious Freedom Law Vetoed, Clinton Campaign Tone-Polices Sanders: P.M. Links

|

  • Clinton/Sanders
    ABC/Disney

    Authorities in Belgium have released a suspect they had charged in connection with the Brussels bombing due to lack of evidence.

  • A gunman was taken into custody after opening fire in the Capitol Visitor Center in D.C.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups have filed suit to try to block North Carolina's law overturning Charlotte's LGBT discrimination protections and transgender bathroom rules.
  • Meanwhile, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal will veto the state's religious freedom law, which mostly mimicked federal law and also stated that religious-based organizations could not be forced to perform or host events (like same-sex marriages) that violated their religious positions.
  • An aide to Hillary Clinton suggested that the possibility of another debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders depends on the senator's "tone" in his campaign.
  • Sean "Diddy" Combs is opening a charter school in Harlem.
  • A child died in the United Kingdom after a bounce house blew away. Expect calls for safety regulations, obviously. Two people have been arrested for "suspicion of manslaughter by gross negligence."
  • The Supreme Court has declined to hear to hear the appeal of the corruption conviction of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich.

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

NEXT: Last handgun ban in an American jurisdiction struck down

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. The Supreme Court has declined to hear to hear the appeal of the corruption conviction of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich.

    Declined it twice?

    1. Hello.

      “Authorities in Belgium have released a suspect they had charged in connection with the Brussels bombing due to lack of evidence.”

      Lemme guess. Male white privileged Christian?

    2. Rod’s doing his time and Jarrett’s time?

    3. Look, if he didn’t want to go to prison for corruption, he wouldn’t have become an Illinois politician.

      I’m still hung over from yesterday. I love college basketball.

      1. No, yesterday was bottomless mimosa brunch day.

      2. That’s true. AFAIK Blago was railroaded under a bogus federal mail & wire “fraud” provision called “failure to give honest services”. What they got him on was an ordinary quid pro quo in politics, without which Trump’s claim to be a negotiator would be no selling point in his candidacy. There was another allegation that would’ve been actual corruption, but that Blago wasn’t convicted on.

        A libertarian & pagan friend, Dan Halloran, is now in prison on a similar “failure to give honest services” conviction. It takes an action which is arguably a failure to fairly dole out the favor of the grass roots of his political party, & turns it into a crime. He arranged a meeting with someone to bribe officials of the Republican Party, not a gov’t body, to allow that someone onto the ballot in their primary election for mayor of NYC. It didn’t stop anyone else from running.

        “Honest services fraud” is something that most of us could be “guilty” of many times, because there’s no clear line, and it’s never clear what level of “service” we owe to others we conduct affairs with.

        1. Blago did shake down Children’s Hospital for campaign contributions, or he would shut off any grants, state funding etc.

  2. A gunman was taken into custody after opening fire in the Capitol Visitor Center in D.C.

    I can’t believe that’s not a gun free zone yet.

    1. “If America and every other nation on earth just completely bans guns, then they will no longer exist anywhere!”

      1. Goddamit, if you’re not going to include some sort of schoolyard insult with your posts, I’m not going to read them.

    2. Well, the Capitol Police are armed.

      1. He must have taken one of their guns then. It’s the only possibility.

    3. I’m betting the suspect was both tall and slim.

      It’s always the tall, slim ones. You can’t trust them.

      1. *glances around nervously*

  3. Authorities in Belgium have released a suspect they had charged in connection with the Brussels bombing due to lack of evidence.

    This PC attitude is going to destroy Europe.

    1. Yeah, don’t they have a Guantanamo?

      1. Maybe they have black sites in the US.

        1. You leave Atlanta alone!

          1. Hey, Detroit takes offense to your Atlanta-centric comment.

    2. Pikers. Never see “lack of evidence” stop the US from bringing terrorists to justice.

      1. At the very least seize some assets.

    3. They completely forgot about the totality of circs

  4. An aide to Hillary Clinton suggested that the possibility of another debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders depends on the senator’s “tone” in his campaign.

    A little bird told him to straighten up and fly right.

    1. Actually it’s sposed ta be a monkey telling that to a buzzard. (insert sexist/racist comment here)

      1. A monkey didn’t jump up on his podium. USE YOUR HEAD.

          1. A lectern jumped on his podium? How’s that supposed to work?

            1. That’s kinda the way it does work.

    2. Do you know who else was good with animals?

      1. Richard Gere?

      2. Catherine the Great?

        1. That’s a common misconception.
          She actually asked her servants to bring her some whores, but they misheard her.
          Know why they misheard her?

          1. She was hoarse…

            *preemptively narrows gaze*

      3. Emeril?

        1. I like this one the best.

      4. Caligula?

      5. Pavlov?

      6. C’mon guys…

        It’s obviousy Dr. Doolittle.

    3. I think it was a vulture, telling the greedy Sanders that successful people still have some financial meat to pick off their bones.

  5. “A child died in the United Kingdom after a bounce house blew away. ”

    That’s why you need a fun adult in the bounce house to keep it from blowing away.
    I got wrecked yesterday and jumped until I sweated through my sportcoat.

    1. These masturbation euphemisms etc. etc.

      1. I was too tired to crank down at all yesterday.

        Like I said, I got wrecked and jumped in a bouncy house. Napping suddenly became a priority.

    2. 30 seconds into his 3 day cocaine binge.

    3. I liked this hoax better when it was called Balloon Boy.

    4. I once left my 5 year old daugher in the popup fish house and went outside to drill some new holes and when I turned around discovered she had been blown across the ice (not much snow on the lake yet) about 150 yards to shore.

      I hadn’t heard her yelling over the auger’s motor.

      For the record she thought it was super fun and still tells the story today.

      1. But your wife doesn’t know, right?

        1. She knows about it. No way my daughter is ever going to keep a secret from her.

          I think my reckless disregard for the safety of my kids is why she let me make a few more backups with her. That way we’ll probably get one through safely.

          1. Oh yeah. Always insure against loss.

      2. So, I can’t leave a kid alone in a car for three minutes, but you can leave yours alone in an ice house cruising across the lake? how is that fair?

    5. Bouncy house causes a child’s death because the users didn’t follow safety protocols, blame/sue/charge the operators, unless manufacturer defect caused the issue.

      Car runs over a child, killing him, because the users didn’t follow safety protocols, blame/sue/charge the operators, unless manufacturer defect caused the issue.

      Gun kills child because the users didn’t follow safety protocols, blame/sue/charge the operators, sue the manufacturer even if there was no defect in the weapon, and ban the weapon.

    6. You bounce house would *ever* blow away with *me* in it, except maybe during a hurricane, and it would have to be a *real* hurricane, not one of those loser “storm systems.”

      1. *no* bounce house would ever blow away etc.

  6. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..g_but.html

    The Post piece is not all bad for Hillary, though! Here’s the good news:

    There’s still no smoking gun. There’s direct evidence that Clinton was irresponsible about the security of her correspondence and there’s circumstantial evidence that she used personal email because she wanted to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act. But there’s no evidence that she knowingly sent or received classified information that was classified at the time it was sent or that she ever explicitly acknowledged that she was circumventing FOIA on purpose.

    DENIER!

    1. Slate hasn’t felt the Bern yet?

    2. They came to this conclusion before she has even been formally interviewed by the FBI, eh?

      That’s some mighty fine journolisting there.

    3. If any private citizen were “irresponsible” in that way, they’d have been arrested long ago.

    4. So the Post’s position is that she has to confess that what she did was a crime for it to be a crime?

      That is a fascinating standard for criminality, particularly if your suspect is as shameless as a Clinton.

      1. It’s not illegal when a Clinton does it?

        1. It is not illegal if you don’t admit it, and Clinton’s do not confess to anything.

          So, effectively, yes.

    5. So according to Slate and Hillary’s supporters, she did not send or receive any classified emails while Secretary of State? Interesting.

      1. “Knowingly,” Hero. There’s always room to crabwalk when it involves the Clintons.

      2. So according to Slate and Hillary’s supporters

        This is redundant.

    6. Not even the instructions to remove the classified headers and fax it on an unsecured line?

      Not even the direct mentions of avoiding FOIA by using the private server?

      These people aren’t just carrying water, they’re moving the whole well for her.

    7. Huffpo went full Bern today:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..55422.html

      1. Because independent voters will definitely feel the Bern when they find out he’s planning to increase federal spending by 50 percent per year. Hello, president Trump.

    8. There’s direct evidence that Clinton was irresponsible about the security of her correspondence

      But she is required by law to be responsible with her correspondence and by being irresponsible with it she is breaking the law.

  7. Patent that cost Microsoft millions gets invalidated

    One of the oldest and most profitable patent trolls, Uniloc, has been shot down. Its US Patent No. 5,490,216, which claims to own the concept of “product activation” in software, had all claims ruled invalid by the Patent Trademark and Appeals Board (PTAB).[…]

    The PTAB case against Uniloc’s patent was filed by Sega of America, Ubisoft, Cambium Learning Group, and Perfect World Entertainment. The board found that every claim in Uniloc’s patent was anticipated or rendered obvious by an earlier patent.[…]

    Uniloc has sued about 75 companies with the ‘216 patent, according to the KC Business Journal. Of those, it says one-third settled out of court.

    It was Uniloc’s lawsuit against Microsoft that provided the company with its original headlines. Uniloc said that Microsoft’s system of checking software licenses?in other words, type in a key number and have your software validated?violated the patent. That case led to a $388 million jury verdict against Microsoft. The nation’s top patent appeals court upheld Uniloc’s win, but it said that damages should be re-calculated. Microsoft settled for an undisclosed sum after that.

    1. Microsoft settled

      Fuck – if Microsoft’s army of lawyers can’t beat these fucking criminals what hope is there for anyone else.

    2. So, do they have to pay back all that money, or what?

      1. They still have an opportunity to appeal. The patent actually expired in 2013 anyway – all of the outstanding suits predate the expiration. As far as the settlements and licensing fees they extracted in the past, the companies might be able to sue to reclaim them, but the licensing agreements and settlement language usually make that close to impossible.

    3. Damn, the sad fact is this doesn’t even really matter. Even if Uniloc goes under due to this, everyone in the company has already made a fortune off the scheme. There will be no realistic consequences to anybody involved.

      1. “There will be no realistic consequences to anybody involved.”

        Nope. See this: “everyone in the company has already made a fortune off the scheme.”

  8. Religious Freedom Law vetoed?! Now people in Georgia are going to be forced into the state church, and everyone will be Baptist!

    1. Thankfully Irish will be unaffected, as he could never bring himself to live in a place with so many blacks.

    2. I thiugh Georgia was Episcopalian all the way.

      1. That’s a negative, Ghost Rider.

        Catholic 6.32% 19.43%
        LDS 0.81%
        Baptist 21.76%
        Episcopalian 0.71%
        Pentecostal 2.99%
        Lutheran 0.44%
        Methodist 8.08%
        Presbyterian 1.43%
        Other Christian 6.93%
        Jewish 0.37% 0.73%
        Eastern 0.46%
        Islam 0.54%

      2. You thiugh wrong, Brett.

        1. Y’all just assume I am typing on a phone. I’m really crying for help from my recent stroke.

          1. That’s what i initially thiugh, but jesse wouldn’t listen.

            1. Fuck all y’all.
              Hoodslides into Bandit Trans Am and powerslides away*

          2. I’m really crying for help from my recent stroke.

            Ease up on your grip, Luke Opilka.

          3. If having a stroke is making you cry, you might need this to help…

            1. 404
              The webpage cannot be found.
              What you can try:

              Retype the address
              Go back to the previous page
              Search using this form:

              Thankfully?

              1. I SFed a link for a 55 gallon drum of personal lubricant?

                How appropriate.

                1. It is much cheaper if you buy in bulk … or so I’ve heard.

  9. Meanwhile, Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal will veto the state’s religious freedom law, which mostly mimicked federal law and also stated that religious-based organizations could not be forced to perform or host events (like same-sex marriages) that violated their religious positions.

    Coca-Cola threatened to move out of Georgia.

    The Wahabi Christians elected Deal but he ignored their ignorant asses when it came to tax revenue.

    1. Leaving open the question why Coca-Cola cared about the bill enough to threaten to leave if it became law.

      1. It wasn’t just Coke. Arthur Blank’s (of Home Depot) new NFL digs could have been denied the Super Bowl, Delta, CNN, and about a dozen others put a ton of pressure on Deal.

        1. You mean the taxpayers’ new digs that they’re buying for Mr. Blank?

        2. So why do they all care?

          1. To show customers that they care.

    2. Interestingly enough, Coke has an official bottler in Saudi Arabia and has never once threatened to stop doing business in the country.

      1. Saudi Arabia is Pepsi territory.

      2. Ditto Disney, and they do business in China.

        1. I think it’s pronounced Chighn-nna, I heard that from The Donald.

      3. Georgia Christians not wanting to marry gays: so bad Coca-Cola threatens to leave the state.
        Saudis execute gays: no problem

        That’s why I want to know why CC cares.

        1. It’s all marketing.

          1. Not entirely unlike Obama and Clinton’s convenient shift to support gay marriage after 50%+ of the American population agreed.

      4. Georgia is a notch above the Saudi’s on the modernity scale.

      5. Deal should have called a press conference and announced he would veto the bill if Coke and the other companies pitching a fit applied their morals across the board. Then he should have gone on to announce in detail the punishments for being openly gay in places these companies do business but don’t care about the local laws. Turn the social justice mob back on the people trying to profit off of it.

  10. I’m beginning to think I shouldn’t make fun of Pope Francis because he might actually be retarded.

    The Pope blamed the Brussels attack on weapons manufacturers despite the fact that the bombs were all homemade. I guess when all you’ve got is a hammer…

    1. So it definitely sounds in that case then that the weapons manufacturers are really to blame. For once.

      1. Yeah, when the Pope says ‘arms manufacturers’ I don’t think he was talking about the people who make pressure cooker bombs in Molenbeek.

        1. WELL HE SHOULD BE.

        2. But he’s technically, if unintentionally, correct, and that’s what’s important.

    2. On NPR the day after the attacks there was some GMU professor who kept responding to the host’s “Why Belgium?” questions by repeating that Belgium has lax (for Europe) gun laws and a huge gun market. I wanted to yell at the radio BITCH THEY DIDN’T USE FIREARMS.

      Is there nothing guns can’t do?

      1. I’ve dealt with progressive arguments enough that I can at least find a reasoning behind a lot of what they argue, even if it’s nonsensical. This, though… I can’t do it. I cannot for the life of me figure out how that leap of logic could be made. I’ve been trying since I first heard of it the other day, and I can’t do it.

        1. Probably they just hear terrorist attack and that Brussel’s has lax gun laws semi-near each other and don’t bother looking up how the attacks were carried out. A lot of bad arguments are based upon willful ignorance.

      2. John Schindler pointed out that for a long time Jihadists were content to leave Belgium alone because it was a safe haven from which they could attack other European Union states.

        Belgium started cracking down on the Jihadists after the Paris attacks and Belgium got hit within a few months. That’s why Belgium got hit – they allowed a problem to fester for 20 years and then when they were forced to do something because other European states were angry Belgian citizens kept shooting civilians, the Jihadists started going after Belgium too.

        1. Just as long as the terrorists leave the brewers alone, we’ll survive.

          1. *looks for Trappist Defense Militia paperwork*

    3. So does that mean the Inquisition was the fault of lax rack laws? (try to say THAT three times fast)

      1. You know who else had lax rack laws?

        1. Dollywood?

        2. ?le du Levant?

      2. Morgana the Kissing Bandit?

  11. …religious-based organizations could not be forced to perform or host events (like same-sex marriages) that violated their religious positions.

    Too much potential attorney revenue to pass up.

    1. Guess i’m’a have to stop by the 7-11 and get some 40s on my way home.

    2. I must have missed him in Star Wars VII.

      1. He is too cool for that hackey rubbish.

    3. Right, he promises they won’t modify the formula.

      Or won’t modify it *any further,* eh?

  12. http://www.wsj.com/articles/th…..77?tesla=y

    $10 billion market valuation disappears. But she is still attractive.

    1. That valuation disappeared months ago.

      1. Yeah, but she still looks good at about $500 million of net worth.

  13. due to lack of evidence.

    Evidence, shmevidence. He fits the profile. Book ‘im, Danno.

  14. FBI’s investigation of N.Y. inmate’s death widens as second prison beating probed

    he federal probe was revealed six months ago, when U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara announced his office was investigating whether a group of officers at Fishkill Correctional Facility, which is less than two miles south of the Downstate prison facility, beat a mentally ill inmate to death last April. The death of Samuel D. Harrell III, whose alleged assailants were known as the “Beat Up Squad,” brought widespread attention and sparked a federal wrongful-death lawsuit that was filed by Harrell’s wife, Diane. At the request of Bharara’s office, the lawsuit was stayed pending the outcome of the federal criminal investigation.

    The Beat Up Squad? You don’t say.

    1. The guards probably talked about putting Harrell into a woodchipper.

  15. Sane college students continue to attack campus stupidity.

    While some may argue that these language guides are merely suggestions largely ignored by students and administrators, they have in fact become the new reality. Over the past few weeks, Bowdoin College has witnessed an alarming shutdown of freedom of expression. A few weeks ago, students hosted a tequila-themed birthday party that featured guests donning mini-sombreros, and the administration subsequently decided to seriously investigate an “act of ethnic stereotyping.” The invitation to the party, sent by a student of Colombian descent, read: “the theme is tequila, so do with that what you may. We’re not saying it’s a fiesta, but we’re also not not saying that :).” The students who hosted the party were put on social probation (which appears on one’s permanent record) and were kicked out of their dorms. Two student government representatives who attended the party faced impeachment charges, and other students who were present at the event or were photographed wearing sombreros have also been subject to disciplinary action.

    1. social probation

      I hate to think what that means translated out of Newspeak.

    2. “act of ethnic stereotyping.”

      How can you have an ethnicity in the first place if society doesn’t agree that it has a certain set of common traits?

      1. Oh, a wise guy, eh? MICROAGGRESSION!!

    3. That always seem to be how these party stories go. Some minority decides a themed party would be fun. All their white friends go along because if the guy that could be offended by it is the one suggesting it, it must be alright. Party ends up in local news and person responsible for the idea recieves no mention among bitching and moaning about racist white teens and young adults.

      Something similar to this happened to my cousin in my family’s home town. It’s just so dumb to watch happen.

  16. Happy Dyngus Day.

    Get out your pussy willow switches!

    1. These masturbation euphemisms etc. etc. etc.

    2. God, you’re so Buffalo.

      1. It is the one time of year those Polish-American monsters stop acting so subdued and finally get to party.

  17. mostly mimicked federal law and also stated that religious-based organizations could not be forced to perform or host events (like same-sex marriages) that violated their religious positions.

    If he vetoed it because it inequitably favors certain religious beliefs over others (or none), I approve.

    Haha, I crack myself up.

  18. NYPD goes to wrong apartment, shoots woman’s dog, hands her bill for $265 cremation fee

    The gruesome video of an NYPD cop killing a dog, whose tail was obviously wagging in front of its apartment is going viral.

    Yvonne Rosado was dancing with her dog, Spike, when she heard something outside her New York apartment.

    And opened the door.

    When she looked past the threshold, her dog walked out wagging its tail onto the landing.

    That, made NYPD officer Ruben Cuesta ‘fear for his life.’

    So, he shot Spike right in the head.

    Deliberately.

    When he looked up at officer Cuesta, the last thing the dog saw was the flash of the barrel of the gun that shot him.

    Police still aren’t offering a reason as to why Cuesta shot Spike on February 13th nor have they offered an apology.

    They also left Rosado with the $265 cremation bill.

    Bonus WTF from later in the story:

    She told New York Daily News that NYPD killed her cat pet cat sometime around 2010 when they broke its neck during a search at another apartment that wasn’t hers.

    1. I saw that video. It’s woodchipper territory.

      1. Yeah, I am strongly advising myself not to watch that.

    2. Thankfully you SFed the link so we can’t see the disturbing video.

      1. Because I hate everyone who posts here, especially myself, here’s the link.

  19. New York Times cannot figure out what terrorists have in common.

    “The brothers who carried out suicide bombings in Brussels last week had long, violent criminal records and had been regarded internationally as potential terrorists. But in San Bernardino, Calif., last year, one of the attackers was a county health inspector who lived a life of apparent suburban normality.

    And then there are the dozens of other young American men and women who have been arrested over the past year for trying to help the Islamic State. Their backgrounds are so diverse that they defy a single profile.”

    Huh. If only there were some sort of common link between the Brussels attackers and the San Bernardino shooters that might explain why very different people could decide to commit terrorist attacks. Alas, we shall never know!

    1. I know!!!!

      They have legs and arms!

      1. Dude, it’s Irish. You KNOW it’s gonna get racial up in here.

        1. They’re Chinks?

    2. Oh come on!

      “But the years that followed have done little to narrow the list of likely precursors. Rather, the murky science seems to imply that nearly anyone is a potential terrorist. ”

      Yes, everyone is a potential terrorist. There are absolutely no characteristics that determine if someone is more likely to be a terrorist than someone else.

        1. Insufficiently white, anyway.

      1. What are they? I know you want to say “Islam,” but since we see people converting to Islam specifically to do this shit, that hardly seems sufficient. It’s a real question.

        1. Umm. When people who specifically became Communists did this shit — Lee Harvey Oswald springs to mind — did we not call them communists? Jihadists all share an ideology that is at least nased on Islam. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all of the terror attacks are by Muslims or people who consider themselves Muslim.

          1. Okay, that’s all great, Brett, and doesn’t contradict anything I was saying. But since literally anyone can become a Muslim and do that, it doesn’t really tell you much about what the “precursors” are, does it?

            1. Do you actively try to seem this dense, or does it come naturally? If someone is ideologically motivated to commit acts of terrorism, how does that person having converted to that ideology prior to the attacks disprove that their crimes were ideologically motivated?

              1. Do you actively try to seem this dense, or does it come naturally?

                Your history of making the least self-aware comments on this site continues unabated.

                If someone is ideologically motivated to commit acts of terrorism, how does that person having converted to that ideology prior to the attacks disprove that their crimes were ideologically motivated?

                I’d love for you to show me where I suggested that it disproved that.

                What I’m saying is that if you are looking to “narrow the list of likely precursors,” narrowing it to “Islam” is retarded when we know for a fact that non-Muslims convert to Islam, and some who do go on to commit terrorist acts, including many who join the religion specifically to become violent extremists. That suggests Islam is not really the precursor, or at least not a sufficient one to tell you very much interesting at all. What is motivating the converts to convert and then terrorize?

                1. I’d love for you to show me where I suggested that it disproved that.

                  narrowing it to “Islam” is retarded when we know for a fact that non-Muslims convert to Islam, and some who do go on to commit terrorist acts, including many who join the religion specifically to become violent extremists.

                  Yes non-Muslims convert to Islam, and once upon a time non-Nazis converted to Nazism and I guess we’ll just have to wonder how their subsequent crimes relate to Nazism. It’s a total fucking mystery.

                  The mental gymnastics necessary to rule out Islam as a driving force of Islamic terrorism are just amazing. It’s a shame there’s no “Sophist of the Year” awards we could nominate you for.

                  1. Go ahead and keep attributing to me claims I’ve never made. I can see it’s a useful way for you to argue.

                    1. Go ahead and keep attributing to me claims I’ve never made. I can see it’s a useful way for you to argue.

                      narrowing it to “Islam” is retarded when we know for a fact that non-Muslims convert to Islam

                      Who wrote it? Maybe you should change your password. Someone is being intentionally dense under your handle.

                    2. I said “claims,” not direct quotes. You didn’t misquote me.

                      If someone said they had narrowed down the list of precursors of anti-Jewish violence to Naziism, would that appear to be a useful determination to you? Or would you be left wondering what makes non-Nazis become Nazis, since that’s also a thing that happens before they start gassing people?

                    3. Clearly, they weren’t loved enough as a child, but by all indications, neither were you. I think you’re on to something here.

                2. If someone converts to Islam to become a terrorist, are they not attracted by the same ideology that other muslim terrorists use to justify their own actions? If so, it seems that the conversion is moot and it is instead the overlapping murderous worldviews that count.

                  1. If someone converts to Islam to become a terrorist, are they not attracted by the same ideology that other muslim terrorists use to justify their own actions? If so, it seems that the conversion is moot and it is instead the overlapping murderous worldviews that count.

                    Well, that’s exactly what I’m arguing. I can’t tell if you are supporting me, or if you think I’m arguing something else.

                    If someone converted to Islam to join ISIS, Islam is not the precursor to being a terrorist.

                    1. Obviously, Islam is not the root cause because there are millions of muslims who don’t do terrorism. However, many do support it. Salafism and Wahhabism are the two strains of Islam that are almost exclusively involved in terrorism. Maybe it would be more correct to blame them, instead of Islam in general, for instigating terrorism. Nonetheless, there is obviously an ideology involved that justifies otherwise anti-human acts. And that ideology is pointer to terrorist behavior and could be used as a criteria for narrowing potential bad actors.

                    2. Then why do terrorist groups get so much support from so many Muslims? So either Salafism and Wahhabism are either fairly mainstream or get a ton of support from the mainstream. Or maybe the entire idea of a moderate mainstream exerting any real influence is a myth when we consider

                      Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country. Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified.
                      http://www.pewforum.org/upload…..report.pdf

                      Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
                      35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
                      42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
                      22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
                      29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).

                      We can be thankful that it’s only large minorities, not full majorities of Muslims in western countries, assuming no statistically significant amount of lying to infidels that’s explicitly condoned in Islam.

                    3. Then why do terrorist groups get so much support from so many Muslims?

                      I can’t say because I just don’t know enough about Islam. But I think much of it is just in-grouping/out-grouping where the out-group is considered worthy of death–by all muslims (except maybe the more peaceful and often hated Sufis). Christians believe that their out-group is worthy of death but that God will decide who is guilty while Muslims believe that Allah wants them to do the killing. Statistics tell us that most Muslims aren’t willing to do this murdering but seem to agree that it should be done. This very fact makes the multiculturalist argument that Islam is a religion of peace false.

                3. What I’m saying is that if you are looking to “narrow the list of likely precursors,” narrowing it to “Islam” is retarded…

                  That wasn’t the topic of the NYT piece, the NYT piece suggests that there are no discernible shared characteristics of modern terrorists. Islam is not sufficient by itself to indicate anything, but it’s a good starting point if you want to narrow things down more specifically than “human”, which is sometimes useful to do. When you see hoofprints, look for horses, not zebras. But more importantly, don’t pretend that they’re tire tracks instead of hoofprints.

                  1. Islam is not sufficient by itself to indicate anything, but it’s a good starting point if you want to narrow things down more specifically than “human”, which is sometimes useful to do.

                    How good of a starting point is it even in the most basic sense? The simple fact that anyone can convert means it’s literally not the starting point for many terrorists.

                    1. How good of a starting point is it even in the most basic sense?

                      In the most basic sense, it’s a very good starting point. You start with basic and then work from there. If a serial killer is on the loose and you have no other information to go on, it’s a good idea *in the most basic sense* to start looking for a white male, because those are characteristics shared by a large majority of serial killers. Of course, nearly 100% of white males are *not* going to be your serial killer – no one supposes that “white” and “male” are sufficient to nail the perp. But you’re probably wasting a lot of time if you’re investigating a black woman. Most white men are not serial killers, but most serial killers are white men.

                    2. The simple fact that anyone can convert means it’s literally not the starting point for many terrorists.

                      Do you have any evidence that most Islamic terrorist attacks are perpetrated by recent converts? Even if you did, would it prove what you think it does? Not really. You don’t know which way the causation runs. Maybe disaffected assholes convert to Islam because they’re violent, or maybe Islamic theology turns disaffected assholes into violent disaffected assholes. Would the same disaffected asshole have perpetrated terrorism if he converted to Eastern Orthodox instead? If so, why isn’t Eastern Orthodox attracting those disaffecting assholes in the same way that Islam is? If the ideology is irrelevant because anyone can pick it, then why are Muslims (by conversion or by birth) overrepresented among terrorists? In any case, they still fall into the category “Muslim”, so it’s not an entirely useless investigative criteria.

            2. The precursor is still Muslim obviously. There doesn’t need to be a precursor to that precursor.

              1. The precursor is still Muslim obviously. There doesn’t need to be a precursor to that precursor.

                Well that seems really valuable. You might have a whole five minutes’ notice of the conversion before the next loser white kid joins ISIS.

              2. The precursor to skin cancer is pale skin. Stop all genetic research now because we have a good enough answer on this.

                *puts shiny new genomics kit in the trash, shutters the lab*

          2. All, he says. All.

            What do you call Baileys and Jameson dropped into a pint of stout?

            1. A Muslim act of aggression against a peaceful, enlightened West?

              A Hitler?

              TELL ME HAMSTER, I’m on tenterhooks here!

            2. It clearly isn’t *all* but it is a rather large percentage.

              You’ve got commie terrorists in India and your average Neo Nazi, too, but they’re a drop in the bucket.

              1. Umm, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan dominated those “statistics.”

                1. Why don’t you look at terror stats in Southeast Asia (bombings in Indonesia and Thailand, for example).

                  Or you could look at terror stats in Europe and terror stats in the US, where Islamic terror is vastly overrepresented. With the exception of South America, Islamic terrorism is the primary terror threat on every continent. They’ve even hit South America, given the Iranian funded attacks on Jewish centers in Argentina.

                  1. The article you posted did just that. Cut the legs out from under your argument, once you pull out the dishonest parts about war zones.

                    1. “The article you posted did just that. Cut the legs out from under your argument, once you pull out the dishonest parts about war zones.”

                      How does the fact that every region on the planet with lots of terrorism specifically has *Islamic* terrorism cut the legs out from under my argument?

                      Russia’s had problems with Islamic terrorism. Thailand and Indonesia both have. Europe has. The US has. India has. This is well beyond an issue of war zones.

                      I was also unaware that Pakistan was a war zone. As for Nigeria, it’s only a war zone because Islamic terrorists made it a war zone, so that hardly hampers my argument.

                    2. How does the fact that every region on the planet with lots of terrorism specifically has *Islamic* terrorism cut the legs out from under my argument?

                      So now your argument is, “If I cherry-pick ‘specifically’ Islamic terrorism and call civil wars terrorism, I can manipulate the numbers to make the point I already decided was true.”

                    3. “So now your argument is, “If I cherry-pick ‘specifically’ Islamic terrorism and call civil wars terrorism, I can manipulate the numbers to make the point I already decided was true.””

                      The Civil War in Nigeria (and the civil war in the Central African Republic) was caused by Islamic terrorism. It’s really stupid of you to say we should discount the fatalities in that country on the grounds that Islamic terrorists were so successful that they destabilized the Northern half of the nation.

                      Kenya’s also been hammered by Al Shabaab and last I checked Kenya is not a war zone. And you’re still ignoring that even if you discount the war zones, Islamic terrorism is a huge percentage of global terror, even in countries with small Muslim populations.

                2. I could also point you to the Global Terrorism Index in which 15 of the top 17 countries afflicted by terrorism are afflicted specifically by Islamic terrorism.

                  I know that at this point, you tend to try and call me a racist (because you’re an idiot) but the stats are out there and are more than just the ones in the above linked post.

                  1. I call you a racist because you hate black people.

                    Next time, though, actually READ the stories you link to.

                    1. “I call you a racist because you hate black people.”

                      I don’t hate black people. I don’t know what made your retarded self think I do, other than the fact that you apparently mistook jokes people tell for truth. That’s not my problem.

                      I’ll hit both your posts at once:

                      “The effects of terrorism are felt most strongly in the Middle East and Africa, where countries such as Iraq and Nigeria account for the majority of deaths due to terrorist attacks.”

                      Nigeria is not a war zone. The only war that exists in Nigeria is caused by Islamic terrorism. So basically you’ve created a standard that’s impossible to meet – if Islamic terrorism gets so bad that it now constitutes a war, you say ‘Oh, well that’s a war zone, it doesn’t count!’ Both Iraq and Nigeria are instances where Islamic terror *created wars* and then you disingenuously argue that they don’t count because they’re war zones.

                      Yeah, they are – because Islamic terrorism made them into war zones. You’re the one cherry picking by purposefully discounting all the countries where Islamic terror has done the most to destroy public order, you fucking moron.

                    2. BTW, you should really link to anything I’ve said that leads you to think I ‘hate black people.’

                      Was it when I said that African Americans commit a disproportionate number of crimes in the US? Because I think that’s a cultural problem, and it’s also something that I can prove to be true. I don’t think facts mean I hate black people.

                      I’m also very critical of poor white culture, which has led John to argue that I hate poor whites. I don’t – I want what’s best for them and think their own culture is getting in the way of success. Unlike you, I’m not willing to deny evidence because I’m too much of a coward to admit things that might get people to call me a bigot.

                      Call me what you want. I know who I am and your insults just prove you have no point.

                  2. I could also point you to the Global Terrorism Index

                    From the fucking HEADLINE:

                    The effects of terrorism are felt most strongly in the Middle East and Africa, where countries such as Iraq and Nigeria account for the majority of deaths due to terrorist attacks.

                    1. Nothing you’ve stated really touches on the argument that the common thread between these attacks are Islam. You want to quibble over whether instances of it should be called an Islamic insurgency or Islamic terrorism? At what point would you just admit that Islam is violent and regressive and that it’s practitioners pose a legitimate threat to the world? You’re old, so I wonder, were you one of those USSR apologists from the 60’s and 70’s? Finding any reason, no matter how nonsensical to defend that evil ideology to signal your tolerance of others? You just go ahead and quietly keep your head in the sand, you’ll be less of liability for the rest of civilization that way.

                    2. No, see, if I just discount every country where successful Islamic insurgencies *actually toppled the government* I can leave out tons of deaths attributable to radical Islam and claim everything is okay!

                      So when Islamic terrorists in Nigeria kill tens of thousands of people after destroying Nigeria’s control over the northern part of that country, that doesn’t count and you’re stupid for claiming it’s an example of Islamic terrorism.

                      Also racist. Stupid and racist.

                    3. Sorry, isn’t Nigeria pretty neatly split between a Muslim north and Christian south with the political power all being in the Christian south?

                      Including Nigeria points to Nicole’s and my contention that the radicalizing factor is something else (for my part being disaffected with the dominant local culture) and Wahabbism is the vehicle for acting out against the dominant culture.

                      Again, I don’t think anyone is claiming that Islam isn’t a factor here, but being upset about Islam for Islam’s sake misses the X-factor that turns some people into nihilistic killers and others into affable neighbors who pray on Friday instead of Sunday.

                    4. Again, I don’t think anyone is claiming that Islam isn’t a factor here, but being upset about Islam for Islam’s sake misses the X-factor that turns some people into nihilistic killers and others into affable neighbors who pray on Friday instead of Sunday.

                      Maybe some gays in Mosul could share some equally valid anecdotes about living across the street from Muslims, that is if they haven’t been thrown off a roof yet.

                    5. Including Nigeria points to Nicole’s and my contention that the radicalizing factor is something else (for my part being disaffected with the dominant local culture)

                      Nicole seems to be very disaffected with the dominant local culture given that she believes that everyone around her is immoral. You’d better stay far away from her, you never know when she might snap.

                    6. Late 19th/early 20th century Nikki totally got caught up in some kind of anarcho-suffragette movement and murdered a bunch of people, but I don’t think anarchs are pulling that kind of freight anymore.

                    7. It doesn’t help she wants humanity extinct too.

                    8. Wow, Old man With Candy is particularly dense in this thread. Irish for the win here.

                    9. Irish for the win here.

                      Speaking of ideological motivations…

                    10. Papaya is a Hibernia-ist?!

                    11. Wow, Old man With Candy is particularly dense in this thread. Irish for the win here.

                      Not much of a contest. The hardest part is picking only one place to start tackling all the senseless arguments. Arguments so jam packed full of stupid, it’ll take a paragraph to rebut five words of stupid.

        2. ‘Nearly anyone is a potential terrorist’ is an insane assertion when the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks globally come from one group.

          Your average Mormon is not a potential terrorist. I don’t think people are worried about radicalization among their Hindu populations.

          The statement that ‘anyone’ could be a potential terrorist is just wrong. It’s a problem that mostly exists among Muslim men under the age of 30.

          1. Everyone is most certainly a potential terrorist. It’s not insane at all. You’re asking the wrong question.

            In any case, saying “any Muslim is a potential terrorist” doesn’t really get you much closer to solving the problem.

            1. “Everyone is most certainly a potential terrorist. It’s not insane at all. You’re asking the wrong question.”

              How so? How is everyone a potential terrorist when one group commits the overwhelming majority of attacks? That makes no sense.

              “In any case, saying “any Muslim is a potential terrorist” doesn’t really get you much closer to solving the problem.”

              I don’t think any Muslim is a potential terrorist. The Ahmadiyya certainly aren’t. Nor are Kurdish Muslims (except the ones involved in a struggle against the Turks, but that’s a nationalist struggle, not a religious one).

              My complaint is the argument that there’s just ‘no similarity at all!’ and that ‘anyone’ is a potential terrorist when this self-evidently is not true.

              1. How so? How is everyone a potential terrorist when one group commits the overwhelming majority of attacks? That makes no sense.

                Because anyone is a potential member of that group.

                1. Anyone is a potential communist too. That doesn’t mean we would say if the thing all these guys had in common was communism that they had nothing in common.

                  Ignoring connections because you are scared of what other people will do is stupid, and it will only lead to the worst people dominating the conversation. These people have something in common and we need to figure out what the attraction is. Why are they deciding to blow people up in the name of Allah instead of becoming eco-terrorists like a generation ago.

                  1. Here’s the thing, though. No one is ignoring anything. Eveyone knows it’s Muslims from a certain part of the world doing most terrorism these days. Why some people don’t want to say it, I don’t know. But no one is fooled.

                  2. They’re ignoring connections because they think its moral to pretend to be retarded. In fairness, most retards I know are nice people. But then again they’re not pretending to be retarded in an effort to preen about. For some politics is how they define themselves morally. So even when they’re wrong they have to believe the “right things” hard enough for their own self esteem.

              2. Yeah, OK. I see what you mean and I think I agree mostly.

                I’ll admit to being a bit over-literal, perhaps. Strictly speaking, we all have the potential to get some kind of weapon and kill some people for the purpose of causing terror. Therefore we are all potential terrorists. The question is, who is more likely to be a terrorist.

                Sorry, I get to be a dick today, I’m trying to take inventory with a completely fucked up accounting system. And it’s not supposed to be my job.

          2. I don’t think people are worried about radicalization among their Hindu populations.

            Doesn’t India have significant Hindu nationalist problems? I know Gandhi had a bad time with them. I don’t know that they’re comparable and the violence certainly hasn’t been heavily exported abroad, but I don’t think that’s the group you want to namecheck as a non-violent counter example.

            1. Hindu nationalist problems?

              Are the Hindu nationalists waging a global holy war in a bid for world domination and the utter extermination of their enemies? Or is it more of a nationalism thing? I think it’s a fair point to say that a random group of Hindus moving to a western country are going to be less troublesome than a random group of Muslims moving to a western country, Dalmia not included of course.

          3. And the Irish, let us not forget the Irish.

            1. Please, that stopped in the late ’90s… it might as well have never happened.

              1. Yeah, I’m totally pretending no other terrorist attacks happened.

                Imagine if I were in 1990’s Ireland and I said ‘anyone could be a terrorist! An 80 year old Protestant! A 12 year old Catholic girl! A random British person or an American on the street! They’re all equally likely to be terrorists and we just can’t tell if there are any similarities between people committing these attacks!’

                Of course there were similarities, and obvious ones, between the people committing attacks in Ireland and England at that time.

                You keep trying to argue that I’m wrong by pointing to terrorist attacks that I never pretended didn’t happen and which ended years ago. We’re talking about 2016, not 1998.

                1. Islam has changed so much since 1998, after all.

                  Do you want answers, or do you want to hyperfocus until the view is to your liking?

                2. You keep trying to argue that I’m wrong by pointing to terrorist attacks that I never pretended didn’t happen and which ended years ago. We’re talking about 2016, not 1998.

                  I’m not trying to argue that you’re wrong. I think that your laser focus on Islam is myopic and divorced from historical reality. Terrorism is down greatly because European separatist groups have been less active for the last 10-20 years, and so Islamic terror which might have been background noise even at similar rates now stands out against a background of relative peace.

                  We know from recent history that people can get radicalized and start blowing things up over all sorts of things. If you’ve got an active IRA and you’re disaffected for whatever reason you can blame the Brits for your woes and join up, or the Bolsheviks or something. Currently the place to do that is a particularly virulent strain of Islam. In this case Islam is playing a role that has been played by other things before it and will be played by other things after it.

                  1. Uh oh, jesse, you seem dangerously close to suggesting there are sociological trends associated with terrorism and it’s not actually all ideological!

                    1. “Most of the members of the convent were old-fashioned Satanists, like their parents and grandparents before them. They’d been brought up to it, and weren’t, when you got right down to it, particularly evil. Human beings mostly aren’t. They just get carried away by new ideas, like dressing up in jackboots and shooting people, or dressing up in white sheets and lynching people, or dressing up in tie-dye jeans and playing guitars at people. Offer people a new creed with a costume and their hearts and minds will follow. Anyway, being brought up as a Satanist tended to take the edge off it. It was something you did on Saturday nights.

                      And the rest of the time you simply got on with life as best you could, just like everyone else.”

                      ? Terry Pratchett, Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch

            2. Fucking Irish Catholics, to be specific. Religion of peace, indeed.

          4. ‘Nearly anyone is a potential terrorist’ is an insane assertion when the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks globally come from one group.

            And that’s a group that anyone can join…

            1. Goddamn violent white interlopers appropriating Islam, amirite?

            2. Even people born as women!

              What a world we live in…

            3. And that’s a group that anyone can join…

              And people who join a murderous, totalitarian religious/political movement are more likely to commit terrorist attacks than those who belong to this movement only because they were born in a Muslim community.

              1. Okay…so what does that tell us about the precursors of being an Islamic terrorist?

            4. But it is not a group everyone does join.

              It is the article angsting over there being no common demnominator but ignoring the obvious one. And who said the common denominator has to be an involuntary one?

              1. But it is not a group everyone does join.

                Right. And people are not all equally likely to join it. So what are the precursors of being an Islamic terrorist?

                It is the article angsting over there being no common demnominator but ignoring the obvious one. And who said the common denominator has to be an involuntary one?

                The “obvious” one doesn’t have much explanatory power, as I’ve been arguing. I don’t have any idea where you get “involuntary” from.

                1. Any voluntary association is a group anyone can potentially join. If you can dismiss an association based on “anyone can join” then what you have left are involuntary associations.

                  Islam is is an association based on a worldview, an ethic.

                  “So what are the precursors of being an Islamic terrorist?”

                  They do not seem to be asking that question, they seem to be taking pains to not ask the question with that particular qualifier.

          5. I agree with the bulk of your argument in this thread, but I think your off base in this comment.

            I think that by definition, any human capable of committing a terrorist act is a “potential terrorist.” That doesn’t mean everyone is equally likely to be a terrorist, but I think anyone capable meets the threshold of “potential.” Otherwise, you’re essentially establishing a completely arbitrary probabilistic threshold to the definition.

            If you looked just at the United States, Muslims are certainly more likely to commit terrorism than non-Muslims, but terrorist attacks by non-Muslims still happen, and aren’t that uncommon. A majority of terrorist attacks (and deaths) since 9/11 have been by non-Muslims. I acknowledge that big attacks like 9/11 (or similar, if less deadly, ones in other Western locations like Madrid, London, Paris, Brussels, etc.) make Islamic terrorism a greater threat, and the population base is a lot smaller to begin with. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as if 99% of terrorism in the US is committed by Muslims.

            Also, the probability disparity would be reduced significantly if you changed the comparison population base from “non-Muslims” to something more specific, like right-wing men who are members of militias, hate groups, etc. That’s a more niche, cohesive group than all Muslims I’d agree, but I’m just pointing out that I don’t think Muslims would be the only group one could argue for increased scrutiny of.

        3. Yeah, even if you stop tiptoeing around the Islam thing and just say “they’re all Muslims”, it’s still not terribly useful information (and nothing that everyone didn’t already know).

          1. Yeah, even if you stop tiptoeing around the Islam thing and just say “they’re all Muslims”, it’s still not terribly useful information (and nothing that everyone didn’t already know).

            It depends. When the TSA is fingerbanging 7 year old WASP-y looking little girls and X-ray scanning crippled old people on the basis of “everyone is a potential terrorist”, narrowing it down a little bit seems like it might make some sense.

            1. If there was any chance that they would stop doing those things, then it might be worth considering.

          2. Like application of resources is never a problem for reported potential terrorists. C’mon, this is silly. Of course prioritzation needs to occur for anything neyond sexurity theater.

            1. I guess what I am saying is that you’d need to narrow the net quite a bit. And I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in the ability of anyone to do it in a reasonable way.

              1. You’ll take the FBI “radicalizing” ‘tards and providing them with fake bomb components so that they can bust them and make pretty stats about their efficacy and you’ll LIKE it.

              2. And I don’t have a whole lot of confidence in the ability of anyone to do it in a reasonable way.

                I would bet any amount of money that a non-state company allowed to develop their own standards and practices divorced from any proscriptions on discrimination could probably detect and prevent close to 100% of terror attacks. If you remove politics it’s just another big data problem.

              3. You know, none of the converts or native born were exactly silent on their newfound faith. Maybe someone who gets a burning faith and worries their family and friends might be good people to investigate. Maybe we could just start with the ones a country has turned back from joining a faith based rebellion in Syria. Angry people who convert are often dangerous. We could profile them if it’s the “to Islam” that makes everyone uncomfortable. I doubt many of the Neo-Nazis in the counterprotest were raised in Nazi homes.

                1. And if people want to report on angry young people they know who are saying scary things, that’s great. Angry, young Muslims is the group you want to look at. I’m not going to deny that.

                  But I am still not happy about the invasion of privacy involved. Even among angry young Muslims, how many are actually going to commit acts of violence against innocent people?

                  As I’ve been saying a lot lately, I’m just glad I don’t have to make decisions about policy to apply to this problem. I don’t see any answers that make me feel very good about the future.

          3. It’s pretty useful. Less Muslims= less terrorism.

            1. Can I get a sock puppet ruling on this one?

              1. Coin flip….could be one of the Tulpae, could be a part time troll.

        4. So your saying that if the thing people have in common is a religion or the recent conversion to said religion, they have nothing in common? The fact that people have to convert from what they are now to a Muslim before they participate in an act of terrorism strengthens the commonality not weakens it.

          There are other commonalities of course, it seems that nearly all the terrorist subscribe to forms of Islam that preach the complete covering of women.

          We should be happy, this means it’s an ideology not a race thing. Any race can be muslim.

          1. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa.

            1. Still so angry. You really do need a hug.

            2. You keep asserting that….but I don’t see it. Wait, let me check.

              I LOVES ME SOME FOOD TRUCKS!

      1. hello, those people can walk on ceilings! they would make very dangerous enemies.

    3. Mormons?

      1. Mormons massacred a wagon train

        Mountain Meadows Massacre

        1. That’s what’s called “the exception that proves the rule.”

      2. Absolutely. Haven’t you seen the theaters burning?

    4. If only there were some sort of common link between the Brussels attackers and the San Bernardino shooters that might explain why very different people could decide to commit terrorist attacks. Alas, we shall never know!

      They’re psychopaths?

  20. A gunman was taken into custody after opening fire in the Capitol Visitor Center in D.C.

    Anybody seen Bernie Sanders lately?

    1. The article I saw had quotes from a family visiting from Chicago. They were totally nonplussed by random shooting and couldn’t figure out why everyone was getting so excited.

  21. Jonathan Soros writes to the Koch brothers

    I have always found your position to be fundamentally at odds with the founding principles of our democracy. Our first freedom, before we could have freedom from the government, was the freedom to form the government.

    That’s an interesting way to say, “I am stupid”.

    1. I’m confident that as a businessman you would much prefer a monopoly achieved by any means necessary to a competitive market.

      Judging by the Kochs’ actions, he’d be wrong.

      1. Ah good old projection. And he wants big government…why? hmmm

    2. So if I have the freedom to form a government, then why can’t I form a government in opposition to the US rule by me and have it considered sovereign. His own internal logic doesn’t make sense here.

      1. Forget it, locust, its CNN.

    3. Maybe he missed it but the Kochs are not anarchists.

      1. People seem to have a hard time with that. As if thinking that any government at all should exist means that you must favor and approve of whatever government does exist.

    4. That’s an interesting way to say, “I am stupid”.

      Well, then, you’ll be absolutely amazed at all of the other ways being demonstrated in the comments there. Of course, it is CNN.

      1. I started to dive into the comments and then realized I should leave it for the professionals like Derpetologist.

    5. Money obviously can’t buy brains

    6. Democracy fetishist. Rousseauian filth.

      1. Apparently he wants publicly funded elections but yet funnels money to Hillary

      2. Except when the voters democratically elect Trump. Then watch the teeth gnashing.

    7. 1. Not a democracy.
      2. We weren’t free to form our government. “We” had to stage a violent uprising.

    8. whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

      Thomas Jefferson

    9. Dave Green got it right in the comments:

      The role of government is generally laid out in the preamble. To provide for the general defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our children.

      Providing for the common defense, does not mean imperialism or invading any country we feel like.. Providing for the general welfare, does not mean supporting anyone who doesn’t feel like working or bailing out companies that take bad risks. Securing the blessings of liberty, does not mean granting you the freedom to to stomp on others liberty in the process.

      A lot of grey area there, but that pretty much sums it up.

  22. “A child died in the United Kingdom after a bounce house blew away. Expect calls for safety regulations, obviously. Two people have been arrested for “suspicion of manslaughter by gross negligence.””

    So people who are already ignoring the possibility of losing their bounce house to an errant stick by not staking the damn thing down are not going to ignore a law that says they have to stake the damn thing down.

  23. Our first freedom, before we could have freedom from the government, was the freedom to form the government.

    WHEEEEEEE!

    1. Next, he’ll bring out the comfy chair to break those dirty brothers.

    2. That’s some weapons-grade derp.

      1. Have we entertained the notion that Tony is… Jonathan Soros?

      2. It’s pretty close to Hobbes’ argument in Leviathan.

        1. Where’s this social contract I’m reported to have signed?

  24. The Tone Police they are inside of my head!

    1. Tone Loc could not be reached for comment.

      1. Not that anybody’s really trying.

  25. http://thehill.com/homenews/ca…..house-talk

    How delusional does Paul Ryan have to be to think he can win the White House? What planet do these people live on?

    1. Ours, John!

      So long as people keep voting for them and obeying their rules, they will grow more powerful.

    2. If they manage to screw Trump and Cruz at the convention, Ryan doesn’t have a chance in hell. Half the GOP will stay home during the election. He’s a fool if he doesn’t realize that.

      1. He’s a fool if he doesn’t realize that

        Duh.

  26. Charlotte’s LGBT discrimination protections and transgender bathroom rules.

    Look i get that as good cosmopolitan-libertarians we’re supposed to be more concerned with things like “the right to arbitrarily change gender” and then consequently demand all sorts of public-accommodation of that….

    ….but is there really so little respect for the “Freedom of Religion” part of the 1st amendment that we can’t even call these laws by their actual names?

    Under the constitution, Religion is in fact the actual “protected class”

    There is far better actual constitutional basis to “allow people to discriminate”…

    *(aka free from being forced to violate their own religious beliefs)

    …than their is to protect some very-tiny minority of people (and transgender people are generally estimated at 0.3-0.5% of the population) from being inconvenienced.

    Most of these “Anti-Transgender” or “pro-discrimination” laws (as they tend to be described in the media) are technically RFRA type protections that bar the state from punishing people for exercising religious views.

    While some pretend that granting this recognition would unleash a tidal wave of “discrimination”… the reality is that it simply saves rare people like the Gay-Wedding-Cake Bakers from crushing lawsuits.

    What bugs me is not that there’s a difference of opinion about the issue; there should be. What bugs me is the framing that suggests there is only one valid side.

    1. Submit to the consensus

    2. The memes I’ve been reading on facebook have all been saying that freedom of religion just means the ability to attend a church of your choice and believe what you want. They’ve been claiming that it does not allow the breaking of any civil laws. Which just leaves me sitting and wondering. Why couldn’t under that interpretation be used to essentially ban religion in practice. Could the government pass a law forbidding people to leave their houses on Sunday? As long as religion isn’t mentioned and benefits can be laid claim to (everyone deserves a break and this forbids evil stores from making their workers work on Sunday), the violation of religion doesn’t matter in implementation. Could they ban the practice of asking for tythes in much the same way as they do pan handling?

      The way freedom of religion is currently be interpreted makes it an absolutely pointless addition to the amendment. Freedom of assembly and speech already cover attending a church and believing what you wish, so there would be not need for the religion addition.

      1. The way freedom of religion is currently be interpreted makes it an absolutely pointless addition to the amendment.

        That is the entire point. And Reason seems to at best be neutral and in some cases support that interpretation.

        1. I would say the point is to continue the cultural Marxist assault on Western civilization and tradition. The current favorite weapons are “fairness” and “non-discrimination.” But the goal is the same, even if the people bleating about “fairness” and “non-discrimination” don’t understand to goal.

          1. *the goal.

          2. or ‘Fabian Socialist’ rather than Marxist, but, yeah.

      2. It’s freedom of association (and dissociation) that is under attack.

        1. Under attack? Freedom of association has been surrendering for 50 years.

      3. . Why couldn’t under that interpretation be used to essentially ban religion in practice.

        Which is more or less the French view of ‘religion’ vis a vis the state which the left believes in.

        You’re totally free to *believe* whatever you want! You just can’t act on it in any way that anyone else in public ever should be expected to be exposed to. So none of those Funny Hats, Sikhs, much less the knives.

        The American-progressive notion is, “Freedom FROM religion..”… i.e. they will accept that people can “be” religious, but demand the right to sue anyone who actually exposes them to it in any form

        which is still just a tad short of the French notion of La?cit? , which is the elevation of the State ABOVE any and all religions, which are subject to circumscription and regulation by the state where necessary.

        1. Conservatives believe the government (or representative of it) may force others to practice their religion in a government enclave.

          School prayer led by a public school teacher for instance.

          Us secularists rightly interpret the Establishment Clause. Yes, I want to be free FROM government religion if you want to put it that way.

          1. Despite your wishes, the state doesn’t actually own the means of production. A restaurateur hanging out a “no faggots please, we’re christians” sign is not a state endorsement of his religion.

            1. I am 100% capitalist.

              I know that harms your TEAM RED! narrative that only Republicans are capitalists but Buffett, Gates, Soros, Ellison, Brin, etc etc etc etc etc don’t needy some greasy conservative telling them about economic policy.

              Hayek himself had no use for conservatives.

              Why not pose an honest argument? I did.

              Are you confused as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause?

              1. but Buffett, Gates, Soros, Ellison, Brin, etc etc etc etc etc don’t needy some greasy conservative telling them about economic policy.

                I guess they just feel complete getting their ideas from the greasy progs. Oh, well-you’ll be right at home, then.

              2. “Are you confused as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause?”

                Not particularly. But to stay on topic with these state-based RFRA bills, if you think government forcing private parties to violate their conscience is okay you might be a bit confused about the Free Exercise Clause and freedom of association though.

              3. I am 100% capitalist.

                You’re far too stupid to actually have any comprehensive ideology, but you get all of your talking points from social democrats, which are the linear descendents of Marxism.

                Why not pose an honest argument? I did.

                No, you didn’t. Allowing churches to opt out of marrying homosexuals and allowing business owners to reject customers is not an establishment of religion since those are not government institutions. Your comparison to teacher-led prayer in compulsory state schools (which you, of course, support, like any good free marketeer) is not only dishonest, but embarrassingly dishonest. You’re too stupid to pull of good sophistry.

                Are you confused as to the meaning of the Establishment Clause?

                Not at all. You appear to be badly confused on its meaning, as you are on pretty much everything else.

                1. And you get your talking points from fascist ideology. You’re likely a skinhead/KKKer who opposes the Civil Rights Act.

                  It is a boring argument which we went through when Rand Paul said something similar. Try to build the GOP around repealing the CRA. Make it first in the party platform.

                  1. So, you’re all on board with the all of the CRA, and freedom of association be damned, eh? I mean, especially with private businesses and how they operate. We absolutely must have government oversight/legislation to force fairness and cooperation among the citizenry!

                  2. The only difference between fascism and communism is a racial or nationalist element. And considering you have no problem calling Hispanics with whom you disagree Lil Taco, you’re not exactly drawing a bright line as to which one you embrace. Now quickly, back to Democratic Underground and see if you can find any more historically illiterate epithets you intellectually impotent sad sack of shit.

                    1. He should be counting all that money from his $.01 quality investments and $600/oz gold!

              4. Are you aware that the establishment clause is only one of two clauses dealing with religion and that the other clause is actually the relevant one in this context?

          2. Conservatives believe the government (or representative of it) may force others to practice their religion in a government enclave. School prayer led by a public school teacher for instance.

            I haven’t seen any conservatives calling for mandatory school prayer in the past 40 years. Usually they want to allow voluntary practice of religion in public.

      4. I’m waiting for someone to point out that the 1A prevents Congress from establishing a religion and preventing the free exercise thereof. They will then argue either (a) it says nothing about the president’s role and so he could create an administrative agency to watch over churches like the EPA watches over the environment or (b) that while the 2A allows gun ownership the courts allow Congress to regulate guns therefore Congress can regulate religious practice.

        1. I am pretty sure the Progs would be down with that.

      5. They’ve been claiming that it does not allow the breaking of any civil laws.

        Well, it shouldn’t. If a law violates freedom of religion, it should be struck down, not have special exceptions carved out if they weren’t written into the law in the first place.
        And no one, left or right, is going to go for that because it would mean that all laws that forbid anything besides the violations of another person’s rights would have to be struck down.

        “Freedom of Religion” should be a limitation on the government, not special privileges for religious people.

        1. “Freedom of Religion” should be a limitation on the government, not special privileges for religious people.

          that’s exactly right. But the people arguing otherwise are inverting the concept.

          its not “freedom of religion” really – its “government shall not interfere with the Free Exercise of Religion

    3. The real fight that seems to be brewing is one of participation. How much will we use the law to force everyone to participate in someone else’s declared identity?

      There are areas where it seems obvious that discrimination should be unlawful, if downright shameful. But there are other areas where we seem to want certain people to simply knuckle under and accept and participate in the .3-.5% of the population’s shifting self-identity.

      I usually don’t like to wade into the debate because for 99.9% of the conditions, I don’t care, it doesn’t affect me in any way. You wanna stand next to me at the urinal, babydoll? I’m perfectly fine with it.

      But I also admit that I’m not the warden of a prison where someone’s sudden identity change could cause real, measurable chaos. And policy-makers might force me to put someone in a situation that endangers them, and then my organization will suffer the wrath of the state if that person ends up injured or dead.

      And then there’s the whole other issue of the state itself. The state certainly doesn’t participate in the fluid identity of people. It seems to have pretty strict guidelines as to who gets what based on gender (and race) identity. I don’t see that crumbling down any time soon.

      1. Prison is one of the trickiest parts. Especially cest you aren’t allowed to move prisoners too far away from their families without getting sued for making them travel, so you can’t simply consolidate all the transgender prisoners in the U.S. to make a decent prison population. You also can’t put them in solitary full time, because that violates their human rights. That doesn’t even get into the fact that people in prison tend not to be very nice people. The prisoners you are trying to protect are the ones causing the danger in the first place.

      2. Also, lots of women (especially rape survivors) have a big issue with men just being able to “declare” themselves women and go into restrooms with them. The LGBT types hate to admit it, but there really are dangerous pervy types who will take advantage of that.

        1. I wonder if such types comprise more or less than 0.015% of the population — Nick’s recent article quotes 0.03% as being the estimated percentage of trans people, and assuming an even split male/female, I wonder if we’re talking more of fewer trans men, than perv men, in absolute numbers, opting to make use of the ladies room.

          1. Nick’s recent article quotes 0.03% as being the estimated percentage of trans people

            I believe you mean 0.3%

            Its certainly less than 1%. Where exactly it lies under that 1% depends on how you define “Trans”. If you define it as pre-op (those waiting to get transition surgery) plus post-op (completed procedures), the number tends to be on the low end. (0.3%)

            If you define it as both those populations as well as a number who actually “live as a different gender” while never receiving transition surgery, it can be in the higher end (0.5% and above)

            of course you’ll always have people who just make up larger numbers and then when criticized will shout “BUT YOU DONT KNOW FOR SURE EITHER!!”. Which is how people estimate “rape” as well whenever convenient.

            1. You’re right — guess that’s what I get for quoting the article (as of now, this is still how it begins):

              I would gladly move to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea?North Korea?if that would guarantee that I’d never have to read another story about the existential threat to the American Way of Life posed by letting the estimated 0.03 percent of trans people pick whichever toilet they feel like using.

              1. Nick, as we all know, is not very good at math. his last article that tried to account for inflation also ended up being off by a few decimal places.

                1. e.g.

                  Somewhere on this page is a picture of some hippies selling LSD at Woodstock for $1.00 a hit (the brown acid cost less, I’m sure). That would be around $65 today $6.50 today, according to a straight-up inflation calculation.

          2. It’s not necessarily trans people, it can be guys who will claim to be trans in order to get into women’s restrooms.

  27. Sean “Diddy” Combs is opening a charter school in Harlem.

    Bully to him, ’cause he can’t open one here, ’cause that would be racist.

    1. Huh…just like the founding of the KKK by democrats!

      Why do I get the impression that the author is probably just fine and dandy with segregated “safe spaces” at american universities?

    2. Can’t wait for alternate to dig into the roots of the minimum wage

      1. I recommend strongly against holding your breath on that one.

        1. Lol. or they should dig into abortion

          1. Or the roots of progressivism

      2. Or labor unions.

  28. a bounce house blew away

    I insist the term “Jump Castle” be standardized'”

    if only to prevent confusion with Australian club music.

    1. That’s what my daughter called them… “jumping castle” actually. So on nostalgia grounds alone, I vote for that.

    1. Of course it helps. Look at all those people who put the French flag on their FB profile after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Have there been any more attacks there? Well, have there?

    2. Change Facebook profile photo.
      Offer shelter to those stranded.
      Give blood.

      In that order!

    3. It’s micro supportive. Like the opposite of micro aggressive.

      Totally legit.

    1. So help me god, if that’s another masturbation euphemism……….

  29. Cuba & Iran = both LOVE getting sweetheart deals where they receive lots of money but don’t have to do shit in exchange, then Talking Smack in Obama’s face and blatantly flaunt agreements, going, “SO WHATCHU GOWN DO NOW, BITCH??”

  30. i really think people who write News headlines are completely fucking braindead.

    I just don’t know why things like this exist =

    Beyonce, Easter Bunny highlight Obama’s final egg roll

    The photos in that article really give you the impression that some black people dropped acid and are freaking out some kids.

    1. The Obama’s are so cool.

    2. Only the kids aren’t actually there.

      1. The funny part is that the Bunny is actually a secret service agent who lost a bet.

  31. Molenbeek is blessed with idiot Mayors.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ffice.html

    1. There is always Maria Sharapova.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..taway.html

    1. “The impersonating a peace officer charge includes anyone who poses as a state employee.”

      Just more bullshit.

      And quite likely to be dismissed as established precedent (at least with ‘impersonating’ cops and military) is that you have to either be doing it for ‘gain’ (basically money) or pulling people over and issuing tickets.

    2. “Atkins, who has been released from police custody…”

      Shouldn’t that be “peace officer” custody?

  32. A gunman was taken into custody after opening fire in the Capitol Visitor Center in D.C.

    Uh, according to the linked article, the guy was *shot* (not shooting) by Police after drawing his weapon at a checkpoint.

  33. WARNING = Meth Contains Ebola Virus. But! Never fear: Vaccine Available At Local PD

    1. Yeah, on one hand, how dumb do you have to be. On the other, they really should avoid lying even as a joke. You might really need to warn these idiot at some point to prevent an epidemic of some sort.

      1. No they won’t.

        They’ll just use an epidemic as justification to crack down harder – after all, “If they hadn’t done what I told ’em not to do, they’d still be alive”.

    2. Before I pass judgement, I’d like to know what Dr. Cuomo thinks about this.

  34. The skirts and sneakers combination ruins my day. I understand why you do it, but that does change how horrible it looks. Please stop it. Thank you.

    1. As long as it’s not skirt over pants, I’m OK.

  35. DID YOU JUST CALL HER “SHRILL”?? DID YOU?? DID YOU?!?!?

    “AAAAIAIIIIEEEEEEEECCHHHHCCCCAATTTAAAAAAACKKK!!!

    I suspect the writer there was being very subtle in their choice of comments when they closed with

    “””I don’t look at HRC as a woman anymore than I did Thatcher.””

    I personally see her just the same way I see Godzilla

    1. First link is dead.

  36. Can anyone determine just how the hell this article backs up the headline in any way, shape or form?

    1. It helps them get an idea where their ancestors are from, which they don’t know because of slavery, which was a historical trauma. An awkward headline, sure, but it’s not complicated.

      1. I don’t know where any of my ancestors beyond my grandparents are from. I wonder how historically traumatized I am on a scale of 1 to 10.

      2. DNA testing can even help keep the debate over reparations alive. In a 2002 class-action lawsuit against companies that built wealth off slaves, the court demanded that the plaintiffs prove they were descendant from former slaves. The plaintiffs used genetic testing to prove their relationship to different nation groups in African, though in this case, it was not deemed precise enough for the court. Still, says Nelson, it’s “an interesting adoption of a cutting edge technology being leveraged for a longstanding social movement.”

        The danger of such genetic tests, says Nelson, is that they can suggest that race is biological when in fact the values and hierarchies associated with race are social and political products.

        That kinda flies in the face of the simple explanation you say. Not that she didn’t want that included, but this quote is far more in line with the headline, while kinda throwing water on the idea of, “Genetics! Know who your relatives were!”.

  37. “which mostly mimicked federal law ” – In other words, the Georgia legislature is playing a game of legerdemain to make their establishment of religion provide obfuscation to their claimed goal to protect free exercis.

  38. Part time and full time free online jobs ,my unkel makes $45 /hr on the computer . He has been out of work for 4 months but last month her pay check was $4510 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    Its original & new site…visited Here…AXC0114

    ==== http://www.workprospects.com

  39. Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    http://www.JobToday60.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.