Hijacker Hadn't Seen Family in Decades, Trump and Kasich Renounce Loyalty Pledge, Furries Face Times Square Challenge: A.M. Links

|

Fox News screenshot

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

NEXT: Donald Trump Revealed To Be Most-Successful Troll-Bot Ever Created

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. Florida Gov. Rick Scott is trying to entice Yale University to Florida.

    Ya’le go to this school?

      1. I prefer Ya’ll. The apostraphe is replacing the a in all, not the a in ya.

        1. I always thought it was replacing the ou in you

        2. It’s replacing the “ou” in “you.”

        3. I prefer butterflies!

          /Ralph Wiggum

        4. *SLAP*

        5. The apostraphe

          Appropriate misspelling, because you’re raphing the language.

        6. I thought it was “Y’all,” *not* “Ya’ll.”

          1. It is. I personally put those who spell it ya’ll in the same book as those who can’t determine the difference between their, they’re, and there. Harsh? Probably. But deserved!

    1. Hello.

      Trump is an asshole.

    2. There is no way in hell Yale will move or that New Haven/CT will push it hard enough for them to. The state will back down if it seems like Yale is serious. This is tradition and prestige we’re talking about here.

      1. Definitely. It’s a slick PR move on Scott’s part, though, calling attention to his efforts to uphold his promise to bring jobs to the state.

        1. Not a fan of that cronyist scumbag, just sayin’.

        2. Blind hog, acorn. If you want to know what I think Trump’s presidency will look like, look at Rick Scott.

  2. 157) Just thinking about some of the absurdities of universities and affirmative action. I often hear the best reason for policies to favor certain minority groups in admissions to college is to achieve a diversity of viewpoints in the classroom. But shouldn’t that mean tokenism is okay?
    I mean, if the main point is just to get a different opinion in the room, then it should be all right to have the “token black guy” and the “token Asian chick” and the “token gay dude”. No need for affirmative action at all, just pick out the groups you need represented and let in a couple members from each one. In fact, in this view, the actual qualifications or excellence of the tokens aren’t important, so long as they can provide the requisite viewpoint at the right time.

    1. It’s not diversity of opinion. not by a long stretch. That is the last thing they want. They are looking for superficial diversity.

      1. I was going to say that if the goal is to achieve diversity of viewpoints, university admission policies have failed spectacularly. On paper, I am the least diverse person ever, being a white male non-athlete from a D.C. suburb, but in class discussions in law school, I often was the viewpoint diversity.

      2. Diversity in thought is intolerance. Such people must be excluded in the name of inclusiveness, because they are inferior to those who believe in equality.

      3. Ask any of them to define diversity. Then listen to the insanity.

        1. I could be wrong, but I think diversity is an old, old wooden ship used during the Civil War.

          1. *I* thought it was an outdated strategy in Risk.

            1. No, no, no. Diversity is the name of my favorite stripper down at the Cooter Shack.

              1. When I gradiates high school, I’s gung to da versity.

          2. Crusty, I would be surprised if the universities were concerned about the lack of an old, old wooden ship on campus, but nice try.

        2. Ask any of them to define diversity. Then listen to the insanity.

          That’s why they need a vast army of diversity specialists to help explain it.

    2. No need for affirmative action at all, just pick out the groups you need represented and let in a couple members from each one.

      …how is that different from affirmative action?

      1. My understanding is that affirmative action uses the same criteria as normal admissions, only relaxed for certain minorities or giving those minorities extra points in the admissions office. In practice, it may turn out to be the same thing.

        1. What were you thinking of originally? Just picking a random black dude off the street?

          1. I know Irish. JATNAS is no Irish.

    3. If their intention is to have a diversity of viewpoints, they are definitely doing it wrong.

      1. It sounds very unsafe and I can’t see the possible benefit.

        1. When I was in college, someone put up a Ron Paul flier on a message board. Someone with an allergy to dissenting views, or about 80% of the student body, could have been killed or seriously injured.

          1. no1 cur

      2. If their intention is to have a diversity of viewpoints, they are definitely doing it wrong.

        Also a tad insulting to expect the “diverse” ones to have pre-set views.

        No, uncivil touched on it above – it’s just superficial, CYA, pat-each-other-on-the-back nothingness.

    4. That ‘different’ view point is useless if it’s rooted in retardation.

      1. And it’s stupid to assume that racial diversity necessarily brings intellectual diversity. I think it is a good thing to have some foreign students and some students from poorer families at a school. But racial quotas or afirmative action aren’t great ways to accomplish that.

        1. I knew a guy from the UAE at a private college I attended.

          Nice guy but meh. All I learned was how great the roads were paved and that he loved Dabs beer.

          Shooter, on the other hand, was a crazy Mohawk. He got his nickname because he was a good ‘shooter’ with the puck.

            1. Quebec hockey dialect is the fricken best.

        2. I think it’s good to have foreign students sure, but I don’t see the real point of selecting for poorer families. I’d rather that intellectual merit be the sole criteria. If foreigners, poor folk, or rich locals can’t make the cut, then no admission. There’s enough universities for everyone and a seat for every ass, no need to degrade standards across the board to get “diversity”. Diversity that doesn’t occur naturally, that is from the bottom up, is a worthless social signal.

        3. Racial diversity is a substitute for intellectual diversity, duh! / prog

    5. “By equating diversity of opinion with race, you are necessarily presuming that all blacks, for example, have the same experiences and opinions. Why do you want to judge them according to the color of their skin and not the content of their character?” The sputtering, let alone the answers, is usually pretty good.

      If all you want is a diverse opinion, hire actors.

      1. Why do you want to judge them according to the color of their skin and not the content of their character?

        We’re no longer allowed to say that. Martin Luther King would fail the current SJW purity test.

        1. “Martin Luther King was a good man, but misguided. We’ve evolved far past the thought he was capable of, in those days.”

          One guess where I heard that.

          1. “Who are you to judge his views? You should check your white privilege.”

            1. What on earth would make you think the person who said it was white?

              1. The people who have tried that justification with me have all been white. The non-white ones go after me, not MLK.

                1. Ah, my bad, I see what you’re saying now.

                  I would sympathize, except one of these pedantic bastards would come along to start a twenty-post derail about whether empathize was the more correcter term.

          2. I immediately thought of Melitha-Harith Perry.

          3. Stormfront?

          4. Y’all never listen to me!

            *runs to the bathroom crying*

            *slams door*

      2. I know I’m just a stupid male who doesn’t know how to check his white privilege but to me, the term ‘African-American’ is rather pointless if not, dare I say, sad.

        It’s like saying I’m a European-American. And? Do you not realize how many nations, tribes, languages, kingdoms and so on make up Europe? As is the case with Africa.

        What if one black person is actually from, say, Senegal and the other Kenya? These are different countries for crying out loud. Never mind places like Tunisia, Mozambique and South Africa.

        I know. Not popular but you get the point.

        1. Let alone the pestiferous problem of what to call black people who live in England? Or France?
          At best the phrase is insanely parochial.

          1. Limey and frog, respectively.

        2. Technically, a white South African immigrant to the US is more aptly called “African-American” than any domestically born black person.

          1. Except those with, say, Italian ancestry are routinely called “Italian-Americans”. Not just recent immigrants.

            1. You have those?

              1. Well, we have some other terms…

            2. “Italian” being a relatively specific subset of the larger European ancestry group. “African” being much more broad. The problem being that most of the time a black person has no way of knowing which tribe they hail from, but with a genetic test maybe they could figure the region of Africa their ancestors are from. I typically harbor disdain for the entire hyphenated concept. I woulds describe myself of American nationality, if asked to elaborate further, of English and Swiss German genetic stock.

              1. Agreed. I would never call myself a “German/English/Polish-American” but I have seen this terminology used in such contexts as St. Patrick’s Day – “a day for Irish-Americans to march around and get drunk”.

                1. *slap*

                  You’re an American. Oim Irish.”

                  /grandmother

              2. I’m a proud mongrel.

          2. I’ve mentioned this before, but my rugby team in college had a white guy from South Africa. He was actually quite surprised to find he was the only white guy, and the only one born in Africa to attend a meeting of the campus’ African Student Union group.

        3. During the first incarnation of the label I was at UNC. My room mate was pretty vehement about that argument. He said he was an American and he was black. He said he had never been to Africa and didn’t know of anyone in his family going back three generations who had ever even been to Africa. So not African-American, not Afro-American…. just black, if you needed to identify a race for some bizarre reason.

          But he also insisted that I wasn’t white. More pink than white, actually. This even though everyone who owns a box of Crayolas knows that you color Caucasians with peach, not pink. I let it slide because he was a great wingman at the clubs.

          1. Or you could have let it slide because he was factually correct.

            That’s the funny thing about PC culture, so often it is factually incorrect.

        4. I’m sure many of them wish to claim their national/trial heritage, but slavery made that almost impossible.

    6. You have just described Affirmative Action.

    7. I often hear the best reason for policies to favor certain minority groups in admissions to college is to achieve a diversity of viewpoints

      That’s the fallback position if they are challenged. Usually, the initial justification is that we need “equity”, which is specifically contrasted with “equality”.

  3. An Ohio teenager who gave a talk while posing as a state senator has plead guilty.

    To giving people false hope.

    1. “has pleaded guilty to impersonating a peace officer”

      Are state senators peace officers? I mean, even in legal terms?

      1. Throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. They could have (may have?) charged him with counterfeiting, making terroristic threats, securities fraud, public indecency, failure to secure a building permit – a thousand different charges.

        1. The more I think about it, the more ridiculous this is. It’s not like he tried to vote on a bill or something. It’s like if he went to a party and introduced himself as a state senator to impress a (really dumb) chick.

          1. Then he’d be charged with rape.

          2. When I ran for the state senate (as a Libertarian, which means with virtually no chance of winning) it was uncanny how much attention I started getting from women, most of whom didn’t even agree with any of my political views. It was the only time in my life I was dating more than one woman at the same time.

            There’s something about social power that many women respond to at a visceral level. I suddenly totally and completely understood Bill Clinton and his interest in politics.

            1. Googles “how to get on the ballot in … “

        2. Anything to ruin his life, and laugh at him as he grovels for redemption.

      2. As far as I can figure out, this is the relevant part of the statute:

        “”Peace officer” means…an officer, agent, or employee of the state or any of its agencies, instrumentalities, or political subdivisions, upon whom, by statute, a duty to conserve the peace or to enforce all or certain laws is imposed and the authority to arrest violators is conferred, within limits of that statutory duty and authority…”

        Also, according to the Toledo Blade, the crime to which he pled guilty is “a third-degree felony.” Looking at the statute, it seems that this is the part of the statute which applies:

        “(E) No person shall commit a felony while impersonating a peace officer, private police officer, federal law enforcement officer, officer, agent, or employee of the state, or investigator of the bureau of criminal identification and investigation….

        “…Whoever violates division (E) of this section is guilty of a felony of the third degree.”

        So I suppose the language of the statute actually covers any impersonation of a public official. Sneaky.

        And what other felony did he commit while impersonating a state Senator?

      1. George W. Bush?

      2. Alexander Haig?

      3. Yoko Ono?

  4. A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz’s respective tax plans would reduce federal revenues by $8.7 to $9.5 trillion.

    Couple it with a balanced budget amendment and we’d have cause to celebrate.

    1. Says the state employee.

      1. If there were other jobs around, I’d take them.

        Until the government dies, I still need an income. I have consistantly advocated on the “cut spending” line, especially after getting a good look at the wastefulness.

        1. The coffee shop down the street from me is hiring.

          1. You’re in Chicago. If I’m moving that far I’ll go to Texas instead.

            Besides, would you rather I advocate against good fiscal policy?

            1. Does UnCivil tell you how to suck cock, Nikster? Then why are you telling him how to be a bureaucrat?

            2. I think she’d rather you weren’t a statist parasite.

              1. I was under the impression that ‘statist’ was a set of views rather than an occupation.

                1. You keep telling yourself that.

                2. You can call yourself something other than a statist if you want, but you’re literally part of the state. You are the state.

                  1. Let me see if I understand your position.

                    A person who takes a job with the wrong employer becomes unredeemable regardless of their economic state at the time, or their personal views or actions. So my sin is making the rational choice for my condition.

                    I’ll keep that in mind.

                    1. Why all the hate for UCS all of the sudden? The state is gonna exist regardless and the man has a right to earn a goddamn living. Doesn’t mean he is trying to pass laws to make the state bigger. You know, you could work for NSA and still be a staunch believer in the Fourth Amendment.

                    2. The state is gonna exist regardless and the man has a right to earn a goddamn living.

                      Excuses like this are exactly why “the state is gonna exist regardless.” And the state is not the only living to be made.

                    3. Monty,

                      Nicole is a pedantic waste of time. She isn’t stupid but over the years she has become more and more self righteous (particularly since the Trump candidacy took off) and completely loathes anyone who doesn’t agree with her.

                      She has a few commenters here too that agree with whatever she says.

                      Just look at how she consistently loses her cool whenever John shows up. I love it because John is one of the few commenters here that looks to burst the echo chamber that the comments section can become.

                      I’m sure many here would scoff at the idea the this place can be an echo chamber but I see it from time to time.

                      *full disclosure, I’ve been lurking since 2010 and rarely comment.

                    4. I love it because John is one of the few commenters here that looks to burst the echo chamber that the comments section can become.

                      Would you describe Tony or american socialist the same way? Because that’s the same level John is on. I get the concern about “echo chambers” but even an echo chamber is preferable to a bunch of assholes like John who spend 90% of their time insulting and belittling people instead of discussing anything.

                    5. Without John, Am Soc, Tony and the Tulpuppets, this place would explode. We need posts from people who really aren’t libertarian to give us a common foe, otherwise we turn on each other.

                      btw I claim copyright on Tony and the Tulpuppets, so any of you who want to start the band need to pay me!

                    6. I find it ridiculous that you can’t make a distinction between John and Tony.

                    7. A person who takes a job with the wrong employer becomes unredeemable regardless of their economic state at the time, or their personal views or actions.

                      Um, no, my view is much simpler than that: you are an individual responsible for your own actions and those actions include being a part of the state.

                      You even admitted you could get a different job if you simply moved. But that might be inconvenient, so why not steal from people and oppress them instead?

                    8. Wow, UCS is personally stealing from and oppressing people now, just because he is part of the state apparatus?! What kind of bullshit total anarchy theory is that? Do we not need at least some sort of state framework for some things?

                    9. Do we not need at least some sort of state framework for some things?

                      “Don’t we just need to oppress people a little bit???”

                    10. “Don’t we just need to oppress people a little bit???”

                      Probably. Believing that is the way the world works doesn’t mean you have to like it.

                    11. Believing that is the way the world works doesn’t mean you have to like it.

                      It also doesn’t mean you have to condone it, be a part of it, or continue it.

                    12. It also doesn’t mean you have to condone it, be a part of it, or continue it.

                      I think maybe I wasn’t clear. I don’t like that people are, generally, really unlibertarian, but it’s a built in premise of my world view. So the question becomes, how best to protect liberty in an unlibertarian world? If the answer is by tolerating some amount of oppression, then so bet it. I will condone that as the least bad option, I may even take part in it if I really feel it’s necessary. I respect the positions of those who refuse to accept any compromise, but I don’t think I’d like a world in which we all lived that way.

                      But even back in the real world where we have a lot more than the minimal amount of oppression necessary to prevent a slide into chaos, most people have to weigh other considerations against living according to a nice sounding but ultimately unrealistic code. Like providing for their family or not spending 8 hours a day hating the work they do, which is toxic to the soul. I’m not going to stand in judgement over someone who does their best to get by in an imperfect and mostly uncontrollable world.

                    13. If you get so upset every time someone does something you disagree with, I guarantee you wouldn’t be any happier in an anarchist society.

                    14. If you get so upset every time someone does something you disagree with, I guarantee you wouldn’t be any happier in an anarchist society.

                      By her own admission, she’s a miserable nihilist who believes that life is a terrible burden. She won’t be any happier, anywhere.

                    15. If you get so upset every time someone does something you disagree with, I guarantee you wouldn’t be any happier in an anarchist society.

                      I keep talking about morality, and everyone else wants to talk about happiness. I wonder what that’s about.

                    16. Are you going to make the argument that you neither utilize nor benefit from any government services, whether or not you believe that said service is best supplied by the government?

                      If not, it kinda seems like you’re on the “need to oppress people a little bit” wagon.

                      If so… no, you like in a city, there’s no way you don’t.

                    17. Are you going to make the argument that you neither utilize nor benefit from any government services, whether or not you believe that said service is best supplied by the government?

                      If not, it kinda seems like you’re on the “need to oppress people a little bit” wagon.

                      If so… no, you like in a city, there’s no way you don’t.

                      No, I’ve never made that argument. I’ve explicitly called out my own contributions to the state in comments here before. Some people aren’t afraid to admit their own failings. But I also don’t think that benefiting from government services is the same thing as choosing to live my whole life sucking on the teat of the state and continuing its power through every single one of my actions in the world.

                    18. But I also don’t think that benefiting from government services is the same thing as choosing to live my whole life sucking on the teat of the state and continuing its power through every single one of my actions in the world.

                      Wrong, as usual.

                      Uncivil is our mole, undermining the state from the inside. He provides more value to the cause of liberty and righteousness than all of us put together.

                    19. Nikki, your call for purity fails the smell test. By your own admission you believe in the extinction of humanity, yet you get up every day, eat, and otherwise continue living.

                    20. Nikki, your call for purity fails the smell test. By your own admission you believe in the extinction of humanity, yet you get up every day, eat, and otherwise continue living.

                      Well, yeah, she’s like, the prophetess of anarcho-nihilism or something. She can’t kill herself, otherwise no one else will be left to spread the message of The Glorious Extinction. But everyone else should just up and stop living. For the good of humanity the world justice and morality nothing at all.

                    21. But everyone else should just up and stop living.

                      Can you point to where I’ve advocated this?

                    22. Nikki, your call for purity fails the smell test. By your own admission you believe in the extinction of humanity, yet you get up every day, eat, and otherwise continue living.

                      I’ve heard and responded to these arguments before and I have no desire to do so again. Read about anti-natalism. Read David Benatar. These concerns have been more than addressed and in fact support my position that reproducing is morally wrong.

                    23. But you did respond, you just decided to use an appeal to authority rather than an argument. I have no interest in learning more about anti-natalism; it falls into the same category as solipsism. Its a self invalidating philosophy. Moral rules are rules for sapient conduct. You propose a rule that holds the elimination of sapience as its goal; hence you are proposing a morality that destroys morality.

                    24. and in fact support my position that reproducing is morally wrong.

                      Is communism morally wrong? Because the world is full of people that support it.
                      People supported Nazism…some wrote papers on its benefits. That doesn’t make their argument correct.

                      Reproducing is morally wrong? Lol. That’s the most retarded thing I’ve seen that George Lucas didn’t write.

                    25. my position that reproducing is morally wrong.

                      I don’t see how a purported moral principle that results in the extinction of humanity can be considered a valid moral principle. The point of morality is not nihilism.

                    26. Uncivil,

                      Dont drive on government roads getting to work either. That makes you twice as bad.

                    27. Well shit, robc, the office is ringed in them. How am I supposed to get in?

                    28. Where my flying car?

                    29. A lot of my business is selling to the state. The basically pay me.

                    30. Particularly dumb position on Nikki’s part cest I’m pretty sure she uses roads and pays all her taxes. We all use state services and help to support it out of practicality and desire not to be in jail. The important part is what we try to do to move society towards the NAP.

                    31. In my defense, I was responding to a post waaaaay up thread. I didn’t read far enough down to see everyone making the same point.

                    32. We all use state services and help to support it out of practicality and desire not to be in jail.

                      I don’t really agree with Nikki here, but UCS will not go to jail if he stops working for the state.

                  2. Now, now. Perhaps he doesn’t enable, assist or enforce any of the things a non-statist would be against. At all. Ever.

                    If that’s the case, then I don’t see anything wrong with it.

                  3. L’etat, ces’t UCS.

                  4. I do some contract work for the state. I make sure my counterpart private clients know how much more the state pays me. Sowing hatred of the state by exposing it. Also, my job would exist in a free society, so I don’t feel too bad.

                    1. I’m not technically a government employee but our funding comes from the government (though that is starting to change). My job may very well not exist in a free society, but my job most certainly would exist whether I took it or not. I like what I do and I try to be a voice in the wilderness when I can.

                    2. Basic research. NSF funded.

                    3. If you got rid of all anarchists, minarchists, libertarians from all govt undertakings, you’d have a better government?

                    4. Purity tests are in fashion again, I see.

                    5. Banking is more and more an arm of the state: the industry is told when to jump and how high, its executives are like fascist collaborators, much of its efforts are directed toward social engineering at the behest of politicians, it serves as whipping boy when those policies fail, and it’s essential to propping up government debt. It’s occurred to me more than once that I’m basically a civil servant.

                    6. I’m basically a civil servant

                      If you’re in business you are a civil servant.

                      Who collects the taxes?

                      Who carries out the majority of regulations?

                      Like it or not, we are all Komarovski’s to some extent.

                  5. L’etat c’est UnCivilServant.

                    1. Rufus, let’s discuss when you went blind. I’m rather concerned.

                    2. D’oh! Shoulda read the comment above from Just a sermon…

                  6. Maybe he’s a gruff fellow, but with a heart of gold, undermining the system from within, all while maintaining an absolutely adorable friendship with his ambitious statist co-worker, who also has a heart of gold. Ever thought of that?

                    1. ambitious statist co-worker, who also has a heart of gold.

                      No. As a matter of fact, no, this possibility has not occurred to me.

                  7. So Nikki and Episiarch are opposed to libertarians working in government? We NEED lovers of liberty in government! If you cede all government positions to those who want to expand Leviathan,you have given up the fight for liberty before you start.

                3. The real question is “are you essential?”

                  If not, then you must commit seppuku for crimes against the non-state.

        2. The least you can do is act like a human poison pill from within.

          1. I do what I can, and am always looking for good ideas.

            1. Fire ants.

            2. Open cans of tuna in the AC ducts. Cherry bombs in the toilets. Kimchi for lunch every day. Whatever it takes.

        3. Don’t mind Nikki’s increasing worstness. Her human extinction project just ain’t getting the volunteers she wanted.

          1. human extinction project

            Good band name

          2. Living things always have a bias towards life, or else they wouldn’t exist. That’s why not having kids is such a taboo.

          3. That’s why I have the parricide project as backup.

            1. What did parrots ever do to you?

            2. The Parricide Project is another good band name.

            3. What happened to your regicide project?!?

              1. Now regicide is a cide I can take!

                1. calling Swiss!

                  Oh, wait…

            4. What good will killing parrots do?

              1. They’ll quit snitchin’.

                1. I’ve got soap. I’ve got socks.

                  Keep talking, man.

        4. I signed a contract yesterday with a government agency to dispose of around $300,000 worth of construction equipment. I submitted a bid to do so under the agency’s rules.

          Am I a government stooge too?

      2. Question: is every person that willingly uses a government service or facility a piece of shit? Or is it just the people who collect a paycheck from a government agency?
        What about contractors that do pubsec and private sector work? Are they half pieces of shit?
        What about somebody like me that sells things in a 100% free and open marketplace but will bid on equipment to sell from government entities? Am I a piece of shit (merely because of that)?
        Also, what about the person that accepts $1 more than they paid into Social Security? What’s the piece of shit threshold there?

        1. Nikki is the Kostoyed Amourski of the HNR train.

    2. In this thread, someone supports a libertarian position and gets shit on because he has a job with the government.

      I can’t figure out why libertarianism doesn’t get more traction.

      1. Come now, you can’t grind someone into the ground without traction.

      2. Everyone knows that libertarians are retarded.

      3. +1 Word. Glad someone other than me is on UCS’ side…

        1. Most people would be on UCS’s side. It’s just that Reason commenters are not most people.

          1. Yep. That’s man’s just doing his job., Nothing wrong with that. Practically a legal defense, I’m sure.

          2. I suspect most people here are on UCS’s side. I am convinced Nikki is a dedicated troll.

      4. Anarchists tend not to think much of agents of the state. Not sure why that’s a shock.

        1. Unless they make people shovel their walks, amirite?

          1. +1 hypocrisy

          2. -1 Cory Booker

          3. Yeah, I never actually said the state should do that. I suggested people were idiots for using it as an example of nanny statism.

        2. Anarchists tend not to think much of agents of the state. Not sure why that’s a shock.

          Come now, he could be a provocateur. At the very least he’s a viable target. Agents of the state have their uses.

        3. Sorry if some of us “agents of the state” don’t pass your libertarian purity test…

      5. Why does the opinion of anonymous internet commenters matter?

        1. I’ll pretend you don’t really mean that.

        2. *single tear runs down cheek*

      6. Anarchists arent libertarians. They are just delusional.

        1. Tch. As if you know anything, you spell it ya’ll.

        2. Oh boy, it’s been too long since we’ve had a good anarchy vs. minarchy fight.

          An anarchist is a libertarian who has followed libertarianism to its logical conclusion. Discuss.

          1. An anarchist is a libertarian who has followed libertarianism to its logical conclusion

            I don’t have a problem with that statement. I’ll just add that reality tends to upset the logical conclusions of pretty much every idealistic moral philosophy.

          2. *puts colander on head and jumps in foxhole*

            1. Loads special gun with special tiny colander-hole sized bullets.

              1. I believe your special gun is called a shotgun.

          3. Anarchy doesnt exist, or at least not long. Archs will always fill the gap.

            Minarchy isnt much better, but it can last a whilr.

          4. I think that’s true. The nap, followed to the end is anarchy. I think libertarians are on some sort of train heading that way. An caps are the last stop. Minarchists get of one stop short. Classical liberals are a few stops before that.
            Nothing wrong with any of these stops. They’re home.
            At least we’re all on the same line.

            1. I don’t think the NAP leads all the way to anarchy. Responding to aggression is not aggression. The NAP followed to its logical extreme leads to a purely reactive state. No standing institutions would exist, but you could still have formal agreements that we’d all band together and chip in for ammo. I guess it depends on whether vigilance committees and a decentralized militia qualify as anarchy.

              1. I guess it depends on whether vigilance committees and a decentralized militia qualify as anarchy.

                As long as supporting them or joining them is entirely voluntary and they don’t initiate violence, sure.

          5. Libertarianism is defined as rejecting the legitimacy of the state as it is generally understood. A ‘libertarian’ who disagrees with that is just a liberal.

            1. Define “generally understood”.

              1. To keep it short, an agency that claims a monopoly of legitimate violence over an area.

                1. I don’t think that’s even close to the generally understood definition of a state. I think it’s a very good definition, for sure. But the generally understood definition would have a lot more to it in this day and age.

      7. Well, to my understanding, outside anarchists, libertarians do accept a small, functional role for government. So I don’t see why you can’t hold such principles and have a government job. In fact, I think it’s an asset for libertarianism.

        1. +1 Ron Swanson.

          +all the bacon and eggs

          1. Oh shit. Maybe UCS is Ron Swanson!

        2. I’d rather meet a libertarian sheriff than the other guy.
          I guess I’d rather meet none.

      8. In this thread, someone supports a libertarian position and gets shit on because he has a job with the government.

        Generally, one that subsists on money from an extortion racket, even one that has popular legitimacy, is of low moral character or too ignorant about morality to see the problem with it. Generally, that is. I’m open to the idea that there are those doing more good than evil in their capacity as state agents.

        1. That fucking Ron Paul! Enemy of Liberty he has been just because he worked in te system.

          Jesus H Christ. You know, it’s possible to work for a government and try to diminishing power at the same time. It’s called activism, not hypocrisy.

          1. Is that some sort of response to what I wrote?

            Generally, that is. I’m open to the idea that there are those doing more good than evil in their capacity as state agents.

            1. My reply was only indirectly made to your comment. It just seemed like the best place to point out that good people with the goal of shrinking the government have also worked from the inside.

              The inside, where the ability to shrink government exists for real.

              1. Yeah I accept that thesis. I suppose only 95% of government employees are parasitic beneficiaries of racketeering. Me granting that 5% population of decent people in government is extremely generous and probably more of a reflection of my optimism about humanity than anything else.

                1. Actually 100% of government employees are beneficiaries of racketeering. The percent that are deliberately parasitic is open to debate.

                  Do you begrudge the government employee whose chosen career path has been taken over by the public sector?

                  1. Do you begrudge the government employee whose chosen career path has been taken over by the public sector?

                    Well, then you have Ron Paul whom I believe forwent any payment from taxpayers? Albeit he accepted payment for his expenses in traveling to Washington, if I am remembering that correctly. But yes you’re right, it’s closer to 100% for parasitism, slightly less than 100% are completely oblivious to the moral problem of it.

                    Usually but not necessarily. I loathe the vast majority of cops, nonetheless I know that society requires some sort of protection agency or enforcement agency, unfortunately that career path has been monopolized. Same for judges and prosecutors. Social workers are usually terrible, but similarly the welfare state has crowded out many charitable and fraternal organizations from existence making that career path nearly monopolized.

                    I reserve a more consistent form of antipathy for every single person working at the EPA and IRS, Homeland security and most of the alphabet soup of federal bureaucracies. Federal workers in particular, have profoundly less moral legitimacy than gubmint employees at a lower levels.

                    The monopoly itself and defenders of it are what I begrudge without exception.

                    1. I tend to agree with you here.

                      But can you admit that you became a moral relativist in 23 minutes when real-world scenarios were brought up? We all are. Some of us just recognize that the system can only be changed from within. And that means libertarians going to work in government so they can shrink it.

                    2. No. As you said, those are necessary but also monopolized career paths. I disagree with kidnapping and I disagree with theft. But if I get kidnapped and held in a dungeon and my captor feeds me only stolen food, that doesn’t make me a relativist or undermine my position on those crimes. Moral relativism would be to say something like; “I disagree with theft. But it’s not theft when the government does it.”

                    3. I took your earlier comment below as calling anyone that would work for the government a statist and moral relativist. I misunderstood in trying to make my point.

                      So you’re not calling anyone that would work for the state a moral relativist or statist? Or are you? I’m just looking for clarification here.

                    4. I took your earlier comment below as calling anyone that would work for the government a statist

                      For clarification of terms, there are statists and then there are statists. Minarchists are technically “statists” in that they favor the existence of the state for one reason or another. Then there are “statists” as described by minarchists which are people who want a bigger state than they want, progressives, socialists and other state centric types.

                      For me as an anarchist, everyone that favors a state is a statist but obviously minarchists and anarchists (that is of the anarcho-capitalist and agorist variety), make natural allies on a great many issues. Such good allies in fact, that a non-libertarian has trouble telling the difference between a genuine anarchist and a minarchist libertarian.

                      So you’re not calling anyone that would work for the state a moral relativist or statist?

                      I would think very few anarchists work for the state. And a moral relativist isn’t such because he works for the state necessarily.

                      Like when someone says that a killing that would be murder if you or I did it but is not considered murder when committed by a cop, that is moral relativism. Many minarchists fall into that camp while thinking they believe in absolute or universal morality, when in reality they are exempting one class of humans from the basic moral principles that should in theory bind everyone regardless of who signs their paycheck.

                    5. Thanks for the clarification. You think statism exists on a sliding scale. That makes perfect sense to me and I tend to agree, although I try not to label minarchists/libertarians as statists because the generally accepted definition of the term is someone that supports the state in its current form or in an expanded form.

                    6. because the generally accepted definition of the term is someone that supports the state in its current form or in an expanded form.

                      I would say that’s because support for the state in some form is generally accepted and some of the the very best libertarian theorists were advocates of the existence of a state themselves. The theorists that I’ve read a lot of, Stephan Kinsella, Molyneux, Rothbard, Hoppe, Salerno, Woods, David Friedman et cetera use the term as a broad category to classify any advocate for the state in any form whatsoever.

                      For me it’s a matter of “know thy audience” or “know thy speaker”, it depends on who I’m reading and to whom I’m talking, to know the meaning of the word in conversation. I happen to prefer to use it in the anarchist sense because it’s more clear and unambiguous to whom the term applies. Whereas with the minarchist use, you could debate at length about which middle of the road state-compatible ideologies are or aren’t truly “statist”.

                      although I try not to label minarchists/libertarians as statists because the generally accepted definition of the term is someone that supports the state in its current form or in an expanded form.

                      I don’t find fault with that. Minarchists are only statists as it compares to anarchists like myself. As compared to a prog or a socialist, minarchist libertarians are effectively anarchist blasphemers against the all powerful god-state.

                    7. And that means libertarians going to work in government so they can shrink it.

                      Just the same, someone that infiltrates the enemy ranks isn’t a traitor, he’s still working for his own team. That said, I think the number of genuine libertarian operatives in government is astonishingly small, even as a proportion of that exceedingly generous allotment of 5% decent humans in government.

          2. Forget it, sloop. Nicole has become a full-throated anarchist. Its like arguing with a socialist.

            1. That’s generally how I feel about arguing with moral relativists, like most statists are whether they know it or not.

            2. Except for the bit where an anarchist doesn’t want strongmen to steal your property for their personal benefit. I’m sure you left that bit out by accident.

              1. I agree with Nikki’s principle of being against working for government, but openly judging people for their choices is more like a prog thing. It’s making the political personal.

                1. In her defense, she sees it as ongoing, willful aggression, no different than working as an accountant for the mafia.

          3. Libertarian is what people call themselves only when they’re being shafted by the state. After hanging around this place for enough years, it seems pretty difficult to call it a principled position.

      9. Balanced budget isn’t a libertarian position. No budget is!

  5. During a Republican townhall aired on CNN Tuesday night, Donald Trump continued to trash formerBreitbart reporter Michelle Fields, suggesting that she could have been carrying a “little bomb” at a press event and that his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was merely exercising an abundance of caution when he pulled her away from the candidate.

    Wait, I thought the Trumpalo line was that he didn’t touch her? Now he did, but it was self defense?

    1. I think the hat and the hair want out – so they are goading their host to try to say something so stupid it will actually hurt him in the election (ie. WI unemployment is 20%, she could have had a bomb!).

      That or he is cracking under the strain of campaigning.

    2. When there was no video he didn’t touch her. Now, the Secret Service outsources to campaign staff.

      1. They were busy drinking and whoring.
        #makethesecretservicegreatagain

        1. drinking and whoring.

          Sounds pretty great to me.

    3. It isn’t broken. Also, it was broken like that when I bought it. Now give me my refund.

    4. The Trumpalo line is “whatever”. Shake your head vigorously, open your mouth and see what falls out.

      The truth of the matter is that Trump had shit his pants again and his handlers are told to keep everybody away from The Donald until he deals with the mess. Trump has not shat in a toilet since 1987 – he wears Trumpalettes branded adult diapers (so exclusive only DJT itself has access to them) specifically so that he can salvage his bodily production. He maintains a yuuge warehouse of Maxwell House coffee jars filled with his excresence, all carefully cataloged and detailed, for something he refers to only as “The Project”. Insiders (according to a story from a 1997 Gold Coast Quarterly) have said the project also involves some sort of cryogenic cabinet, a large quantity of aborted fetuses, a bottle of Rogaine and a rare Laserdisk copy of Can’t Stop The Music.

      1. Disliking any of that is the very definition of histrionics*. Sit down and shut up!

        *… is anyone else just laughing their fucking arses off at the irony of histrionics being used in this instance? Just me?

      2. … and a rare Laserdisk copy of Can’t Stop The Music.

        That may be the most horrifying part of the whole thing.

      3. Wait, he’s Howard Hughes’s clone?

  6. U.S. soda consumption has hit a 30-year low.

    Are we sure this doesn’t just mean use of the term “pop” is at a 30-year high?

    1. You’re so likable.

    2. I sense a war of some sort beginning…

      FTR, it’s “pop”, goddamnit.

      1. It’s coke. All carbonated, sugared drinks are ‘cokes’.

        It’s like you have never been to the south. Geez.

        *Stops at a store, asks passenger “Yew wanna coke?”

        Passenger – “Shure”

        Me – “Ok, whut kind?”

        Passenger – “Diut Pepsey. Uh bottle, nadah can.”

        1. That’s DOT pepsa in Lubbock TX

        2. Oh, I’ve been to the south. They apparently can only generalize a concept by de-capitalizing a brand name.

          1. That’s simply untrue, Timon. Here’s a kleenex for your tears.

  7. “suggesting that she could have been carrying a “little bomb” at a press event”

    Donald Trump has a little bomb in his pants.

    1. Judging from his hand size at least.

    2. I once sawr James woods turn a pen into a bomb.

      1. I once smoked a joint with James Woods between periods at an LA Kings vs Bruins match. We were outside in the designated smoking area at the old Great Western Forum. Nice guy.

        1. I like hearing stories about the celebrities that are cool people. I met Chris Pratt once. Nicest guy in the world.

        2. That might be the best celebrity sighting of all time.

            1. No offense to a fine man like him but I think this one has him beat.

  8. Donald Trump continued to trash former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, suggesting that she could have been carrying a “little bomb”

    The snuke lives!

    1. Pardon me, I am a fully qualified Ordnance Corps Officer…ma’am, I am going to need to do an “inspection”…

      1. Maybe you can help me with some… “Explosive Ordnance Disposal”…

  9. Hijack yourself a plane to Cyprus, obviously.

    That reasoning is all Greek to me.

  10. …Corey Lewandowski, was merely exercising an abundance of caution when he pulled her away from the candidate.

    Finally, a candidate for president who understands the secret Abundance of Caution Clause in all laws.

  11. A City Council hearing Wednesday morning could decide the fate of Times Square’s costumed characters.

    CIVIL WAR!

    1. My money is on cynical Captain America.

      1. I’m not sure he can take Angst Man.

        1. *begins to narrow gaze….changes mind and slow claps instead*

  12. Only a links mention of the Egyptair hijacker? Is Reason afraid of terrorist incidents that don’t fit the narrative?

    1. ENB covered that ish yesterday.

  13. new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) shows just how dramatic those plans are: Both would reduce federal revenues to the levels of the Truman administration, and require deep cuts across a huge variety of government programs.

    This is overly dramatic enough that I don’t think I need to read the analysis.

  14. Both Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich renounced pledges to support the Republican presidential nominee whomever it is.

    Primary campaigns are yuge eye openers.

    1. Even if they win? Respect that.

    1. Let me help: mind your own business.

      1. Since her mother had dementia, it kinda was her business as she is now the decision-maker for her mother. And in the end she decided it wasn’t hurting her mother, so she let it go.

        1. Yeh, my father is in the early stages of dementia, and lemme tell ya, we have to take care of him. It’s like dealing with a petulant five year-old sometimes. One time, at a CVS in the States, he wanted to buy large doses of eye drops for no reason to the tune of hundreds of dollars. I had to stand there and delicately talk him into buying one small pack (hey, life is all about compromise right?) and move on. For him it was exerting his independence and didn’t want to be challenged. For me, I had to bring this to a quiet close and go take him for a glass of wine.

    2. “For the record, her pelvis was broken when i got here.”

    3. Sex in the Alzheimer’s ward seems ideal. No one will remember who is banging whom, so jealousy and drama will largely be avoided. And if they get a disease or something, who cares? They’ll be drooling bags of nothing soon enough.

      1. Yeah, I am trying to figure out the negative consequences of letting this continue. I suspect pregnancy is not a danger.

      2. Sure, except for the small detail that everyone’s body is gross.

        1. holes are holes.

      3. Oh shut up you. What a dementia ward really needs is the expert advise of ethicists. They’ll provide the perfect solutions!

    4. People really have a penchant to over think life, eh?

      I notice the people who commented in favor of the relationship are thumbed down while the ‘responsible’ authoritarians are getting all the thumb ups!

      1. I remember a few years back a man was charged with rape for having sex with his own wife because she was suffering from dementia. Apparently she was very sexual and would come on to him constantly, including in front of other people.

        But even though she clearly wanted to have sex this is obviously still rape because people with mental problems lose all agency and should no longer be allowed to make any choices, no matter how much they may want physical intimacy.

        1. Thanks for reminding me how much people suck (not the good kind)

        2. Unless of course the state can wring money out of them, in which case their agency never disappears.

        3. Holy crap, that’s messed up.

          “There is no allegation that Mrs. Rayhons resisted or showed signs of abuse. And it is widely agreed that the Rayhonses had a loving, affectionate relationship, having married in 2007 after each had been widowed. They met while singing in a church choir.”

          1. And also relevant – the wife’s daughter from a previous marriage doesn’t like the new husband and seems to have been the moving force behind this prosecution.

    5. “Each time I open the heavy, steel door to the dementia wing, I’m met by the smell of old people: flaking skin, greasy hair, occasionally the waft of a soiled adult diaper. The nursing home doesn’t strike me as an incubator for love.”

      You condescending bitch.

      “That was one I hadn’t anticipated ? not only because I assumed the dementia-ridden were nonsexual beings, but because prior to this, as far as I knew, my mother had not done the deed for 45 years.”

      Your mother is 80 and you think she hasn’t had sex since she was 35? I suspect this is because you weren’t aware she had sex in that time frame, not because she didn’t have any.

  15. A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz’s respective tax plans would reduce federal revenues by $8.7 to $9.5 trillion.

    That’s a good start.

    1. I want to see details on what they would cut. I believe Cruz has been somewhat specific in this regard. Trump, well all I know is that it’s going to be great.

      1. He’ll make YUGE cuts. Just the classiest cuts.

      2. Also that you’ll love it

  16. A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz’s respective tax plans would reduce federal revenues by $8.7 to $9.5 trillion.

    That debt ceiling is going to be vaulted.

  17. ‘The worst beating we’ve seen since Rodney King’: Two deputies accused of beating man with 40 blows as he lay helplessly on the floor before taking his jewelry and a ‘trophy photo’ of his bloodied body

    Surveillance video captured the horrific beating of Stanislav Petrov
    Jerome Allen, 50, and Haley Harris, 31, said they watched two deputies beat Petrov with their steel batons up to 40 times
    Petrov’s attorney said a cop told the couple: ‘Hope you enjoyed the show’
    The Alameda County Sheriff’s Department announced a 20-year veteran who was not identified was placed on paid administrative leave
    He joins Deputies Paul Weiber and Louis Santamaria, who were placed on paid leave after the video was released in November
    Authorities said they were chasing Petrov, who allegedly stole a car and led police on a 30 minute chase across the Bay Bridge
    Petrov, 29, suffered broken bones in his hands and a concussion

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

    Some of the comments are dripping in cop semen.

    1. “with 40 blows”

      This is the worst French movie ever.

    2. *rolls on floor, clutching nuts*

      1. They’re gone man. After 40 blows, they’re gone.

    3. Some of the comments are dripping in cop semen.

      And this is why the beatings and killings will never end. Most people think they aren’t affected by this so they don’t give a shit.

    4. LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER: “Oh no, this is horrible, horrible…oh, wait, he’s white, thank God.”

    5. Why is nobody talking about the most shocking aspect of this story? A 50 year old hooking up with a 31 year old? Aspirational goals.

    6. “San Francisco prosecutors have not yet decided if they will pursue charges. ”

      I am on the edge of my seat.

      1. If there are any charges they will be for taking the gold necklace and giving to the homeless guy, not for assault with a deadly weapon.

        1. The thing is that the Alameda County Sheriffs are across the Bay. If this was SF county sheriffs, I would say there is no chance there are charges. With law enforcement from another county, I would say there is at least a chance.

          On the other hand: professional courtesy.

  18. Both Trump and Ohio Gov. John Kasich renounced pledges to support the Republican presidential nominee whomever it is.

    what a bunch of Sonic the Pledgehogs.

    1. They’re not sending their best pledges.

    2. This is probably Kasich’s first step to becoming a Democrat. Trump 3rd party run?

  19. Could get very interesting in Minnesoda today when they release the decision whether to charge two cops in a shooting here

    1. *trembling*

      Is that…in chalk?!

      /Emory

    2. Tramp 2016! Because the time for slut-shaming is over. America

      1. You’ve got my vote, even if you are some kind of Strine agent.

      2. A Trumptramp stamp. A boot print on your lower back.

  20. When gorillas attack (badly): Dramatic moment Kijito charged man taking selfie at zoo… but knocked himself senseless on the glass

    The gorilla leaped at the glass at Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska
    Kijito jumps behind a man who seems bizarrely unfazed by the incident
    Apparently the very same silverback broke a window at the zoo last year

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

    If you pause it before the ape hits the glass, you see smudges right where it comes into contact. So it looks like this is a regular thing. Can’t decide if I want to pity the thing for being in captivity, or for being stupid.

    1. You’d think it would learn by Pavlovian conditioning at least.

    2. The gorilla must’ve read that article in the NY Times recently about millennial office culture.

    3. They’re not sending their best gorillas.

  21. Man killed by Arizona police was on his knees and begged police not to shoot him. You can guess what happened next.

    Bonus: Cop was actually charged with second degree murder, but is going to be given a sweetheart deal (negligent homicide) because cop.

    1. “Maricopa County”

      Who could have seen this sort of police brutality coming out of Maricopa County? It’s unprecedented.

    2. Jesus tittyfucking Christ. How are there not more riots?

      1. To be frank, probably because this guy was white so there’s no racial angle. People are okay with police brutality so long as there’s not a whiff of bigotry.

        1. Especially because many times, it is seen by other white people as cops taking out white trash.

      2. Duh, victim was white.

        /Sharpton

      3. How are there not more riots?

        Your real answer is upthread, where everyone has a good excuse for just going along with the system.

        1. Yeah, it’s a shame more of us don’t buy into your strategy of dismantling state oppression, namely calling people ‘parasites’ even when they agree with us.

        2. If it doesn’t bother me personally, it must not be a real problem.

        3. Do you paying any taxes, Nikki? If so why are you going along funding a system of enslavement and oppression? Are you some kind of hypocrite?

          1. Because self-justifying bastards will send people to kill her if she doesn’t?

            I mean, sheesh, obvious.

            1. Why does she use the public water system? It’s cool to use the water but the people paid to provide it are oppressors?

              1. Will they be shot if they stop working there? Will they be arrested for resigning? Has any force, at all, been used to gain this labor?

                If you say that paying taxes is also voluntary, so help me, there will be WORDS, mister.

                1. Presumably no shots will be fired if Nikki forgoes using the public water system. Yet, I’m pretty sure she uses it. Isn’t she part of the oppressors?

                  1. So, what does that have to do with my assertion that “Do you pay taxes, huh huh huh?” is a silly argument lacking in logic?

                    Stop asking me to play the part of Nicole’s white night. Find her email if you wish to discuss it with her that badly.

                    1. It’s not silly seeing how she goes around insufferably pretending she has the moral high-ground in the fighting the good against the state, while fully participating in said society like everybody else.

                    2. *good fight against the state

                      sorry.

                    3. ….while fully participating in….

                      My point, you will recall, is that in at least one aspect – the one you mentioned first, though I’m sure you beat others to “taxes” only by accident – is that this participation is not voluntary.

                      Nikki wants to be gotcha-mad at UCS for working for the government.

                      You want to be gotcha-mad at her for paying taxes.

                      These two things do not compare.

                    4. I’m not gotcha mad at anybody. I just read Nikki as having a sneering disdain for most of the posters here which I frequently find annoying. But your right, my comparison is terrible.

                    5. That’s okay. I just realized I spelled it “night” instead of “knight”. We are all capable of missing our obvious error from time to time.

        4. Uh, thanks. I read it. All I got from it is that you’re insufferable.

      4. Phoenix is a retiree town, no one sucks cop dick like old people

    3. That’s depraved and horrific.

      Over to David French to knock sense back into us to remind us how the cops were in danger and reacted appropriately.

    4. So they admit the body camera footage exists and is that horrific? So it will be part of the discovery for a gigantic civil suit and eventually public.

  22. “During a Republican townhall aired on CNN Tuesday night, Donald Trump continued to trash former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, suggesting that she could have been carrying a “little bomb” at a press event and that his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, was merely exercising an abundance of caution when he pulled her away from the candidate.”

    The Breitbart reporter could have been a suicide bomber is definitely a novel defense.

    1. I would be in favor of all Breitbart employees killing themselves.

      1. I can’t support that – The reactions to Milo’s trolling are too precious to lose. All those shrieking proggies running to their safe spaces…

        1. Yeah, now that a bunch of them resigned Milo is the only one left worth saving. Not because he’s a good reporter, just because of the economic gain we get from construction of safe spaces everywhere he goes.

  23. Just started reading this

    In the list of the world’s great companies, Unaoil is nowhere to be seen. But for the best part of the past two decades, the family business from Monaco has systematically corrupted the global oil industry, distributing many millions of dollars worth of bribes on behalf of corporate behemoths including Samsung, Rolls-Royce, Halliburton and Australia’s own Leighton Holdings.

    Now a vast cache of leaked emails and documents has confirmed what many suspected about the oil industry, and has laid bare the activities of the world’s super-bagman as it has bought off officials and rigged contracts around the world.

  24. I read “Trump and Kasich renounce furries”, and I thought “OK. Why not? Makes as much sense as the current top stories.”

    1. That would actually be the most sensible thing either of them has done this election cycle.

      1. Oh, like you weren’t sexually attracted to Bugs Bunny when he dressed up like a girl bunny.

        1. ‘dat sexy hip swing

        2. I find this whole discussion very hurtful

        3. HOW DID YOU GET HOLD OF MY DIARY JB

  25. Police: Report of body in car trunk turns out to be Dora the Explorer

    Heflin Police Chief A.J. Benefield said police received a report of a possible body in the trunk of a car this morning. The vehicle, a black Hyundai, apparently stopped at a service station in the Birmingham area. A person at the station thought they saw a body when the car trunk was open.

    A “be on the lookout” call went out to law enforcement agencies, Benefield said, describing the car, which had Arkansas license plates and was believed headed east on I-20.

    Benefield said police spotted the vehicle about 11:45 a.m. and stopped it, ordering the family out, which included a child in the backseat. When police opened the trunk, they found a body pillow and a Dora the Explorer pillow in a garbage bag.

    1. I’m guessing the car belongs to Trump?

    2. Points for sex toy creativity.

    3. See nothing, say something.

    4. Well, she always struck me as being up to no good. No parents, backpacks, maps, a monkey, weird characters, Mexican.

      C’man.

      She screams narco-smuggler.

    5. Well,, these scumbag perverts won’t be exploring her any more.

  26. Paging Crusty Juggler….

    Wisconsin stripper bites customer ‘in the crotch’ during lap dance

    A Wisconsin stripper was arrested after she bit a customer “in the crotch,” authorities say.

    Derick Roth, 24, said he gave Mesheokia White a few bucks “to do her thing” at Diamond Jim’s strip club last week in Rock, The Smoking Gun reported. Roth was apparently expecting a lap dance.

    He told cops she placed her head into his crotch and was moving it around, according to the police report.

    Surveillance footage seemed to confirm Roth’s allegations, and when cops confronted White, 29, she appeared drunk.

    1. “said he gave Mesheokia White a few bucks “to do her thing””

      He should have been more specific. How could see know ‘do your thing’ didn’t mean ‘bite me in the crotch?’ Maybe that’s her thing.

    2. “a few bucks “to do her thing” at Diamond Jim’s strip club”

      By the way, before I give you this money, what is your thing?

      1. Some people pay good money for a dong nibble.

    3. Years ago we went hunting for our pot head buddy and found him at a local, seedy strip joint called ‘Le Modernic’. It was like being transported back to 1974 – and the bad parts. A strip joint with wall to wall carpeting is just not right.

      And the characters in there. Ooo, nelly.

      We found him sitting and watching a dancer. He said nothing and we sat at the table. Then my friend blurted, ‘what the fuck?’ as the dancer approached our table. She smiled and flashed her tooth. And then she turned around, spread her legs, looped her head between her legs upside down and motioned to one of use to go over.

      It was horrific.

      1. Crusty is Googling “Le Modernic” right now.

        1. You guys!

          1. They’re hiring:

            Modernic Bar
            March 8 at 4:52pm ?

            Serveuses demand? jeudi vandredi soir avec exp?rience dans les clubs svp

            1. It’s actually not that far from my place, I will have to go take a look. Those types of places are way funnier than comedy clubs.

              1. That’s not why you’re going.

              2. +1 non-ironic orgasm

        2. Welp, you got to eat lunch somewhere.

  27. Feral pigs roaming Florida neighborhood

    Moran has hunted wild pigs for years and said the worst thing about them showing up in a residential area is the danger they can pose to residents and their pets.

    “They can rip up your leg, or your dog’s leg, or anybody else’s leg like it’s soft mashed potatoes,” he said.

    While only a few of the animals have been seen in the Cocoa neighborhood, if they aren’t dealt with, that number will only increase, Moran added.

    “If there’s five or six there, if they don’t do something about them, in another year you’re going to have about 30,” he said. “They multiply very well.”

    Feral pigs are not native to Florida and are believed to have been introduced to the state by Spanish explorers in the 1500s, the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission said.

    1. You better deal with them, or else…

  28. Wait a minute, where are wives normally stowed?

    Hubby drove with wife ON ROOF OF sport utility vehicle

    Addy said they argued after drinks at a restaurant in Palm City and at a bar at a resort on Hutchinson Island. They were staying at the resort because of work being done to their Palm City home.

    After an altercation at the resort, Addy said he decided to leave.

    He said he didn’t realize his wife was on the roof of the vehicle, which police reported was a 2011 Toyota SUV.

    “Addy stated at the first traffic light after the Sewall’s Point bridge, he heard her banging on the roof and realized that she was there,” a report states.

    He said he kept driving with her on the roof because he lacked a cell phone to call police.

    1. He learned it from Mitt Romney.

      1. This must be another front in that War on Women Mitt was waging.

  29. Cautious Yellen drives world stocks near 2016 peaks

    World stocks climbed near the highest levels this year on Wednesday as investors rowed back expectations for how fast and how far U.S. interest rates might rise, bruising the dollar and boosting sovereign bonds.

    Wall Street ESc1 was set to build on Tuesday’s gains, which saw the S&P 500 recorded its highest close of the year after Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen urged caution on further rate hikes in the world’s largest economy amid calls from some policymakers for faster action. [nL3N1712PK

    The dollar was set for its worst quarter in five years against a basket of currencies .DXY, weakening further after its biggest one-day fall in nearly two weeks.

    nothing better than the free market at work.

    1. I wonder if she is related to Glinda since she travels everywhere in a bubble?

  30. University tells students Britain ‘invaded’ Australia

    A top Australian university has rejected claims it is trying to rewrite the nation’s colonial history.
    Students are being encouraged to use the term “invaded” rather than “settled” or “discovered”, and avoid the word “Aborigines”.
    The University of New South Wales (UNSW) Indigenous Terminology guide states that Australia was “invaded, occupied and colonised”.
    But UNSW says it does not mandate what language can and cannot be used.

    The authors of the terminology guide explain their approach at the start, saying that while all staff and students rely heavily upon language, it “is also a vehicle for the expression of discrimination and prejudice… [and] cannot be regarded as a neutral or unproblematic medium”.

    1. Didn’t they? People were living there. The British showed up and took control of the territory. Sounds like an invasion to me.

      1. Debatable. My problem is with the statement about language.

        1. You think language is a neutral medium?

      2. Jemaine: It doesn’t matter what country someone’s from, or what they look like, or the color of their skin. It doesn’t matter what they smell like, or that they spell words slightly differently…some would say, more correctly.

        Sinjay: Yeah…

        Jemaine: Let me finish. I’m a person. Bret’s a person. You’re a person. That person over there is a person. And each person deserves to be treated like a person.

        Sinjay: That’s a great speech. Too bad New Zealanders are a bunch of cocky a-holes descended from criminals and retarded monkeys.

        Jemaine: No, you’re thinking of Australians.

        Bret: Yeah, that’s Australians.

      3. The problem is that most of the “settlers” they want to accuse of invading were brought there against their will as prisoners.

        Also, the aboriginals may rightly be accused by progressives of cultural appropriation for wearing clothes, but do they do that?

        NoooooOOOOooooo!

        1. By their analysis, Britain is being invaded right now

        2. They said Australia ‘was invaded, occupied, and colonized.’

          The fact that many of the people brought as part of the colonization process were prisoners doesn’t change that. It was invaded by the British government. Sure most of the actual Australians are descended from people brought there as criminals, but that doesn’t change that it was an invasion and a colonization, just as the guide describes.

          1. That was done by POMS, not Australians.

            You’re more responsible for how the police in another city treat suspects than prisoners in Australia were for how the Crown treated the indigenous people there.

            Being sent to the other side of the world for failing to pay an exorbitant tax is neither “invading”. It’s no surprise if the descendants of those prisoners are reluctant to characterize it that way.

        3. The problem is that most of the “settlers” they want to accuse of invading were brought there against their will as prisoners.

          Irrelevant. The invader was the British Crown.

          FWIW, I have no problem with seeing 1788 as an invasion (after all, that’s what the locals appear to have seen it as, judging by their reaction). I do have a problem with the elimination of discussion inherent in language diktats.

          1. Go tell the Crown to call it an invasion then. Australians are only responsible for what they did.

            1. You’re saying Australians aren’t to blame. Who is saying contemporary Australians did anything? This is not the issue. The issue is, primarily, how you characterise the landing of the First Fleet in January 1788 organised by the British Crown. The presence of unwilling settlers (in the shape of convicts) is a side issue, at best, to this question because they were not the controlling mind of the operation.

              Being sent to the other side of the world for failing to pay an exorbitant tax is neither “invading”. It’s no surprise if the descendants of those prisoners are reluctant to characterize it that way.

              Unsurprising, perhaps, but not necessarily logical.

              Most of us are not descended from convicts, BTW.

              1. By that definition anyone that moves is invading. Mexicans are invading us.

          2. At the moment I can’t think of any place in the world that was not, at one time, colonized, occupied or controlled by European peoples. On the whole, this was a positive thing for humanity. Not to say that the Europeans were being altruistic most of the time or that it could have been done more humanely everywhere it occurred.

      4. It was a penal colony. IOW, if they stayed in the UK, they would face persecution. Therefore, they were refugees.

        1. The British Crown was not a refugee and it was the one doing the invading.

          1. So, if a foreign power deliberately creates a large migration of refugees to another land, and either puts its own soldiers among those refugees or pushes some of those refugees to do violence in that land as its agents, that is an invasion?

            1. A foreign power sent a military force to plant a flag and take formal possession of another land, did not create a treaty with the locals or recognise their right to live there, and engaged in armed conflict with the locals to subdue them, augmented by forced and free settlers who wanted the land. Are the locals wrong to consider this an invasion?

        2. Yeah, why are these university officials hating on refugees?

      5. The Abos stole the land from the roos – the Brits were there to protest the cultural appropriation.

        1. Hey Jerryskids, just a friendly bit of advice – “Abos” is massively offensive here, so most Aussies will look at you oddly if you use it. The roo theory is cute, but the Indigenous people actually stole it from these bad boys

      6. Yes, but the ‘aborigines’ were also invaders. There are no good guys in this story.

        1. Does the same apply to the Jooooooos?

          1. The whole debate about “who came first-ism” being the basis for some kind of existential/permanent-Nationhood is stupid.

            It also tends to lead to bleeding-heart-libertarianesque critiques of property ownership, since then they start claiming then that “the root of all private property is the “original aggression” of colonial theft.

            Of course to believe that argument you have to implicitly subscribe to the first one = that mere ‘existence’ in a space makes you the permanent historical ‘owner’ whose rights were necessarily violated in the founding of X Country/place/homestead.

            None of this should get very far with anarchists = how can you invade and violate the Aborigine “state” if no state has any legitimacy?

            Many pre-modern tribal societies were nomadic and made no specific claims on territory other than the resources they occasionally gleaned from them when they could. I don’t see any reason to impose concepts implicit to “Nation-Statehood” on groups that never had any pretense of maintaining national boundaries. Colonization certainly involved a lot of aggression that was one sided and deplorable; that said, i think a linguistic mandate that forces people into a very-limited narrative view is idiotic. I think its more helpful to take a “broken spears” historical perspective and compare the relative POV of each respective society, not validating one and invalidating the other.

            1. None of this should get very far with anarchists = how can you invade and violate the Aborigine “state” if no state has any legitimacy?

              It’s true that’s a non-starter for anarchists. But what would concern me are property rights violations. Even then, from an anarchist perspective, the original owner of a property, or his/her heirs, have the burden of proof to show that indeed some given piece of property rightfully belongs to them instead of the present owners. When this proof is not forthcoming, the present owners have the better claim. This does not mean some tribe can claim vast swathes of land as having been “community property”.

              I don’t see any reason to impose concepts implicit to “Nation-Statehood” on groups that never had any pretense of maintaining national boundaries.

              I agree with that completely. The Palestinian situation is a great example. There are Palestinian families that can prove their property claims in West Jerusalem going back hundreds of years. Those from whom property was seized do have a better claim to their respective properties than the current owners. However, this does not mean that the Palestinians as a whole are owed “nation-statehood” or that the mere presence of Jews in the area represents an occupation. The injustice lies in the property violations that have accumulated, but which become harder and harder to set right again as time marches on and evidence of property claims becomes more scarce.

    2. “invaded” rather than “settled” or “discovered”

      Yeah, no problem with this as long as it isn’t being used as a tool to guilt and shame the current residents who had nothing to do with it – which will of course never happen – and it is explained as SOP from the beginning of human time to approximately 1900.

      1. and it is explained as SOP from the beginning of human time to approximately 1900.

        And only ceasing then because the European conquerors generally had the moral wherewithal to disavow such practices. Had the Islamic Arabs been in the same position Europeans to dominate the globe, I think the cycle of brutality would have been more pervasive, severe and persistent.

  31. Price Controls May Be On the Way

    Central bankers may very well recommend price controls in an attempt to “jolt the economy out of its doldrums.” Of course, economies don’t go into doldrums and they can’t be jolted out of them. Recessions are not something endemic to the economy but are rather the result of central bank monetary intervention. Because central banks refuse to acknowledge their culpability for causing recessions, their methods for responding to recessions end up being more of the same thing that caused them in the first place: monetary easing. And now that those methods are proving ineffective, more drastic measures might be on the way. Remember that the last time all-out wage and price controls were implemented in the United States was in the early 1970s, also a time of great monetary turmoil. In fact, the price controls were instituted by President Nixon at the same time as he closed the gold window in 1971.

    As Ludwig von Mises pointed out many decades ago, once you begin to institute price controls, you inevitably lead to socialism.

    1. They’ll work this time.
      Really

    2. The price of capital has had price controls on it for over a century and that’s the very heart of the economy. We’ve been slipping down that socialist slope for a long time.

  32. “When someone hasn’t seen his family for 24 years … what should one do?”

    There’s Skype.

    Soon there will be Skype for Oculus Rift, I’m sure.

    In the meantime, there’s porn and booze if you’re into that, or transcendental meditation.

    The thing about family gatherings is that people look forward to them, but when they actually get together? Old resentments resurface after the first night. Then they start digging into each other, which eventually erupts the second day. By the third day, they start realizing they won’t see each other again for a long time because everyone is leaving tomorrow–and when they finally leave on the fourth day, it’s all tearful goodbyes.

    That’s the it happens with women anyway. Guys just grit their teeth and try to get through it. Seriously, dude’s acting like a pansy trying to get to his family. Hijacking a plane might be justified if he were trying to get away from his inlaws.

  33. Vision Zero is stopping the (NYC) city from cleaning up graffiti

    The city’s Transportation Department doesn’t have enough cash to clean up graffiti anymore ? because it is spending all its money on Mayor de Blasio’s Vision Zero plan, the agency head admitted.

    Transportation Commissioner Polly Trottenberg said her agency quietly dismantled its anti-graffiti crew last year, and is no longer cleaning up spray-painted tags from street signs, light poles, lights, and other city property.

    The city needs every dollar it can get for Vision Zero, she wrote in a letter to state Sen. Tony Avella.

  34. “During a Republican townhall aired on CNN Tuesday night, Donald Trump continued to trash former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, suggesting that she could have been carrying a “little bomb” at a press event”

    He could have scored more primary votes if he’d looked into the camera, at that point, grabbed his crotch and said, “I’ve got an arm Michelle Fields can yank on . . . right here”.

    I’m just sayin’.

  35. Can Trump become so unpopular that Democrats take back the House?

    By last week, as House Democrats showcased several dozen top recruits on Capitol Hill and at K Street fundraisers, the tone had finally begun to shift. Trump has become so unpopular among key constituencies, including the growing suburbs that are home to several dozen Republican members, that some independent analysts, political strategists and a few Democrats say that anything might be possible come Election Day.

    “People are now beginning to understand that things could set up ? could set up ? to give us a shot at the majority. They’re beginning to understand that’s a possibility, because of Mr. Trump. But in any event, they understand we’re going to gain seats,” said Rep. Denny Heck (D-Wash.), who is helping lead the recruiting effort.

    1. Riding Hillary’s coattails? Keep the dream alive, Washington Post.

      1. Hopelessness and status quo 2016! That’ll really energize the base.

  36. Remember that article the other day about the NYPD cops who shot the non-threatening dog and handed the owner a bill for burial? Turns out they beat the owner too.

    1. Police still haven’t issued an apology or reason for shooting Rosado’s dog.

      According to New York Daily News, around 2010, after arriving at the wrong address, NYPD killed her legless cat, Bebe, when they choked it to death after again, arriving at the wrong address.

      Holy shit. They show up at the wrong address so they strangled her legless cat?

      Why there are people who doubt that sociopaths are over-represented in the ranks of the police I’ll never know. The system not only selects for sociopaths, but it protects and enables them.

      1. All the hallmarks of a burgeoning serial killer.

      2. “Choking a legless cat.” Is that one of those euphemisms I’ve heard so much about?

        1. Could be. But I’m inclined to think that it means a crippled animal had it’s windpipe crushed by a sadist in uniform. Now is what I just wrote a euphemism? It’s possible that right now I’m wearing a uniform, crushing the windpipe of my dong while I type with my free hand. You’ll never know for sure.

    2. Pro-tip: you do not open your apartment door without looking through the peep-hole first.

  37. “A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz’s respective tax plans would reduce federal revenues by $8.7 to $9.5 trillion.”

    Why do we have to say it like that?

    How ’bout, “would reduce the burden on taxpayers by”?

    Am I supposed to oppose all tax cutting because it might “reduce federal revenues”?

    1. I think the issue is that they’re not proposing any cuts, and they’re proposing increasing the military budget, which is going to lead to even more deficits and debt.

      1. So what?

        FUCS!

        If we can’t have tax cuts until they stop spending, how far are you willing to stick with that? Until we have a flat income tax of 75%?

        P.S. Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

      2. Not proposing cuts? Cruz has specifically promised to outright eleminate departments and has pushed for entitlement reform. He has also promised to end government subsidies. How can you say he hasn’t proposed any cuts?

        1. Because it doesn’t fit the narrative of having to vote for GJ to signal my LLLLibertarian purity level.

          Cruz did more for economic freedom specifically as regards the internet while at the FTC than anyone inside or outside of government that I am aware of.

  38. UC hands out millions in taxpayer money to save Bubba from embarrassment:

    “With Bill Clinton event coming to Cal, UC caves to union demand”
    […]
    “With labor threatening to throw up a picket line this week around former President Bill Clinton’s big student gathering at UC Berkeley, the cash-tight university agreed to spend millions of dollars to hire dozens of contract and part-time workers as full-time campus employees.”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/bay…..ate-result (paywall)

    The paper version also mentioned that the regents were concerned that HRC might accompany Bubba and they didn’t want her to be seen as anti-labor
    Isn’t it wonderful that the regents have their priorities straight?

    1. It’s the Republicans’ fault for their obstructionism.

      [instruct intern to write an article filling in the details and present the article for my signature]

    2. UC hands out millions in taxpayer money

      Nicole was right!

    3. Will there be a safe space for all the female students who feel threatened by a rapist on campus?

      1. CLINTON 2016

        sorry for triggering you

  39. Comments anyone????? – Caution: Breitbart link.

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/…..ium=social

    1. Wait… a transgender man is treated like a woman and sues anyway?

      1. I may have read it wrong but I had the impression that this individual started out a woman and still looks like a woman.

        1. Perhaps because…she *is* a woman?

          1. That would help explain the whole “looks like a woman” part.

        2. Huh. Might want to start with a haircut, then.

          1. But only at the manliest man-cave barbershop because dignity or something.

    2. The right of free association implies the right to not associate.

      Of course the courts are going to brutalize the barber shop for wrongthink.

      1. ^^^This.

    3. I’m white, I once wandered into what looked like a black beauty salon. But I needed a haircut, so I asked for one. The person said, “let me get so-and-so, she used to work at Great Clips,” which as I understand it means she cut white people hair. So she came out and gave me a haircut.

      Were they worried I’d sue if I didn’t get a haircut? Because I wouldn’t have.

      1. Worried you’d snap and shoot up the place. White folk are cray-cray.

      2. I once wandered into a black barber shop in dowtown Oakland and was told to get out.

        1. Good thing for them you’re libertarian!

    4. The barber shop is 100% percent within their natural rights to accept or deny the business of any customer. The same moral prohibition against slavery applies here. The barber presumably owns his shop, he owns himself and he owns his labor.

  40. How many people here are surprised that Trump is reneging on his pledge? Raise your hand.
    (does a quick count)
    So, none of you?

    1. What’s he changed his mind about this time?

      1. He wanted a ham sandwich and started ranting on twitter that his tuna melt was no good.

      2. I wouldn’t know if you people would SHUT UP ABOUT IT FOR FIVE BLOODY SECONDS.

      3. Also, good morning, Eddie.

        1. And a very good morning to you too, except some places it’s afternoon.

          1. And who are “you people”?

    2. I believe all three candidates did the same for what it’s worth. Neither of the other two feel obliged to endorse Trump if he wins he nomination. I don’t blame them.

  41. As for the Venn diagram of clowns, I put Trump in with John Wayne Gacy. However, I’m confident that before it’s all over the RNC will renege on their part of the “pledge” agreement — we’ve seen hints of that already — and give Trump a way out.

  42. 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

  43. 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.