Trump Calls Cruz/Kasich Team-up 'Weak,' Tamir Rice Family Gets Settlement, Latest Developments on Gay Wedding Cakes: P.M. Links

|

  • Trump, Cruz, Kasich
    Credit: DonkeyHotey / photo on flickr

    Donald Trump thinks Ted Cruz and John Kasich teaming up to try to keep him from landing the Republican presidential nomination is a sign of collusion and says it's "weak" and "pathetic."

  • Sure, Melissa Click, as a communications instructor at the University of Missouri, attempted to call for force to eject journalists covering a protest on public property, but really, she's the victim here, she says.
  • Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado's Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state's anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
  • A school choir was stopped from singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at the Sept. 11 memorial in New York City by a guard because they didn't have a permit for a public demonstration.
  • The family of Tamir Rice will receive $6 million from Cleveland over the boy's fatal shooting by police.
  • Will some of this year's elections be a referendum on which public bathrooms which people should use?
  • The feds have withdrawn from their efforts to try to force Apple to help them decrypt an iPhone in New York when they got its passcode.

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

NEXT: Schools Are Spying on Students' Social Media and Informing Police

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. …she’s the victim here, she says.

    Cickbait article.

    1. [narrows gaze]

      1. You’ll notice he misspelled “Click” in his haste to be first. Hoist with his own retard!

        1. Damn, I missed that.

          1. I told you, I toss in little mistakes every once in a while so everyone knows my commenting is genuine and not pre-written shenanigans.

            1. NOBODY BELIEVES YOU EUGENE.

            2. Yeah, you meant to type cock.

              1. I was thinking the Trump article was cuckbait.

                1. Only John is capable of such sublime typos.

                  1. I call them benepropisms (opposite of a malapropism)

            3. def errorScribble(junk) method in five minutes for the bot.

              You fool nobody with this ‘human’ shtick.

        2. *golf clap*

        3. He misspelled ‘bate’ as well.

        4. Boom?

    2. Hello.

      “…but really, she’s the victim here, she says.”

      OMG. What a piece of work she is. She was absolutely pasted and obliterated in the WaPo comments section not too long ago. You can’t tell me she didn’t see those.

      1. Five in a row? Getting too easy for Juve?

        BBC did a piece on how Parma won immediate promotion back to professional football:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03r2q27

        1. And to think I have to wait until Wednesday for the CL semi.

          Nervous already.

        2. They’re one step better than Leeds!

          1. They play cricket in Canada?

            1. Does everyone know I’m Canadian?

              1. Of Italian descent, yes. It is known.

                1. And what you do for a living.

                  1. jinx! kind of…

                  2. Huh.

                    You actually pay attention?

                  3. And what you do for a living

                    Isn’t this just a multiple choice if a person is Canadian?

                    1. Hockey player.

                    2. Royal Mounty.

                    3. Maple syrup tapper.

                    Isn’t that about it?

                    1. What about baby-seal-clubber? That’s still a thing, isn’t it?

                    2. THAT’S MY DREAM.

                2. Rufe’s an Eye-Tye?

                  Why, God bless ‘im. Hope fully he shares a recipe or two from time to time…

                  /drooling

                  1. I have shared some in the past.

              2. You have an orphan mill training operation also.

                1. THAT is not supposed to ever be discussed.

                  1. Shit, I thought the secret sign was a Trudeau bobble head.

                    1. I thought the secret sign was a Trudeau bobble head.

                      Well, all except for the ‘secret’ part.

                      And wait’ll the Cabin Boy starts explaining Quantum Computing to you! He’s soooo dreamy…

                  2. My, I hope this doesn’t cancel my order…

                2. Where can I buy some orphan flour?

              3. Down here in the real world, we all get to see a little maple leaf flag flying by your name, as a warning to not give away any state secrets.

        3. Is it just me or didn’t Italy, France, and Germany used to have somewhat competitive leagues? It’s getting so I only watch to see who gets relegated anymore.

          1. There was a competitive balance paper I read a year ago that got into this. Too bad I lost it.

            1. At least I like Bayern Munich but even then it’s boring to watch them win every single time they play. The other two I loathe so no need to follow them at all.

            2. Roland Berger?

          2. What’s amazing is that Dortmund is 20 point ahead of the team immediately behind them in the table, and still seven points behind Bayern.

        4. What a bunch of tossers at White Hart Lane.

          1. NO SPOILERS

            1. Here’s one for you:
              Right now I’m eating dinner across the street from Mark Messi’s penthouse apartment in Buenos Aires.
              How’s that for a spoler tying into the futbol discussion?
              BTW, Buenos Aires is a pretty cool town, so far at least.

              1. Who the hell is Mark?

                1. Sorry about that, too much Malbec.

                  1. Mark is Canadian…

                    1. So I got messy with my Messi’s.

                    2. I’ll bring you back a local polo player if that will make it up to you.

              2. I would love to check out a f?tbol match in Buenos Aires. Maybe with a bodyguard.

          2. What a bunch of tossers at White Hart Lane.

            Just watched.

            LOLOLOLOLOL

  2. “Sure, Melissa Click, as a communications instructor at the University of Missouri, attempted to call for force to eject journalists covering a protest on public property, but really, she’s the victim here, she says.”

    She looks like the devil. The ginger devil.

    1. The ginger devil.

      …but you repeat yourself.

      1. Hey now! Some of us are merely bound for purgatory.

          1. let the jealousy flow through you.

    2. She is to Carrot Top as Caitlyn is to Bruce.

      1. +1000 muscles for you

        1. +1000 muscles over here

          /FTFY

    3. Back in the day, we used to say that gingers were just Blondes From Hell.

      Which, come to think of it, would be a good name for a band.

  3. Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    Man, i don’t know if i even LIKE cake anymore.

    1. I heard that you do. THEY ALL DO.

      1. You know who else liked discriminating wedding cakes?

      2. Hence, the term “cake boy.”

        1. He doesn’t own the night. Nobody does.

        2. Was “Cake Boy” a Sir-Mix-A-Lot track?

          1. “I like big cakes and I cannot lie, way tastier than an ol’ pie” – Sir-Mix-A-Lot Bakery jam

            1. Listened to song; Mix obviously saw Bieber coming from day he was born.

              And speaking of Mix and baking, who can forget those buttermilk biscuits?

    2. Man, i don’t know if i even LIKE cake anymore.

      Oh sure, now that the homosexuals can enjoy cake as equals, you’re fundamentally opposed to *cake*. Are you really so homophobic that you would refuse dessert just to spite homosexuals?

      Sheesh… bigots!

    3. You always hear about bakeries refusing to bake gay wedding cakes. You never hear about a wedding planner refusing to plan a gay wedding. Something is going on here.

    4. Just have pie. Nobody needs a special pie. Just go to the damn store and get a delicious pie.

  4. The family of Tamir Rice will receive $6 million from Cleveland over the boy’s fatal shooting by police.

    And an admission of wrongdoing?

    1. Nooooope.

    2. The officer who shot him will receive $8 million, for emotional damages.

      1. You can’t put a price tag on a broken heart.

    3. And an admission of wrongdoing?

      Come on, you’ve been here long enough to know better.

    4. What about his sister?

      Separate tort, as far as I’m concerned.

      They cuffed her and forced her to watch her brother bleed out.

      1. She and her mother got $250,000 apiece.

        1. Really?

          That doesn’t seem like very much.

        2. That’s an expensive torte. Wait, I thought they refused to bake it.

    5. It goes without saying, but I’ll say it anyway: I’d rather have my kid back than $6M. Or $106M.

      1. 106 million? Eh. You can tell us the truth…

      2. Wilmer was like a son to me…but a man can always have another son. /Kasper Gutman

      3. “I’d like to replace your cat.”

        “Well, how good are you at catching mice?”

        1. A guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office and says, hey doc, our uncle is crazy! He thinks he’s a chicken. Then the doc says, why don’t you turn him in? Then the guy says, we would but we need the eggs.

      4. Well, yeah. Unfortunately, that is rarely an option.

    6. “The family of Tamir Rice will receive $6 million from Cleveland over the boy’s fatal shooting by police.”

      No punishment for killer pigs, but plenty for CLE taxpayers. Ugh!!

  5. A school choir was stopped from singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the Sept. 11 memorial in New York City by a guard because they didn’t have a permit for a public demonstration.

    Never forget… to fill out the paperwork.

  6. “Groups wishing to perform at the Sept. 11 memorial are supposed to apply for a $35 permit. The North Carolina group did not.”

    THERE IT IS.

    1. FYTW

    2. So, the current cost to exercise your 1A rights is $35.

      1. Only in a Safe Space, amirite?

      2. And the application paperwork, although I assume that singing the National Anthem is on the pre-appoved list. For now.

        1. The process is the punishment.

      3. What 1A rights? It’s not a national park, it’s private property run by a not-for-profit organization. They can charge whatever fees they wish for whatever activity.

        1. Oops, my bad. Carry on.

          1. That is not to say what occurred wasn’t completely tone-deaf (I’m talking about the guard’s actions, not the schoolkids.) Then, again, you don’t pay these guys to think.

      4. I hope they charge Roseanne Barr more than that.

        Ten worst renditions:

        http://www.billboard.com/artic…..ances-ever

  7. What, no story on the Second Circuit’s ruling on Brady v. NFL?

    1. Why don’t you write one?

      Deflating Footballs: This one Allopathic trick that the NFL doesn’t want you to know about!!!!

      1. That sounds very interesting. It would probably resonate with Patriot nation.

    2. I wonder if Anthony Kennedy is a Patriots fan…

      1. Alito is an Eagles fan and the majority of judges are from NY. Brady’s fucked.

        1. If Sotomayor comes in there with an Eli Manning jersey under her robe, he’s probably in big trouble.

        2. What a mess in Philly.

          If Bradford asked for a trade talk about a guy who doesn’t know how lucky he is.

          1. The other side of it is that you could say he wants to earn his paycheck.

          2. The Eagles gave away any chance of building a decent O-line in the draft so they could take a QB who’ll sit around and watch Bradford end his career on a stretcher. I’d be asking to get the hell out of Dodge, too. I hear Denver is looking for a QB, and they had guys who could keep Manning upright.

  8. It wouldn’t be PM links without an article on Trump.

    1. Two birds one giant fuck you?

  9. …Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    Do they even have cocktail parties in Colorado?

    1. They have them in Massachusetts, which is where the gay couple are from and where they got married. That’s some good cake if you can get people who don’t even like you to travel 1500 miles or so just to get some.

    2. Beer you dirty hippie!

      Your mom was out here last week as a matter of fact.

  10. Parrish Clodfelter, a 79-year-old retiree who lives on a central North Carolina farm, professes opinions about transgender people that might get him fired if he worked for a multinational corporation, though for many here, they constitute simple country wisdom. “A man wants to change to a woman, he’s got a mental problem,” Mr. Clodfelter said on Wednesday over lunch at Spiro’s Family Restaurant, where posters by the door advertised classes on carrying concealed weapons and a “Hillbilly Sunday” Pentecostal church service.

    You can’t fool *me*. That’s from The Onion.

    1. Clodfelter’s syndrome. Isn’t that when a male has an extra X chromosome (XXY)?

      1. Klinefelter.

      2. Close. *Kline*.

        Clodfelter’s is when a transmale has an extra X chromosome.

  11. Sure, Melissa Click, as a communications instructor at the University of Missouri, attempted to call for force to eject journalists covering a protest on public property, but really, she’s the victim here, she says.

    Self-delusion is a hell of a drug.

    1. I think she has a point. No way in hell would they have fired a black professor for the same behavior. Of course they should have fired any professor who did that, but they likely would not have fired a black professor. So in that sense, Click has a legitimate grievance.

      1. John, OT: What did you think of Curt Schilling’s firing by ESPN?

        1. It is further proof that ESPN sucks and can’t die soon enough. They of course can fire him for whatever reason they like. But the fact that they did so shows that they really are just MSNBC but better video and the occasionally cool documentary.

          Whatever you think of the issue, who cares what a baseball analyst says about it on his twitter feed? The only reason you care is because you are a totalitarian fuck who wants everyone who disagrees with you crushed.

          1. I’m shocked that people still watch ESPN for anything other than live sports. Or care what any of their contributors have to say (save for guys like Adam Schefter and Buster Olney, who actually know what they’re talking about)

          2. That’s how I thought you viewed it – correctly.

            Making matters worse, John Saunders, yesterday morning on The Sports Reporters, piled on and ripped Schilling, saying that what Schilling tweeted was of a species of what Jackie Robinson had to overcome.

            He also basically called Schilling stupid.

            1. John Saunders, yesterday morning on The Sports Reporters, piled on and ripped Schilling.

              Well, that’s the CYA aspect I guess. They did the same thing the weekend after they fired Limbaugh. It’s kind of gutless: not only are we going to rip a former colleague without giving him a chance to respond, we’re also going to present the story in the worst way.

              Interesting note: there was a guy at ESPN when Limbaugh was fired who ended up at FoxSports a couple of years later. Once there, he claimed ESPN management sent out an e-mail instructing no one to defend Limbaugh.

              1. Thank you for reminding me of what they did after they let Limbaugh go. I am trying to remember the guy who went to FoxSports – sucks when you can’t immediately retrieve the file.

                1. Max someone.

                  1. Max Kellerman, currently with HBO boxing and ESPN LA

            2. So Saunders is a classless, gutless scum bucket pretending to be progressive.

              He’s perfect for ESPN.

          3. ESPN death news: Tirico to NBC

            1. Tirico is my favorite live sports announcer. Both because he’s great and because he’s an unabashed Syracuse homer.

              Is he going onto the Sunday Night Football broadcasts? Because that’ll increase its watchability tenfold.

              1. Same. He’s in my top 3 for every sport except golf, where he’s still excellent.

                My guess is he’ll do TNF and wait for Michaels to retire.

          4. Well, Jessica Mendoza totally sucks as an analyst. Sunday Night Baseball is unwatchable now.

            1. There is always Molly Qerim. As long as she is employed there, ESPN will have at least one redeeming virtue.

              1. If I am not working on a Friday, I usually like to check in on First Take to see a little of her. Yes, I do like Stephen A. going at it with Bayliss.

            2. That’s such blatant pandering to the 12 people who give a shit about a woman doing baseball. It’s also an insult to women like Dorris Burke who are top notch without any prog-stack points.

              1. Sidd, Doris is top-notch, but she was wrong on Dan Shaughnessy’s recent observations about the woman’s game. Even Geno Auriema came around and recognized that Shaughnessy was commenting about the lack of competition for UCONN, not that women’s basketball itself is bad.

                1. No clue what you’re talking about. I know who Geno is but I couldn’t pick him out of a lineup.

              2. Burke knows her hoops, she did a really good job on all the ACC games I watched. I like Bilas (even though he went to Duke) the best though.

          5. The only reason you care is because you are a totalitarian fuck who wants everyone who disagrees with you crushed.

            Maybe, but it’s also because they live in a bubble and they’re terrified their ratings will be destroyed if they don’t disown the infidel.

            1. Perhaps. But they are massively out of touch with reality if they think that.

              1. Well, check out their coverage of the NCAA sanctions against UNC vs. the sanctions against USC and Ohio State. I think they live in a Disney fantasy land, where they can ignore all the bad people who actually watch sports, and virtue signal to fellow travelers.

  12. …and says it’s “weak” and “pathetic.”

    Only if they fail.

  13. Will some of this year’s elections be a referendum on which public bathrooms which people should use?

    They say we can never reach peak derp, I must agree. Full disclosure: I reserve the right to use whichever bathroom I want to based on urgency and availability not some psychotic dysmorphic victimology.

    1. You identify as the gender of whichever sex’s bathroom is available at the moment.

      1. ^This. Except not all restrooms have urinals.

        1. But, that could soon change, if you follow my drift.

        2. Yes they do. Sometimes it’s disguised as a sink, though.

          1. Ah, you beat me to it.

          2. And don’t forget the Piso Mojado signs. Everyone knows what *they* mean.

            1. Mjoado is floor and Piso needs no translation, right?

              1. Rich, I try to be classy. I really try. But if I have to wait 20 minutes for a $100 round of drinks, you can be damn sure that there’s going to be some piso mojado.

        3. You can sit down to pee.

    2. “Hey waffles, how come my azaleas are looking so sick lately?”

      1. Because you put lime on soil for the pot plants growing next to them.

        1. *on the soil

    3. urgency and availability

      Nice album name.

      1. An ex-girlfriend made me read that. Big Austen fan.

    4. Full disclosure: I reserve the right to use whichever bathroom I want to based on urgency and availability not some psychotic dysmorphic victimology.

      Equally, I reserve the right to shove my brother for my sons to shove each other into the women’s bathroom and then make fun of each other for being in the little girls’ room (while fully recognizing the bathroom proprietor’s right to punish them for their behavior in a manner that fits the “crime”).

  14. No mention of Billy Paul?

    🙁

        1. -1 Me and Mrs. Jones.

          Crap.

          1. Tonio, you don’t like that tune?

          2. You never had a thing going on with her, did you? 😉

  15. Donald Trump thinks Ted Cruz and John Kasich teaming up to try to keep him from landing the Republican presidential nomination is a sign of collusion and says it’s “weak” and “pathetic.”
    Like, worse than when say… a wealthy real estate developer teams up with the government to dispossess someone of their home? Like – that kind of collusion?

    1. Weaker.

  16. “Today in the extremely important cake beat:”

    More like “gayke,” am I right?

    1. Bukkake.

      1. TIME TO MAKE BUCAKKE!

      2. Someone say bukkake? Don’t worry, you prudes, it’s SFW.

    2. 2 lads 1 cupcake?

    1. The files are in the computer?

    2. “Open the Reason blog website, Hal.”

      1. Dave’s not here Hal.

      2. HAL opened the door and you’ll never believe what happened!!!

        1. An air embolism?

    3. So that’s the loud hollow sound I hear!

    4. Biometrics are usernames not passwords. If somebody can steal the digitized verson of your biometric data, all your base are belong to them if you use that as a password. How will you change your brain print once it is stolen?

      Well, how would normal people change their brain print? We have some people here who have multiple brain prints depending on their current psychopharmacology.

      1. I would like to point out that ultimately a password IS a brain print…awesome. But I agree with B. Biometrics are a great security measure to reduce the number of fingers and eyeballs of a population.

      2. Agile’s biometric changes per dose.

        1. Agile’s out for a bit. The Big Dipper took a shit on his chest and gave him Space AIDS.

          1. May his space penis shoot love to the ends of the galaxy.

          2. He popped in over the weekend.

            Which was good, just to let us know he is still sharing this plane with us.

            1. What’s the big deal? AC shifts in and out of phase all the time.

  17. This is a review of some new book on the Rolling Stones. It would not be remarkable except for this:it claims that Mick Jagger is partially responsible for Graham Parsons killing himself on heroin because Jagger kicked him out of the Stones’ entourage.

    The idea that keeping someone from being around Keith Richards could cause them to die of an overdose has to be the one of the most novel ideas I have ever heard.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/ent…..-1.2612388

    1. Think of Keith as a heroin sink. Nobody could overdose with him doing it all.

      1. Didn’t Denis Leary say something like that? “We can’t do any more drugs, Keith, you already did them all”?

  18. “Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.”

    Business may go under but at least people get to eat cake!

    Win!

    1. Heh, good one, Rufus.

    1. What about pedestrians who were so busy listening to music blasting through their earbuds that they were ignoring car horns, huh? What does the city offer THEM?!

    2. This sounds like a self correcting problem.

      1. This sounds like a self correcting problem.

        In Calgary, my erstwhile city of residence, it was. Seemed like a season couldn’t go by without one or two people listening to tunes on their iCrap getting flattened at a C-Train crossing. No situational awareness.

        1. I can’t count the times that I’ll be walking down the sidewalk and some ditzy teenage girl comes along with her face buried in her smart phone, and when she finally sees me, she acts super fucking spooked like I snuck up on her or something.

          If I’m in some public place and I have to check my phone – which is rare – I’ll look up every few seconds and look around in every direction. It looks suspicious as hell, and people probably think I’m looking at some kind of freaky porn on my phone, but I don’t care. I’m not going to be one of those people who throws situational awareness out the window just to check a text message.

    3. I was hoping the solution to pedestrians not looking where they’re going was a license to kill them.

  19. Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    It is nice that Scott can be sarcastic about other people’s rights and livelihoods. It is nice of him to drop the mask and admit he really doesn’t give a shit if someone he doesn’t like gets stomped on.

    1. The headlines in the links are always pretty sarcastic and non-serious, though. Unless Robby is doing them, in which case he has to signal to us when he find something Not Okay

      1. Everything Scott has written on the matter is canceled out by a linktroduction.

        1. John made up his mind. Don’t confuse him with the facts.

          1. I always like to try the Iocane test with him.

            1. Amy was great in Cry-Baby. It’s a shame she turned into a drunken killer.

        2. What is there to cancel out? I have never read Scott do anything but rub his chin and say “gee that is such a shame too bad they won’t stop that”. I have never seen any evidence Scott gives a shit or is in any way troubled by it. The only thing that seems to bother Scott is that he has to go through to motions and explain how its a problem.

          1. What is there to cancel out? I have never read Scott do anything but rub his chin and say “gee that is such a shame too bad they won’t stop that”. I have never seen any evidence Scott gives a shit or is in any way troubled by it.

            I dunno, John. Maybe if you actually read something Scott wrote? Might help.

            1. I have read it all. If you see something that goes the other way, put up a link to it. I have never seen anything other than that. Feel free to prove me wrong. Otherwise admit the point.

              1. Yes, John. That’s how I like to spend my time. Having a infinitely pointless argument with you over your Homoality Distortion Field.

                Pass.

                1. I can’t prove a negative JW. I say Scott has never expressed anything other than “yeah but..” faux concern over the issue. If that is not true, it is easily shown by an example of him doing the opposite. If you can’t do that, then why do you say I am wrong? You clearly have no counter example. And I can’t prove the negative.

                  1. I can’t prove a negative JW.

                    Inconceivable!

                  2. I’m pretty sure there are actually a finite number of articles written by Scott, so it is perfectly possible to prove a negative in this case.

                  3. Scott has never expressed anything other than “yeah but..” faux concern over the issue.

                    How do you know it is faux concern? The fact is that public accommodation laws are pretty unlikely to be repealed and “yeah, but this is how it is” is probably the realistic response.

                    1. I mean, you have to pick your battles. And this one we lost a long time ago.

                      Before the whole gay marriage thing came up, were you constantly harassing people who didn’t sufficiently defend the rights of businesses to refuse to serve black people?

                    2. How do you know it is faux concern?

                      Because it is always expressed with a qualifier or not expressed at all. It is never “this is wrong and must be stopped”. It is always “public accommodation laws are bad but in this case….”

                      That is pretty much the definition of faux concern. So his sarcastic and flippent remark about someone losing their business for the crime of having the wrong religion fits perfectly with everything lese he has said about this issue.

                      I don’t understand why you think he deserves the benefit of the doubt here Zeb. Has Scott ever written anything that would warrant that? I have never seen it and no one on here can produce an example of it.

                    3. I think he deserves to have what he explicitly says believed. But you can do what you want.

                2. Do his research for him, Jerk.

                  1. I can’t do the research. How would I do it? Everything I find supports what I say. How can I produce an example of something I claim doesn’t exist and have not found? All I can say is that it is not there. If I am wrong, then show me where.

                    And for the record, I did look. And I can’t find anything that supports JW’s contention. If you can, produce it and I will take the point back. How is that not fair?

                  2. “site:reason.com shackford cake”

                    1. Again JW, if it is there, show me the link because I don’t see it. I can’t produce something that as far as I can see isn’t there. If it is, I will happily take back my contention that Scott doesn’t care about this issue.

                    2. Gosh, John. All I did is type in the magic words and the Internet Genie gave me the answer that refutes your statement in a fraction of a second.

                      Maybe you’re rubbing the lamp the wrong way.

                    3. All I did is type in the magic words and the Internet Genie gave me the answer that refutes your statement in a fraction of a second.

                      Then produce the link and quote to it. You say that, then why didn’t you post the link? Do you not want to win the argument?

                    4. Ooo… is it a recipe?

                  3. Onus probandi and all that jazz.

                    1. John’s logic has gone airtight. Airtight!

                    2. JW,

                      I say Scott has never shown any concern or outrage over this. You say he has. Explain to me how I am supposed to prove that there is no example of Scott being concerned or outraged about the issue? How would I do that? Produce the 10 examples of him dancing around the subject and never seeming outraged? That wouldn’t prove my point because ti wouldn’t show that there were not other counter examples.

                      The only way to settle this argument is to produce an example that disproves my contention. I can’t do that because I claim it doesn’t exist and haven’t been able to find such. Only you can do that, assuming one exists.

                      What about that is so hard for you to understand? Just go and show me an example that disproves my point. Why can’t you do that if such a thing exists?

                    3. You’re just stalling now.

                    4. How am I stalling JW. The counter example doesn’t exist. If it does, go and provide the link. If you can’t do that, then why should I assume it exists?

                      Admit it, you looked and you found exactly the same thing I did and can’t disprove me but won’t admit it.

                    5. John, there’s really only one conclusion here, and it doesn’t look good for you.

                    6. Playa,

                      How does it look good for you guys when you can’t produce a link to something you claim both exists and is easy to find. You could have gotten me to walk back and admit I was wrong with one simple link. you did that out of concern for me?

                      Admit it, Scott has never given a shit or expressed any real outrage over it. If he had, you guys would happily have produced an example to prove me wrong. Do you not think the people reading this understand the principle that you can’t prove a negative?

                    7. John doesn’t read articles, so… no, it won’t stop.

                    8. John, Scott, and every single other gay commenter at Reason (Tony excepted, he’s probably not real) have never expressed anything other than 100% support for free association. Ever.

                      There’s nothing wrong with stereotyping. It’s how the tribal human brain assesses and deals with the unfamiliar. It’s the most efficient way of filling in incomplete information about someone you don’t know. As you get to know someone, your incorrect assumptions must be discarded and replaced with what you have learned about that person.

                      Here’s the problem: You have decided that all gay people must support this legislation, EVEN THOUGH THE GAY PEOPLE HERE HAVE EXPLICITLY AND REPEATEDLY STATED THAT THEY DON’T.

                      That’s not stereotyping. You’re a fucking bigot.

                    9. That is exactly what I am talking about TRSHMnster

                      Scott doesn’t give a shit about religous freedom. He says

                      Attempting to create religion-based carve-outs for public accommodation rules and workplace discrimination laws is a suboptimal choice, because it argues that some people have greater freedom of association than others, if they have the right reasons, according to whatever a government body declares. Why should some folks be able to use some holy book as an excuse not to make somebody a cake rather than just having the free speech/free association right for whatever reason at all?

                      The problem isn’t really that these people are being stepped on for a 1st Amendment protected right. No the real problem is that we have any of these laws at all. That is nice I suppose but Scott knows we are never getting rid of public accommodation laws. So his objection amounts to nothing but token objections. Most importantly, it allows him to avoid having to admit that religion is protected under the 1st Amendment. Doing something out of religious conviction in Scott’s view is no different than doing it for any other reason, no matter how shallow. That whole Free Exercise clause should just be read out of the Constitution in Scott’s view.

                      Scott sucks on this issue and doesn’t give a fuck about freedom of religion. He is just going through the motions and saying well it sucks this happens but damn I love gay marriage.

                    10. The problem isn’t really that these people are being stepped on for a 1st Amendment protected right. No the real problem is that we have any of these laws at all

                      That’s a pretty fucked up reading of Scott’s article. The real problem, as highlighted in the quote you posted, is that the SCOTUS has nuked the more general freedom of association in the 1st Amendment and left us only with freedom of religion. I don’t see how calling that situation “suboptimal” is anything but understating the obvious.

                    11. Special carve outs for religious objections to things are terrible for freedom of religion. They are specific privilege for particular religious beliefs, which must be certified by a court to count as “sincere religious belief”. Freedom of religion is when no one is forced to do anything that would violate anyone’s right to free exercise of religion.

                    12. Here. Now, can we stop this insanity?

                      Lol, no.

                      Read what John is saying: “Scott has never given a shit or expressed any real outrage over it”

                      If you don’t support John’s position as strenuously as John, you’re not really supporting it.

                      Now, back to this insanity…

                    13. Jesse’s guess: If you don’t support John’s position as strenuously as John, you’re not really supporting it.

                      John’s reality: So his objection amounts to nothing but token objections

                      Boom! Called it.

                    14. Yes Jessee,

                      I think Scott is a fraud on this issue. If you think he is great, good for you. But I think he is a fraud. And this shit is going to go on and religious freedom is going to go down the toilet in this country. And there is not a damned thing to do about it.

                      And I see no reason to think Scott will give a shit about that, though when things turn on something he does care about, he will likely regret that, but maybe not.

                    15. Jesse, don’t you understand? Scott doesn’t care enough or in the exact way that John expects him to care. Therefore, Scott wants to kill all Christians.

                      Check and mate.

                    16. You’re out of the band Trshmnstr!

                    17. *throws trumpet on the ground and storms out*

                      I don’t need you!!!

                      *tears welling in eyes*

                      I don’t need anybody!!!

                    18. Seriously. This was a beautiful thing you ruined.

                      John makes an allegation in the form of a negative statement requiring a lack of data for it to be proven true and then insists that this lack of data proves his theory to be correct. Failing that, he will reject any positive refuting data out of hand as immaterial and once again, proving hi spoint.

                      I was going through the entire Iocane test scene from Princess Bride, wondering how long I could maintain it with John AND YOU RUINED IT! [runs sobbing, slams door]

                    19. I was going through the entire Iocane test scene from Princess Bride, wondering how long I could maintain it with John AND YOU RUINED IT!

                      Someday I do need to see that movie, if only to get half the references around here.

                    20. Someday I do need to see that movie

                      You have never watched The Princess Bride?

                      Inconceivable!

                    21. Yeah that’s pretty fucked up man, to have never seen that movie. You should watch it tonight.

                    22. I’ve seen bits and pieces of it but didn’t catch any of the references 🙁

                    23. “Does not mean what you think it means”

                      Is from that movie.

                    24. To be honest, it was released a year before I was born, and I tend to find most “must see” movies from that era to be mediocre, at best. I couldn’t make it all the way through Pulp Fiction before I got bored.

                    25. Onus probandi

                      Latin for: “would make a great band name”

        3. Whatever, you don’t know what’s behind Scott’s mask. John does, though. John always knows what’s behind the mask. John knows your most secret thoughts, Crusty, John is disappointed by them, but not particularly surprised.

          Never forget that, Crusty…John will know if you forget.

          1. You and Scott are special Jessee. You won. I just think you should gloat openly about it. What is wrong with that?

            1. John, I thought you were smarter than this, but I guess I was wrong about you. I am disappointed.

              1. John, I thought you were smarter than this,

                I don’t know why you thought that.

              2. I thought you were smart enough to see bullshit when you saw it. Do you honestly think Scott cares about this issue or is an anyway concerned? I don’t. I think he thinks it is at most a minor embarrassment for his cause but certainly nothing to be upset or concerned about.

                If you think he believes otherwise, show me evidence that he does, because I have never seen it.

                1. We’re smart enough to see your bullshit.

            2. Good point, John. Jesse is super supportive of punishing random bakers for not making him cakes. This has long been a position Jesse has held and you are right to point it out.

              1. Damn you Jesse!

          2. Not everyone gets to smite their enemies and watch the government run them out of business and polite society. You guys worked hard for it. Enjoy it.

            1. That would wound me, dear Jhoon, was it not the inane babbling of a madman who thinks he’s brilliant and knows the secret minds of everyone he disagrees with, but since that’s all any of your comments are anymore I just smile and nod and hope the DHS health plan covers mental health treatment for your coming (perhaps already here?) nervous breakdown.

              1. Of course you’d say that, Jesse, what with your, Tonio, and Rhywun’s evil homo plan to send the Christians to death camps.

                John and I are onto you.

                1. Look, Irish, we sent St. Carson Kressley to prevent all of this from happening, but straight, Christian America would not be swayed. Now is the time for action, Irish. Know that you will at least die more fashionably than you lived.

              2. Watching the first Amendment get read out of the Constitution tends to make me a bit angry. It should you too. And if it does say so., Yet, you never seem to. So why am I crazy to think you like this? You never say you don’t, at least not directly or with any force. And it benefits you personally and people like you.

                Again, you won Jessee. What can those of us who lost and didn’t want to see religious freedom written out of the Constitution say other than congratulations? All I am asking is that you be honest about it and at least own the victory.

                1. Again, you won Jessee.

                  This is getting old, John.

                  1. The truth often does get old. It doesn’t make it any less of the truth.

                    1. It’s uncouth to impute views to people who don’t actually hold them, and it doesn’t serve your argument well. You’re better than that.

                2. All I am asking is that you be honest about it and at least own the victory.

                  All you’re asking is for gays to be a hegemonic simple villain of your imagination. I suppose that’s not really too much to ask, you know, that we all give up our individual preferences in favor of the ones that you imagine for us. Totes no big deal.

                  1. I don’t think you are a villain Jesse. I just think your side won and my side lost. It is what it is. It won’t personally affect me. I don’t run a cake shop and if I did I would draw two people sodomizing each other on a cake if you had the money to pay for it. So I guess it shouldn’t bother me. Sadly, it does because I have this odd feeling that it won’t stop here and that perhaps those people’s rights will end up mattering to me whether I like it or not.

                    That, however, is in the future. So, for the moment enjoy. It won’t last forever, nothing ever does.

                    1. I don’t think you are a villain Jesse. I just think your side won and my side lost.

                      Right, so the below quote isn’t “villainy”?

                      Not everyone gets to smite their enemies and watch the government run them out of business and polite society. You guys worked hard for it. Enjoy it.

                      Because, I read that as villainy, and I’m not in favor of it. I mean clearly I’ve only *said* I’m not in favor of it, and that I believe that’s villainy, but since I haven’t screamed about how much I love traditional marriage and think there’s only room for heterosexual couples in the civil portion of that institution for two straight years that’s clearly disingenuous of me.

                    2. The government doesn’t determine if you are married. You determine that. The government only allows you to force other people to believe you are. They could get rid of marriage under law tomorrow and I would still be married and so would everyone else. I would just be free of the government dictating the terms of my relationship and no longer be able to force anyone else to recognize my marriage.

                      So when I look at gay marriage, I see it as gays demanding the government force people to recognize their marriages. I see and never did see how there was any point to it or end to it other than what we are seeing with the cake shops. That is what government marriage means; I am married and if you don’t think I am I am calling the sheriff.

                      And not every gay person I know wanted government marriage. I know several who didn’t and don’t. I think you should reconsider your support for government gay marriage or admit that suing cake shops isn’t so bad, because you can’t have one without the other.

                    3. I think you should reconsider your support for government gay marriage or admit that suing cake shops isn’t so bad, because you can’t have one without the other.

                      This is raw horse shit and you either know it and are being disingenuous or you’re terrible at reading the law. None of the public accommodations laws talk about discrimination on the basis of marital or potential marital status, they are based on sexual orientation. If you came in asking me for a cake saying “straight is great” and I told you to fuck off, I could theoretically be sued for that. Over and over and over again these cases came up in states that explicitly rejected government recognition of marriage for gay couples.

                      If you feel so strongly about government marriage, dissolve your state marriage with your wife and put together all of the trust paperwork and all of that and then come back less of a hypocrite and make this argument. Until then go fuck yourself.

                    4. when I look at gay marriage, I see it as gays demanding the government force people to recognize their marriages

                      Then why aren’t you always raging about the terrible straight marriage laws forcing people to treat people in certain ways? There are a whole lot more straight marriages than gay marriages, so that should be the primary outrage, shouldn’t it?

                    5. There are a whole lot more straight marriages than gay marriages, so that should be the primary outrage, shouldn’t it?

                      Doesn’t this cut against the other side, though? John, despite being ridiculous, isn’t arguing for incrementalism. He’s arguing for a complete repeal of government marriage licensing, which would take care of gay and straight marriage.

                      It seems that the pro-gay marriage side is the incrementalist side, arguing that, in effect, increasing the scope of the government’s power is good because… well… I guess because eliminating the government’s power in this area is “too hard.”

                      John is being ridiculous, but it’s not because there isn’t some nugget of wisdom buried deep in there. It’s because he’s playing the victim card where it’s clearly not warranted.

                    6. As far as I can tell (and I could’ve missed a comment) John has never actually argued for the end of government marriage licensing for straight people. He’s certainly argued that striving for legal recognition of gay marriages isn’t worth doing because *waves hands as to why he’s married if it’s so terrible for several thousand words* but never indicated that he thinks that the government should you know, STOP issuing marriage licenses.

                    7. As far as I can tell (and I could’ve missed a comment) John has never actually argued for the end of government marriage licensing for straight people.

                      I may have been reading too much into this:

                      The government doesn’t determine if you are married. You determine that. The government only allows you to force other people to believe you are.

                      Either way, John’s being a prick. My dislike for gay marriage tends to be more for tactical reasons and less for CULTUR WAR reasons.

                    8. Based on the many times I’ve gotten into it with John on this, I think you are reading too much into it, he claims being legally married to his wife is just because she wanted the whole church wedding and everything, but I’m guessing she’d be miffed if she weren’t covered by his DHS pension. He’s never (again to my knowledge) directly disavowed straight marriage, just handwaved about how it doesn’t matter and can be like totally harmful, which is why so many straight Americans including himself signed up for it…or something.

                    9. Yeah, I’ve never heard him make that argument except as part of a rant against gay marriage related issues. And I’ve done a lot of arguing with John.

                      If, as he contends, we are all obliged to be maximally outraged at the fact that we are forced to recognize gay marriages, I think it follows that one must be just as continually outraged over any kind of state marriage licensing. There’s plenty to get outraged over there. Start with disparate tax treatment of married and single people. And federal taxation of healthcare benefits.

                    10. He’s arguing for a complete repeal of government marriage licensing

                      Yeah, good luck with that.

                      Marriage is an externally imposed/certified structure/contract, applying certain incentives on the relation that it otherwise wouldn’t have. It’s not just something you and your significant other decide you are, like some idiotic trendy label du jour.

                      No significant proportion of the populace is going to buy into the idea that the notion is meaningful without the licensure.

                    11. No significant proportion of the populace is going to buy into the idea that the notion is meaningful without the licensure.

                      Yes, so let’s increase government influence in the area of marriage, with the fan-fucking-tastic side effect of enabling more of this public accommodation bullshit, rather than standing firm on our whole “government doesn’t need to be sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong” thing. Libertarians are the least pragmatic people I’ve ever met . . . until it’s their ox being gored.

                    12. with the fan-fucking-tastic side effect of enabling more of this public accommodation bullshit

                      This remains a weak argument. The lawsuits ramped up in states with strong public accommodation laws, but no gay marriage over “commitment ceremonies”. This is the “‘we should ban assault rifles’ every time someone gets shot with a pistol” of gay marriage.

                    13. This remains a weak argument. The lawsuits ramped up in states with strong public accommodation laws, but no gay marriage over “commitment ceremonies”.

                      I don’t disagree, but I wonder how it’s going to play out now that marriage is a fundamental right in the eyes of FedGov. While gay marriage and anti-discrimination laws are theoretically miles apart, I think they’re pragmatically attached at the hip. It’s too early to tell, but I think Obergefell is going to have all sorts of consequences, both good and bad.

                      I usually stay out of the gay marriage debates, one, because I really don’t care all that much anymore, and two, because it seems like both sides engage in a whack-a-mole game of jumping back and forth between principles and pragmatism.

                    14. This sort of either-with-us-or-against-us falsely dichotomous collectivism doesn’t consort well with this blog, or anyone’s views here, and you know it.

                  2. It’s not just gays, Jesse. It’s anyone who is in any way socially liberal.

                    For perspective John’s done the same shit to me where he tries to claim I secretly want all the Christians to be oppressed by evil, litigious gays.

                    1. Irish,

                      When you support things that you know will result in that, why is it not reasonable to think you want that to happen? Foreseeable consequences are not unintended in any other circumstance, why is this different? And on top of that, you guys hate those people’s guts. Gee, hating someone and supporting policies that you know will result in them indirectly being harmed makes people think you wanted that to happen. funny that.

                    2. Read what you just wrote to Irish and replace Irish with you and Christians with gays.

                      Gee, hating someone and supporting policies that you know will result in them indirectly being harmed makes people think you wanted that to happen. funny that.

                    3. I think gays ought to be able to live however they want Jesse. I just don’t think anyone owes them acceptance anymore than they owe me or anyone else acceptance.

                    4. What if I want to live by ‘napping Jon Hamm and keeping him in my underground bunker?

                    5. It would depend upon how much prepping you did.

                    6. It is possible to support something like gay marriage without supporting the specific way it is implemented. What a bunch of internet libertarians have to say about it is also completely irrelevant to how it plays out in reality in almost all cases.

                    7. It is possible to support something like gay marriage without supporting the specific way it is implemented.

                      That sounds an awful lot like “we need to pass it to see what’s in it.” Especially when libertarian support for gay marriage is inevitably couched in “I would support getting rid of government interference, but . . .” Either gay marriage is the pragmatic choice for the world as it is, along with all of its various statist consequences, or it’s the principled choice for the world as it should be, which implicates a required state apparatus. Playing this halfway game just doesn’t work.

                      What a bunch of internet libertarians have to say about it is also completely irrelevant to how it plays out in reality in almost all cases.

                      Seems like a great reason to support repealing government licensure over expanding government power.

                    8. Not sure it’s playing a halfway game. Should libertarians not have an opinion on disparate sentencing for crack and coke just because we think the entire apparatus on the war on drugs is wrong?

                      Equality before the law is an important virtue even if we believe less of our lives should be managed by the law.

                    9. Should libertarians not have an opinion on disparate sentencing for crack and coke just because we think the entire apparatus on the war on drugs is wrong?

                      It’s not about not having an opinion. If they had the opinion that crack sentences should be reduced to match coke sentences, then they’re pragmatic. If libertarians had the opinion that coke sentences should be increased to match crack sentences, then they’re wrong.

                      Similar with the marriage issue. If libertarians had the opinion that the benefits of straight marriages should have been knocked down a peg to be more equal to gay marriages, that seems pragmatic. On the other hand, increasing benefits to gay marriages seems an awful lot like increasing coke sentences to match crack sentences.

                    10. If increased coke sentencing looked like my spouse paying less money to the state when I died, I might be able to get into that…

                    11. The thing is, reducing crack sentences is a politically viable thing right now. As was gay marriage when that was the hot topic. Getting rid of most of the special treatment for married people, sadly, is not. I think we are just as likely to succeed in changing that with or without gay marriage.

                    12. My point is that I (and as far as I can tell most commenters here) aren’t activists pushing for specific policy. We are just opinionated people who like to say what we think.

                      I can’t speak for everyone, but my opinion is that ideally we should repeal all marriage licensing. But that really isn’t on the table. Most people seem to think that the government marriage certificate is what being married is. So it is fair to assume that it’s not going away. Given that situation, the best thing is to give similarly situated people equal protection of the law.

                      I’m pretty much an anarchist in principle. So if I’m going to descend to the level of practical politics, everything is a compromise.

                    13. My point is that I (and as far as I can tell most commenters here) aren’t activists pushing for specific policy. We are just opinionated people who like to say what we think.

                      Absolutely. My point is that I think it was a pretty shitty compromise.

                    14. And that’s not an unreasonable assessment. But we didn’t get a vote.

                    15. But we didn’t get a vote.

                      Which is why I think John is so ridiculous. I can disagree with people on the issue. I can even think that they’re being blinded by their own personal feelings. But I’m not going to accuse them of using the issue as a way to get back at the people they disagree with. That’s not something even remotely sensible. Libertarians aren’t at fault for the current state of public accommodation law.

    2. Dude, it’s just a court case about cake, what’s the big deal? You yokels always make a big deal out of the most trivial nonsense.

      /s

    3. Today in “reading far too much into a sarcastic headline”…

      1. Why do I owe him the benefit of the doubt? Show me where Scott has ever expressed any real concern or outrage over this? I have never seen it. All I ever see from him is a lot of “well but…” I see no reason at all judging from his writing on the subject Scott finds this to be a big deal or gives a flying fuck if these people get stomped on.

        1. You know that line from The Big Lebowski? “You’re not wrong, Walter, you’re just an asshole”?

          It’s like that, except scratch the part about you not being wrong.

  20. “Will some of this year’s elections be a referendum on which public bathrooms which people should use?”

    Given that Houston elected a lesbian mayor who then proceeded to call her own constituents bigoted hillbillies in the same election where they struck down a trans bathroom ordinance, I’m going to say no one actually votes for politicians based on this issue.

    1. Well, presumably only the one’s who didn’t vote for her. But is seems she has enough of a majority that she can do that.

      1. She won an overwhelming majority of the vote and the trans ordinance was beaten by something like 65-35.

        That means a ton of the people who voted for her also voted against the trans law, so she was literally calling her own voters bigoted transphobes on the night of her re-election.

        1. Oh, that’s not good for her re-election prospects.

          1. She embraced the issue only after she was a term limited lame duck.

        2. She wasn’t running again as she was termlimited.

    2. Um Mayor Parker was not up for reelection as she was term limited. So no one voted for her this past election when HERO was downvoted.

      1. Ah, my mistake. I thought she was re-elected the same day.

        1. Our new mayor, Sylvester Turner, did support HERO but he distanced him self from Parker’s shenanigans and he barely made it to the runoff against a Republican and then barely won the run-off. It was a much closer election than it could have been. Generally it wouldn’t be surprising if two Dems make the run-off. Many of other Dems in the race were against HERO but the anti-HERO forces coalesced around the Rep instead. (I say Dems and Reps even though it is technically a non-partisan election because everyone knows. Turner was a D. state rep and a Sheila Jackson-Lee acolyte.)

  21. The Perfect Breakdown Of Why White Feminism Isn’t Really Feminism

    “Intersectional feminism a.k.a. actual fucking feminism.”

    That’s how poet and body-positive activist Rachel Wiley begins her slam poem “The Dozens.” Wiley performed the poem at Women Of The World Poetry Slam in Brooklyn in March 2016. Uploaded on YouTube by Button Poetry earlier this week, “The Dozens” takes a frank look at how white feminism is a feminism that completely ignores intersectionality ? and why that’s so problematic.

    “White feminism is about as feminist as Dr. Pepper is a medical doctor,” Wiley begins. “White feminism got itself one black friend ? Raven Simone ? calls itself intersectional and still shows up to your Halloween party in black face though.”

    Wiley praises Nicki Minaj for calling out Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus in 2015 on their white feminism. “[White feminism] thinks twerking is a revolution on Miley but wants to know why Nicki just won’t respect herself though,” she tells the crowd.

    She even adds “White feminism, what’s good?” as a nod to Minaj’s now-iconic clapback to Cyrus at the 2015 VMAs.

    1. I predict this will go nowhere. You can’t kick white girls out of the oppression group without losing the critical mass necessary to force institutions to behave the way you wish. Any group that tries will quickly lose the power it used to kick them out in the first place. Until they find a group large enough to replace white chicks in the ranks SJW’s will remain mostly about white girl ‘problems’.

      1. And money. Don’t forget money. As is often pointed out here, feminism is very much the plaything of well-off white women.

        1. Ah yes, that is very true. Women living paycheck to paycheck have more important things to worry about than if a coworker made a joke about Apple devices with interesting choices in names.

          1. The Apple Piece of Shit?

            1. Dongles. They seriously names one of their attachments dongles.

                1. Dammit, I SFed my dongle! Here

                2. Ah, sorry, first time I heard about it was in relation to Apple, so I assumed they had come up with the term.

              1. The word ‘dongles’ has been used in computing since the 70s.

                1. As a teen, I encountered my first dongle setting up some color correction hardware on my 1st job.

                  “No shit, it won’t work without this doohickey? Awesome.”

      2. You can’t kick white girls out of the oppression group without losing the critical mass necessary to force institutions to behave the way you wish.

        Bingo.

      3. Yeah, but it’s more important that ideological camps remain *pure* than that they have any real influence ? right, libertarians? 😉

      4. Until they find a group large enough to replace white chicks in the ranks SJW’s will remain mostly about white girl ‘problems’.

        Or whatever white women deem to be “problematic” even if it’s fine with the actual culture being “appropriated”.

    2. I love it when they turn on one another.

      1. Ass to ass!

        /Requiem for a Dream

    3. Girl fight!

      1. Lol, I was just going to say this.

        Modern feminism is just a big catfight.

    4. She even adds “White feminism, what’s good?” as a nod to Minaj’s now-iconic clapback to Cyrus at the 2015 VMAs.

      I have no idea what the fuck she’s talking about.

      1. I stopped giving a shit about the music video awards when I was about 15 – three-plus decades ago.

    5. That’s how poet and body-positive activist Rachel Wiley begins her slam poem “The Dozens.” Wiley performed the poem at Women Of The World Poetry Slam in Brooklyn in March 2016.

      If there’s one thing that went from mildly interesting to full-on nauseating in the shortest amount of time known to man, it’s Slam Poetry.

      1. I once attended a slam poetry event with a lady (she said it was a poetry reading, and I was not aware she was performing), and it was simultaneously the funniest and most awful experience of my life. She eventually went up on stage, and then immediately broke down at the end of her performance, crying and shaking with anger. And then she calmly sat down next to me.

        1. The hottest night of your life then, right Crusty?

          1. No, that was after she gained a lot of weight after stress eating.

        2. Don’t stick it in the crazy. – Universal rule that gets broken too much

        3. it was simultaneously the funniest and most awful experience of my life. She eventually went up on stage, and then immediately broke down at the end of her performance, crying and shaking with anger.

          That’s sort of what Slam Poetry is all about. Its like “Support Group” for crazy social-justice people. You go and rant and rave incoherently and everyone celebrates the sincerity of your emotions.

          1. Experiencing it live was fascinating.

          2. Suddenly the demise of SinFest makes so much more sense.

          3. Sounds like certain church services I’ve heard of.

            1. Charismatic Christianity (Pentecostalism, others) is riddled with “public displays of emotion”/speaking in tongues & the like…

              1. I grew up UU, and other than the fact that my entire class was ridiculously sick from something we all managed to get, and running fevers, and the sanctuary was heated to 90, the African American Baptist Church service we went to was awesome. Just the overall presentation is neat. It was kind of like a Southern Baptist church we went to one Easter, visiting my aunt and uncle (who were at the time looking for a new church). They literally brought in a lion and a lamb, and had the lamb sitting on top of the lion while the lion was chowing down on some meat. It was amazing, especially because I was 12. Needless to say, my aunt didn’t like that church.

    6. Huffpo Derp is so intense that my browser locks up when i try and click on their links.

    7. Lmao at Miley being a feminist.

    8. [White feminism] thinks twerking is a revolution on Miley but wants to know why Nicki just won’t respect herself though

      That… that’s the phrasing in her poem?

    9. The only dozens she knows about is the box of donuts she inhales for breakfast.

    1. Which just violated their right to assembly.

  22. USPTO appeals to Supreme Court for ruling on racially tinged trademarks

    In December, a court case brought by Portland-based Asian American rock band “The Slants” led to what could be a major change in US trademark law. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the US Patent and Trademark Office, which had refused to give the band a trademark, citing a law barring “disparaging” marks.

    The battle isn’t quite over, though. Patent Office lawyers have appealed to the Supreme Court, asking them to consider the case. If the Supreme Court takes up the case and reverses the Federal Circuit?something the high court has not hesitated to do in recent patent cases?the USPTO will retain its ability to quash disparaging trademarks.

    Either way, the results of the case will have repercussions for other owners of controversial trademarks?most notably, the Washington Redskins. The football team was stripped of its trademark rights after years of litigation but is continuing its fight at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

    1. At this point I’m rooting for the PTO because changing the Washington Football Team’s name would really piss off the Washington Football Team’s fans and I’m always happy when that happens.

      1. I kinda like calling them the D.C. Slurs. Don’t think a better ‘official’ replacement is coming down the pike anytime soon.

      2. Let me guess – Eagles fan?

        1. Nope. Fave team not even in NFC Least. Can’t even say I hate the Hogs; Daryl Green is an all-time fave, Art Monk was also the shit back in the day. That franchise being in PC cellar is also serious schadenfreude for team these same people loved when Doug Williams handed Broncos their ass on platter in Superbowl long ago.

          But their current insufferable owner deserves a team named the Slurs.

    2. So, a punk band called “The Slits” would be right out?

      1. And what about their hit single ‘So Ronery?’

        1. Or Ronesome, Ronery, and Mean.

      2. That cover of their album ‘Cut’ is some sort of cultural appropriation, I just know it!

    3. Maybe they just like football passing plays?

  23. which public bathrooms which people should use?

    I believe Witch People should only use cauldrons, personally.

    1. If you’re in San Francisco, apparently you don’t use any of them; you just take your giant dump right in the middle of the sidewalk.

        1. The park now features 27 toilets, including the outdoor urinal, thanks to more than $20 million in renovations.

          So, that’s like $740,000 per toilet.

    2. Like the hot take.

  24. Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    Is it too late to start my Gilmore’s-Gay-Cakes franchise?

    1. How do you know which way your cakes sexually identify?

      1. Whether they rise after removal from the oven?

  25. My favorite Dumbass Social Signalling Regarding Trans Bathrooms has to be X-Hamster blocking access to their website in North Carolina. It’s amazing for multiple reasons:

    1) They’re trying to punish all the people of North Carolina because of one law passed in the state. So apparently it’s okay to discriminate against people because of where they’re from but not okay to discriminate against gay people because ?\_(?)_/?

    2) Yeah, how will people in North Carolina find porn on the internet now? You showed them! I’m sure no one in the state will find masturbation fodder online until X-Hamster comes back.

    1. I have it on good authority that the entirety of North Carolina are Christian fundamentalists worse than the Taliban, so they definitely weren’t watching porn in the first place. Hell, they probably don’t even have electricity, most of ’em.

    2. All each individual boycott response does? in addition to that oh-so-satisfying signaling? is punish North Carolina residents who probably agree with the boycotter, and who have no control over the law.

      But I guess this is to be expected when people believe that “We Are the Government, the Gov’t Is Us”

    3. I’m hoping North Carolina ends up holding out. If all these protests don’t do anything they will probably disappear and be forgotten. If the idiot behind it get what they want, though, we’ll see this every time a state passes a law.

    4. Ha!!

      And the delicious irony in XHamster’s statement that there was a lot of people accessing gay pornography /from/ that state. Take THAT LGBT people in North Carolina!! That’ll show you to… have laws passed against your interests… I guess??

      1. You win.

    5. 1) They’re trying to punish all the people of North Carolina because of one law passed in the state. So apparently it’s okay to discriminate against people because of where they’re from but not okay to discriminate against gay transgender people because ?\_(?)_/?

      FIFY.

      That’s the part that gets me about it. Even for porn, it’s so far afield that it doesn’t make sense. Presumably you’re ‘punishing’ homosexuals and transgendered individuals in NC (and those online catering to NC) for something that they don’t care about and/or don’t approve of anyway. It’s like taking your car in for service and having your mechanic ask, “When you go to the restroom… do you wash your hands?”

    6. Meanwhile they’re giving Tranny Ted Cruz $10k to do porn.

  26. Obama sends more Special Forces to Syria to help battle IS

    “The deployment of up to 250 Special Forces soldiers increases U.S. forces in Syria roughly six-fold “”

    Which is bullshit. its basically saying, “As far as we know, the only resources in the region are the ones which the White House has made press-releases about”. who believes that?

    the dribble-drabble of assets into that area also includes a few-thousand into Iraq, most of whom are way up in the north and also part of the same basic conflict.

      1. Currently, the U.S. force level in Iraq is officially capped at 3,870. But privately, defense officials say the real number is closer to 5,000 when accounting for troops considered to be there on “temporary” deployment.

    1. A few advisors here, some trainers there, and all of a sudden someone starts shooting at them and then you have a real war on your hands…

      1. .. the important thing is to pick your tactics and strategies primarily based on domestic political considerations, LBJ-style!

        1. exactly. Its this whole, “let’s be involved without REALLY being involved” thing which should infuriate people

    2. Advisors, Gilmore… ADVISORS!

  27. Donald Trump thinks Ted Cruz and John Kasich teaming up to try to keep him from landing the Republican presidential nomination is a sign of collusion and says it’s “weak” and “pathetic.”

    Couple of girly-men!

    Donald Trump’s rhetoric reminds me of that of my 6th-grade bully. Next he’s going to make fun of Cruz and Kasich for wearing tighty-whities

    1. Meanwhile, there’s Fatty New Jersey (his name escapes me) right next to him, inhaling his food.

    2. Says the man who likes his steaks well done.

      1. Wait what?

        *tears up Trump poster*

      2. He doesn’t want it bleeding from…wherever. /Trumptard

    3. That’s because he’s never seen me when I get home from Costco.

  28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdu-J1lWQQ8

    A police abuse story Canadian style.

    I have no idea about the details of this story but hey…

    1. Oh dear. It gets better with the thug Mark Donaldson who almost killed the girl.

      “Const. Mark Donaldson, of nearby Dunsford, Ont., was charged this week with fraud over $5,000, laundering proceeds of crime, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.

      Police are still probing whether his status as a police officer played a role in his alleged involvement.

      City of Kawartha Lakes Police said Donaldson will keep his job, but be kept off investigative duties, as the case proceeds.”

      A piece of shit like this should not have a Const. designation.

      http://www.torontosun.com/2015…..edit-union

      1. Dudley Doright is appalled. Appalled I tell you.

  29. Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    I’ll tell you, the second-order effects and unintended consequences of this are going to be a sight to behold.

  30. Speaking of Trump:

    The other three?former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (56 percent), Texas Senator Ted Cruz (55 percent) and businessman Donald Trump (65 percent)?are all mostly disliked.

    56% dislike versus 65%. Can Trump change that? I think he has better skills at changing his numbers than Hillary has at changing hers.

    In a head-to-head matchup of each party’s frontrunner, Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by only 3 percentage points nationally (46 to 43; 11 percent undecided).

    I’m not seeing “Oh of course it’ll be a Hillary landslide against Trump” in those numbers.

    1. Bear in mind we don’t elect our presidents by national referendum. A weak or even non-existent lead in the national popular vote can still result in a secure victory in the electoral college.

      1. On that point, imagine if a Trump candidacy puts NJ & NY in play.

    2. I think it is going to be very hard for Hillary to bring down her negatives. Is there any more known commodity and any person who will have a harder time re-inventing themselves than Hillary?

      1. I think that Hillary’s best hope is that enough people feel sorry for her over the character assassination she’s going to face at the hands of the Donald. Not that she doesn’t deserve it. I won’t feel sorry for her no matter what the crazy fucker does to her.

      2. I have yet to meet an unapologetic Hillary supporter. The most enthusiastic one is my future mother in law; and on the one occasion we discussed it (via a weird text conversation)*, she was pretty apologetic and said she thought Hillary was ‘strong’ to have survived so many baseless accusations and scandals and was respected on the world stage.

        I think most Hillary supporters know she sucks. They just are terrified of Republicans.

        * Subsequent to that text message conversation, hardly a week goes by where she doesn’t call my fiancee in a panic as to how dangerous I am; This meme led to a particularly funny frantic call.

        1. That is totally it. And I don’t think that gets her over the top. The number of people who will show up to vote completely out of fear of anything isn’t going to get you a majority. Whatever you think of Obama, a lot of people liked him and wanted him to be President. You can’t say that about Hillary.

          1. I think Trump would easily defeat Hillary.

            I have little doubt that the annexation of Crimea was the product of the Russians reading her emails and knowing that there was no way the U.S. was going to intervene. And certainly if Trump makes the allegation that that’s what happened what’s she going to say?!?

            He’s already said she attended his daughter’s wedding because he paid her. What’s she going to say? I came because our daughters are besties*? It’s going to sound insincere.

            He’ll hammer her on the uranium deal she approved. He’ll hammer her about arming ISIS and Benghazi.

            And her constant defensive bullshit will make her look weak and whiny.

            And any attacks she levels at Trump will bounce off of his “fuck you, so what” shield of shamelessness.

            I think if you were to select any random name from the Atlanta Business Journal’s list of who’s who, that guy could crush her in the general election. I think she’s that weak. Trump will kick her ass worse than he did Jeb.

            *This is actually true; they are besties.

            1. The sad fact is that what you are saying is only true about Trump because none of the other GOP candidates would have the balls to go after her like that. My God is the GOP a loser party. Its like they want to lose. Trump may be a nut and a con man but at least he wants to win. I don’t think any of the other Republicans do.

              1. True, dat.

              2. I think Cruz would go after her hard – the rest are just wimps.

                1. I think Cruz would go after her hard

                  Cruz plays dirty so yup.

              3. If the GOP weren’t so dumb, I’d be sure there were doing the Outsideness Strategy.

                TL; DR The fundamental recommendation: Shore up the symbolic radiance of the Presidency, and then avoid it like the plague. Aim to win everything except the Presidency, until the whole machinery comes apart. In other words, a GOP pursuing the OS would (furtively) renounce presidential office for the remaining duration of American Democracy.

                …. All the pork warehouses get shifted away from the glittering media-saturated magnificence of the Whitehouse, ever deeper into the shadows, enabling monstrous plundering on an unprecedented scale to take place completely beyond the horizon of concrete democratic comprehension. (Nobody said it was going to be pretty.) POTUS gets the blame, Nu-GOP gets the gravy, FedGov is delegitimated, power is salted away steadily into state houses, and the whole abomination hurtles towards national disintegration. There’s only one thing the GOP has to do, and that’s to lose the presidential election every single time. Manage that, and it wins pretty much everything else without even trying.

              4. I think it’s a product of the coffin corner conservative politicians find themselves in. They are supposed to be leaders, stoic when insulted, yet emotionally demonstrative and not cold, witty but not insulting, chivalrous but not sexist etc.

                Basically, whatever one does, one is open to being nailed. Cry at a funeral, and you are weak. Don’t cry and you’re cold. etc.

                Romney got painted as some kind of misogynist, and it stuck!! There are many things to criticize about Romney; but the man was *not* a fucking misogynist. The fact that people were prepared to believe something so delusional was stunning!!!!

                And the politicians are so terrified of losing an election in a career ending way that they keep trying to find that magical point where the aren’t too anything.

                Trump succeeds because he literally doesn’t give a shit. If he loses an election, he moves onto the next thing.

                Trump’s a berserker who doesn’t care if he lives or dies. The other Republicans want to survive the battle. So he charges in where they hang back. He swings his sword with all his might while they keep their guard and don’t commit. And thus the spectators see him kicking ass while everyone else timorously hangs back.

                1. Romney got painted as some kind of misogynist, and it stuck!!

                  This is why I don’t understand why you think Trump will beat Hillary.

                  Romney was painted as fucking Hitler and it stuck.

                  1. This is why I don’t understand why you think Trump will beat Hillary.

                    Romney was painted as fucking Hitler and it stuck.

                    I agree with Tarran. None of that stuff seems to matter with Trump, and I think Hillary is just as unlikable to a number of conservative/Republican-minded individuals who will not vote for Trump, but will vote against Hillary.

                    It will probably come down to how many Trump supporters who have never voted vote for him.

            2. I have little doubt that the attackers knew exactly where to find Stevens because of her emails. She seems to have been sending Bluementhal a stream of unsecured emails on what was happening there,

        2. hardly a week goes by where she doesn’t call my fiancee in a panic as to how dangerous I am

          She isn’t wrong, libertarian-minded smart guy. I personally tremble while thinking of your idea of freedom.

        3. Holiday meals at the future in-laws should be fun.

          1. My mom is a huge fan of Mark Levin. Her mom watches MSNBC constantly (as in it’s on all the fucking time in her house). My fiancee moans about how to keep them from discussing politics. My suggestion that we mikey finn the drinks was *not* appreciated. What’s the point of offering constructive ideas in a brainstorming session if they are going to be dismissed out of hand?!? I thought the whole point of brainstorming is we are open minded to thinking out of the box!

            1. watches MSNBC constantly

              I’m actually tired of people spending most of their days watching news channels. My fiancees mom watches Fox News and gets irritated beyond belief by all kinds of things. Apparently, this is part of the attraction for her.

              1. WILL YOU PEOPLE GET MARRIED ALREADY?!

                1. July soon enough for ya?

                  1. Yes.

          2. Invite me – that way all of the anger and discord will flow in my direction and off of you, tarran!

      3. Is there any more known commodity and any person who will have a harder time re-inventing themselves than Hillary?

        Hillary doesn’t have to reinvent herself. Her supporters know exactly who she is and they don’t care.

    3. At least we can take heart in knowing that the majority of Americans will hate the president, whoever they is. I look forward to some sharp mockery again.

      1. Just because the public hates Hillary doesn’t mean the chattering classes will. It will be 4 long years of unsatisfying, old lady cunnilingus courtesy of the White House Press Corps if Hildog is elected.

        There will be no mockery. Only bows and obedience before Hillary Clinton’s skull throne.

        1. The chattering classes were never good satirists anyway, nor nearly as clever, intelligent and observant as they think themselves to be. I wasn’t necessarily referring to them.

          Kate McKinnon’s Hillary is already much more satisfying than any Obama parody.

          Let me desperately grope for a tiny silver lining!

        2. You are assuming she survives for four years. *COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH*

          (Note to the FBI and the Secret Service: This is not a threat, but a reference to her coughing.)

          1. Kindly turn your head when you cough.

    4. Hillary will lose to Trump. This should be good for some lulz.

    5. The Judge thinks Hillary is in deep trouble whichever way the FBI investigation goes.

      http://www.pjmedia.com/trending/2016/…..ed-or-not/

      1. Where are all the question marks?

  31. “Better on a resume than an internship”


    Recent college grad travels to Iraq to fight alongside Kurds

    Exactly how much fighting Cole has done is unclear, but the 23-year-old said that – unlike most regular U.S. soldiers stationed nearby – he has participated in offensives against Islamic State that involved artillery fire and airstrikes.

    “You can feel the explosions in your teeth. It’s kind of cool actually,” he told Reuters, nervously pulling on a cigarette.

    Cole, from Charlotte, North Carolina, said he had come for more than excitement after quitting his job transporting biohazardous materials such as medical waste. For all the violence, his fascination with northern Iraq – a mosaic of ethnic and religious groups – was a strong draw too.

    “Some people take a year off before they go to college, other people just do this,” he said. “I’d like to spend time here and learn more about the culture, the people, the history of this land and then go home.”

    1. “I’d like to spend time here and learn more about the culture, the people, the history of this land and then go home.”

      … and kill them.

    2. Pretty much everyone should write this on a resume. It’s not like they can call someone and verify that you actually joined up and fought alongside a ragtag group of Kurdish militia…

    3. “I’d like to spend time here and learn more about the culture, the people, the history of this land and then go home.”

      And then eat them all!

      Wait wrong movie?

    4. he had come for more than excitement after quitting his job transporting biohazardous materials

      Not a job completely lacking in excitement, I am sure.

  32. Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    Why would any gay couple want to order a cake from a baker like that? You would think none of them saw The Help.

    1. Attention.

      1. To punish their enemies.

        Isn’t that the essence of tolerance and inclusion?

  33. A school choir was stopped from singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the Sept. 11 memorial in New York City by a guard because they didn’t have a permit for a public demonstration.

    At least he seems to be consistently applying the law. If other groups were allowed to demonstrate or whatever without a permit, this might be a story.

    1. AMERICA FIRST PROVISO!?!

      Whenever i’m at risk of being arrested, i starting singing “My Country Tis of Thee” and they generally salute and let me go.

      1. i starting singing

        my english not so good after migrate vietnam

  34. Last fall, as Melissa Click yelled and pointed her way into infamy, she quickly became a caricature of a radical faculty member who represented everything conservative lawmakers and pundits hate about academe, right down to her research on Twilight.

    Well, are they wrong?

    1. Under pressure from state legislators, she says, Missouri’s Board of Curators fired her to send a message that the university and the state wouldn’t tolerate black people standing up to white people. “This is all about racial politics,” she says. “I’m a white lady. I’m an easy target.”

      I… what? If that’s the case, shouldn’t they have gone after the black students who came to her aid when she called for muscle? And she “stood up” to an Asian student, so is the kid an honorary honkey now? And Click, it’s white ladies like you who are the heart and soul of these gormless social movements. Just so long as you avoid being filmed harassing journalism students and calling for their forcible ejection from a public quad because they’re not sufficiently deferential, white ladies like you are without a doubt the safest and most esteemed members of this sad counterculture.

      Or maybe we can stop pretending it’s white men who are the racists here.

      1. And you know what’s funniest about Click’s predicament? She stepped in to help out what she saw as a protest to call attention to minority issues, and ended up stamping it out. If there’s anyone guilty of “colonizing” the protesters’ “safe space” (Civil Rights activists would be ashamed of these clowns), and “appropriating” their movement, it’s Melissa Click. All news turned from the protesters’ piddling little complaints and focused instead on the entitled prissy white woman who threw a tantrum on camera because, unlike professional adults, she’s a cosseted child at heart. Sad!

      2. “I do not understand the widespread impulse to shame those whose best intentions unfortunately result in imperfect actions,” she wrote in The Washington Post last month. “What would our world be like if no one ever took a chance?”

        LOL

        Don’t you, Melissa?

  35. Weird fucking headlines =

    Pair of minor leaguers suspended for drugs of abuse

    …”of abuse”?

    I tried scouring around to find any citation of *what exactly they were busted for*, but can’t find it. Either steroids, or weed, my guess.

      1. Ok, stuff that gets you high.

      2. Which is why i was curious they don’t just call them “Drugs”. I guess to distinguish from steroids?

        Also, it says there they only take piss tests? unless i’m mistaken, piss tests will catch almost nothing except Weed, and only if you’ve smoked in the last 2 weeks or something like that. Athletes who want to avoid getting busted you’d think could manage that.

        1. That list was for the MLB’s drug agreement, and those guys are minor leaguers. I believer their minor league program is more stringent for marijuana than their major program.

          “Drugs of abuse,” steroids, and stimulants are all separate categories for the majors’ program.

          1. I can’t imagine playing baseball without lots of drugs. its so boring, otherwise.

    1. Oh, you were looking for specifics.

  36. Weird fucking headlines =

    News media barred from cheetah briefing

    The House Foreign Affairs Committee brought a live cheetah to the Capitol on Monday, but news reporters and photographers were denied access to the big cat ? the fastest land mammal in the world.

    “This is a closed briefing,” said Cory Fritz, a spokesman for Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., chairman of the committee.

    1. There is nothing about that story that isn’t galling.

    2. I’m imagining logic went along these lines. Don’t bring anything into the room that might convince the big predator it wants to stop sleeping and start eating us.

      1. Crikey! I’m gonna put ‘er in a headlock and wrassle ‘er to the ground!

  37. So what’s the libertarian position on urinals? Don’t they discriminate against women and pre-op Female to Male transsexuals and post-op Male-to-Female transsexuals? (is that the right terminology?)

    And should men be allowed to pee while standing? Not only is it discriminatory against the above groups but supposedly it is unhealthy.

    1. Don’t they discriminate against women and pre-op Female to Male transsexuals and post-op Male-to-Female transsexuals?

      No, it’s quite possible for women to pee standing up with the proper technique.

  38. Dumb Redneck Friend of Dumb Redneck Racist Prosecuted for Not Taking Racist Friend’s Bluster Seriously

    For those wondering what the young gentleman’s shirt says…. it should be obvious, but here you go

    Please, no references to “The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth”

    1. More evidence of the evil of plea bargains. (Though maybe not very rhetorically useful evidence.)

      1. Joey Meek, 21, has agreed to plead guilty to lying to authorities and failure to report a crime, according to the agreement, and a hearing is set for 1 p.m. Friday in Charleston. He could face up to eight years in prison on those charges, although prosecutors note in the agreement they will argue he deserves less time if he’s helpful in their ongoing case.

        Man. For me to plead guilty to multiple felonies, I need a guarantee that I’ll never see the inside of a prison. Otherwise, I’m taking it to trial.

    2. What does Chaz Bono have to do with this?

    3. Sounds like it’s even worse than you portray. He’s being charged for lying after the incident happened and after they had caught the guy who definitely did it. And after he apparently voluntarily reported to the FBI that he knew who it was after seeing it on the news.

    1. U.S. Education Department spokeswoman Dorie Nolt would not comment directly on BYU. But she said in an email that “schools should consider whether their disciplinary policies have a chilling effect on victims’ or other students’ reporting of sexual violence offenses

      It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

    2. Madeline MacDonald says she was an 18-year-old freshman at Brigham Young University when she was sexually assaulted by a man she met on an online dating site. She reported the crime to the school’s Title IX office.

      Emphasis added. That’s your problem right there, lady.

      1. I’ll bet $10 that she was told to do exactly that during orientation or whatever.

        1. And Title IX comes in…because the rapist was some kind of dean? Because otherwise I don’t see how the university is to blame if a girl breaks the rules, sneaks off campus, and encounters a criminal – the criminal should be prosecuted, but where did the university encourage the criminal?

          1. but where did the university encourage the criminal?

            Because not giving him a free education makes him commit crimes

            1. So the problem of all those rape-y fraternity boys would be solved by giving them all full scholarships! Brilliant!

          2. And Title IX comes in…because the rapist was some kind of dean?

            Actually, this one made sense to me in the ‘Meet the new Puritanism, same as the old Puritanism’ sense. It will be interesting to see how the feminists behind Title IX draw distinctions between ‘because Athena’ and ‘because God’.

            Title IX requires the students to behave in an upright, moral manner. Just like the military back in the day, if you snuck off base to go carousing and cavorting you were, de facto guilty of violating policy. You could be 100% the victim; waking up handcuffed to a bed, naked and robbed, and still be booted for disorderly conduct. Whether you told your CO or they found out some other way, the investigation into your wrongdoing was at their discretion. You went out to meet some dude and got harassed? Guess what, we have a policy against ‘going out to meet some dude’ and, unfortunately, ‘some dude’ doesn’t fall under our jurisdiction any more than local hookers fall under the USMC’s.

            1. Title IX requires the students to behave in an upright, moral manner.

              I should say, Title IX through the lens of the University’s policies requires women to behave in an upright, moral manner.

  39. Just a thought about the sarcastic remark re the “important” cake beat.

    Colorado decided that gay cakes are worth persecuting people over, even to the extent of driving them out of business.

    So they just *made* it important.

  40. When I get gay-married, I’m baking a pie. Maybe a pizza pie. I’ll eat cake on my honeymoon.

  41. The fact that no one has yet called John a total fucking asshole tells me that you all agree with everything he says. You’re just going through the motions of disagreeing with him, for the sake of your hip libertarian cred.

    1. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

      1. Ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Fist of Etiquette?

        Morons.

    2. So “my side” didn’t win? Can I still have my celebratory glass of champagne?

      Can someone please tell me definitively which side I’m on? This is giving me vertigo.

      1. You know who else didn’t know what side they were on, eventually resulting in massive changes in fluid pressure in their head cavity?

  42. Today in the extremely important cake beat: Colorado’s Supreme Court is letting stand a ruling that a bakery violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    What it is about ‘We Own Your Labor’ don’t you understand?

    /The State

    The family of Tamir Rice will receive $6 million from Cleveland over the boy’s fatal shooting by police.

    Public executions cost the city $6 million a pop.

    Will some of this year’s elections be a referendum on which public bathrooms which people should use?

    God forbid we start believing restrooms belong to the GODDAMNED OWNERS of the fucking place.

    But I guess not.

  43. Am I a heartless, sexist, misogynist pig if I ask the question, “Is it a good idea for a young woman to hitchhike alone across remote regions in Mexico?”

    Her husband has some odd theories:

    “I’m pretty much in distress,” Reinhard said. “It’s awful.”

    Reinhard is also raising money to hire a private investigator. He speculated that money may be needed for a “ransom,” although he hasn’t heard from anybody. He also fears that his wife may have been sold into human trafficking.

    Reinhard said Chen is an avid hiker and adventurous.

    At this point, I’d say to Reinhard that he’d better get on his knees and pray she was “sold into human trafficking” — an idea I suspect Reinhard got from watching too many cable news shows.

    Jenny Chen who, despite some possible poor choices in travel methods is probably an otherwise intelligent woman who could likely escape any REAL human trafficking situation. If she HASN’T been sold into “human trafficking”, Reinhard better knuckle up for some bad news.

      1. If they’re lucky enough to ever find her body.

    1. I suppose the goodness of the idea depends on what results you are looking for.

    2. What a completely idiotic thing to do. The poor woman, and her poor husband. I cannot believe that two otherwise sane people would think this was a good idea.

      1. Remember the Cal ‘professional students’ who hiked in Iran and got caught?.
        “Sane” is not always as you presume.

    3. I read a book about an American Indian woman who went across Mexico looking for information about UFOs and aliens.

      She hired guides, though. And drove. What’s funny though is down by the southern border, she ran into dozens of military checkpoints. Mexico doesn’t like immigrants coming into their country from the south.

  44. Not sure if more like the Cultural or French revolution. But they haz a sad.

    1. I’m never quite sure how they manage to tie in “Capitalism” to their crazy identity-politics gibberish.

      1. White people have quilted toilet paper, Venezuelans have none. Ergo, Capitalism is to blame.

  45. Can an “enfranchisement lottery” solve the problem of political ignorance?

    http://tinyurl.com/zfnuq94

    . . . who are provided unbiased in-depth information relevant to an election.

    Who decides?

    *sigh*

    1. . . . where at least the voters aren’t all subject to the same misinformation, which makes it harder for any one form of bias to skew the overall outcome.

      At least this author understands the importance of free markets.

    2. A simpler idea is to stop goading people into voting when they don’t give a shit. No, it’s not your patriotic duty. No, it’s not the least you can do. No, you’re not making the country a better place. Just fuck off if you don’t pay attention, and leave the voting to the grownups.

    3. Paywalled, you disenfranchising something or other.

      1. – right click link, open in “private window”

        1. Thank you.

      2. I don’t have a subscription – so I don’t know why it won’t show for you.

    4. The far simpler solution is the one the framers of the constitution came up with: strip the fucking govt of excess power, and make the branches each cancel each other’s most-retarded shit out, when possible.

    5. In a recent New York Times column, Notre Dame philosopher Gary Gutting describes the “enfranchisement lottery,” an interesting proposal

      Uhm, I just want to point out that whenever a major media think-piece comes along and labels something as “an interesting proposal” you can be damn sure the idea is so dumb, that only an intellectual could have come up with it.

      If I hear one more serialized segment on NPR about Kurt Vonnegut’s “secretary of the future” I swear to god I won’t even play NPR for 10 seconds any more.

  46. Feel-good story of the day:

    Kid sells lemonade to help his foster family pay for his adoption.

    http://www.fox5ny.com/news/132120854-story

    1. 🙂

    2. Health code violation. SWAT’d.

    3. The cops didn’t come bust it up or some snoopy asshole neighbor didn’t snitch on him?

      Props.

      Good for the kid.

  47. Let’s get this to 500. Thanks, John.

    1. I blame Shackford’s careless linktroduction. Linktroduction’s are serious business.

    2. Did John run off to buy some wax for his cross?

  48. Two young men she passed near the campus asked her if she needed some muscle. She considered it a threat.

    Heh.

    1. The proper response is “*swoon*”

  49. Holy cow, how’d I miss the whole John/Shackford dustup?

    Let me rephrase, thank god I missed the whole John/Shackford dustup.

    1. Interestingly enough, Shackford missed the whole thing too.

  50. I propose a new… portmanteau(?) for anything regarding gay cakes: Gaykes.

    You’re welcome.

      1. Fruit cakes?

        Fabulous!

  51. Before I check out, here’s to 500 –

    Speaking of Charleston, let’s not forget that the mass murdering unionists hit the city, occupied almost exclusively with civilians, with over 4,000 artillery shells in a single day.

    1. Thank John. He’s responsible for about 30% of the comments.

  52. “People who have already performed Tribute versions of Purple Rain”

    Bruce Springsteen
    Adam Levine
    David Gilmour (no relation)
    Stevie Wonder
    Some dude from that band “Extreme”
    – and more…

  53. Slow news day at Reason?

    There’s always Prince.

      1. Some of those bella donnas could use the Rufus treatment.

  54. No one starves in SF. We have charity kitchens, gov’t-provided kitchens, free-lancers handing out food, and if all else fails, dumpsters behind some of the world’s finest restaurants.
    But two nuns decided we needed one more soup kitchen, set up shop, but, as happens, their lease ran out, and the landlord expects more money; they don’t have it.
    Pants-shitting, hand-wringing, forelock-tugging ensues; EVICT NUNS RUNNING A SOUP KITCHEN?
    So, for some reason (he’s Catholic? His mother was a nun? Got me…), Tony Robbins of fire-walking fame decides his image can use some polishing, flys into town, and hands over $750K to buy a retail ‘condo’, and $50 for start-up.
    Well, this is SF, and besides (legitimately IMO) there is a home-owners’ association in the building where Tony wants them to set up shop; HOA says ‘Soup kitchen in MY building? Not a chance in hell, ladies!’
    Pants-shitting, hand-wringing, forelock-tugging ensues.
    http://blog.sfgate.com/inthemi…..do-owners/

    1. You know, Sevo, anymore I’m more amused than irritated by San Francisco. It’s like a voluntary insane asylum and anything going on therein is, after all, done with the tacit consent of its inmates, so it must be okay.

      1. And I’m convinced that even besides getting to live in one of the most beautiful climates and certainly in the top hundred greatest cities on Earth, homeless people in San Francisco probably lead a better life than I do.

      2. And I’m convinced that even besides getting to live in one of the most beautiful climates and certainly in the top hundred greatest cities on Earth, homeless people in San Francisco probably lead a better life than I do.

        1. I wonder if I can triple post.

        2. I wonder if I can triple post.

        3. I wonder if I can triple post.

              1. BLINK TWICE IF THE SQUIRRELS ARE HOLDING YOU HOSTAGE

    2. Delicious.

    3. Good lord, what a shit-show. I have a question: is there anyone willing to do a photo-op for maybe helping reduce the number of goddamn homeless there? Everyone seems so interested in “helping” them remain homeless.

      1. SF spends about $150 million a year on the homeless. The local wags call it the “homeless-industrial complex.” And then we wonder why people come from all over the country to be homeless in San Francisco….

        1. SF spends about $150 million a year on the homeless.

          WTF

          that…. seems a bit silly.

            1. “SF! At least we’re not NYC!”

              1. Oh, you’re probably “the same” in per-capita spend per ‘homeless’ person. probably in the same ballpark

                its just that i suspect that NYC’s own bloated system is probably far more utilized as a slush-fund for crony-scumbags than yours is, which is likely just a horribly-implemented but well-intentioned progressive-money-toilet.

                A minor qualitative difference in the end. But fuck me if the scale in NYC isnt always so jaw-dropping.

                1. “its just that i suspect that NYC’s own bloated system is probably far more utilized as a slush-fund for crony-scumbags than yours is, which is likely just a horribly-implemented but well-intentioned progressive-money-toilet.”

                  Not claiming you’re wrong, but you might look at this for comparison:
                  http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfra…..toryPage=2

                  1. Interesting. Some of that there seems to reinforce my point

                    According to a 2009 analysis, San Francisco spends around 41 percent of its discretionary budget ? about half a billion dollars ? on nonprofits, mostly to provide social services for the poor, homeless, elderly, and others.

                    Many cities contract with nonprofits because it’s cheaper than using city workers.,,,.”

                    meaning, SF’s satellite cronies are actually independent non-profits; NYC’s tend to be “Agencies” which are directly part of the urban machine. but the net-net of gross incompetence and waste seems to be the same

                    the city paid for support services for more than 2,200 homeless people, but never tracked how many were actually using the services. It also never checked whether those who were using the services were helped by them. While Care Not Cash has undoubtedly found housing for some people, it has no evidence to suggest that their lives are better because of it,

                    in terms of #s, a quick back of napkin calc seems to confirm my point re: similar spending. The homeless pop of SF vs NY is about ~10,000 vs. 55,000; the spending is about $200m vs. $1bn. It scales pretty clearly in the same “$20,000″(+/- 10%) per cap range. the numbers are obviously fuzzy as hell (as are the beneficiaries!). Anytime you look under these kinds of rocks you find similar bugs.

                    1. What always blows me away about these “tell all” stories of civic corruption & waste that get done (e.g. the “Annals of incompetence” in that piece is epic)…

                      …is that you can search newspaper archives and find examples of them every 10 years or so. These are open secrets. Its never “news”. Most people either benefit from the scumbaggery, or they’re too stupid to care. the people who care are a minority which will be pushed out of the city anyway.

                      That piece about the DC metro mentioned a while back….? Here – gave me exactly the same impression. Every generation of urban journalists ‘re-discover’ the horrors of municipal scumbaggery. By the time they’re old enough to realize how perennial and unchangeable this stuff is, they’ll be moving on to some place different rather than fight the system.

                      We all moan about how bad the govt. is. The “shadow government” of agencies – esp in big cities – are far far worse.

                      I think the MTA probably did more to make me libertarian than any philosopher.

                    2. “…meaning, SF’s satellite cronies are actually independent non-profits; NYC’s tend to be “Agencies” which are directly part of the urban machine….”

                      An SF “non-profit” is nearly universally run by a (heavy contributor – community organizer – fund-raiser) for one of the supervisors.
                      Some 30 years ago, in the name of ‘better democracy’, SF instituted district elections. That allows scumbags like Peskin to get elected with a plurality of one or two votes. You can imagine how Peskin, et al, distribute the ‘remediation’ developers’ funds. And the resulting ‘non-profits’ then end up on the city dole, as the supes log-roll funding, ‘your-np-for-mine’.
                      So, SF ‘non-profits’ are city agencies in everything but name; walk into the offices of one in North Beach and ask for Arron’s phone number; they’ll have it.

                    3. ah. well, “almost exactly the same” then.

                      my mistake for being generous. 🙂 i always assume that the character of municipal boondogglery changes slightly as it scales down.

                    4. Kinda like the missing woman; there’s only so many reasons you grab, kill and dispose of her.
                      Local gov’t corruption, under what we call ‘democracy’ happens in pretty universal paths.
                      I’d hope that yours is a *bit* more subject to ‘the voters’, but they are likely benefiting from the status quo.
                      I guess there’s an advantage in SF; I could find that one voter who puts Peskin over the top and STRANGLE THE FUCKER!

        2. “And then we wonder why people come from all over the country to be homeless in San Francisco….”

          Well, not “we” as in you, me, anacr…, and several others.
          “We” know full well why they come here: We PAY them them to show up.
          And then Ed Lee )and others who have never worked for a living) wonder why…

          1. If you haven’t seen the relevant South Park episode, I highly recommend it.

            1. I’ll find it.
              BTW, our resident crook/former mayor (one W. Brown) wrote a column recently claiming LA’s bum problem is worse.
              I have no idea whether he is correct.

  55. I’m telling you, if the Blues don’t keep pressure on Chicago they will lose. Hitchcock refusing to give more ice time to Tarasenko is so Hitchcock. You have a weapon like that and you limit him? Even in a G7? Really?

    1. ‘SF hospitals see huge increase in anxiety admissions after Curry’s knee injury!’
      (I just made that up, Rufus)

    2. I’m guessing every single Blues fan knows exactly what’s going to happen, even if the game is tied right now.

      1. Hitchcock is the most stubborn man in pro sports.

        There’s no reason why he shouldn’t use his hottest weapon. Quenneville is double shifting Kane.

        It’s absurd.

        Yeh, Sevo. Time for Thompson to take over and step up!

        1. Stastny, Brouwer, Berglund, and Lehtera all have more ice-time than Tarasenko. I kinda get Backes because of his size and physical play but still….

          INSANE.

            1. If they lose, and Tarasenko’s ice-time doesn’t improve, I’m putting this all on Hitchcock.

              The name of the game is to score and you’re chances of scoring are increased when you use your best snipe: Tarasenko. It’s impossible that this isn’t rubbing some players the wrong way.

              When you’re in a war like that you want your best player used.

              But that’s Hitchcock for you. For all his smarts, his ego takes him down.

              1. I want this more than I have anything in a long, long time.

                Finally, there’ll be a Blues playoff game here in Dallas, where I can go. Sure, my wife will have her Stars jersey on, but I’ll be rockin’ the blue with pride.

                If we don’t choke away a 3-1 lead against the fucking scum of the earth Blackcocks, that is.

                1. And Gojira goes wild!!

                  And Brouwer almost missed an open net!

                  1. As a fan of the note, you never go wild until at least 30 seconds after the final whistle.

                    But yes, I am…not displeased.

                    1. Wise.

                      Especially against the Hawks.

                  2. I think I see the method in HC’s madness where Tarasenko is concerned. Anyway. Enough if this. I’m starting to obsess.

                    1. Stupid, terrible time out.

                    2. Thank the lord. You could have cut a cigar in my asshole, I was puckered so tight.

                    3. StL. passed the hump. They can legitimately win it all now.

                      I still think under playing Tara. is playing it risky.

                      Enjoy.

      2. Shit, we all knew what was going to happen even when the Blues were up 2-0 in the 1st.

  56. OT (Double trigger warning – Huffpo and Autoplay video): Uber finks out to The Man

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2…..73770.html

    The inaugural report released Tuesday found the ride service had shared data on at least 13 million riders and drivers between July and December of last year ? most of it at the request of U.S. transportation regulators such as the California Public Utilities Commission.

    The data was shared in response to 33 regulatory requests, affecting 11.6 million passengers and 583,000 drivers; and 34 airport reporting requests, affecting 1.6 million passengers and 156,000 drivers.

  57. A school choir was stopped from singing “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the Sept. 11 memorial in New York City by a guard because they didn’t have a permit for a public demonstration.

    So can we now officially say that the patient that was once a wonderful Republic, has flatlined.

    1. From comment:

      “Phil_greene 3 hours ago

      I can’t stand that song. At every sporting event, no less. Yuk!
      Share
      1LikeReply”

      1. Some Jersey City teen choir did an a capella version of it last night at a Red Bulls match and I’ll be damned if it wasn’t sublime. I normally hate it.

    2. self-parody

    3. self-parody

      1. No! I was feeling so smugly superior for not having had this happen to me yet.

        1. [the sound squirrels make when they’re laughing]

          1. I think this is what it sounds like

            *dons sunglasses*

            when doves cry

    1. Business; I missed the John ‘controversy’. Fortunately.

      1. No business for me today. Sleep. I was trying to go after something I wanted in the evening/late night hours, but apparently there’s something called ANZAC day, and it’s a bank holiday in Australia. So, now I know.

        Re: John

        It was bad. All day. He’s in troll territory now. It’s the worst I’ve seen it.

        1. It’s been like watching “The Shining” – all commenting and no limit switch makes John a cray boy

        2. “Anzac Day is a national day of remembrance in Australia and New Zealand that broadly commemorates all Australians and New Zealanders “who served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations”

          So do they have a 500-mile race on that day?
          I quit on John sometime back. Very ‘clever’. By half.

          1. It’s Memorial Day lite. Really lite.

            My apologies to the Aussies who post here, but they’re not reading this anyway.

            1. So no 500-mile race?
              Seriously, when I was involved in racing, for some reason, we (Nor Cal) had a hell of a cadre of Ozzie and Kiwis who (as a rule) were pretty talented folks.
              Most ended up running out the green card, a few married US.

              1. The Aussie V8s are pretty top notch, and there’s been a pipeline of South Pacific talent to CART/ChampCar/IndyCar ever since they raced Surfer’s.

        3. It was bad. All day. He’s in troll territory now. It’s the worst I’ve seen it.

          Something about this place invites trolling as the preferred form of communication. It makes me want to do a rewrite of Reasonable to have some sort of group downvote that hides certain shit-posts. Crowdsourced moderation, in a sense.

          1. Eh. I know who I like, and I know who I don’t like.

  58. I wonder how many parents after seeing the Tamir Rice payout are going to give their least-liked kid a fake gun and send them out to play.

    1. I envision a world where buffoonish cops are the primary engines for far-flung, comprehensive income redistribution.

    2. The financial incentives only sweeten the deal.

    3. That is horrible, and I love you for it…

  59. I guess the Reason Staff are done at 1:30 PM Eastern.

    So we’re all going to have to look at John’s “work” all night. Great.

    1. What, you didn’t enjoy John’s Jousting Jubilee?

    2. Or, we can read about pot vs. kettle:

      “Piers Morgan Accuses Beyonce of ‘Shameless Exploitation’ on New Album”
      http://www.sfgate.com/entertai…..351146.php

      Piers Morgan commenting on trolling? Really?

      1. Prolly more accurately “pandering”, but close enough.

      2. “I never like it when entertainers go all political,” the talk show host wrote

        Uh huh

        1. Hey!
          Some hypocrisy only sweetens the pot when it comes to Piers; if he didn’t have that, he wouldn’t have much at all.

  60. OK, what other foolishness is SF Gate posting? Oh, look here:

    “Airbnb, HomeAway would police rentals under proposed SF law”
    […]
    “…Campos and Peskin [proggy ignoramuses] agree with housing activists who say that lucrative vacation rentals siphon units from the market, driving up prices and tightening availability….”
    http://www.sfgate.com/business…..306756.php

    Of course, none of this has anything to to with rent control! Nope; rent control is just a minor effort to keep the poor in the city!

  61. When I read stories about higher powers bullying religious business owners and professors calling the cops on journalists and student exercising their 1A rights, I sometimes think America deserves a president like Trump or Hillary. Oh, and it turns out the ACLU isn’t libertarian.

    Trump fans are definitely misguided and somewhat delusional, but they probably represent the first real movement against the PC nonsense in this country. It’s just mind boggling to see people get out of their way to get offended by something, If you’re upset that a college speaker doesn’t suit your style, just don’t go his speaking engagement. If a religious person doesn’t want to associate with your lifestyle, go somewhere else.

    I’m glad LA has adopted the 15 dollar wage. The SJW asshats should be thrown out of their jobs and languish in despair. The dems have implemented a bunch of policy that will decimate their own, and the infighting will be something to behold. No business in LA not part of a chain will legally pay you 15 bucks an hour. Enjoy the blowjob on your stupidity.

  62. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.N3

    ———– http://www.Buzzmax7.com

  63. before I looked at the check that said $6457 , I didnt believe that…my… neighbours mother had been actually erning money part-time from there labtop. . there aunts neighbour had bean doing this 4 only 12 months and resently took care of the debts on their apartment and bourt a top of the range Porsche 911 . navigate to this site…

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….
    ++++++++++++++++++ http://www.MaxPost30.com

  64. wwe summerslam live streaming
    http://www.wrestlemaniaresults.com
    Watch wwe summerslam 2016 results, predictions, Full Show live streaming info here and also buy tickets Online for wwe summerslam 2016

    La Liga Live Stream
    http://www.elclasicolaligalive.com
    Watch La Liga Live Streaming, Online El Clasico, Barcelona vs Real Madrid Live Streaming. En vivo Canal Plus HD, BeIN Sports.

  65. Happy New Year 2017
    http://www.happynewyear2016wishesnquotes.com
    http://www.happynewyearwishesnquotes.net
    Send happy new year images, happy new year cards on this new year 2017. happy new year greeting cards, new year pictures, new year wishes, new year SMS, happy new year jokes, messages and more.

  66. olympics medal table 2016
    http://www.sportsdust.com
    The home of Sports Dust online. Includes live sports coverage, breaking news, results, video, audio and analysis on Football, F1, Cricket, Tennis and all the main world sports.

    Mini IPL Live Stream
    http://www.iplt20livestreaming.co.in
    Watch IPL 2017 Live online, IPL 10 Live Score, IPL Live Streaming 2017, Points Table, Schedule, Results and Highlights. IPL Auction 2017, IPL Opening Ceremony.

  67. olympics medal table 2016
    http://www.sportsdust.com
    The home of Sports Dust online. Includes live sports coverage, breaking news, results, video, audio and analysis on Football, F1, Cricket, Tennis and all the main world sports.

    Mini IPL Live Stream
    http://www.iplt20livestreaming.co.in
    Watch IPL 2017 Live online, IPL 10 Live Score, IPL Live Streaming 2017, Points Table, Schedule, Results and Highlights. IPL Auction 2017, IPL Opening Ceremony.

  68. Friendship Day Quotes 2016
    http://www.bestfriendshipday.com
    Find Happy Fathers Day 2016 HD Images, Quotes, SMS, Greetings and Songs. Also Pictures and Wishes for Best Friends. Best Wallpaper, Wishes and Pictures you can find.

    Raksha Bandhan 2016 Images
    http://www.happy-raksha-bandhan.com
    Find Happy Raksha Bandhan Day 2016 Images, Quotes, Greetings and Songs. Also Pictures and Wishes for your Brother or Sister. Best Presents, Gifts Ideas and Quotes Poems.

  69. Independence Day India
    http://www.theindependencedays.com
    Happy Independence Day 4th of July 2016 images and pictures. Watch fireworks, events and celebrations Here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.