UC-Irvine Punishes College Republicans After Milo Yiannopoulos Event Paperwork Mix-Up

The group won't be allowed to reserve event space for one full year.

|

Milo
Screenshot via Ron Robinson for RSBN / Youtube

The University of California at Irvine has prohibited the College Republicans from reserving event space for one full year.

Administrators claim the group didn't file the proper paperwork when it brought Milo Yiannopoulos to campus to speak. But a representative for the CRs wonders if UC-Irvine was actually upset about the fact that she had plans to invite Yiannopoulos again.

In an interview with Breitbart—the conservative news website Yiannopoulos works for—CR President Ariana Rowlands said, "This is nothing more than a punishment for hosting Milo and a punishment and a deterrent for wanting to host him again."

Breitbart described the punishment as a ban, but the university disputes that characterization. UC-Irvine spokesperson Cathy Lawhon told Reason that the CRs "have not been suspended." According to Lawhon, the group was informed that it needed to provide proof of insurance for the private security firm hired to protect Yiannopoulos during the event. It failed to do this, "which resulted in a revocation of their privileges to reserve space through Scheduling and Event Services," until spring of next year.

Lawhon clarified that the CRs were not banned from campus.

But Rowlands claims the university did not explain the proof-of-insurance requirement, or enforce it consistently. She says she recently met with the associate dean of students and director of student life about hosting another Yiannopoulos event. Just four hours after administrators learned of Rowlands' intentions, they told her the group would lose its events privileges.

The university has the right to create rules in order to facilitate safe and productive speaking events. It may also punish students for breaking these rules, as long as it enforces them fairly, without consideration for the ideological views of said students. I'm not sure what happened here, but if I were a university administrator, I would be reluctant to make life difficult for a student-group for an entire year because of a mere paperwork mix-up.

Advertisement

NEXT: The EEOC, religious accommodation claims, and Muslims

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. Am I allowed to tell them how much I disapprove of this, given that I’m now a resident of California and pay these jackwads salaries? Probably won’t do much, but may as well express my disapproval and hope for a pile on.

    1. Can the College Republicans FOIA the school and see if they received proof of insurance for every outside speaker brought into school?

      1. I hope they do, and then sue them. In the normal world if there are hard requirements for an event you typically sign a contract or statement of understanding (ect.). I imagine that they were never notified in writing if this requirement.

  2. Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort of sun-god robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?

    1. Why am I the only one who has that dream?

      1. I would prefer that they chucked beer steamed bratwursts, but hey, you do you.

        1. That was a Real Genius reference. Did no one pick up on that? You’re all a bunch of degenerates!

          1. Needs more jello.

            1. I’m just gonna make some popcorn while y’all sort this out.

          2. only if you hammer a six-inch railroad spike with your penis…

    2. Dill pickles, or bread and butter? Details matter, man!

  3. Robbo, you and Milo are identical. You guys should collaborate on something. Maybe a 3 way with Gavin. *feels pukey

    1. Now I know why Robby is always so quick to denounce Milo. They’re in a Highlander-like battle over the coiffure. There can only be one.

      1. Here we are born to be kings….!

      2. If your hair comes away from your head, it’s over.

        You are safe only in hair salon. None of us will violate that law. It’s tradition.

  4. Rowlands claims the university did not explain the proof-of-insurance requirement, or enforce it consistently. She says she recently met with the associate dean of students and director of student life about hosting another Yiannopoulos event. Just four hours after administrators learned of Rowlands’ intentions, they told her the group would lose its events privileges.

    The timing makes it seem awfully suspicious. If they really were just doing this over a paperwork SNAFU, why didn’t they do it immediately after the first event? Why wait until after they heard they wanted to host Yiannopoulos again to drop the hammer?

  5. If it weren’t for robby’s stalwart coverage of the campus comings and goings, I’d have never heard of this milo yiannipoplopolois guy.

    1. Unfortunately, the guy’s a Trumptard. However, every now and then he says or does something that makes me smile.

      1. Something, something, freedom, scoundrels, Mencken, something

      2. Anyone who fucks with progs is alright by me.

        1. Me, too.

    2. this milo yiannipoplopolois

      I think Milo’s new form of last-name should simply be these two photographs placed next to one another

      1. *footnote = i strongly considered “George Papadopoulos” as the latter of the 2, but decided it was both anachronistic and too confusing, not to mention probably racist.

        1. it was you, me and you, then came you.

              1. No can do, I’m on Canadian wifi, explaining the double post. It’s all gummed up with poutine or something.

                1. Its the theme song from “Webster”, the TV show where the character of George Papadopoulos comes from

                  (played by former Detroit Lions football player Alex Karras, who also played “Mongo” in Blazing Saddles)

                  1. Given that Karras was a legendary beast in pro football, I always thought it was amazing how small he looked on that show, even next to Emmanuel Lewis.

                    Really shows how crazy big football players are these days, when only a few decades ago they were really pretty similar in size to normal people.

                    1. Really shows how crazy big football players are these days, when only a few decades ago they were really pretty similar in size to normal people.

                      There’s some old college football games on Youtube with Keith Jackson talking about how “big” some of the linemen were at 275 pounds. Considering a lot of these guys end up dropping weight after leaving the game (because they’re not eating all the damn time anymore), that’s a pretty good indication most human beings aren’t really made to be that large.

  6. Ariana is hot.

  7. “or enforce it consistently”

    Supbpoena them and sue if they haven’t. Make them prove their case in court.

  8. but if I were a university administrator, I would be reluctant to make life difficult for a student-group for an entire year because of a mere paperwork mix-up.

    Which pretty much fully explains why you are not, in fact, a University Administrator.

    Bureaucrats gotta bureaucrat, yo!

    1. Skeet skeet skeet!

      Crat crat crat!

    2. They would have made it until November 9th, but that would have been too obvious.

  9. See ! See ! When I told you in the PM links that we were forced feed with LGBT stuff !

    Kidding kidding, I really enjoy the way Milo is trolling all those people.

    The only way I see this to stop is when we are going to get public servants accountable for their own stupidity. If they could be personally sued, or at least risk being fired, they might think about doing such things twice.

    We can all dream.

    1. Yeah, all we need is another oversight agency to hold them accountable to the legal standards the current oversight regime fails to hold them accountable for, and when that new agency fails we just need another one to police them.

      Or end public funding of education, then the only people with skin in the game are the service providers and their customers, either of which are free to terminate the relationship per the terms of the service agreement.

      1. Online universities.

        1. *confused-dog stare*

    2. I’d like to see them classified as politicians and implement the H Beam Piper solution for political transparency and good conduct.

      I wonder if I could get bonus point for woodchippers?

  10. “I’m not sure what happened here”

    Yet for some reason your headline and words seem quite confident that the administration is at fault here, without actually providing even a shred of evidence that is the case.

    1. Well, if CR did mess up the paperwork, someone should have told them then. Not now. This is pretty obvious.

  11. “I’m not sure what happened here”

    Yet for some reason your headline and words seem quite confident that the administration is at fault here, without actually providing even a shred of evidence that is the case.

    1. There’s a shred (the timing of the ban).

      And there’s every reason, if you have any experience at all with putting on events and event planning, etc., to believe that this requirement is routinely ignored, without retaliation.

      1. But they have wrongthink

    2. #BelieveAllVictims shitlord

  12. OT: We should put a patrol rifle in every patrol car, so that when police officers first respond to a shooting they can engage the shooter with their patrol rifles and then quickly retreat to defensive positions to wait for SWAT.

      1. “The Orlando Police Department and the FBI declined to provide further clarification Tuesday.”

        No shit.

    1. The headline
      ‘I grabbed my assault rifle and ran’: An officer’s account of the critical early minutes in Orlando

      It’s a little early in the article to by lying like that; even for you, Washington Post.

      1. the idea that police use the term “Assault Rifles”?

        1. Yep. Cops would actually get in trouble for using that term. It’s a non-threating patrol rifle.

      2. I grabbed my assault rifle and ran

        Ya know, which way he ran actually matters. A lot.

        So which way was it? Toward the sound of gunfire, or to the nearest cover to “await developments”?

        1. He meant to say he did the running man like in all those cop videos lately.

        2. There was a Dunkin Doughnuts right next door…

      3. He meant: I grabbed my ass, alt-rifle, and ran

      4. Doesn’t really matter if the police called it that or not, the WP clearly needs to continue their line that AR-15’s are assault rifles and this feeds into that. It wouldn’t be the first time a well-known outlet fudged quotes to fit a narrative, won’t be the last time either.

        Also, it is truly frightening how many retards believe that these rifles are fully automatic doomsprayers. It’s nice to think that people would do at least a modicum of research, but clearly these lies are being spread on purpose and, further, being swallowed without question.

    2. What is not entirely clear from Cornwell’s statements is whether the officers spent that entire period inside the club, guns aimed at the bathroom area, or whether they withdrew at some point outside the club before SWAT arrived, leaving Mateen time to move freely about the club and possibly start shooting again. Cornwell declined to clarify this point among others, citing the ongoing investigation and instructions not to talk about such details.

      I suspect that somewhere in this process someone made the call to pull cops back and “assess the situation” and in so doing left dozens of people still trapped in the club who could have otherwise been taken out immediately.

      if the details of exactly what happened made the police look like heroes, you can be damn sure they would have already released the Made for TV Movie re-enactment at this point.

      1. “Once SWAT got there, they told us to retreat, that they’d take over because we were not really in tactical gear – we were just in our police uniforms.”

        1. “”Once SWAT got there, they told us to retreat””

          It doesn’t really make sense. If they stayed in that position until SWAT was on the scene, SWAT could have replaced the police posted up inside the building who had cornered the guy.

          claiming “we didn’t have our ballistic-shit on” is fine and all when you’re talking about why ‘you didn’t press the issue immediately?’, but it just opens the question to “well, what was stopping them from taking advantage of your advance-position inside the club the moment they arrived?”

          I’m sure they’re going to talk about bombs and potential threats blah blah blah, but regardless it seems a very odd decision to take to “give up ground” in a hostage situation if they’ve got the shooter pinned down.

          particularly in a situation where its unclear who else is in the building and who else might potentially be taken hostage;

          it would seem to me (*and i could be very wrong) that the SOP would be “no matter what, don’t let the situation GET WORSE after you’ve arrived on the scene”; i.e. ALWAYS keep whatever ground you’ve taken, maximize your position, and ensure if you’re going to make a move that you can execute as swiftly as possible once the call is made.

          1. I agree 100%. Then again I’m not a professional, and I don’t have tactical clothing.

            Also, this is your gun-control advertisement: wait until SWAT gets there, and then wait three hours for them to assess the situation. Give me your guns.

            1. If cops aren’t willing to risk their lives to stop a mass-killing, clearly the next best thing is to ensure no one else can either.

              There have been at least a half-dozen of these mass shooting events in the last few years. You’d think there would have been some National Police Round-Table where all these doughnut-crusaders get together and determine “Best Practices” in these sorts of emergency situations.

              Or = maybe there *was*, and the current theory suggests “Standoff and wait” is supposed to be…. i don’t know, “smart”? It strikes me as pretty retarded if so.

              I’d think that there are probably at least 3-4 types of ‘active shooter’ profiles which guide tactical response. The true-“hostage taker” (who you can ‘talk down’) is presumably different than the ISIS supporter. you’d think since the motherfucker called 911 in the first moments and said, “HI IM ONE OF THE ISIS KIND JUST SO YOU KNOW KTHNXBAI” they’d have sorted that part out pretty #(*$@ quickly and realized that the only way you sort out the Jihadi-types is to ventilate them.

          2. I’m sure they’re going to talk about bombs and potential threats blah blah blah, but regardless it seems a very odd decision to take to “give up ground” in a hostage situation if they’ve got the shooter pinned down.

            They got home safe. QED. They put their lives on the line every day, but the most important thing is that they get home safe.

        2. Unless “tactical gear” means Iron Man’s suit, I don’t think getting it outweighs the benefit of maintaining position.

    3. “Once SWAT got there, they told us to retreat, that they’d take over because we were not really in tactical gear ? we were just in our police uniforms.”

      John McClane never needed tactical gear.

      1. Yeah, but he was facing a heavily armed, well trained, and organized group of homicidal robbers, not a lightly armed, untrained homo-cidal terrorist. Duh.

    4. Many years ago I was living in Durham, NC. An “estranged” husband showed up at the hospital with a gun looking for his wife. When he didn’t find her, he took a hostage, etc…

      First cop that shows up takes his deer rifle out of the trunk and casually pops him in the head. Situation over.

      I think I would prefer a country guy with a deer rifle than a storm trooper who can’t shoot waving around an AR.

  13. “I would be reluctant to make life difficult for a student-group for an entire year because of a mere paperwork mix-up.”

    It’s not a paperwork mix-up, it’s the fix they rigged up to censor College Republicans and prevent them from bringing Milo back.

    It’s not a ban, see, it’s merely a year-long prohibition from reserving or using event space.

    1. Maybe they should just use common space without a reservation or explicit permission…kinda like the progs did in the 60’s How would that fly? Maybe burn some Hillary banners or something too, you know, to keep warm, or cook hot dogs or something.

      1. *gag* cold dog for me.

      2. Those protestors in the 60s were real big on making sure they met proof-of-insurance requirements.

      3. No kidding. Since when have progs ever given a shit about rules? Use their subversion against them.

        The only rule that matters is right to assembly, shitlords!

  14. OT: I came across this on RCP. Isn’t this exactly the type of “With us or against us” thinking that the Democrats condemned Bush and the Republicans for in the 2000s whenever they were accused of being soft on terror?

    http://www.realclearpolitics.c….._guns.html

    1. If the Republicans weren’t the stupid party they’d point out that terrorists aren’t going to obey the laws against buying weapons anymore than they obey the laws against, oh, terror

      1. It’s stupid easy, too. This shit just happened in France, where a practical ban on private arms did not stop the terrorists at Charlie Hebdo or Bataclan.

  15. Probably nothing will come of this. The college republicans don’t have the press or power to demonstrate that the college doesn’t enforce this rule universally, and even if they did no one who is a democrat would care.

  16. Lawhon clarified that the CRs were not banned from campus.

    You’re not “suspended” or “banned”. You just can’t say or do anything as a group while you’re here. And that’s totally not the same thing, because words.

    1. +1 Super Double-secret Probation

      1. Put Neidermeyer on it.

        1. He is a sneaky, little shit, just like you us.

  17. The university has the right to create rules in order to facilitate safe and productive speaking events

    ‘”safe and productive” = things we agree with

  18. I’m not sure what happened here

    Hesitating to Pass Judgment” being the hallmark of the professional journalist.

    1. Robby didn’t go to Columbia Journalism School.

      1. In fairness, immediately jumping to a predetermined conclusion didn’t work out too well for Eardley or her apologists.

        1. Robby doesn’t have a Master’s from Columbia. What do you not understand?

  19. But Rowlands claims the university did not explain the proof-of-insurance requirement, or enforce it consistently.

    This I believe in entirely. In my experience with student activism at UCI, regulations were sometimes cited in order to justify harassing unpopular groups and messages.

    No way it was enforced consistently if the group was the MSU or some feminist club.

    1. Wasn’t “Security” only being required in the first place because all the other student groups planned to show up and scream bloody murder and cause a scene?

      It strikes me as “victim blaming” of the highest order. Harass speakers, and then punish the host-groups for not providing enough security for the speakers. More of the “procedure is the punishment” M.O. which the left so adores.

      1. Yes, the event organizers are directly responsible if other people can’t conduct themselves like civilized adults.

    2. The university has the right to create rules in order to facilitate safe and productive speaking events.

      Exactly. If a university pulled this sort of Calvinball bullshit on a feminist group, there’d be a smoking Title IX crater where that dean’s seat used to be.

  20. You know who else wouldn’t let gay comedians speak?

    1. It’s Hitler, right?

      1. Ernst R?hm was a laugh riot.

        1. Hmm, is Corey Lewandwoski Trump’s Rohm?

  21. So, let me see if I get this straight. You didn’t demand proof of insurance before allowing the event take place. But, now, a month after the event, and only hours after they announced the intention to bring Yiannopoulos back, that event in the past was all of a sudden discovered to be in violation of the rules.

    Sure. Right.

    Shit like this is almost, ALMOST, enough to make you wish that someone like Trump would get in office and start oppressing these fuckers.

    1. They once told our Young Americans for Liberty group we couldn’t lean posters against a row of bushes because it was a fire hazard. Yep.

      1. It’s like they’re not even trying to put on a pretense anymore.

      2. Electrical Code Violation.

      3. They were worried the bushes would catch fire when the campus lefties torched your posters.

      4. I like YAL. Look, what if someone put an oil lamp in the bushes. Then a student came by, drunk, and accidentally tripped on it.

        1. Oil lamp? Is that what the yutes are calling bongs these days?

    2. If not Trump, then somebody else eventually will. Whether by an enemy oppression or a friendly purge, sooner or later the lefties get lined up against the wall!

      1. Not soon enough!

  22. I’m so glad college wasn’t like this when I went.

    1. The biggest protest that occurred at my school (SUNY-Buffalo ’93) was against the imposition of a $1 fare to ride the bus shuttle between campuses – we won!

      Heady times.

  23. Had another Pig Latin test and did very well. I have a vocabulary of around 700 words, so I’m getting to the point where I can have conversations and understand the gist of news broadcasts. Life is good.

      1. That is delightful! It’s almost as good as that fake English song from that Italian guy.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5up86JJD5s

  24. No way this stands up under any kind of challenge.

    (a) The paperwork is obviously a pretext, given the timing.

    (b) A little discovery would probably unearth dozens of events that this requirement applied to, but was no complied with, and I bet not one single other organization was “banned” from campus events.

  25. The university has the right to create rules in order to facilitate safe and productive speaking events.

    Fuck no it does not, not rules which are inconsistently and ideologically applied.

  26. Move it off campus. I’ll chip in.

    1. And offer to give a speech on maintaining an Israeli investment portfolio. Blow some heads up in the campus BDS movement.

      1. UCI’s Muslim Student Union/campus BDS movement is probably the second craziest in whole UC system after Berkeley’s.

        That would be awesome.

  27. Oh, let’s assume just for laughs that every time a student group invites an outside speaker at UC-Irvine, and they hire security, they have to provide proof the security people are insured.

    Do you see why there’s still a problem?

    I doubt they need security for every speaker.

    They need security for the Youknowwhopolis event because there is a risk that *UC Irvine students* will disrupt the event.

    The University needs to take care of that problem. It’s their students threatening the disruption, it’s their cops who should be providing the security.

    Telling student groups they have to provide security because outside hecklers might assault the speaker is simply a heckler’s veto.

  28. OT: Video rebuttal to AR-15 PTSD journalist.

    https://youtu.be/8T3qjpZB6ME

  29. Why I Refuse to Apologize For My Son Wearing a Dress

    I photograph my kids all the time, if only for the sake of posterity. I happen to have several photographs of my son wearing his various princess costumes and dresses. I also happen to think he looks beautiful, and I feel that I shouldn’t have to keep them hidden under lock and key. If I want to share a photograph that makes me feel proud of who he is, I should be able to do just that, like any other mom. This is who my son is. I’m not going to hide him away because other people are uncomfortable seeing a boy in a dress.

    I shared these beloved photos of my son with friends on social media recently. First and foremost because I’m proud, and though I know I’m biased, I think he’s lovely and photogenic. Secondly, I shared in an effort to enlighten that my gender creative 10-year-old son is not “less than.” I am a proud parent, just like so many others. I carry school photos of my 3 awesome kids in my wallet, just like other parents do. However, I am not ashamed of, and I want to share these photos I’ve snapped over the years that really capture my youngest son’s true inner beauty…”

    I hope this kid “comes out” as a skirt-chasing jock in his teens. I’m sure mom will still be supportive since it’s not like she views her queer son as a status symbol or anything.

    1. gender creative? WTF?

      1. Yeah, where’s the hyphen?! Sheesh.

      2. EITHER CELEBRATE HER CELEBRATION OR JUST PUT ON YOUR NAZI UNIFORM ALREADY

        1. Look. I only wear Hugo Boss on weekends.

        2. Sorry, I only wear my SS uniform to Chinese weddings.

    2. “I refuse to apologize”

      Who asked you to apologize? And if you did, does that mean we’re obligated to not laugh at the both of you?

    3. If I want to share a photograph that makes me feel proud of who he is, I should be able to do just that, like any other mom.

      Damn straight! What matters is how you feel. What’s the point of making a human if it can’t serve your ego?

    4. I hate all parents who post endless photos of their kids in princess costumes, regardless of gender identity. I’m equitable that way.

      1. So, you don’t like Facebook? Oh wait, do you like pictures of people’s ugly dogs?

        1. No Facebook for almost 2 years for me. I love it.

          1. 7 years since deleted account.

            1. I post pictures of my youngest crying over ridiculous shit with very brief captions. It helps me vent.

  30. Behold: a montage of the dumbest anti-gun politicians

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI9tov6A2DI

    1. “There’s a lot of people who’ve been shot by unloaded guns.”

      -Sacramento council member Sandy Sheehan.

      1. Holy. Shit.

        As Ron White once said, you can’t fix stupid.

      2. Jesus, California gets some of the dumbest people into public office.

      3. I’m calling bullshit. She must have had air quotes around “unloaded.” Even she is not that stupid.

          1. She is apparently that stupid. Now, one of the rules of safe gun handling is to treat every gun as if it is loaded, but her statement is absurd.

  31. Has anyone here ever done beef back ribs with applewood? I have a dilemma.

    1. I bet it will be great or mix it with hickory. I’ve only done Apple with pork or withTurkey sausage.

      1. All I have is apple pellets. That’s the dilemma.

        I was at a grocery store away from home that I don’t usually go to, and they had the giant racks of beef ribs on sale, so I got 2 racks.

        It’s going to take me a week or 2 to get more hickory pellets.

  32. Now I completely lost any modicum of respect I may have had for Anderson Cooper.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB5vL4bJeug

    Dude.

    Seriously? THIS IMPRESSED YOU?

    He responded stupidly to a misguided question.

    1. ‘intrisically paternalistic?’

      DA FUCK DOES THAT MEAN?

      1. He *clearly* meant that it counterpoints the surrealism of the underlying metaphor, you philistine!

        Jeez, do you even word salad, bro?

        1. Heh.

    2. Matt Damon gets ambushed by Reason’s “Hit & Run” ‘journalists’ and gets the better of them.

      Not watching but LOL yeah right.

    3. Spot the Not: Matt Damon

      1. It’s just better to be yourself than to try to be some version of what you think the other person wants.

      2. It’s better to be a fake somebody than a real nobody.

      3. Bond is part of the system. He’s an imperialist and a misogynist, and he laughs at killing people, and he sits there slugging martinis.

      4. Um, I’d rather pay for taxes than cut like, ya know, reading is fundamental or headstart or some of these programs that are really helping kids. Uh, ya know. Uh, why not?

      5. But it’s like ya know,?.. it’s uhh?it’s, it’s, it’s like criminal that so little is asked of people who are getting so much. I don’t mind paying more. I really don’t mind paying more taxes.

      6. I don’t know if you know this, but we live on stolen land and this country was built on slavery and genocide.

      1. Ima go wit 2

      2. I will take #6. My niece said that. I asked her if she knew what genocide was and she was like, “its like really bad”. I tickled her.

        1. C’mon GILMORE, it’s possible, nay likely, that Damon and your niece are on the same mental level.

          1. His niece is 26 years old. They are a strange family…

        2. 6 is Damon I’d bet.

      3. I read a really great observation about Damon: he’s the real life version of the pompous pony tail guy from Good Will Humping:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmRe_fK7pbw

        1. Who hasn’t read Gordon Wood? Years later that actor would get raped by Vern Schillinger. Sad.

        2. I think Damon has always had a chip on his shoulder about the fact he did 1 year at harvard but never actually finished college. its a sort of belief in one’s own intellectual superiority combined with a terrifying inferiority complex because you don’t actually know shit about anything except the roles you played.

          Its why GWH worked so well = it played on his own actual sense of ““i’m better than you college kids” because deep down i’m a gifted wunderkind. Sure, in reality math isn’t my strong suit, but math is over-rated anyway. What can you do with it, really??”

          1. Fun fact: I’ve never seen him in anything other than Chasing Amy. He has an uncanny knack for choosing to star in crap I have no interest in watching.

            1. the only movie he’s in that i’d think a person “must see” is The Departed… maybe Ocean’s 11 (for pure silly entertainment value), good-will hunting (1) for its novelty. You can skip Saving Private Ryan because while its a good movie i’m not sure anyone really needs to be re-traumatized about WWII and it doesn’t really even have a point when all is said and done.

              1. oh and Damon has like 2 lines it it anyway.

                The bourne movies are also disposable if you’re not into action/thrillers. They’re not even especially good for the genre.

                1. Damon has like 2 lines it it anyway

                  Yeah that’s my point. He didn’t stick around long enough to suck up a really good movie.

              2. I liked Ocean’s 11 well enough as a one-shot but Chasing Amy is just brilliant IMHO despite Damon being briefly in it.

                1. Is Joey Lauren Adams the Gen X “Manic Pixie Dream Girl”?

                  1. I, for one, would have been happily all over her.

                    And I would have let her talk in that voice all the way through our hijinks.

                2. More impressively, in my opinion, Affleck gives a decent performance. He’s usually pretty wooden.

                  1. Agreed about Affleck – his best IMHO but again I’ve only seen him in a couple things.

                3. Chasing Amy is just brilliant IMHO

                  You, sir, are a scoundrel and a rogue.

              3. Eh, watch the original Ocean’s 11.

            2. I liked The Talented Mr. Ripley and the first 2 Bourne movies

              1. Watch Purple Noon instead of The Talented Mr. Ripley.

            3. I liked he and Affleck in ‘Dogma’.

      4. 6 is the Not, and it is indeed a paraphrase of something Gilmore’s niece said.

        Your reward is this absurd line from Good Will Humping in which it is implied that the NSA works with superstring theory:

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

        It’s like whoever wrote this just looked up a bunch of science buzzwords and stuck them together. And then it gets *even dumber*.

        1. All those oil tankers in the North Atlantic.

          1. What’s the term for godwinning with Superman 3?

            Prior Pyre’d?

  33. Idiot reporter tries to argue that an AR-15 is automatic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPKPREdHu0

    1. Its useless to try and “correct” people that are purposely misusing terminology to create a rhetorical advantage

      Just keep calling them liars to their face until they get angry, THEN point out their misuse of terms only after they beg you to substantiate your claim.

    2. Also =

      I’m pretty sure CNN hires their “Token Republican White Guy” commenters specifically for their ability to make “pro-gun” arguments sound stupid

      I mean, they’re sandwiching in some guy that looks like a throwback to the Moral Majority 1990s between young, hip, black guys who are like, “Dude see we care about *people*”…

      …and the white dude is just sputtering “AUTOMATIC IS NOT THE SAME AS SEMIAUTO AND GET YOUR NFA TERMINOLOGY AND REGULATION STRAIGHT MISTER” and they’re like, “Well it sounds to me like you dont care about people being killed and “lol White Guys Drive Like This

      And *of course* we needed to get Van Jones in here! He knows everything!

      I have mixed feelings about the way media is currently going – half of me thinks the partisan desperation of the media is because they’re losing control, and basically talking to a brick wall. The median age of people who watch cable news broadcasts are in their 60s. Anyone younger is already cherry-picking their news

      I’m unsure if this means that mass-media is fucked…and that’s a good thing….. or whether the news audience is going to be so hopelessly polarized that there’s never going to be anything close to “unbiased coverage’ of anything ever again.

      1. Honestly, I’d be happy to get rid of the whole “unbiased coverage” myth once and for all. At least with the biased news sources like Fox or MSNBC, they’re open about they’re biases, and I can always take what they say with a grain of salt, and simply switch over to see what the other side has to say.

        It’s a lot more honest than pretending that a Clinton hack like George Snufflupagus is some paragon of neutrality. Seriously, so you want to tell me that all the ‘unbiased’ political reporters spend eighty hours a week covering the subject, but don’t have any opinions of their own?

  34. It’s not a “tragedy,” it’s a terrorist attack

    “…In a particularly thick-headed commentary in the Washington Post last fall, Andrew Shaver appealed to psychology to explain why we are much more agitated by terrorist attacks than by the ever-present dangers of dying in a car wreck or from cancer. Shaver’s analysis missed the point. I am upset about Orlando because I am aware that Mateen’s killing spree was part of a larger battle plan. That plan has been clearly articulated by an implacable enemy that will kill as many Americans as necessary in order to secure dominion over us. I don’t “fear” dying in a terrorist attack. I am agitated by Orlando and San Bernardino because I am patriotic and recognize that an attack on my fellow citizens is an attack on all of us….

    “…Our leaders don’t want us to feel too much solidarity with the victims in Orlando. They seem to expect that we’ll end up goose-stepping down the avenues, or forming vigilante gangs to rampage through Muslim neighborhoods. If our leaders seriously fear this, they should exert themselves to purify our patriotism. They would rather change the subject.”

    1. That is a pet peeve of mine too.

    2. Some good points

    1. Angry, bitter, self-serving, Obama succeeded in doing something many thought him incapable of: acting like Donald Trump.

      These “many” were not paying attention before.

  35. USA-Argentina. Let’s do this.

    Wonder how USA gonna do without Woods and his pace and work rate.

    1. Guzan is still shaking cobwebs out of his head.

      1. Not a good start.

  36. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..an-hackers

    As this point it is very possible that the Russian intelligence services will choose our next President. I think two things can be said with pretty good certainty; that Hillary engaged in bribery and a pay for play scheme though the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State, and the Russian intelligence services hacked her email and the foundation’s email and know everything about it and have proof. So, the question is what do they do with it?

    The obvious answer is to hold onto it and hope she gets elected President and then use it to blackmail her. The problem is once she is elected President, does it really have that much power? The Democrats would never impeach her no matter how compelling the evidence. Release it early in her term, people forget about it before the next election. Release it late and her and the court media play it off as “old news”.

    I think it might be its most valuable now. And the thing to do is waive it in front of both campaigns. If you could get Trump to make a deal to get it released as an October surprise, you then use the existence of the deal to blackmail him once in office. If you can get Clinton to agree to something, you then use that to increase the leverage you have should she win.

    1. If they have anything, they should probably use it sooner rather than later. It won’t have the same umpf once she’s in power where she can spin it better in her favor.

      1. That is what I am thinking.

    2. This is all just a third-rate computer hack. Nothing to see here, and oh, did you forget that Republicans want to nominate right-wing extremists to the Supreme Court so that Citizens United and Heller continue to make it legal to bribe politicians and sell assault rifles to terrorists?

      1. I head he wanted to sell them fully automatic bazookas with high capacity magazines.

        1. sustained fire nukes. it’s the only way to be absolutely sure.

  37. Ouch. My Lord is the American defense immature.

    1. We just don’t play this sport at the level the rest of the world does. We are not bad, but we are not elite and likely never will be.

      1. Too much competition from other sports.

      2. Maybe. But keep the program growing.

      3. I dunno, it’s becoming more and more popular with the yutes. Maybe in a generation we’ll produce top quality players that can compete on a global stage.

        I remember being a bar for a game during their last World Cup run, people were genuinely excited about it.

        1. If baseball, football, and basketball didn’t exist… we’d be unstoppable.

          1. What, USA hockey is chump change?

            1. I didn’t add hockey because lots of other countries have hockey.

              1. But R, lots of other countries have baseball and basketball too!

                1. They may “have” baseball and basketball – but not really.

                  1. Rrrrracist!

          2. Yeah. All the fast Mexicans are in the US.

            1. That would explain why Mexico sucks worse than we do. I don’t really care about soccer, but it is always enjoyable to watch the US beat Mexico.

              1. I’m not sure about that. Mexico generally ranks ahead and has had a better international record while producing a tad more world class players.

                1. They got beat 7-0 in the quarter finals. And the. There is that knock out victory at the 2002.

                  1. Fine. Be like that!

                  2. Yeah and it was surprising and the awesomest fun I’ve had on a Saturday night for a long time.

        2. They are competitive on a global stage. The next level is to take on the traditional powers and win on a semi-regular basis.

        3. People have been saying that since I was like 9 years old.

          That was 20 years ago.

          Top athletes want to play basketball and football and sometimes baseball and I don’t see that chancing in my lifetime.

  38. 2-0. Alrighty then.

    What a strike by Messi.

    As long as they don’t pull a Mexico.

  39. The U.S. have little confidence or self-belief at the moment.

    1. I can’t imagine why. I mean we have Captain Bathroom Nazi, greatest president of all time. His legacy is so important, you know? It’s like the most importantest thing ever, starving children around the world agree.

      1. *whoosh*

        🙂

        1. Dude, like, that’s not even foozball, you know? Only American foozball is foozball. Soccer, it’s not a real sport.

        2. Lol.

          /winks at Hyperion.

          1. Half of my family are Brazilian, so imagine how well this snark goes over. Doesn’t stop me, bastard that I am. There aren’t even any real rules. I mean you just fall down and fake act you’re hurt and they change the rule. It’s sort of like being a democrat.

            1. We all hate that and I would love to see a quick video review to put a stop to that shit.

              1. All joking aside, I actually love to watch the game. I never watched it at all until I started dating my wife and then, you know, her family was so into it, so I’ve learned to love the game. I still do not understand the rules and formations, etc, and everything like I do American football, which I’ve been watching for 40 years, but I’m learning.

                1. It’s much simpler than American football FWIW.

            2. Just show them this again.

  40. Can’t we just get some legislation passed to to declare Milo a terrorists and like, you know, I mean, can we ban him or something? Sounds legit to me. Hate speech, bro. rock on!

    1. Don’t give them ideas.

      1. Democrats: Ban Milo, the assault speechist!

        GOP: No, Milo is a constitutional right!

        Democrats: You’re for the terrorists!

        1. Democrats: He has a thing for the black things that go up!

  41. Every law every rule every regulation is an opportunity to wield arbitrary power.

    1. LOL that is hilarious

    2. How long did it take to comb that goop out of her hair?

    3. It’s the ‘washed hair this decade’ feature of Photoshop.

    4. If I were her, I’d be thoroughly insulted and angry.

      Basically, they’re saying ‘you’re ugly’.

      1. Its also sort of like the administrations’ attempt to redact “ISIS” from the Orlando shooter transcript.

        Everyone already knew the guy pledged allegiance to ISIS. Putting {redacted} in place just insulted people’s intelligence.

        Similarly, everyone, but everyone, knows DWS looks like a Toad raped a burn-victim and had a yenta-baby. Who exactly is fooled?

      2. She is ugly. Deep inside. Where it counts.

        -jcr

  42. Milo is obnoxious with his Trump fascination, and although I understand it vis-a-vis countering SJWs, he’s clutching at straws as far as heroes are concerned. The “daddy” thing especially makes me cringe.

    That said, a flamboyantly gay man saying what he says, and excoriating fellow gays for their intersectional stance toward Muslims, is a beauty to behold.

    1. How does he take on obnoxious SJWs, going right into their safe zones, fearlessly. How should he do it?

      I sort of feel the same way about Milo, and Gavin McInnes as I did about Adam Kokesh. We need about 10 million more of each of them. Timidity is not going to work against the left. The GOP have already proven that for us.

      1. How does he take on obnoxious SJWs, going right into their safe zones, fearlessly. How should he do it?

        Milo: The musical!

        Parker and Stone maybe want a follow-up Broadway hit?

        1. You’ve said too much….

    2. The “daddy” thing is pretty tongue-in-cheek. Milo is definitely part of the anti-PC crowd that likes Trump.

      1. Are you sure that’s a tongue in his cheek?

        1. He said as much on one of his podcasts. Not that I, uh, have listened, to any of his podcasts.

        2. I need to read more closely. Ha. Ha.

    3. I see him pretty much like younger, more articulate version of Ann Coulter. Sure, he’s a jackass, but I do enjoy the way he makes SJWs drop their masks.

      -jcr

  43. Vox, of all places, actually had a not totally retarded article about why the writer owns an AR-15
    Yes, that Vox.

    1. Why the fuck would someone not want to own one of the best home defense weapons? Why?

      1. You mean a shotgun? I thought it’s a shotgun.

        1. I thought it was several dozen Derringers hidden in your cloak.

  44. I got the notice second or third hand, but I was told Fox News is fore-lock-tugging over Tyson Farms exchanging the Labor Day holiday for workers with a Muslim holy-day of some description.
    It’s no secret that Snopes can be a bit biased, but in this case it’s a rather amusing ‘Where’s Waldo’ search for the good guys:

    “Tyson Foods has not dropper Labor Day as an employee holiday in favor of the Muslim celebration of Eid al-Fitr.’ (sic)
    […]
    Contrary to recent reports, Labor Day is still a holiday at Tyson Foods. This issue concerns only the plant at Shelbyville, TN. The majority of employees at the Tyson plant in Shelbyville, TN, are represented by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Stores Union (RWDSU), an American union that asked for and received Eid al-Fitr as one of their eight paid holidays in place of Labor Day.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/tyson.asp

    Yep, a labor union negotiated a removal of Labor Day as a paid holiday…

    1. Shelbyville, TN: Hotbed of American Muslims

      1. And Somalis! Libertarians, every one of them, ’cause roads!

        1. South-Eastern Tenn, I knew I hated that area.

  45. He’s starting to look like Lou Reed

    1. Naah. Not blue.

  46. Just say no to Coochbusters.

    1. Alright _Warren_, you are like Agile Cyborg lite, what the hell are you talking about with Coochbusters?

      1. The all-girl Ghostbusters reboot.

        1. You should have prefaced it with OT…..I am lost, is it out this weekend? Ecto Cooler spewing all over our faces and all we can do is say, “yeah, that’s the feminine e-ghoulu-ite”?

  47. So, the Irvine College Republicans can hold their next event in the conference room of any hotel in the vicinity.

    -jcr

    1. You’re sooooo racist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.