A.M. Links: Trump vs. Clinton, Iraqi Forces Battle ISIS Outside Fallujah, Warriors Beat Thunder in NBA Playoffs

|

  • The Golden State Warriors beat the Oklahoma City Thunder last night and will now advance to the NBA Finals against the Cleveland Cavaliers.
  • "China will 'pressure' the United States on maritime issues at talks in Beijing next week because of Chinese concern about an increased U.S. military presence in the disputed South China Sea, a major state-run newspaper said on Tuesday."

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

NEXT: Donald Trump's Vile Attack on Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel

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. That’s some real class from Johnson.

    2. Doesn’t say much about who you should vote for, but jeez, that was inconsiderate of Gary. Humoring nerdiness should be a prerequisite for getting anywhere in the Libertarian party, and pairing George Washington fanboyism with a Lord of the Rings joke is pretty damn nerdy.

    3. Hello.

    4. More than this:
      1. You don’t just throw a gun in the trash. I’m not rocket scientist like Stephen Hawking, but that seems a bit inappropriate.
      2. It’s alarming to me that we have two anti-gun rights candidates representing the LP party. But I’m not a wise cosmo. They all assure me that the LP has been all about intellectual purity and it’s gotten them nowhere. I must have missed it.

      1. Does the fact that he threw away the pistol make him anti-gun or does it just make him an asshole? Gary Johnson is on record as supporting gun rights.

        1. Thankfully, we won’t have to find out if Gary Johnson is lying about his support for gun rights.

      2. Ok then. He’s just an idiot who wants to give the government the right to determine who is mentally unfit to own a gun. Like veterans unknowingly screwed over by the VA who have had their gun rights stripped.

    5. I’m sure we’ll here more, but if true, pretty ball less to not just refuse the gift.

      1. Assuming the story is factual, which I don’t.

        1. Right. it’s facebook.

          1. Jason Stapleton backs up the story and he’s usually dependable.

    6. When Trump verbally disregards purely symbolic shit like that, he’s an iconoclast.

      When Obama makes a big deal out of purely symbolic shit, it’s nauseating.

      If Johnson isn’t impressed by purely symbolic shit, that just makes me want to vote for him.

      Here’s the Avengers making light of the Kennedy assassination.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar9E65h6XK8

      “Ask not what you can do for your country
      What’s your country been doing to you?”

      It just makes me want to vote for Penelope Houston.

      1. If another candidate you claim to be friendly with endorses you and gives you a gift, you don’t throw it in the trash at the convention center. I think that’s just being a decent human being myself. If you can’t acknowledge that it is at least dickish, you are drinking way more Kool-Aid than any libertarian ever should.

        1. I don’t see being dickish in the face of purely symbolic bullshit as necessarily being a bad thing. It might have been cooler if he’d trashed it right in front of him.

          Chicks have sometimes tried to hem me into a plastic cage.

          They don’t realize it’s so easy to break.

          So Johnson isn’t beholden to Petersen’s passive aggressive, purely symbolic bullshit?

          Good for him!

          A chick wants me to sell my bike. She gives me a card with a free listing on Cycle Trader for Christmas–for Christmas! How could I just throw something like that away?

          I might throw it into the fire right in front of her.

          1. How was it passive aggressive?

            1. Oh fer cryin’ out loud!

              You don’t think it had anything to do with gun rights and his championing of William Weld?

            2. If it was an insult to Johnson-Weld, they kind of just proved any point Petersen was trying to make.

              I am not convinced he had some great point to it. And quietly taking it and shutting up would be a lot better to unify the LP than throwing it in the trash at a crowded convention center. I’m not a polished politician like Johnson, though, so what do I know.

          2. “It might have been cooler if he’d trashed it right in front of him”

            There was not a single thing about Johnson’s behavior that could be described as cool, and that you’re trying to pass this ingrate off as such is one of the funniest things I’ve seen for a while.

            1. Ingrate?

              he’s supposed to be grateful for effeminate, manipulative bullshit?

              lol

              Do you know anything at all about women?

              If Petersen is going to act like a woman, then, yeah, Johnson should just ignore him while Petersen stomps around the place, opening and slamming cupboards, slamming doors, . . .

              lol again.

              1. If Petersen is going to act like a woman, then, yeah, Johnson should just ignore him while Petersen stomps around the place, opening and slamming cupboards, slamming doors, . . .

                Because only cunts act like that? :o)

          3. ‘Chicks have sometimes tried to hem me into a plastic cage.’
            Steeples fingers, nods head,
            ‘How long have you had this fantasy Mr Shultz?’
            ‘It’s not a fantasy, just look out of the window!’
            Looks out of window, sees a crowd of angry women with plastic cages….

            1. Woman here, woman there
              tryin’ to keep me in a plastic cage
              But they don’t realize
              it’s so easy to break.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0n1JEICqlk

    7. Fuck GayJay. Seriously, fuck that guy.

      Libertarian, my ass.

    8. Not gay Jay:

      “You call that a fun?!! Here’s a gun!”

      (Whips out 45 and blows him away)

      That’s a candidate who would get elected.

  1. Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours

    Internet giants Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc., Google and Microsoft Corp. pledged to tackle online hate speech in less than 24 hours as part of a joint commitment with the European Union to combat the use of social media by terrorists.

    terrorism = “racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism”

    Given how “racism” and “homophobia” are now defined by progressives, and the EU’s disdain for free speech generally, this is a huge milestone toward the end of Internet freedom. E.g., advocacy of Brexit is considered by many Euros to be racist.

    1. “The internet is a place for free speech, not hate speech,” said Vera Jourova, the EU commissioner responsible for justice, consumers and gender equality.

      GFYWARCS.

      1. *Since you SFed the link.*

          1. Once more with feeling…

          2. That’s better. 😉

      2. It’s people like this who make Larry Flynt look like an upstanding citizen.

      3. Good for You W….???

        1. I think it is “Go Fuck Yourself With A Running Chain Saw”

          1. Rusty, running, rectal… It’s whatever you want it to be. We don’t make mistakes here.

      4. Vera is a cunt.

        It’s amazing how they can’t see speech is speech. There’s no distinction to be made. Cunt.

      5. So, do people actually think that the free speech/hate speech distinction that they keep making actually makes any sense, or do they just think the people they are talking to are idiots? What the fuck do they think “free speech” actually means if they think it is OK to punish any speech that doesn’t rise to the level of an actual threat?

        1. Hate speech is any speech that is spoken by people who the definers of hate speech hate.

        2. It makes perfect sense, Zeb. Free speech is the stuff they agree with. Hate speech is the stuff they don’t agree with. Doesn’t get anymore distinct than that.

        3. It’s easier to understand them if you consider their views more as religious beliefs rather than principles. So yeah, they think there’s a distinction. And being the enlightened ones, they know it when they see it.

        4. they keep repeating the big lie until it becomes true.

        5. It seems to be a rule of political discourse. You can say things that anybody would laugh at in a normal conversation. But, if you say it as an official pronouncement, a lot of people will take it as gospel. People like to assume their “leadership” has some level of intelligence. So they defer to the man in the nice suit or the man in the lab coat because they assume they must not understand. It isn’t even intellectual laziness. It’s an excess of intellectual modesty.

    2. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..n-24-hours

      Cato doesn’t see fit to hat-tip me. I see how it is.

    3. terrorism = “racism, homophobia or anti-Semitism”

      Terrorism is officially meaningless now, I guess.

    4. In the Future: since most jobs will be outsourced to African sweatshops and robots, most of the population will get subsistence jobs as Monitors of the Internets (MOTIs). They will report each other for every small infraction. Elite MOTIs will then ajudicate wrongthink and wrongword actions. The worst offenders will be turned over to the Special Victims Squad for vicimization.

  2. 184) We remember the knights of the Middle Ages romantically, as brave, chivalrous upholders of right and decency. Even insofar as that’s a dramatic idealization of the reality, the idea of chivalry really didn’t even come into being until the 12th century?after knights had already been around for centuries. Until then, knights were little more than a brutal warrior caste. Even later on, the chivalric code’s protections for the weak and helpless only applied to the high-born. Peasants were out of luck.
    Today, we’re seeing the creation of a new knightly caste before our eyes. With the tacit approval of civic and judicial authorities, law enforcement officials across the country have developed a strong group identity, superior to the laws governing lower classes and deserving of special deference and respect.
    But the members of this new caste are in no way the wisest or most virtuous among us, or even the strongest?they’re simply the most sociopathic. Strip away the glamour of centuries of romantic epics, and this must have been precisely how knights appeared to medieval peasants.

    1. Shhhh. Next thing you know people will figure out that cowboys were just unwashed Victorian migrant farm workers.

      1. Were?

        /sister married a bull rider

          1. Don’t be gross. Women and children might read this board, you know.

          2. Don’t be gross. Women and children might read this board, you know.

            1. Our Squirrel overlords approve of your message.

    2. Knights weren’t that chivalrous. They were, generally, hobos in costume.

      1. Well, since “chivalry” basically means “knight stuff”, they kind of are by definition. Though, of course, it might not be what we think of as chivalry.

        1. Even back then they weren’t.

          http://origins.osu.edu/review/…..sh-it-were

          Sir Lancelot and Sir Loin of Beef they all weren’t.

          1. I was just trying to be clever.

      2. Hobos? Have you any idea how much a suit of armour cost?

    3. Even later on, the chivalric code’s protections for the weak and helpless only applied to the high-born. Peasants were out of luck.

      It wasn’t codified. But there was a clear distinction between belligerents and civilians concerning medieval warfare. The relations between lords and the their retainers were very formal and governed by laws, often times even during times of war. The notion that the civilians should be targeted for purpose of winning a war was a democratic revival of a rather archaic ancient notion about warfare.

      1. Yeah, back in medieval societies the king didn’t like his men going out and stabbing the people he was trying to conquer and extort for tax monies. Chivalry was far from perfect but, eh, I’d prefer to have it than the system we currently have.

        1. Well the whole concept of democratic legitimacy lends weight to the idea that targeting civilians is an acceptable means of defeating an enemy in war. The government is the people right? Democratic states represent the will of the people supposedly. Okay then, let’s burn them all alive and use some euphemism to describe it.

  3. Can Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election?

    Trump’s nomination hands her the White House.

    1. But… but what about a Third party candidate?

  4. Students seeking sugar daddies for tuition, rent

    During her first year, she faced tuition and expenses that ran nearly $50,000, even after a scholarship. So she decided to check out a dating website that connected women looking for financial help with men willing to provide it, in exchange for companionship and sex ? a “sugar daddy” relationship as they are known.

    Now, almost three years and several sugar daddies later, Kashani is set to graduate from Villanova University free and clear, while some of her peers are burdened with six-digit debts.

    As the cost of tuition and rent rises, so does the apparent popularity of such sites among students. But are they really providing financial relief, or signing women up for something more exploitative and dangerous than debt?

    Kashani believes such sites are a “great resource” for young women, but others say these arrangements smack of prostitution and take advantage of women in a vulnerable situation.

    1. “smack of prostitution”

      that’s a rather specialised type of prostitution

      1. What you did there…

        1. I charge extra for boots.

          1. go on…

          2. The basque and black stocking are included in the price though?

    2. Hey, it’s a solution to the mind-body problem.

    3. It’s not fair that women, even not good looking ones, can sell their bodies for cash to get through college. It’s privilege. An unfair advantage. We need bigger Pell Grants for male students to make up for the sugar daddy/sugar momma gap.

      1. “Gay for pay” is a thing.

        1. My favorite t-shirt in Key West, “I’m not gay but 20 dollars is 20 dollars”.

      2. Oh? So to sell my male body, I have to cater to 3% of the population or so, while they get to tap half the market? It’s unequal!

        1. while they get to tap half the market

          Isn’t it more like “half the market gets to tap them”?

      3. I’m sure a lot of guys would complain about the same thing.

    4. She looks, um…hairy

      1. She isn’t doing it for me either. What kind of a loser pays 50K a year for her? If you have that kind of money, you have to be a real closet case if you have to resort to paying 50K a year to get laid maybe once a month with some JV coed.

        Whoever did this must not watch much college sports. Airline tickets are cheap. If you are going to go in the Sugar Daddy business, you go to a large public university in the southeast not a private school in the northeast. What the hell is wrong with these people?

    5. How about this? If you don’t think this is a good thing, don’t do it. And mind your own damn business. This sounds like it could be an excellent arrangement for some people.

      1. I’m in need of help for my student loans . . .

    6. But are they really providing financial relief, or signing women up for something more exploitative and dangerous than debt?

      Economic freedom is more exploitative and dangerous than debt.

      but others say these arrangements smack of prostitution….

      LOL. Oh, honey…

      1. Especially student loan debt that will follow you forever.

      2. But are they really providing financial relief, or signing women up for something more exploitative and dangerous than debt?

        $50 thousand a year? Somehow, I don’t think it’s she who’s being exploited.

    7. I feel like one could do better for $50k/year.

      1. Young, dependent and uncomplaining? Then you get to dump her before she gets old and plain? An Arab sheikh would be jealous.

        And make no mistake, our “feminist” federal government encourages this stuff (see below).

    8. TL;DR, the *real* sugar-daddy scandal is that the banks get bailed out by Uncle Sucker for the bad loans they make to people to become Gender Studies professors. Thus the banks have an incentive to make bad loans and students have an incentive to take out bad loans.

      In comparison, being a courtesan to pay your way through college can be made to sound like the responsible choice.

      But the AP is probably concluding that “therefore college should be free!” So that the taxpayers can get even more screwed than the coeds are.

      Why not slim down college so that you take the courses you need online, or even legalize intelligence tests for non-collegiate job-seekers. Those who need college would be able to get it cheaper, and the banks, before lending to them, would make sure they’re on track for some STEM field or something similarly responsible.

      Or students could bus tables for their tuition money, after shopping for the best deal, perhaps online night courses.

      And “bus tables” isn’t a euphemism for table dances, either.

      1. Incidentally, this shows a link between the supposedly impermeable categories of “social issues” and “economic issues.”

        Encouraging irresponsible borrowing, discouraging saving and promoting debt, is bad economic *and* social policy. Pushing “education” so expensive you have to whore yourself out to get through it debt-free *is* a social issue.

  5. A Russian couple lives with a 23-year-old bear who is so domesticated he cuddles up to them in the evening and watches TV on the sofa.

    1. Somebody should show them the movie Grizzly Man. I know it won’t work though–it’s the same attitude as dog owners who say, “Oh, Rover wouldn’t hurt a fly.”

      1. “I believe the common denominator of the universe is not harmony, but chaos, hostility and murder.”

        – Werner Herzog.

        1. Also: “in all the faces of all the bears that Treadwell ever filmed, I discover no kinship, no understanding, no mercy. I see only the overwhelming indifference of nature. To me, there is no such thing as a secret world of the bears. And this blank stare speaks only of a half-bored interest in food.”

      2. Carl lived in a cave with a bear for years, until one day, nature took its course, and Carl killed and ate him.

      3. Carl lived in a cave with a bear for years, until one day, nature took its course, and Carl killed and ate him.

        1. Geez, how many bears did he eat?

          1. Obviously, he should have started with the goddamn squirrels.

      4. A wild bear, known to be aggressive is a bit different than a bear that has lived with people for it’s whole life. I don’t know that I’d trust the bear even then, but it’s not a very comparable situation.

        That said, fuck Grizzly man, that guy sucked. I’m glad the bear ate him. It just sucks he also caused the death of that innocent woman.

        1. I blame Woody Harrelson for stealing Timothy Treadwell’s role on Cheers.

    2. That won’t end well if the bear finds out the butler did it.

    3. For real, that is the most Russian news story i have ever read.

        1. They are Russian and they live with an enormous bear. Vodka is assumed.

          See also: fishing cat

        2. They are Russian and they live with an enormous bear. Vodka is assumed.

          See also: fishing cat

    4. Not for nothing, but a guard bear would keep me out of someone’s house.

      I finally watched the Revenant last night; watching that bear fuck DeCaprio was pretty scary.

    5. That also sounds like part of the plat summary of a gay porn movie.

      “Next, a pizza delivery guy arrives, followed by a plumber to fix the sink.”

  6. It’s raining men! Sweden sees historic gender balance shift

    Famous for its efforts to put women on an equal footing with men, Sweden is experiencing a gender balance shift that has caught the country by surprise: For the first time since record-keeping began in 1749, it now has more men than women.

    Swedes don’t quite know what to make of this sudden male surplus, which is highly unusual in the West, where women historically have been in the majority in almost every country. But it may be a sign of things to come in Europe as changes in life expectancy and migration transform demographics.

    “This is a novel phenomenon for Europe,” said Francesco Billari, a University of Oxford demographer who is president of the European Association for Population Studies. “We as researchers have not been on top of this.”

    1. Famous for its efforts to put women on an equal footing with men

      The moral of the story is that women can’t do anything without help.

    2. a University of Oxford demographer who is president of the European Association for Population Studies. “We as researchers have not been on top of this.”

      That’s what they’ll say when they wake up at 5am for a call to prayer at the neighborhood mosque.

    3. Swedes don’t quite know what to make of this sudden male surplus

      Selective breeding.

      The west likes to pretend it’s enlightened enough not to do Selective breeding.

      1. Maybe the selective breeding in Sweden is being practiced by non-Westerners. There have been a few of those arriving lately.

        1. It appears to me a certain political system dressed up as a religion wants as many girls as possible to breed their way into dominance.

      2. “Vietnamese woman had 18 abortions because wanted a son”

        That woman’s REALLY unlucky!! Quick math: odds of getting that many girls in a row is .0004%!!

        1. I was done after two. Pregnancy sucks a big fat cock.

          But at least sucking big fat cocks is also fun and won’t get one pregnant. Since I like getting it elsewhere also, Dude went and got snipped.

        2. Research shows some women are much more likely to give birth to one gender than the other. It depends on hormonal makeup.

      3. In the west Selective breeding vastly prefers women to men. If they do a sex selection they do so to get a female child. Non-westerners are a whole different story.

    4. Oh no! How will a bunch of blonde, tall, Nordic men EVER be able to find partners?

      1. Methinks you’re overlooking the demographics of the male population. It’s not like Nordic males are being born at higher rates and living longer than their female counterparts. The surplus of males is a government program.

      2. The British author James Delingpole tells a story of a journalist friend who, despite being somewhat portly and balding, manages to clean up in Norway and Sweden. Why? Because he’s a war correspondent and a little bit hardbitten and a little bit chauvinistic, and the women there are accustomed to thoroughly emasculated men.

    5. Oh and…

      Hallelujah!

    6. Hmmm. A country full of hot, desperate Nordic men with few options?? Intriguing… how many do you think are desperate enough to bat for the other team??

  7. Stephen Hawking: Trump “is a demagogue.”

    And Trump said Hawking is a pedagogue. Or maybe he called him a loser. One of the two.

    1. I expect more than tautology from super-geniuses.

      1. It’s more damning in the original robot voice synthesizer.

        1. are we sure he said it? That robot voice synthesizer might have developed a mind of its own

          1. Hawking’s sermon on rogue AI wasn’t a warning, it was a cry for help.

    2. Is it impertinent to ask why we needed to know what a British celebrity scientist’s assessment of Trump was?

  8. Stephen Hawking is a cripple!

  9. Police: Man assaulted woman with package of frozen brats

    She was fed up with the son “freeloading and paying for nothing” for the past month at their home in the 1400 block of 17th Street, according to a police report. So, around 2 p.m., she told him to pack up and leave, much to the son’s delight, the report states.

    He laughed as he gathered his things and loaded them into a friend’s car.

    She checked the freezer for any food he had left behind, finding an abandoned package of frozen bratwurst. She tossed the brats into the yard after him.

    When she turned to walk back inside the home, the man hurled the sausages at the back of her head. The woman said she blacked out and fell from the blow.

    1. Man assaulted woman with package of frozen brats

      I don’t know what’s worse, that he froze a bunch of children, that he packaged their frozen corpses, or that he beat a woman with a package of frozen childrens’ corpses.

      1. Beat with some brats
        Beat with some brats
        Beat with some brats like a baseball bat oh yeah

        1. +1 ear worm

    2. Of course her side of the story has her innocently tossing them into the yard.

    3. If she had not raised a brat, then she would not have this problem.

    4. “Man damages woman with stiff weiner.”

  10. News You Can Use…

    Which animals can swim up your toilet?

    “There’s only a small amount of water in the bottom of your toilet bowl. They come up through a dry pipe and there’s a small bit of water in the S-bend – he’s only got to go down an inch-and-a-half or two inches and straight back up, so its quite easy once they learn how to do it,” says Jacobs.

    He gets called out to remove at least four or five snakes from toilets each year- usually green tree snakes, common tree snakes or carpet pythons.

    “It’s the worst job. You get a toilet bowl that’s been there 30 or 40 years – we see the bit that gets cleaned but the rest of it doesn’t. When you go to pull the thing out of there, it’s not fun. I usually have a bottle of disinfectant with me,” he says. “You’ve got to grab the head or whatever you can get hold of and start dragging it out.”

    1. Luckily not all of us live in Australia. Or Florida.

  11. Welcome to “Warty Class” – 1000 Squats per trip is mandatory.

    America’s airlines are introducing a class below economy

    Press coverage of the new fare class hasn’t been kind. Time called it “worse than any low-fare carrier option”. Forbes warned that passengers “may soon be crying foul”. A writer for the Star Tribune of Minneapolis complained, “I felt more like I was being made to pay for the privilege of selecting a seat than being offered a way to save.”

    But passengers bemoaning this latest indignity have only themselves to blame. Why are the legacy airlines all emulating the likes of Spirit and Frontier, which have high rates of passenger dissatisfaction and complaints? Because those budget airlines are doing extremely well. Travellers have signalled that they are willing to suffer all sorts of discomforts and inconveniences for the sake of a lower fare. America’s big airlines are simply giving them what they wished for.

    1. Does Warty have some special sort of squat technique? I have been doing diddly squats since the New Year, and I haven’t seen any evidence that they improve anything.

      1. You just need a little wooden roundtuit.

        See, I can speak Minnesotan.

        1. Your enunciation of the ‘t’ in Minnesodan makes me suspicious of your accent. No good Norwegian would ever use a hard ‘t’ sound in a word.

    2. “America’s big airlines are simply giving them what they wished for.”

      Exactly. I wonder that if you control for inflation, a 1st class seat today is cheaper than one from the days before deregulation?

  12. A squirrel, a blowtorch, a boyfriend, and a $2M bill in Mich.

    On Tuesday, an appeals court reversed an earlier ruling that had limited Barbara Pellow’s damages to $15,000 in the 2012 fire that damaged 32 units. Instead, they ruled she may have to pay up to $2 million in damages for the destruction at the Clearview Apartments in Holland Township, reports CBS affiliate WWMT.

    Pellow’s boyfriend, Khek Chanthalavong, had apparently been using a blowtorch on a squirrel to remove its fur for eating on her wooden outdoor deck. Property owners said any cooking of squirrel on her porch, no matter by whom, was a violation of her lease agreement.

    Justices described it as a “fur-burning escapade,” and agreed with the property owners in regards to Pellow’s liability, reports WCNC-TV.

    1. “had apparently been using a blowtorch on a squirrel to remove its fur for eating on her wooden outdoor deck”

      Sounds reasonable. How else would you get the fur off?

      1. He should know how to skin them. Fucking way harder than a rabbit, but easily doable. I can’t even think how bad a squirrel would taste with its skin still on.

        Besides if you burn the fur off, how are you going to save the tail to stick on your car antenna?

        1. Question: your anecdote about the buddy that hunted a wild pig without a team of dogs got me interested. I’ve never killed a “high” vertebrate before, but wild hog hunting appeals to me more than anything else provided that it’s not a canned hunt. I want to learn to clean and butcher a hog from a pro, and do the hunt in TX or FL. Anyhow, would a 7.62 x 39 round provide adequate knockdown on a 3-400lb swine, or should I look into getting the SIG716 Patrol I’ve been lusting over for years?

          1. Honestly I don’t have much of an idea. I have always hunted with the same sorts of guns that I was given as a kid. Elk has been the biggest game animal I have every shot.

            I think, though, that you shouldn’t let any facts get in the way of you acquiring more firepower. Go get that new SIG716 and tell you wife that you absolutely needed it.

            1. People hog-hunt with .223, so 7.62×39 should work fine. Hunting ammo would be a more sure kill than Russian surplus, though.

              Eating them feral hogs aren’t all that, from my understanding though. Meat can be tough and dry, and needs to be thoroughly cooked.

              1. Isn’t it dangerous to try to take a large sow or boar down with a .223 and you’re not in a tree stand? I read that they can get really pissed off if the shot isn’t critically placed, as RC indicated below. 5.56 NATO was used in part to maim soldiers so as to take multiple combatants off the field, not to result in a decisive kill.

                1. Hunting Ammo is the key thing.

                  Ball ammo is a lot less lethal than expanding bullets.

          2. yeah, 7.62×39 will work perfectly on hogs. Just make sure you use an expanding bullet and not surplus FMJs. Hornady makes an awesome SST topped 7.62×39 and PPU offers it in soft point.

          3. Anyhow, would a 7.62 x 39 round provide adequate knockdown on a 3-400lb swine

            Personally, I think that’s a little light, but I’m a believer in “there’s no such thing as too much gun”. I’d go .308, myself, but I’ve seen them absorb solid hits from a .300 Win Mag and not go down fast enough for me. Big hogs have almost an armor plating around their rib cage, and a non-dead hog is a big fucking problem. If you carry a big honking backup handgun (.44 Magnum), maybe, but let me tell you from experience:

            You want anchor shots on hogs. You do not want to blood trail a hog. You want to know exactly where he is and how dead he is from a distance. You don’t want to walk up an injured hog.

            But, like I said, that’s just me. I’m sure lots of people have killed lots of hogs with lighter calibers, but why mess around?

            1. RC,

              There is nothing light about 7.62 x 39 round. If you can’t knock down a hog with that, the problem is that you are a horrible shot not the the weapon you are using. Most people I know hunt hogs with .270s or 6 mm and do just fine. Its a pig not a water buffalo.

              1. Did you miss the part where I said ” I’m sure lots of people have killed lots of hogs with lighter calibers, but why mess around?”.

                I’ve blood trailed hogs and bears. I’d rather walk up an injured bear than an injured hog.

                I put a .300 round through a hog right behind the ribs. He made it 200 yards, and fortunately went down before he got to decent cover. People who haven’t actually hunted big hogs in person don’t know how tough, and how fast and mean, they are.

                1. Again, become a better shot. And I am not sure using a buffalo gun is going to help you if you can’t hit the right spot. You have had to blood trail them because you missed not because you used too small of a weapon.

                  1. That’s a borderline inflammatory response. Never having been on a hunt before, the last thing I would want is for the animal to bleed out slowly if I don’t hit a critical organ like the heart or a headshot, if the calibre violence or diameter isn’t substantial enough. Kind of don’t like the idea of the beast running half a mile before bleeding out just because my shot wasn’t dead-nuts on.

                  2. Again, become a better shot.

                    Always good advice, no question.

                    You have had to blood trail them because you missed

                    When I miss, there is no blood trail. Because I, you know, missed.

                    I don’t think anyone who has hunted larger game animals would say that every shot that isn’t an anchor shot is a bad shot. Sorry, John, but I’ve made good shots on lots of large animals and needed to trail them. I punched out both lungs on an elk (.50 caliber muzzleloader), a shot nobody would say was a bad shot, and he went more than a 100 yards.

                    You can kill a deer with a .22, but you’d be an idiot to hunt deer with a .22. Use enough gun, and when in doubt, use more gun.

                    1. Hogs are very tough animals. If you don’t get them behind the ear or pretty close to it, you likely are not going to kill them. Hitting them with a .50 cal in the hind quarters isn’t going to do you any good.

                      There are some animals who are large enough and bad enough that a small caliber is not going to kill them no matter what. Hogs are not one of those animals. Hit them in the right spot and they will go down. Miss the spot and they won’t no matter what caliber you are using. The bottom line is if you don’t hit them i the right spot, you better get a bazooka.

                    2. If you don’t get them behind the ear or pretty close to it, you likely are not going to kill them.

                      I’ve anchored hogs, or close enough. Through the ribs kills them, every time. But, you may to trail. The best, IMO, is to try to break their shoulders/spine. But that’s a tough shot on a hog – its not where you think it, just looking at them, and its a lot of very hard bone to get through.

                      I don’t know anyone who takes headshots at game animals. Way, way, too easy to miss. Some old-timers like neckshots on deer, on the theory that misses will be clean, and hits will be anchor shots, but that’s as close as I’ve seen.

          4. Everyone, thanks for all the tips and input. Looks like I am probably going to get that SIG716 and bring along the expanding ammunition for my SKS – this will be my first actual hunt – same with my wife; my wife is really interested in pig hunting as well.

            1. One other follow-up question to anyone still lingering: since both FL and TX are in excess of 1000mi of where we live, and I don’t intend to drive to the hunt destination, is it more wise to use a local FFL to ship to myself via an FFL near the hunt destination in this post-9/11 era? I haven’t looked into transporting firearms as checked luggage on a commercial airline in quite a while, but I am interested in minimising the chance of a huge headache at an airport.

              1. Shipping FFL to FFL sounds like an expensive PITA.

                I’ve flown with rifles (although not terribly recently), and it wasn’t a big deal. I carry ammo and the bolt from my bolt-actions separately, use a lockable/TSA approved case, etc.

    2. Property owners said any cooking of squirrel on her porch, no matter by whom, was a violation of her lease agreement.

      That’s an oddly specific lease term.

    3. Reminds me of that guy who made his own napalm shotgun shells to go squirrel hunting with.

  13. “China will ‘pressure’ the United States on maritime issues at talks in Beijing next week because of Chinese concern about an increased U.S. military presence in the disputed South China Sea, a major state-run newspaper said on Tuesday.”

    Oh China, please never change!

  14. Iraqi army pause at southern edge of Falluja as IS fights back

    Islamic State militants fought back vigorously overnight and parried an onslaught by the Iraqi army on a southern district of the city of Falluja, the group’s bastion near Baghdad, officers said on Tuesday.

    An aid official warned of a “human catastrophe” unfolding in the city, with residents unable to escape.

    Soldiers from the elite Rapid Response Team stopped their advance overnight about 500 meters (yards) from the al-Shuhada district, the southeastern part of city’s main built-up area, an army commander and a police officer said.

    “Our forces came under heavy fire, they are well dug in trenches and tunnels,” said the commander speaking in Camp Tariq, the rear army base south of Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

  15. Risky Reprise of Debt Binge Stars U.S. Companies Not Consumers

    Case in point: Last week’s news that so-called core capital goods bookings fell for the third straight month in April. The seasonally-adjusted total of $62.4 billion for non-defense orders excluding aircraft was the lowest in five years, prompting Neil Dutta of Renaissance Macro Research to label business investment “pathetic.”

    The similarities between the pre-recession debt binge by consumers and today’s burst of borrowing by companies are striking. Like households, corporations are using the money for short-term purposes rather to prepare themselves for the future. They’re basing their bets on rosy expectations that may not pan out. And it’s the bottom 99 percent that are most at risk should credit conditions tighten.

    While corporations as a whole possess a record $1.84 trillion of cash and liquid investments, it’s heavily concentrated among a small number of companies, mainly in the technology sector, according to a study this month by S&P Global Ratings analysts Andrew Chang and David C. Tesher.

    1. There’s no way this ends well.

      1. “it’s heavily concentrated among a small number of companies, mainly in the technology sector, ”

        There’s no way it ends well for you IT types.

        1. Dude. I’m not in IT.

          Are you high?

    2. They’re basing their bets on rosy expectations that may not pan out.

      Something the government would never do…

      And it’s the bottom 99 percent that are most at risk should credit conditions tighten.

      I don’t even begin to know understand how the author thought this line made any kind of sense.

  16. Stephen Hawking: Trump “is a demagogue.”

    Is he a Property of an Expanding Universes, though?

    1. Clinton isn’t?

      1. Expanding “universes”, not “pantsuits”.

  17. Stephen Hawking: Trump “is a demagogue.”

    If you’re so smart, Mr Smart Man, tell us something we don’t know.

    1. “What am I wearing?”

      1. Ha trick question: You’re nekid

      2. Hopefully the skin of your enemies like any true libertarian.

        1. I have the orphans skinning the hobos as we speak

  18. Two Wongs don’t make it…

    Chinese man with head stuck in washing machine rescued by fire crew

    The accident happened on Sunday in Fuqing in Fujian province, according to the article.

    It took a fire crew 40 minutes to free him, the report said.

    His flatmates called the police after they failed to pull him out of the machine.

    The firemen had to cut the washing machine apart to release the man, who was not named.

    He was covered during parts of the rescue to stop him getting burned from sparks as the machine was cut open, the report said.

    1. No tickee no lescue

    2. I thought Chinese weren’t well endowed.

    3. that is either a teensy-weensy machine or a startlingly large head

    4. Two Wangs don’t make it a pun. But they do dial up the sexy.

    5. Fuqing Chinese… They Fuqing crack me up.

    6. Was he looking for the black guy?

  19. Univ. of Delaware commencement speaker: America remains an unjust, racist country

    “We are a post-genocidal society. On this continent there were native people, indigenous people, Native Americans, and they were slaughtered by the millions ? by white settlers,” Stevenson, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told the grads. “I don’t think that slavery ended in 1865, I think it just evolved. It turned into decades when you had lynchings and violence and terrorism, and people of color fled from the American south to communities all over this country.”

    Stevenson is founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit that provides legal representation to defendants and prisoners caught up in the criminal justice system.

    “Our country has in many ways been misdirected in the last half century, we have too many politicians preaching the politics of fear and anger. And that narrative of fear and anger has made us tolerate abuse and unfairness, and we have to change the narrative ? I’m about to warn you that if you try to make decisions rooted in fear and anger you will tolerate abuse, you will tolerate inequality, you will tolerate injustice, and we need to change the narrative,” Stevenson said Saturday.

    1. “native people, indigenous people, Native Americans, and they were slaughtered by the millions ? by white settlers”

      Not to say the white settlers didn’t do a lot of killing, but it was more like thousands, or tens of thousands. The millions would be mainly due to smallpox, influenza, measles, etc.
      When white settlers first moved into the Mississippi Valley, the place hardly had any inhabitants, despite evidence there had once been fairly large settlements there. What they didn’t realize is European diseases had preceded them decades earlier.

      1. Funny how these ignorant dipshits never mention the millions of white people who died coming over as indentured servants.

        1. Or the millions of white people taken as slaves by the Islamic empires of the middle east. As late as the 16th Century entire areas of the Italian coast were deserted out of fear of Ottoman slavers showing up on the coast.

          1. That would be less relevant to a discussion of race in the US.

            1. I don’t think so. Both cases involve people no longer living and things which occurred centuries ago.

            2. I think it does because critical theory stretches the evils of white man to deeds done across the globe.

              1. Even when non-whites do something bad, it is still the fault of white men for making them do it. See post-colonialism, etc.

                1. Which is just stupid since slave trading was well established in lots of places before Europeans became dominant in the world.

              2. Fuck critical theory. Can’t we just talk about some specific time and place? Treatment of natives and blacks in the US was atrocious for a long time. Do we really need “well, some other people were even worse” every time the subject comes up among people who are not critical theory, SJW adeherents?

                1. No Zeb, hold them to the same standards they hold everyone else. If they want to talk about King Leopold’s actions in the Congo like it matters today, then they ought to also have to talk about the Ottoman Empire like it matters.

                  1. Yes, if people are talking as if white people are the root of all evil and invented slavery, you absolutely should point out that that is just not the case. I just get a little tired of hearing it every time the Atlantic slave trade or US racial history comes up. Smacks a bit of relativism and excuse making. Maybe I’m oversensitive. I do agree that a lot of people do need to be educated better on the subject.

                  2. No Zeb, hold them to the same standards they hold everyone else.

                    IOW, give in to their bullshit racist collectivizing.

                    1. IOW, take their points to their rational conclusions and make them live with them. Otherwise, they will have no reason to ever stop engaging in such.

        2. They don’t count, because white privilege. Duh!

  20. First there was mansplaining, now manterrupting

    We might have thought we were just being paranoid. But thanks to Sheryl Sandberg and Wharton business school professor Adam Grant (a man!) we can feel just a little less crazy when we mentally replay those meetings gone wrong. In a new op-ed in the New York Times, they point out the perils of “speaking while female,” along with a bevy of new research to prove that no, this is not all in our heads. (Disclaimer: I edit special projects for Sandberg’s women’s nonprofit, LeanIn.Org. Though I did not edit her Times op-ed.)

    1. Obligatory reference to the fact that if you don’t interrupt a broad, you’ll never get a word in period.

      1. Why would you want to speak to her bleeding whatever?

      2. I try to avoid it whenever possible.

    2. Yeah, I never heard a woman interrupt. Holy shit, this is idiotic.

    3. Wasn’t there some study that said the average American female speaks 2x as many words in a day as the average man? Maybe the problem with “speaking while female” is speaking too damn much.

      1. I saw a study once that looked at the speech patterns of elementary-school aged kids – girls averaged about 10,000 words per day while boys averaged about 3,000, half of which were sound effects.

  21. Now there’s a band name… or not.

    Cutaneous leishmaniasis: Disfiguring tropical disease sweeps across Middle East

    Cutaneous leishmaniasis is caused by a parasite in the blood stream transmitted through sand fly bites. The disease can result in horrible open sores as well as disfiguring skin lesions, nodules or papules.

    Syria’s healthcare system has been devastated by years of conflict. In 2015 it was reported that more than half of the public hospitals in the country ? previously a regional leader in healthcare ? were closed or only partially functioning, leaving some patients forced to travel up to 100 miles to the nearest hospital.

    In Syria, the number of leishmaniasis cases reported to the Ministry of Health doubled from 23,000 before the start of the civil war in 2011 to 41,000 in 2013, according to the PLOS research.

    Neighbouring countries, which have received millions of refugees are also reporting many leishmaniasis cases. In Lebanon, cases rose to 1,033 in 2013 from six in the previous 12 years. Hundreds of cases have also been reported in Turkey and Jordan.

    1. Actual band name:

      Paracoccidioidomicosisproctitissarcomucosis

    2. Knew a guy in the Army who caught that shit in Desert Storm.

      Spent two weeks in Walter Reed being knocked out and poisoned every day to kill all the parasites.

  22. Parents of Monster Who Got Beautiful Noble Wild Creature Shot Get Their Just Comeuppance

    According to police reports, the father has a lengthy criminal history spanning years with charges including burglary, firearms offences, drug trafficking, criminal trespass and kidnap.

    This is very relevant to the story, I’m sure.

    1. The racist jokes really write themselves here.

    2. The parents should be thrown into a bear pit.

    3. Humans are just so ignorant. Such a magnificent, beautiful creature killed before anybody thought to really look at his behaviour; we are so quick to judge & our response is to kill~ makes me sick to my stomach.

      From my FB wall.

      1. Sticking them in cages for our entertainment is totally cool, though.

      2. The people at the zoo probably know a hell of a lot more about gorilla behavior than some schmuck on Facebook.

        1. The gorilla popping that kid’s head off like a champagne cork may have been a little more sickening to see.

          1. Hey, the kid made his decision. Let him take the consequences.

            1. We’ve known for years how to do this nonlethally.

        2. Frankly, I would have just looked at it as natural selection at work.

      3. Humans are just so ignorant.

        Welp, can’t argue with that. Case in point: Such a magnificent, beautiful creature killed before anybody thought to really look at his behaviour No, plenty of people have really looked at gorilla behavior and that’s precisely why they shot it you moron. However much you may think it’s a magnificent, beautiful creature it’s also a wild animal with approximately the intellect of a retarded child that will pull your arms and legs off if it takes a notion to. You don’t kill gorillas or retarded children just for the fun of it but whether or not it understands it’s a danger you kill it to protect human life. A retarded kid coming toward me with a hand grenade I’m sure has no ill intent and has no idea what a hand grenade is and I’m going to regret the necessity of shooting the kid before he gets too close, but I’m still shooting the kid to protect myself.

        1. Yeah, the people who run zoos don’t generally enjoy or want to shoot the animals they care for. The fact that they did shoot it says they knew they had to. And they know a bit better than your typical social media retard.

        2. “before anybody thought to really look at his behaviour”

          Dragging a child around by the ankle clearly was just its way of saying “I mean you absolutely no harm, small child”

    4. This is very relevant to the story, I’m sure.

      It does indicate poor judgment and poor decision-making.

      1. If we lived in a nation of laws and not men, where persecuting the innocent over the trivial was viewed as bad and carried consequences, this might be accurate. We’d certainly like to live in a world where that was accurate.

        1. Uh, sure. Still doesn’t refute my point.

    5. Those tweets are on the woodchipper-level of threatening. Assholes for sure, but come on, those aren’t death threats.

  23. Sorry, but so-called ‘racist’ jokes are funny

    There is a massive stench of hypocrisy in public life. We do and say things in private that we would castigate others for doing in public, possibly the best example of this being jokes about race. Nearly all of us will have told a so-called racist joke in private that we ‘wouldn’t get away with’ posting on social media. I’m not talking about Bernard Manning-type bigotry, but everyday one-liners like ‘Why are Asian people so rubbish at football? Because every time they get a corner, they build a shop.’

    I’m an Asian person and this is not remotely offensive. On the contrary, it celebrates our entrepreneurial spirit, while accurately acknowledging our lack of prowess in soccer (cricket being another matter entirely). However, the well-meaning liberal brigade will slap a white person down for telling it at a dinner party with a disapproving ‘that’s a bit racist!’

    No, no it isn’t. It’s funny and harmless. So is doing a glorious African, Caribbean or Asian accent of any variety ? and I hear a lot of these accents as a stand-up comic on the UK comedy circuit, usually succeeded by a mumbled apology for being, again, a ‘bit racist.

    1. +1 Borscht Circuit

    2. So a nigger, wop, mick, chink, polak, spick, priest, rabbi, imam and alien walk into a bar…

      1. mitzvah?

      2. But was it a documented alien?

    3. Why don’t you play Uno with a Mexican?

      They steal all the green cards.

      1. How does a Scotsman find sheep in tall grass?

        Very satisfying.

      2. Does you hear about the tornado that went through downtown Warsaw?
        It caused $5 million in improvements.

        1. “In other global warming news, a tornado hit downtown Detroit last night, putting out several fires.”

          –30 Rock

    4. How does every great joke start?

      *looks over both shoulders*

    5. “No, no it isn’t. It’s funny and harmless. So is doing a glorious African, Caribbean or Asian accent of any variety ? and I hear a lot of these accents as a stand-up comic on the UK comedy circuit, usually succeeded by a mumbled apology for being, again, a ‘bit racist. ‘Did you hear the one about the Jamaican percussionist who played the triangle? He said ‘I just stand at the back and ting’. Again: not racist, just amusing. So is comedian Paul Chowdhry’s impression of a Nigerian toilet attendant.”

      There’s your problem. You’re a stand up comedian so being funny is more important to you than social justice

    6. Other things that are funny:
      1. Retards
      2. The handicapped
      3. The disfigured
      4. Misogyny

      1. “You don’t call retarded people retards. You call your friends retards, when they’re being retarded.”

    7. Racist jokes are very funny. I find a lot funny just because I find racism so absurd. Instead of policing the language and censuring anyone who utters an off-color remark about race, it would be much better just to laugh at the whole thing because it’s so ridiculous.

    8. Why are camels known as the ships of the desert? Because they’re full of Arab semen.

      1. I knew you’d like that one.

        1. I knew you’d signal some virtue.

          1. Huh? By claiming credit for a dirty joke?

            1. Did you tell me that one? I took that as a “Yeah I figured you would like that joke.”

              1. I did at some point in the last few weeks, yes.

                1. Well thank you for the good joke, I’ve been getting some mileage out of it. And sorry for jumping to the conclusion that someone on H&R was calling me a racist again.

                  1. I at least make an effort to read everyone’s comments with a bit of nuance and try not to assume I understand everyone’s motivations.
                    And I don’t think anything is off limits for humor.

    9. In the sidebar:

      “The horrific truth is that Donald Trump could actually win the US presidency”

      An America that chooses isolation, under Trump, would mean a far more dangerous world: the effects of a Trump victory would be felt world over. And the American polls suggest it’s time to start taking it seriously.

      So… a British newspaper wants Clinton to win because they know she’s a warmonger.

      This election just gets weirder by the day.

      1. Or maybe because they know she will be easily controllable through bribes and blackmail. You have to believe that pretty much every government has her emails as SecState, and will be only too happy to use any means they have to achieve their objectives.

        1. That’s a comforting thought.

    10. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it now: humor is about incongruities. Part of what makes black humor funny is the wrongness of the underlying sentiment, the incongruity of expressing it, even when the underpinnings are banal or quaint. No, women will not and should not be dismissed from public life to toil in the kitchens, and when you deconstruct any such joke about their being told to do so, it’s pat and unfunny. But that’s not the point. What makes the joke funny isn’t the content but the context: a husband jokingly demanding his wife go make a sandwich, and laughing when she smacks him. Eliciting shock is funny.

  24. http://www.breitbart.com/londo…..e-problem/

    So a Gorilla is shot to protect a black child whose idiot parents let climb in the habitat and the whole thing is about White Privilege.

    We need to come up with a new word to describe this stuff. Calling it retarded is not fair to the retarded.

    1. I thought the family was white?

      1. Apparently not. The stills I saw showed the kid to be black. I haven’t seen the parents, maybe he is adopted. Regardless, even if the parents are white, what does white privilege have to do with anything?

        1. Boy and both parents are black. So, obvious white privilege, because they were still whiter than the gorilla.

      2. The few tweets Breitbart has are from people who also think the kid is white. I think that’s their point. They aren’t arguing that complaining about the gorilla’s life is white privilege, but that they shot it to protect a kid they think is white.

        Even though, yes, the family appears to be black.

        1. It is still insane. Do they think the gorilla’s life is worth more than a white kid’s life? If not, where is the privilege here? If so, then they are the most vile racists imaginable.

          They could I suppose think the zoo would have let the gorilla kill a black kid, but that seems unlikely since they go on and on about how the gorilla was kidnapped and put in a cage. They seem to have thought that the kid was white and believed that shooting the gorilla was an example of white privilege. So in these people’s eyes saying that a white child’s life is more valuable than a gorilla’s life is white privilege.

          I was wrong. They are not retarded, they are fucking evil.

          1. Maybe they totally non-racistly equate black people with gorillas, you know the way joe did when he had that tantrum and quit the board for a few years.

          2. I don’t know if you recall, but the CEDA 2016 (some sub-par collegiate debate league) finals tournament featured a team that argued that white people should all kill themselves to begin to atone for white privilege. Note: killing yourself isn’t enough to be fully cleansed of your original white sin.

            1. I remember reading that. These people have lost their minds. Yet, no one ever mentions it while they are shitting their pants over the evil racist alt right.

              1. Just imagine a white debate team arguing in favor of genocide of other racial groups. They’d be rightly condemned as everyone loses their fucking mind.

          3. I think the gorilla’s life was more important than that kid’s life, yes.

            1. That is just because you hate stupid people not because you hate any particular race. Even though my morals tell me otherwise, I have to admit your position is not without its merits, unlike these assholes’ position.

              1. It’s entirely without its merits. The kid is not an asshole because his parents are assholes.

          4. And even if the species is endangered, the gorilla was a product of a breeding program anyways, not a captured animal, so killing him doesn’t hurt the wild members of his species.

        2. 1. It’s a few tweets
          2. It’s funny because they are morons comparing themselves to gorillas

          I don’t have much else to add here.

        3. Oh, and they’re wrong and it was in fact a black child.

    2. One of those tweets literally says the gorilla “was black”.

      How…

      Why is that not racist?!

      You can apparently compare black people to gorillas as long as you’re offended for the right reasons…

  25. Disney execs in a panic over upcoming ‘Star Wars’ film

    The first “Star Wars” spinoff, “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” is in crisis, and the movie will have to go into expensive reshoots over the summer, sources exclusively confirmed to Page Six.

    The much-anticipated “Rogue One” is due for release on Dec. 16, but we’re told bosses at Disney are not fully satisfied with the first cut from director Gareth Edwards.

    One Hollywood source told us, “The execs at Disney are not happy with the movie, and ‘Rogue One’ will have to go back into four weeks of expensive reshoots in July.”

    1. They just need more scenes of a 90 pound toothpick beating up a gang of Gammorean Guards.

    2. In fairness, the first cut doesn’t include any transgendered heroes. The script was likely written in like 2015. It might as well have been written back when slavery was considered acceptable.

    3. I have to say, the preview for Rogue One looked pretty damn good. Of course, so did the preview for Phantom Menace….

    4. I finally got to watch The Force Awakens – on DVD – and wasn’t impressed. Too much of a re-hash of the original New Hope. Once Harrison Ford started running around I half-expected him to drop dead… and Carrie Fisher must have lead a hard life.

      This weekend I also re-watched Murphy’s War and To Live & Die in L.A. and felt a little better.

      1. It’s almost exactly the same plot, except worse. The Mary Sue of a main character has skills it took Luke 3 movies to develop.

        1. Yeah that really annoyed me. I mean Darth Vader was kickin’ Luke’s ass in Empire Strikes Back.

          1. A lot of people love it because it was so much better than the prequels but that’s not really much of a feat

            1. Yeah, The Force Awakens won the Special Olympics, so what?

      2. It was a rehash, but after the prequal garbage, I felt like Force Awakens was just to show that they could still make a Star Wars movie that didn’t completely suck–sort of an earnest of intent to get you to at least consider the next two.

        1. Yeah, I think most people, myself included, were so happy that it didn’t suck, that we ignored some pretty obvious flaws with the movie, see e.g., how the teen fashion model manages to kick the villain’s ass in a light saber fight despite no training and the utterly absurd super weapon.

          1. “so happy that it didn’t suck, that we ignored some pretty obvious flaws with the movie”

            Having seen The Force Awakens, all I can say is you must have had some *very low* expectations to be pleased with that movie.

            1. It wasn’t horrible. It had its fun moments. It at least looked good. If you had changed just a couple of things, it would have been a very good movie. So it was close, which is a lot more than you can say for the last three, which were unwatchable.

      3. Once again my disinterest in the Star Wars franchise is rewarded.

        1. Its a gift that keeps on giving. Be thankful you grew up in Turkey and were never infected with it. It is a curse.

          1. Turkish Star Wars does make the American originals look like shit.

            1. Its like if Argo had become a real movie.

          2. Turkish Star Wars does make the American originals look like shit.

          3. I just pretend the series ended in 1983.

          4. No, I had the bug. My grandparents took me to see star wars when we moved to the U.S. I loved it!

            I remember watching Empire Strikes Back in the single screen movie theater in Bellows Falls VT and hyperventilating at the propsect of finally getting to see what happened next.

            Then came Return of the Jedi. I dosed off about 15 minutes into the movie because it was unwatchably bad. I was pretty pissed off.

            The remastered version of the movie sent me into a towering rage. I furiously ranted to my coworkers about Greedo shooting first.

            Then came the phantom menace and I discovered I no longer cared. It was so stupid that it burned any interest in the franchise from my psyche. I walked out of the movie liberated. It was awful and that was OK. I no longer had the star wars bug. George Lucas could smear his cinematic feces on the screen and I didn’t have to pay it any mind.

  26. Hawking should show his work or STFU. Not about Trump. Everybody knows that already. When it comes to science, show your fucking math.

    1. What reason is there to think a theoretical physicists knows anymore about politics or what is or is not a demagogue than anyone else? It is nice that Professor Hawking has an opinion, but so does everyone else.

      1. There isn’t any reason. Isaac Newton thought menstrual blood had magical powers. Einstein was a Communist. Being a good scientist tells me nothing about the validity of your other views.

        Being a good scientist doesn’t even tell me anything about the truth of your *scientific* views since everything you believe could be refuted by future evidence.

        1. Newton is for my money the smartest man who ever lived. He was also a firm believer in alchemy. People should stick to their fields.

          1. Alchemy was his field. Inventing calculus and (classical) modern physics was just a side project.

            That may be overstating it, but I don’t think he considered his alchemy work just a side hobby.

            1. Alchemy was his field.

              In Newton’s defense, he did found the modern science of physical chemistry and killed alchemy as a serious pursuit.

            2. Newton also spent a lot of time trying to find and define a Biblical Code for prophecy, calculating the architecture of Solomon’s Temple for hidden meaning, and said the world will end in 2060.

              1. the world will end in 2060

                Could be right about that one

            3. Not Master of the Mint?

              1. He was a busy guy, wasn’t he?

                I’m always amazed at the volume of work some historic polymaths managed to accomplish.

                1. No Twitter.

                  1. Or Hit & Run.

                    Imagine what I could be accomplishing right now.

                    1. “How HnR Saved the World”

                      /Imagining

        2. “Isaac Newton thought menstrual blood had magical powers”

          Sorry, he thought the menstrual blood of ‘sordid whores’ had magical powers.

          So sorry to all you other ladies, but you’ll have to start turning tricks if you want your vagina to become magic 4 days a month

          1. Our hoo-has are permanently magic and you know it

            1. Well, they do feel exquisite to be sure

            2. Pics?

          2. I bet an awful lot of women are sordid whores by Newton’s standards these days.

    2. C’mon, man – Hawking didn’t say Trump was a demagogue, his wheelchair said it. (Few people realize Hawking’s wheelchair achieved sentience in 2009 and that poor bastard’s been flailing away at his keyboard ever since trying to alert somebody to the fact that he’s being controlled by an AI.)

  27. My favorite claim about the gorilla that got shot is that they shouldn’t have shot it because it looked like it was ‘protecting the child.’

    It’s a fucking gorilla. Even if it was initially protective, you don’t know what the hell is going on inside the head of a gorilla and only an idiot would trust that it would remain ‘protective’ given that it would take approximately 2 seconds for it to rip the kid’s head off if it changed its mind.

    1. Isn’t there only video of the first few seconds, and then the area was evacuated and the staff were watching for another ten minutes or so before shooting?

      I really don’t think the staff of the zoo wanted to shoot the thing. It’s moronic to suggest otherwise. Some people have deluded themselves about nature and animals. It’s all majestic or cute to them.

      1. Of course the people who tended to the gorilla for over a decade were just itching to kill it. Easiest decision of their lives.

        1. Maybe that gorilla was a real dick?

    2. If a gorilla drags its kid around for a little bit or tosses it a few feet, it won’t hurt it. Gorillas are way tougher than humans.

    3. The people who are saying that learned everything they know about Gorillas from watching a trailer for Gorilla’s in the Mist on Youtube. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the people at the zoo who deal with these animals every day are a better authority on how these animals behave and how much danger the kid was actually in than some ass clown on Facebook.

      Nothing against the Gorilla, but it is a wild animal. Going gorilla on your ass is not personal it is what it does. And those things are unimaginably strong. I read that a chimp is pound for pound exponentially stronger than the strongest man. A big silver back gorilla is exponentially stronger and more dangerous than that. The zoo had no choice but to do what it did. The people to blame for the poor animal’s death is the idiot parents.

      1. Even Jack Hanna came out and said they had to shoot it. After he mentioned that he once saw a male gorilla crush a green coconut with one hand.

        1. People who work in zoos and handle these animals every day know which ones are dangerous and which ones are not. I am sure it killed them to have to shoot that gorilla. So, I do not believe for a moment they did that unless they were really in fear for the child’s life.

    4. I’ve seen enough episodes of Grape Ape to know the kid was in no danger.

      1. Not to mention Magilla Gorilla.

    5. I appreciate the point that shooting the gorilla was probably the right thing to do.

      I also appreciate a couple of other points.

      1) Parents are responsible for the damage their children cause while under their parents’ supervision. I hope the zoo sues the fuck out of the child’s parents.

      2) Gorillas don’t belong in the zoo.

      1. I’m required by code to have a railing around my porch with pickets no more than 2 3/4″ apart to keep the tiniest of babies from fitting through. My question is how the kid got past the zoo security barriers and into the enclosure. I could see an adult willfully attempting to break in succeeding in getting in, but I have to guess the kid more or less accidentally wandered in so just how safe is the rest of the zoo? Yeah, parents should keep an eye on their kids but you have to know you can’t watch them every second of every day and a zoo has to know it’s a place parents bring their kids and occasionally a kid is going to wander off.

        1. The report I read said the enclosure has been in place for 38 years and no one has ever gone through it before.

          I understand designing for minimal interference to maximize the public’s ability to see the animals–and still keep the animals contained in an enclosure.

          I don’t know how you’re supposed to keep people who want to from getting into the enclosure. That’s like trying to prevent people from running out into traffic on the freeway. At some point, you have to assume that people don’t want to be attacked by wild animals, and the others just get a Darwin award.

          A lot of people who want to commit suicide will go to a range, rent a gun, and shoot themselves there on the range. I don’t know how you prevent that.

          There was a case some ten years ago where some stupid kids were taunting and chucking pine cones at a tiger in the San Francisco zoo. The tiger jumped its enclosure, killed one of kids, and mauled the other. The way to prevent stupid people from doing stupid things with wild animals is to not keep wild animals in the zoo. Short of that, the zoo should sue the hell out of people that destroy their property.

          We should not protect people from willfully disregarding their own safety.

      2. Gorillas don’t belong in the zoo.

        It’s a terrible thing to capture a wild gorilla and put it in a zoo. But some that never lived wild probably do belong in a zoo (or some kind of captivity) as they wouldn’t cut it in the wild.

      3. Parents are responsible for the damage their children cause while under their parents’ supervision.

        It would be an interesting lawsuit. Replacing a gorilla is probably very expensive, and the parents would countersue that the zoo should have had security that couldn’t be defeated by a toddler.

      4. Am I the only one around here who

        1. Understands that 4 years olds are unpredictable
        2. Has taken my child to the zoo and NOT held their hand the whole time nor put them on a leash

        I assume most of the vitriol from observers comes from the childless.

        Shit happens people. Sometimes your four-year-old climbs over the fence for some reason and there’s no one to blame.

        1. Yup, shit happens. If there were a problem with 4 year olds regularly getting into animal enclosures, the zoo might want to do something.

    6. Yeah, I saw that.

      Jesus fucking Christ, we need an ecological disaster or something, to cull part of the human race. Clearly, we have grown too fat and comfortable in civilization and think all nature is cute and out of a Disney movie.

      At this point, I could probably make good money selling people the right to jump off a bridge, so long as I convinced them that everyone else was doing it.

    7. The real problem was the reporting. For at least 24 hours, the only news reports quote the decisionmaker as having said essentially, “The boy wasn’t under attack, but we decided to do it anyway.” The video was doctored.

      So people got their panties in a wad before the whole story came out.

      Then black Twitter went insane over the fact that it was a white child. The Guardian, who did not run a pic of the parents, ran their piece and added a story about the kid who fell in in 1986, and posted a pic of HIS mother, who was white.

      This is my shocked face.

      1. “Then black Twitter went insane over the fact that it was a white child.”

        What was the race of the gorilla?

        It was an African gorilla, right?

        Was the shooter white? Did he have probable cause?

        1. I don’t know whether to laugh or *headdesk* over my poor grammar. I woulda yelled at my kids for that.

    8. Even if the gorilla ripped that kid to shreds, they shouldn’t have shot it.

      1. To prevent it from ripping the kid to shreds? Absolutely shoot it.

        If it was already done? No, that’s just pointless revenge.

  28. big silver back gorilla

    Addiction Myth

  29. Several NSW Police officers have been savaged in court for allegedly grabbing the breasts and neck of an anti-Reclaim Australia protester, then covering their actions up by deleting evidence, making up a false charge against her, lying under oath and attacking her in court.

    http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/prot…..z4AF0tgg8t

    1. In related Australian news, a woman’s breast implants were burst by a rogue kangaroo.

      “Kangaroo ruptures woman’s breast implants”

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/201…..ck/7461862

      1. Combined with the gorilla story above, and it just goes back to my belief that man is at war with nature, and should destroy it ruthlessly wherever it is encountered.

    2. Reclaim Australia = opposition to Islam/sharia

      To save people some Googling

    3. I first read that as NSFW Police officers…and I was right!

    4. Sydney Morning Harold? More like Shaking My Head.

  30. Stephen Hawking: Trump “is a demagogue.”

    Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that this is at all lynxworthy… the article at least contains some amusing anti-Brexit derp.

    “Students can come here from EU countries to study, and our students can go to other EU universities.”

    Yeah, that never happened before Britain bent the knee before its unelected leaders in Brussels.

    1. To add, none of the advantages of the EU that exist require a massive overarching bureaucracy that supersedes national sovereignty.

      1. Yup, they should have stopped at the common market. Everything since has just been a naked power grab.

        1. Yeah, if they’d just stuck with the common market and limited it to productive countries with decent economies, it would have been great. Now it’s just dumb.

  31. LA gov’t to seize motels used as brothels and drug dens, turn them into gov’t sponsored brothels and drug dens!

    “LA Turning Seedy Motels Into Housing for Homeless Veterans”
    […]
    “Mayor Eric Garcetti said, “Instead of allowing blighted properties to decay, let’s use them to make powerful change in our communities by giving our veterans the access to services and housing that they need and deserve.”
    http://la.curbed.com/2016/5/29…..s-veterans

    Goal stated as accomplishment in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

    1. I remember when they put a moratorium on developers buying up flop houses and turning them into luxury lofts.

      They can’t make up their minds–whether they oppose gentrification and save skid row or whether they want to get rid of the blight, but they’re sure of one thing: what happens isn’t as important as who does it.

      When the government does it, that’s one thing. When evil developers do it–that’s evil!

      1. “When the government does it, that’s one thing. When evil developers do it–that’s evil!”

        Ignoring that bit of hypocrisy, have these people ever seen “public housing”? A ‘blighted’ motel with hookers is far superior to most “public housing” I’ve ever seen.

        1. That’s a fact.

          It’s hard for down and out people to qualify for public housing, too.

          Weekly and nightly hotels are flexible that way.

    2. Good luck with that Ken. You do understand those people are not your friends? They no more want a Libertarian President than you want Bernie Sanders as President. They are just shilling for Hillary but lack the integrity to admit it.

  32. The Wall Street Journal editorial board hypes “The Libertarian Alternative”.

    “The Libertarians will offer a policy alternative to both candidates on free trade, and perhaps on taxes if Mr. Trump doesn’t clarify his position on taxing the rich . . . . Mr. Johnson isn’t likely to win a state, but he can still play a useful role by reminding the major party candidates that they aren’t the only choices. Mr. Trump seems to think he can say whatever he wants because millions of voters are repelled by Mrs. Clinton. The Libertarians give these voters an honorable alternative”

    http://tinyurl.com/zm4p6z6

    I love it when a plan comes together!

    1. Well, it could be argued that if the LP had offered up a credible, principled candidate, they’d be getting the same attention. And they’d actually be drawing attention to actual libertarianism rather than a watered down, Republican-lite version offered by Johnson-Weld. More to the point, the actual plan still requires gains in the voting booth. We are a long ways away from that materializing. Even if the LP gains votes, it’s only success if:
      1. They sustain that sort of showing, or;
      2. They actually force the GOP to recognize libertarian-leaning conservatives as a legitimate voting bloc to be pandered to and change their own agenda

      Otherwise, you’ve really accomplished nothing. If the strong LP showing is just viewed as an aberration to resist Trump, the LP is little more than a pawn of the establishment.

      1. “Well, it could be argued that if the LP had offered up a credible, principled candidate, they’d be getting the same attention.”

        Anything can be argued.

        This Wall Street Journal editorial is arguing that by putting up some serious candidates with mainstream appeal and mainstream credibility, we should get a lot more attention than we would have otherwise.

        It’s a compelling argument, that candidates with mainstream appeal might have more . . . mainstream appeal.

        1. Johsn Kasich has mainstream appeal. John Kasich bombed out of the GOP primaries. Rand Paul is more polished and sensible than Johnson. He flamed out of the GOP primaries. Gary Johnson’s success in Arizona hardly proves he’s going to attract real attention.

          They are covering the LP because they want to siphon off votes from Trump. That’s still an opportunity, but I remain completely unconvinced they give a shit about the particular messenger. They don’t view libertarians as credible. They never have, but you want me to believe that Gary Johnson convinces them otherwise?

          So, as I said, the real goal here is to make use of the opportunity to spread libertarianism. It’s not about what the media thinks, but about how it is perceived by those disaffected by the GOP/Trump.

          1. “They are covering the LP because they want to siphon off votes from Trump.”

            Yeah, they don’t mention the LP as “Mrs. Clinton seems to think he can say whatever he wants because millions of voters are repelled by Mr. Trump. The Libertarians give these voters an honorable alternative

            1. If you read the opinion piece, they do say the LP can siphon voters off of Hillary.

    2. Good luck with that Ken. You do understand those people are not your friends? They no more want a Libertarian President than you want Bernie Sanders as President. They are just shilling for Hillary but lack the integrity to admit it.

      1. I spent the weekend arguing that the Johnson/Weld ticket is the best option for libertarians because it will drive more coverage and bring more attention to our cause than someone else.

        Also, I argued that two former Republican governors can help the libertarian alternative look better to the mainstream in future elections.

        This is further evidence of that. The Wall Street Journal is making the same argument I did about appealing to mainstream voters, and if they’re covering the Libertarian Party reluctantly because Johnson and Weld are on the ticket, then that’s just further evidence of what I’m talking about.

        If someone no one had ever heard of were nominated, they wouldn’t be talking about us at all. If we’d nominated McAfee, those that didn’t ignore us completely would be talking about his weird adventures in Belize.

      2. You should have seen the other side:

        WON’T VOTE JOHNSON/WELD BECAUSE WELD NOT REEL LIBERTARIAN.

        TRUMP REAL REPUBLICAN + OPEN BORDERS AND SHARIA!!!

        1. It is the best if your goal is to gain as many votes as possible in a losing cause. If your goal is to stand for something, it is not the best at all. Weld is such a liberal he made for an appalling Republican. How can he now be a Libertarian?

          What do those two stand for other than a few social liberal bread and circuses? They sure as hell don’t stand for economic liberty, at least not with weld on the ticket.

          1. “Weld is such a liberal he made for an appalling Republican. How can he now be a Libertarian?

            If our goal is to appeal to disaffected Republicans, then how can we snub Weld for having been a Republican?

            Yes, we’re projecting ourselves–this cycle–as a safe harbor for disaffected Republicans. These aren’t people who share our principles 100%. That’s what big tents look like.

            Like I kept saying over the weekend, a legitimate political party is a group of people with a number of core principles that are willing to sell them short from time to time in order to gain influence and win elections. The LP will get Perot like numbers when we start behaving like a legitimate political party. Once we get Perot like numbers, we’ll see politicians adopt some of our principles–like Gingrich started seriously slashing the budget in the wake of Perot. That should be the goal of the LP, and running people like Weld is the best way to achieve that.

            There will be a time to stand on principle again–when the two major parties are running a temper tantrum on wheels, on the one hand, and an outright crook, on the other, is not the time to stand on principle. It’s the time to break out the big tent.

            1. If you had any hope of winning, I would agree. But you are going to lose anyway. So what are you accomplishing here other than selling out your principles. You sell out to win Ken not to get a few more protest voters who are going to go back to the major parties next election anyway.

              1. FDR assumed the American communist party’s platform because they got big.

                The Democratic Party has assumed much of what the Greens used to call for: everything from Kyoto support, higher fuel efficiency standards, global warming, etc.

                The Gingrich Congress assumed the cost cutting platform of Perot in the wake of Perot getting almost 20% of the popular vote.

                Neither the communists, the Greens, nor the Perot people ever won much of anything–except a sizable portion of the vote.

                We have single member districts, winner take all, and as long as do, we’ll have two parties dominate in this country. Libertarians will probably never be one of those two parties–but if and when we achieve a solid electoral outcome, one of them will adopt planks in our platform. In order to make that happen, we need north of 10% of the vote, at least.

                When we stand on principle with their weirdos, we get less than 1%, and I’m not sure that isn’t because we’ve stood on principle with their weirdos. We need a bigger tent, and putting up serious candidates is the way to get it.

          2. It is the best if your goal is to gain as many votes as possible in a losing cause.

            It’s a political party. What else could be the goal?

            1. Actually winning. The other goal is to stand for something. The goals should be wining or if that is not possible at least stand for something when you lose. The LP has seemed to have chosen losing and standing for nothing.

              1. I suppose ballot access is another thing they could have as a goal.

                I think that they should probably focus on local elections that they might have a chance of winning. Their presidential candidate is purely symbolic and as such I really don’t care too much who it is.

          3. It is the best if your goal is to gain as many votes as possible in a losing cause.

            I don’t give a shit about the libertarian party and I think that’s about the most good they can do.

  33. Johnson is keeping up the “piss off trump” strategy, which I think is brilliant. The guy has a temper and may go off the cuff and launch an attack at Johnson. Which is just to Johnson’s benefit, because at this point Trump just mentioning his name slightly legitimizes him. It especially means that a Trump hating media may look our way which…

    Okay, it’s not pretty, and it won’t always feel good, but I think the libertarians could play the media this election.

    Look, the media are going to be all too happy to promote the libertarians a bit if they think it will lead to less R votes. Fine- use them as much as they want to use us. Get on the airwaves and sell/grab name recognition. I know Johnson isn’t the best, but he’s a get-em-in-the-door preacher ie he doesn’t violate any major shibboleth (and yes, the 1964 civil rights act and anti-discrimination law in general is a shibboleth if you want to have any shot at blue-ish voters. Johnson has made some explicit appeals to Bernie voters, which isn’t that crazy given their young skew. Today’s Bernie voters could be tomorrow’s Libertarians- I know some of us were more left in our younger days, so who knows) while selling pretty radical (from a mainstream perspective) policies ie legalize drugs, which… I mean, look, you go beyond pot and the couches come out.

    Cont..

    1. I will admit, he ain’t my ideal messanger, and he isn’t the most charismatic. But look- entitlements are blowing up at some point, the Rs are going to shit… at some point, we may have to step up because I would rather have that than venezuela. Or we come along after the American Maduro (Chelsea Clinton?). Anyway, I gotta be optimistic that this thing can start selling a bit, and maybe the party can gain some steam, because I’m young and I’d rather have some false hope than be suicidal. I don’t think we’re in a libertarian moment, but I think people who have never really had to think about or confront libertarian ideas will see them and maybe a few come along. We go from 1% to 5%. A man can dream.

      Bill Weld, though, can fund raise and eat shit. Like, man, he better know some big money, because otherwise johnson… bad fucking pick. Also, both those guys need to go to a range, shoot for hours on end, and hang out with the guys there until they talk about guns pretty.

      1. Excellent points much more so than most of what Reason writes.

        Attacking entitlements has absolutely no benefit for Johnson. Sorry, but going after that or ADA or the CRA is like a charge of the Light Brigade but less productive. The entitlement state WILL go bankrupt and the question is will we be in the right place and will we have prepared? We need to focus on defanging the state so that when the money runs out, gravity takes over and we get the cuts we want with a minimum of craziness. Like Canada in the ’90s.

        1. We need to focus on defanging the state so that when the money runs out, gravity takes over and we get the cuts we want with a minimum of craziness.

          The entitlement culture is entrenched at this point. I’m doubtful we will get cuts. It will be pain through inflation, pandering through distraction.

    2. At the LP convention, people kept saying that Trump was already attacking Johnson. But I didn’t see where or what he actually said. Does anyone have info on that?

    3. Today’s Bernie voters could be tomorrow’s Libertarians- I know some of us were more left in our younger days

      People are too quick to dismiss this. A lot of libertarians started out as leftists (usually with a stronger anti-authoritarian bent than is common these days). Even though Sanders is anti-libertarian in almost every way, but a lot of his supporters are motivated by disillusionment with standard authorities and questioning standard political wisdom. For the few who actually think about things, that’s exactly what you need to make a new libertarian.

      1. but a lot of his supporters are motivated by disillusionment with standard authorities and questioning standard political wisdom.

        Yeah… they want bigger, more commie authorities with more free shit.

        “Chavez was democratically elected!”

  34. Bernie jumps in front of the camera!

    “Bernie Sanders shows up at halftime of Warriors-Thunder Game 7”
    […]
    “Now, obviously the next question you ask is, “Who does Bernie Sanders sit with at a basketball game?”
    The answer, oddly enough, is actor Danny Glover.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/sport…..li=BBnb4R7

    I’m sure he *knows* we don’t need 23 varieties of hoops-teams while ‘children are starving!’.

    1. Oddly enough? This is the same Danny Glover that took $18 million from the Chavez government to make a movie glorifying him (the one he hasn’t made yet).

      1. That one fact really encapsulates the incompetence of the Venezuelan government perfectly.

      2. That $18 million was stolen from the Venezuelan people. When all of this madness ends, and it will some day, I hope the new government of Venezuela sues his sorry ass for the money back.

        1. No argument here.

          He’s probably try to say the new government is illegitimate and he won’t give it back, though.

    2. Danny “The Haiti earthquake was caused by global warming” Glover

  35. The fantastic wealth we have created and the elimination of so many dangers has a downside: under these conditions people can indulge in insanity and heretofore unseen levels of stupidity without dying from it.

    1. And Bernie is proof thereof.

    2. Indeed. There used to be a hard ceiling on the level of stupidity that a society could tolerate without imploding. Those limiting factors have been obliterated and we enter the Age of Boundless Stupidity. Though I do think there is a still a hard ceiling out there somewhere. There is no peak derp on an individual level, but as a society once the derp gets to high there will be blood.

      1. We have become so advanced and so rich that the number of productive and non retarded people necessary to keep civilization going seems to get smaller every year. The age of man is ending. The age of the technology enabled senseless retard is dawning.

        1. I don’t think wealth and technology necessarily leads to sloth and parasitism. I think the welfare state does that. It’s the age of false morality enabled senseless retardation.

  36. “Can Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election?”

    No.

    Is the local area Dumbshit Brigade actually resorting to ‘libertarian nationalism’ to sell Trump? Sorry, dumbshits, but ‘liberaltarianism’ didn’t sell and neither is the self-contradicting bullshit. Get reckt.

    The bright side of this is that Clinton’s likely crushing victory will push this hodge-podge of weirdo nationalists and racists and fake libertarians out through the end of the digestive tract of America’s body politic. These people will be punchlines for the next half-century and nothing more.

    1. You seem to be having a very hard time convincing yourself of this.

    2. Trump will never make it to the second debate.

      Trump will never beat Ted Cruz.

      Trump will never get the nomination, he has no chance.

      Trump will never be president.

      I think Paul Ehrlich has a better record than the people making these predictions, but like him they just keep doubling down.

      1. Trump is the trumptiest trump!

        Trumpity, trump trump.

      2. I don’t think you understand that past performance does not guarantee future results but there’s an ocean of concepts beyond your understanding.

        Fact is, Trump’s poll numbers were actually very constant from campaign start to end. The experts were right; it was the GOP candidates that screwed up. Those numbers also show that Trump is unelectable. The guy has never had a lead on Clinton even as good as the ones McCain and Romney had on Obama at certain points of their campaigns.

        1. I don’t think you understand that past performance does not guarantee future results

          No, but its the way to bet.

          Why on earth, for example, would I bet that Hillary, given her abysmal record as a candidate, is going to turn around her current slide into second place?

  37. “Can Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election?”

    No, but HILLARY can beat Hillary. Everything she touches turns to crap, and this campaign is no different.

    1. That is a good way to put it. When people say Trump can’t win they are actually saying “Hillary can’t lose”. Sounds a bit less convincing when you put it that way doesn’t it?

    2. Everything she touches turns to crap

      She’s got a special Midas touch.

    3. Against any other candidate, that would be true.

      She *did* manage to get into Congress.

      1. She won an election in New York against a joke GOP candidate. Your gal Hillary is amazing.

        Shorter Cytoxic, “Hillary is dreamy!!”

        1. “She won an election in New York against a joke GOP candidate.”

          And now she’s up against another joke GOP candidate.

          Make America Great Again Make a Clinton President Again

    4. I think that once she and Trump start debating before much larger audiences, her almost supernatural unlikeability will have a serious impact on her numbers.

      1. The strategy of “don’t let the voters see you” can only work for so long.

      2. It would, if her opponent could form complete sentences that could be decoded by anyone besides the Pentagon’s top codebreakers.

        1. I think you’re underestimating how well he channels male rage, and he is. The more bmbastic he gets, the more empowered the embattled men in the country (and though I am #NeverTrump, I get it) feel. He’s a reaper of the SJW wind.

  38. This is like declaring that Trump wears suits.

    Trump *is* a demagogue. As are all the major candidates.

  39. RE: A.M. Links: Trump vs. Clinton

    Oh joy!
    Oh rapture!
    Finally!
    A choice between socialist slavery or fascism for the little people in Amerika.
    The only thing that comes to mind is “Thank God for opium poppies!”

  40. RE: A.M. Links: Trump vs. Clinton

    Oh joy!
    Oh rapture!
    Finally!
    A choice between socialist slavery or fascism for the little people in Amerika.
    The only thing that comes to mind is “Thank God for opium poppies!”

  41. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $98 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss…
    I work through this URL. Go here,,,
    This is what I do.————- http://www.earnmore9.com

  42. My Best friend makes $96/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her paycheck was $12800 just working on the internet for a few hours. you have nothing to lose…
    Read more on this web site..
    Go to tech tab for work detail.——————– http://www.earnmore9.com

  43. My Best friend makes $96/hour on the internet. She has been laid off for six months but last month her paycheck was $12800 just working on the internet for a few hours. you have nothing to lose…
    Read more on this web site..
    Go to tech tab for work detail.——————– http://www.earnmore9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.