Brexit

Favorite #Brexit Prediction: Here Comes World War III, Suggests Rachel Maddow

Whatever else you can say about the U.K. leaving the European Union, it's created tons of apocalyptic scenarios.

|

The #Brexit hasn't just captivated the news over the weekend, it's led to all manner of apocalyptic scenarios being painted by folks sympathetic to the REMAIN position.

My favorite so far? Rachel Maddow's long monologue on her Friday show, where she effectively argues that the only thing standing athwart World War III is the European Union. Take a peek (and take a chill).

What's the most overblown response you've heard about #Brexit? Post it in the comments.

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.

241 responses to “Favorite #Brexit Prediction: Here Comes World War III, Suggests Rachel Maddow

  1. Salty Prog tears are delicious.

    1. Eh, not hers. I am glad there are tears, but hers are probably more like xenomorph blood.

    2. They come with a hell of a lot of obnoxious noise, though.

      -jcr

    3. Felix Salmon’s poetry of Butt-hurt simply cannot be topped

      This one is the best but just keep reading forward chronologically and prepare yourself for unimaginable glee

      twitter.com/felixsalmon/status/746186794429931522

  2. What’s the most overblown response you’ve heard about #Brexit?

    “Democracy doesn’t work.”

    1. Well, I mean, it doesn’t though.

      1. I’ll take democracy over other systems.

        1. You are better off letting your superiors make your life choices.

          1. As opposed to letting a slender majority of your inferiors make your life choices?

            1. Honest question – can you point to a different system of government that historically coincided with relatively similar levels of peace, prosperity, and respect for individual rights? I realize it’s not a totally fair comparison because the rise of democracy coincided with the industrial and technological revolutions, which are the root cause for our current level of wealth and comfort, but does anything really come close?

              None of which is to say that democracy is perfect, of course, but it also seems like we could do a lot worse.

              1. Republics. Certain forms of Monarchies (Comparatively, I’d rather have been a citizen of Persia than Athens in the Bronze Age). The Go?or? System.

                1. OK, so perhaps I should have stated democratic republics. But in practice, most small-r republican governments have strong democratic elements, even if indirect.

                  Monarchies and probably even the Icelandic system worked well for the well connected…for everyone else it was a crap shoot. Of course, our current system works best for the well connected, too, but I’d argue that the disparity between political elites “commoners” is much smaller in democratic republics.

                2. Democracy is tyranny of the 51%. Pretty much all other govt systems are tyranny of a smaller group instead.

                  Lucky for us in this particular constitutional republic, that smaller group has generally been smarter than the 51%. They might just as easily trapped us under a bunch of shit “rights” which are just as hard to change democratically as the good one they fortunately provided instead.

                  Ultimately it boils down to popular support for the leader though. Representative systems just make the transfer of power less bloody. Well unless Trump might win. Then “whatever means necessary” must be employed and all to retain that power.

          2. Mencken.

        2. I’ll take democracy over other systems.
          Exactly. The choice isn’t between democracy and Hugh’s perfect, imaginary alternative system.

          1. The catachresis where a representative republic with strong legal protections for individual rights is termed “democracy” not only irks, but is symptomatic with what is currently wrong with our society.

            1. Thanks for that word.

            2. what lee said

          2. You’ll notice that I didn’t posit an alternative system, perfect, imaginary, or otherwise. I merely pointed out that democratic institutions don’t perform as advertised.

            And when you get right down to it, “the choice” isn’t between democracy and something else, because I don’t have a choice and neither does anyone else. We try to live as best we can under whatever restrictions the powers that be see fit to enforce on us. From that perspective the distinctions between democracy, monarchy, oligarchy, etc are more theoretical than practical.

            1. In the real world, the choice actually is between democracy and “something else”. Because I have the ability to move to most places , and many f those places have varying forms of government.

              1. Different countries have different laws and different enforcement mechanisms. What are the practical differences between a kleptocratic autocracy and a country with democratic institutions and also the highest incarceration rate in the world?

                That is to say, what effect do you have on the laws and how they are enforced in the US vs Canada vs Turkey vs China vs Iran vs North Korea?

                1. “Different countries have different laws and different enforcement mechanisms.”

                  That isn’t so much a problem of democracy as it is a failure inherent to positivist legal doctrine.

                  Which is also the answer to your second ‘question.’

                  Because absent some objective standard these is simply no point trying to evaluate any such differences.

          3. You’ll take what you’re given. That doesn’t mean you have to pretend that what you’re given is good or moral.

        3. joe from lowell would agree!

    2. The progressives/left have gotten used to democracy equating to self interested voters awarding themselves wealth transfers. They aren’t ready for democracy to turn into self interested voters rejecting leftism/progressivism.

      1. Oh they are ready. Ready to declare every such act illegitimate, if not outright illegal.

    3. Generally my response in the debate over how other people should be making decisions for others is: “How about I make my own decisions? Trust me, that will work out best for both of us.”

    4. The Pope said something like Unity is always better than Conflict, as if those are the only possible options. But that was pretty tame compared to some of this other stuff.

      1. Somehow his holiness left out the most important part (and the part that would be most important to Jesus in all likelihood): the part of the unity that’s VOLUNTARY. Somehow he’s ok with compelled unity because it’s better than conflict.

        In that he is dead wrong as well as in conflict with the founder of his church.

        1. The Pope, and Catholicism in general, doesn’t appear to actually give a damn about Jesus so much as they give a damn about Catholicism in all fairness. They are what a fallen Theocracy looks like.

  3. Direct democracy is a bad thing.

    1. Sorry, that’s not an overblown reaction, it’s the truth. The ironic truth.

      1. democraticunderground has gone full retard over Brexit. The hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness on this issue is way beyond their normal levels of delusion.

        1. How many of them have moved to Canada yet? That’s the only thing I’m interested in. Their screeching and whining is just mild entertainment.

          1. The same number who, following their promises, moved to Canada when Bush was elected.

          2. Please, no, we have enough leftist fuckwits here as it is.

            No more, thanks.

            1. Give them some free land in Yukon or Northwest Territory. Make them stay there.

            2. Hey, you sent us Neil Young. We’re even.

              1. Do not forget Celine Dion. Never forget.

            3. And Shatner.

        2. Citation needed

      2. You are correct, it’s mob rule.

  4. I’m all for WWIII. Let’s wipe the slate clean with some nukes and start over.

    1. I don’t particularly care for that answer.

      If I got to pick the targets, I might be more inclined to support that course of action.

    2. Can we leave the Tsar Bombas in their silos please?

      1. The Tsar Bombas never had silos. They were air-dropped. The ICBM delivered warheads were all much smaller.

    3. Starting from a clean slate would require nuking from space.

      1. It’s the only way to be sure.

    4. Where is Abraham Lincoln when you need him?

      1. He chose the hole in the head.

        1. “Ugh, this play is terrible. Just shoot me already.”

  5. How stupid can you possibly be?

    Yeah, it’s totally likely that France and Germany are going to go at it again. Definitely more likely than the Middle East going full blown or China, Korea, and Japan getting into it. Or Pakistan and India firing it up again.

    Even if you think this will embolden Russia, their objectives are strategic and don’t appear bent on empire. And NATO still exists.

    What a dullard.

    1. Why do we assume Russia is just waiting in the wings to be evil.

      1. It’s just that Putin gives off Supervillain vibes.

        1. Yeah, but instead of building a secret lair under a volcano and threatening everyone with nukes, he just runs around with his shirt off and hunts lions and stuff.

          1. He doesn’t have to build the lair and hide the nuclear weapons; everybody knows he has them already. It’s the willingness to lie with total conviction that scares everybody (i.e. Russia has no troops in the Crimea).

      2. Habit. It’s ingrained into our culture at this point.

      3. Wait, they’re not already evil?

      4. “Why do we assume Russia is just waiting in the wings to be evil.”

        Because Hillary hit ‘reset’. Duh!

    2. It’s not like Madcow wouldn’t say the same thing if Trump got elected potus. From Canada, of course.

    3. Umm…so the Ukraine wants to know what a Russia bent on Empire would look like? Just for a friend, you understand.

  6. Rachel Maddow is batshit crazy.

    1. Rachel Maddow is a hack journalist, a tiresome pseudointellectual, and a risible partisan drone.

      1. But how do you really feel about her?

        1. Would.

          1. Dude. No no no no no. No.

            May I suggest…Robin Wright?

            1. She’s a bit past her use-by date.

              1. *revokes Renegade’s man card*

                24 hours of detention, sir. Slim, leggy blondes deserve our male gaze.

                1. Dude, she’s as wrinkled as Estelle Parsons.

                  1. I’d have said Estelle Getty, but agree in principle.

      2. “We’d be lost without her!”

        -HuffPo quote I pass by on my daily commute

  7. What about all the people who legitimately want to ban old people from voting?

    1. Yeah, right. 80 year olds shouldn’t be able to vote, but 16 year olds should. This makes one both a fascist and an idiot.

    2. Particularly ridiculous. I read the BBC article that dredged up all that “young people are whining on Twitter” nonsense.

      If anyone in the UK can remember a time before entry to the EU, it’s the older generations. They’re the only ones who have a real basis of comparison.

      In other words, “You have no frame of reference here, Donny.”

      This massive overreaction of doom and gloom forecasting is a good thing for the younger generations. When in a few years they get to see that the sky did not actually fall, and they’re going to be a lot more skeptical of prog fear mongering in general. It’s better for someone to experience first-hand the fact that most people are idiots before they develop too much political myopia to see it through their own prejudices.

  8. I found this (parody?) amusing:

    Hillary PR Team ?@OnMessageForHer Jun 24

    The UK just chose to rid itself of an unelected coterie of international bankers and bureaucrats. Let’s not make that same mistake here!

    1. That’s either excellent parody or the typical leftist cognitive dissonance on display.

  9. Read all of Felix Salmon’s stuff for an idea of what happens when Pajama Boy gets his own column:

    http://fusion.net/story/318538…..ed-us-all/

    “And I’m grieving. Because that world?the world of hope, the world of ever-closer union among countries which for centuries would kill each other by the million?came to a shattering end on Thursday. ”

    his Twitter is even funnier. People are such babies nowadays.

    1. Because of all those world wars that occurred between the end of World War II and the Maastricht Treaty forming the EU as we know it today in the early 90s will surely come again?

    2. Yeah, not being ruled over by unelected bureaucrats is a frightening thing. Are you sure that’s not really Obama using a sock account?

    3. the world of hope, the world of ever-closer union

      Geez what a pussy.

    4. iowahawk: “Holy crap, we’ve raised an entire generation who are terrified of not being ruled over.”

    5. Being a leftist really does boil down to hippy-dippy Lennonist crap for a lot of them.

  10. Hopefully Maddow gets drafted and shelled to death.

    1. Seconded, although she could easily parlay her credentials into a rear-echelon commission. And she wouldn’t go if she got drafted, anyway. Fighting wars is for commoners, not an intellectual of her prowess.

      1. I wouldn’t go if I got drafted.

        1. This is legitimately the only reason I would actually move to Canada. Although realistically, I’d choose a certain locale in South America first. At least they believe in Capitalism, I’m not certain Canada really does anymore.

        2. I joined voluntarily, but I oppose conscription, because I believe it diminishes espirit de corps.

          Maddow wouldn’t go because she thinks the military is for troglodytes.

  11. Some people (read: crimethinkers) shouldn’t be allowed to use democracy. Also, the only possible reason for supporting Brexit is racism.

    1. It’s time for some sensible measures, such as a background check and a waiting period before casting a ballot. And no more than five ballots per year. And no high capacity ballots.

      1. Don’t forget the racist Butterfly ballots! A plot by rethugs to disenfranchise poor, old, stupid jewish voters in Florida!

  12. Brexit is causing global warming. Or perhaps global warming caused Brexit. Look, whatever, either way it’s bad news.

    1. Both, I’m sure we’ll be hearing both soon.

    2. Either way it’s global warming! Hot? Cold? Hurricanes? No hurricanes? No rain? Too much rain? Just the right amount of rain? Snow? No snow? GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING.

      1. YES! Global warming!

        *Glances at teleprompter*

        I mean.. Climate change!

        *Aide rushes in, whispers in ear*

        “Global climate disruption”, are you sure? But the prompter says.. ok, ok, I get it. I wish they wouldn’t change it so often. It’s hard to keep up with what I’m supposed to say and think.

        GLOBAL CLIMATE DISRUPTION IS THE CAUSE.. right?

    3. Prog hearts are still not melting, though..

  13. also, all of those obviously made-up stories on Twitter about how groups of yobs are going around basically harassing Muslims over the Leave Vote. they’re the equivalent of those Tumblr stores where the intergender queer heroine tells off a guy in the Olive Garden and the whole restaurant claps.

    1. made-up stories

      In a similar vein, the “regrexit” folks claiming they were tricked to vote the “wrong” way.

  14. The Progressive Left’s Cognitive Dissonance/ Paradox: When the European Union a couple of years ago wanted to force the Greek government to take some unpopular measures as a condition for a bail out, the Progressive Left cried that the EU was nothing more than a Neo-Liberal entity that infringed on the sovereignty of the Greek people and unjustly forced them to accept measures that the voters of Greece never approved of.

    Fast forward to Friday, June 24, 2016 and now the Progressive Left is crying that the UK and their voters were awful to not allow the European Union to keep on forcing them to give up their sovereignty when it came to economic/trade regulation, immigration, and fiscal policies.

    1. Apparent privilege levels determine their opinions on everything.

    2. I’d forgotten about that, Ed. Excellent point.

    3. Perfect. I want to bear all your children.

    4. “a couple of years ago”

      I think you meant to say ‘slightly less than one year ago.’

      http://www.reuters.com/news/pi…..USRTX1KFHV

      Amazing how last summer seems so far away…

      1. wonder what next summer will bring?

  15. An Asian land war has already started…

    …in my pants.

    1. If Rachel Maddow is provoking that kind of reaction, I strongly suggest you seek professional help, quickly.

      1. I have a friend who’s in lust with Anne Coulter. I didn’t think it could get any worse than that.

        I was wrong. :shudder:

        1. BEing unwilling to copulate with Maddow is, in all serious, far less a function of her looks than it is of her being an execrable collectivist, and a creepy partisan opinion spinner. I find her so loathsome that sex with her would be like swimming in vomit.

  16. I wouldn’t trust the elites who backed staying in the EU to go through with leaving, really.

    If Obama were the prime minister, he wouldn’t just drag his feet. He’s sabotage the exit process at every opportunity.

    1. Cameron tendered his resignation.

      1. And so the rest of the elites can be trusted to work diligently and honestly towards exiting the EU?

        1. At least half the parties involved want to speed up the process to make it as painful as possible. They’re on the EU side.

        2. Count on the new aristocracy to punish the Brits if they really do try to go through with this thing.

          No way they can risk Britain leaving and a couple years down the road doing better for it.

          That would be disastrous for the aristoi and they simply will not allow it to happen.

  17. Obligatory

    This week, your imaginary girlfriend is Rachel Maddow.

    She’s just picked up the New York Times crossword puzzle and is rolling a chewed up pencil between her fingers. You chuckle to yourself. She could use a sharpie and it wouldn’t make a difference. She never gets an answer wrong.

    You glance at the clock before going back to preparing breakfast. 8:36AM. You can’t believe you got her to sleep so late ? usually she’s up by 6.

    You distract yourself with the pancake batter until you hear the telltale click of her pencil on the table top. 8:50AM. It only took her 14 minutes to finish the entire crossword.

    Sitting down across from her, you reach for the paper to examine her work and jokingly click your tongue. “Last weekend, it only took you 12 minutes. You’re slipping, Rachel Maddow.”

    1. *maddening screams echo within skull*

      GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT

    2. *maddening screams echo within skull*

      GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT

    3. Now let’s get a Sugarfree version, please.

    4. A woman wrote that, right?

      *clicks link*

      Well, blow me down.

      1. Suthen, I have a policy against clicking on a link to any site owned by gawker.

        Might I interest you in a similar position?

    5. You take a closer look at the puzzle – something’s not right. “Uh, Rachel Maddow, you just filled in every answer with ‘Eleanor Roosevelt,’ didn’t you? You did! Look at this.”

      She is giving you That Look, the icy dagger glare that will brook no challenge, no dissent. It used to hurt. It used to warn you off. Somehow, this morning, you no longer care.

      “‘Eleanor Roosevelt’ doesn’t even fit in most of the spaces. You doubled up a bunch of the letters in the boxes. That is asinine, Rachel Maddow. You’re always trying to cram your opinions into every little-”

      “FUCK YOU!” she screams as her wiry arms strain to flip the table. A valiant effort on her part – her half-full cup of coffee (black, Costa Rican, fair trade) very nearly spills. “GAH!” she snarls.

      You dump the still-uncooked pancakes into the garbage and make yourself scarce. When you come back hours later, she won’t talk to you. She’s still not talking to you three days later, when you find out she slept with your sister under an assumed name.

      1. *rises to begin prolonged ovation*

        1. All these euphemisms…

    6. You’re slipping, Rachel Maddow.

      I don’t know what everyone’s problem is, I think this is probably a very realistic portrayal of Rachel Maddow’s lesbian relationship, down to the tiniest detail…such as Rachel Maddow’s lesbian lover calling her by her first and last name in even the most casual of encounters.

  18. In the wake of the Orlando Massacre (seems like ancient history already doesn’t it?), I was tweaking the noses of social conservatives around here for suddenly caring so much about the rights and treatment of gay people. It wasn’t just listening to them talk about how we had to go fight for the rights of gay people in Syria, either; it was also listening to them go after Muslims for being so intolerant of gays.

    Funny how a news story can do that!

    I suppose we should also laugh our asses off at progressives, now, who are suddenly horrified at the prospect of Europe losing the benefits of free trade. Doesn’t the UK realize how awful it is when a country is deprived of the benefits of free trade?

    LOL

    I swear. If we bombed a school for girls in Syria, ISIS might start pontificating on the importance of young girls getting a good education.

    Nothing like that surprises me anymore.

    1. Garsh, Ken. Thinking gay people are immoral and shouldn’t get married is just inextricable from wanting them gunned down in cold blood.

      1. Listening to social conservatives denounce Muslims everywhere for being anti-gay is hilarious in the same way that listening to progressive tout the benefits of free trade is hilarious, yeah.

        1. Ken, I normally like you, but lately, you’ve been an insufferable cunt.

          1. Mr AUH20, you have, with that comment, doomed us to a 1,000 years of progressive rule. I hope you are proud of yourself.

            1. I am.

          2. Up yours, Je Suis Reason!

            For someone with a name like Je Suis Reason, . . .

            1. Things are rough all over, Ken. H&R has been a harsher-than-usual place for the past year or so. And I generally consider this place among the harshest to be a commenter, among sites that allow actual argumentation and unmoderated debate. Mostly because I feel like so many people here are just smarter than me.

              I find you reasoned and polite, though I don’t always agree with you. You are good at presenting an argument without emotion, though they tend toward prolixity.

              So, not a cunt. I have spoken.

        2. Welcome to Tribal Politics 101, a Celebration. No, gays aren’t a conservative tribe. They don’t fall into the conservative ambit. So what? It’s not much of a stretch to say that maybe the schizophrenia of lefty tribal politics is bad for gays, even if it contrasts with the relatively milquetoast positions conservatives take on gay issues.

        3. Listening to social conservatives denounce Muslims everywhere for being anti-gay

          And again, you elide “thinking gay people are immoral and shouldn’t get married” with “wanting them gunned down in cold blood”.

          1. Now, conservatives concern trolling on women’s health with regard to abortion clinics is hilarious. Kevin Williamson is an ardent pro-lifer and fully admits the hypocrisy in the effort among pro-life groups to spare women from prosecution, since they’re “victims”, not patients, of abortion providers. It’s just politics, he says. Perhaps the conservative response to Orlando is “just politics,” but it’s rather less “just politics” than the left’s theatrics and Ken is grasping at straws thinking it’s comparable in the slightest.

            1. Now, conservatives concern trolling on women’s health with regard to abortion clinics is hilarious.

              Agreed.

          2. I don’t know, “thinking gay people are immoral” seems pretty anti-gay.

          3. What the fuck does the government have to do with enforcing marriage, again? Could you point to me that moral imperative because I’m not seeing it.

            I don’t care if you marry a Horse, personally. What right does the government have to decide your level of taxation based upon an arbitrary measure like married or unmarried? Maybe if your tax status didn’t depend on your marital status gay people never would have gone on that crusade, huh?

            This has always been a religious issue in my mind, and so far I haven’t seen any real compelling argument that makes this a matter of government. If the Mega-Pope doesn’t want to make you Super-Married, then it’s not the business of the United States Federal Government one way or the other. Go get married at the Lackadaisical Happy-Fun Cosmochurch instead, they’ll marry your pig to uncle in under five minutes.

            1. Also, just to add here, the government can and does decide these idiot notions of what gets taxed in which way. It just stands to reason that the simple solution was to say ‘nope, we’re out of the marriage game’ instead of doubling down and saying “Well, if enough people want to marry ‘x’ and throw a big enough trantrum we’ll add them to the list of ‘approved matings’.”

              This is one of the more disgusting overreaches by the government if you ask me. They are literally reaching directly into your bedroom and your wallet at the exact same time and people thank them for it.

          4. “And again, you elide “thinking gay people are immoral and shouldn’t get married” with “wanting them gunned down in cold blood”.

            At no point have I made any such comparison.

            I suppose social conservatives are making that comparison–just the other way around. They assume that because 49 gay people were murdered, everyone’s going to forget how social conservatives feel about gays.

            The other thing that may be getting lost in the translation here is that I’m not necessarily going for some kind of philosophically sound justification for laughing at social conservatives for their ridiculous hypocrisy.

            I’m pointing to a good reason to laugh at social conservatives–maybe even without the philosophical justification for doing so. Watching social conservatives complain about the mistreatment of gays is funny in its own right. I’m not sure you guys are getting that.

            1. Watching nihilists complain about how something isn’t fair is funny. Don’t take my word for it–ask the Cohen brothers. Watching social conservatives try to pull at people’s heartstrings because they care so much about gay people and their rights is hilarious, too. Watching progressives cry over the loss of free trade is also laugh-worthy.

              It’s true that two things don’t have to be the same in every way in order to justify an analogy–just the aspects that are being compared need to be the same. Someone might say that women are like flowers because, like flowers, they’re all beautiful in their own way–and that analogy is still valid even if, unlike flowers, women don’t use photosynthesis.

              Saying that social conservatives are funny for suddenly defending the rights and treatment of gays in the same way that progressives are funny in suddenly whining about the loss of free trade–is a perfectly valid comparison.

              That being said, even if it weren’t logically valid, it would still be funny as hell. Next time a social conservative tells you how worried he is about teh ghays, try not to laugh! I bet you can’t.

          5. So, is it therefore Ken’s Corollary that you are only ‘anti-gay’ if you wish to see gays killed for being gay?

            1. WTF are you talking about?

              What is this like, Burroughs’ cut-up technique?

              You just put Ken and whatever other words you want to use in a big pile and just randomly generate sentences, and post them on the internet?

              HTF did you get that?

      2. In his defense, I remember a time about 20-30 yrs. ago when American Corporate Colonialism was *the* evil in the world. McDonalds, Nike, and Coke were going to stamp out every last remnant of individual culture and nationality the world over.

        Now that the Brits have definitively said, “We’d rather be Brits than Europeans and we’d rather be nothing than be a part of something involuntarily.” they’re all backwards, racist bigots.

        1. Those two stances are entirely consistant if you view them from a position that assumes western culture to be an evil in need of purging.

          1. And that’s the point I took Ken Schultz to be making. Not so much what RCD was saying about the specific ‘gay/christian’ inconsistency as much as the ‘purge the (conservative/economic) West’ one.

        2. Yes, the halcyon days when Jos? Bov? was feted throughout the leftist media for destroying a McDonald’s in France.

    2. I was tweaking the noses of social conservatives around here for suddenly caring so much about the rights and treatment of gay people.

      What rights, besides those cut from whole cloth by the Supreme Court, were gays previously lacking or did conservatives wish to take away?

      You’re really going to compare a parochial view on marriage with throwing acid in the faces of young girls who dare defy Taliban edicts?

      1. Well, some of the more outre evangelical guys did really give aid and comfort to African evangelicals who managed to get legilation in various African countries makeing homosexuality a capital crime or a major felony. Those guys as far as I can tell think that Omar’s actions were understandable in face of the gay agenda. I haven’t seen them highlight Islam’s deadly attitude towards homosexuality as being a problem with Islam.

        Most of the socons I’ve encountered are the “hate the sin, love the sinner” variety; and there is nothing hypocritical about their opposition to gay marriage and their outrage and Islamists throwing gay people off of buildings to their death.

        Perhaps Ken runs around in more virulently homophobic circles than I do…

        1. But Ken’s talking specifically about the “thoughts and prayers” crowd. Who among them compares even slightly with the sort of savage who thinks it fit to throw gays off buildings? Because they think buggering is immoral and their conception of marriage shouldn’t be perverted to fit with the modern progressive ethos?

          1. Thinking adultery is a sin = cheering savages throwing rocks at women accused of being sluts.

          2. “But Ken’s talking specifically about the “thoughts and prayers” crowd. Who among them compares even slightly with the sort of savage who thinks it fit to throw gays off buildings?”

            Yeah, that’s exactly what I said, too. I said that throwing gays off of buildings and being against gay marriage are the exact same thing. It’s all there in black and white. It’s a direct quote even!

            Actually, I never said anything like that at all. Those are voices in your head.

            1. No, you’re suggesting opposition to one invalidates the other. In reality, one of these things dwarfs the other. It’s possible to maintain two simultaneous thoughts such as gays shouldn’t be murdered even if I don’t like their getting married.

              Even if you’re right and conservatives are simply being disingenuous because it suits them, how are they wrong? The left pivoted immediately on the subject to gun control. This is what they do: when one of their tribes no longer suits the progressive cause, they toss them off. White feminists are subordinate to feminist POCs, feminists generally are subordinate to the transgendered, and now gays must subordinate to Muslims. Conservatives are right to call them on their hypocrisy.

              1. “No, you’re suggesting opposition to one invalidates the other.”

                I’m laughing at social conservatives for trying to pull my heart strings with something they’ve been dragging through the gutter for decades, yeah. I wasn’t willing to go to war in Syria or against Muslims everywhere before the Orlando Massacre–and there isn’t anything about the way social conservatives suddenly care about the way gay people are treated that changes any of that. In fact, all that strategy gets from me is laughter.

                Remember that part in The Big Lebowski when the Nihilists complain that something isn’t fair?

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6oW6a0iAw

                That’s funny for the same reason.

                The same reason progressives are funny when they suddenly care all about free trade.

                1. You keep saying “how gays are treated,” like they’re routinely being dragged behind pickup trucks and left to die tied to fences in the remote back country.

                  You mean “how gays are treated” when they ask a baker to do something the baker finds repugnant? Or “how gays are treated” when televangelists say mean things about them? “How gays are treated” when the privilege of getting married has to be sanctified by the Supreme Court rather than occurring legislatively, or when nasty old conservatives feel like the word is being redefined the suit a political interest in never previously had?

                  All of these things are risible, but none rises to the level of antipathy you’re trying to associate with them.

                  1. You keep insisting on making comparisons that don’t have anything to do with it.

                    I’m laughing in the face of social conservatives for their pathetic attempts to pull at my heart strings. If they can play your heart like a harp, what does that have to do with me?

                    You don’t like me making of you for being so easily played like a harp? Is that it?

                    Too bad! If that’s what it is, it is what it is.

                    And when social conservatives tell me we should do something stupid because they care about gays, I’m going to continue to laugh in their faces.

                    Just like I’ll laugh at progressives bemoaning the fate of free trade.

                    These are progressive “never let a crisis go to waste” tactics. I laugh in Obama’s face when he uses them, and I laugh when the social conservatives use them, too.

                    1. And I gave you a much more apt comparison up above vis-a-vis abortion. My heartstrings remain unpulled as far as the gays in Orlando are concerned: I didn’t know any of them. I suspect most of those you’re smearing as disingenuous hypocrites have a similar response. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong to call out the motive of the killer or the motives of lefties who are trying desperately to pivot this shitshow toward comfortable ground.

                    2. Your comparisons aren’t my comparisons.

                      You’re objecting to me making comparisons that I never made.

                      It’s all in your head!

                      What, did you go around bashing gay marriage and then start advocating for gay rights after the Orlando Massacre or something?

                      The voice in your head isn’t me.

                    3. “You keep insisting on making comparisons that don’t have anything to do with it.”

                      Pot meets Kettle; a (NTTAWWT) Love Story

      2. I like freedom of speech. I think it’s important. So important, in fact, that I’ll stand up for the free speech rights of Nazis.

        I still think it’s hilarious when Nazis complain about freedom of speech.

        Like social conservatives worried about the way gay people are treated.

        Like progressives worried about losing the benefits of free trade.

        1. Yep, people who are opposed to sins like murder are so hilarious when they complain about it.

          Naturally, they are far more hilarious than people who claim to be in favor of free speech who nevertheless demand people eliminate from their vocabulary certain moderately obscene epithets that are commonly-used to dismissively refer to annoying people.

          1. At some point, it becomes a Monty Python routine.

            It isn’t just that we suddenly have to invade and occupy Syria because ISIS hates gays. It’s also a question of how seriously you can take people who were smearing gays as the new communist plot only hours before–only to now profess that saving them from the intolerant is now our prime directive.

            It’s the same thing with progressives and free trade. If Tony shows up in a couple of minutes to tell how awful it is that the English will now suffer for a lack of free trade, who here won’t laugh in his face? That he might be right about free trade in this instance is beside the point–look everybody! Tony is now all about free trade?!

            LO freakin’ L!

            1. White supremacists are provincial mongoloid shitheads. Pretty sure I don’t like seeing them stabbed at rallies by so-called “anti-fascists.” Am I EL OH FREAKIN’ EL-worthy?

              1. In fact, I’ll go one further. I don’t think they add anything of substance to the human experience. They are on net a drain on human aspiration. Life in the abstract sense would be better served by their not only dying off but never having existed in the first place. I oppose their continuing to draw breath with every fiber of my being. But I would not raise a hand against them nor do I abide anyone else doing so. LOL-worthy, yet?

              2. To be fair, the Neo-Nazis were the ones doing most of the stabbings: with 6 counter-protestors stabbed to their 1. From what I saw, the soi-disant anti-fascists preferred to slam, with full force, 2 x 4s into the heads of fallen and presumably disarmed provincial mongoloid shitheads.

                1. Okay, but who can argue with a good time?

                2. It is entirely possible to not feel too badly for either side.

                3. Interesting stats.

                  Plenty of people carry pocket knives as a daily habit.

                  Bringing 2x4s to a ‘protest’ would seem to belie any peaceful intent.

  19. The Eurocrats think they are going to ignore the will of the people and overturn this. Now 8 more countries are threatening to lave. No way their foolish plans are going to backfire. Idiots.

    Perhaps the funniest thing is that Scotland think they are going to overturn it. So cut them loose from the UK and let them pay their dues to big daddy EU, all by themselves. Here comes Greece #2.

    1. Seems like a bunch of good stuff to me. Britain breaks up over member-states wanting to stay in the EU. EU breaks up because it’s breaking up now. At the end of the day, we’re left with smaller, independent states.

      1. Tremble at the might of Unterfranken, heathens!

  20. Rhodes Scholar ladies and gentlemen. Rhodes. Scholar.

  21. she effectively argues that the only thing standing athwart World War III

    Nope, the thing that has prevented WW3, and continues to do so, is mutually-assured destruction. Nuclear powers can’t fight each other except through proxies far removed from their home territories.

    -jcr

    1. +1 Van Creveld

  22. But she’s our intellectual better! We should listen to her and stuff! She’s so smart and presents information objectively!

  23. The EU was created, at root, to prevent another European war.

    I suspect, though, that if it continues, it will merely make the next European war a civil war. And those are always so much better.

    1. Part of it but it’s main reason was to thwart American hegemony.

      1. If they want to thwart American hegemony, why not dissolve NATO for a start?

        1. And pay for their own defense?!

          Not without a vetted army of EU-loyal mercenaries first. A force that can put those pesky proles into their place without conerns about nationalist tendencies making them question orders.

  24. Not necessarily my favorite but quite surprised to see someone at AEI call Brexit Britain’s Day of Infamy.

  25. The funny thing is, there is no fundamental reason the EU and the UK can’t have bilateral agreements that replace everything that is good about the EU without taking on the bureaucratic baggage. But that will never happen.

    1. You know who the EU has no trade deal with?

      China.

      Yet, Chinese goods abound on European warehouses, and European goods abound in Chinese warehouses.

      1. And India I believe?

        Which is retarded when you think of it.

    2. The other funny thing is that the French, at least – maybe others – didn’t want the UK in Common Market in the first place.

      1. Mainly the French led by DeGaulle.

      2. The left vehemently opposed the common market. It represented nothing but greed and immoral profits. Demographics switched sides when it became about market regulation.

        They claim to be upset about the loss of a free market.

        If you want to have fun, point out the Scandinavian and the Schengen partnerships to them and how they provide the same benefits without the bureaucracy.

    3. I was thinking about that, and my fear is that the EU would want to make leaving hurt for the encouragement of the others who might consider leaving.
      Think Obama administration priorities during the sequestration.

  26. I notice all of the right-thinking folks are sticking to the notion that the whole thing was a mistake. Note the number of news stories popping up on air focusing on the four or five Brits to be found who regret their “leave” votes. This was the follow-up talking point after the initial “the people are racist morons” temper tantrum.

    Also, as noted above, democracy is only legitimate when progs get what they want. Hey assholes, “this is what democracy looks like.” Or, in the immortal words of our friend from Lowell, “trust democracy.”

    1. I don’t think that the proggies realize that everyone can see what they are doing.

      For me, at least, it hurts my trust in them and their ability to accept defeat- and the trust in that is and has been one of the keys to peaceful hand over of power in a democracies. The idea that the other side will also play by the rules is important. The idiots probably don’t want to see the consequences of what destroying that belief may be.

      Then again, progs worldwide are kind of moving into the “dangerous to democracy” camp. Starts with the free speech stuff on campus’, now you have Brexit…. like, these fucks are starting to make me wonder if some kind of more organized action is needed.

      1. This. The proggies eventually shoot themselves in the foot.

      2. Why did you have any trust in their ability to accept defeat and play by the rule in the first place? The organizing principle of progdom is power. First, last, and always, power for the sake of power. Everything they believe in and everything they do is to expand the power of the state over individuals. They will tell any lie necessary to achieve that power, and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way and tries to deny them power.

    2. “I notice all of the right-thinking folks are sticking to the notion that the whole thing was a mistake”

      A mistake? You mean that the British used confusing butterfly ballots, and that voters who intended to vote “remain” mistakenly voted for Patrick Buchanan instead?

  27. I think most proggies are upset because the Donald likes the Brexit. If he hadn’t said anything or gone to that golf course in Scotland, there would be a lot less pants shitting on the left.

    My wife and others now think that this means he will win in November. I strongly disagree…

    1. Yeah, some of this is defintely a, “Trump and Palin are for it, I don’t follow British politics, it must be a bad thing…”

      Like, here’s the thing: I don’t intensely follow British politics, but I do keep up on national news and I understand, mostly from tv shows like Thick of It and Yes Minister, the contours of the British system (I fall apart with local, council stuff which I have no idea apart. Just like I don’t quite get the federal nature of the German system). I also can read.

      All of the above is a long way of saying- holy fuck are most Americans willing to spout off about politics with little to no knowledge. Like, you can google how a new PM is determined before you comment on it, people. The information is pretty easily available.

      Lastly, while I was at Gawker drinking their salty ham tears over this, I noticed a lot of them asking Brexit to be explained by their fellow Gawkerites, especially those from Britain. Now, me- I’ll ask you lot to introduce me to a subject or deepen my knowledge, but I also go in assuming you are all biased and to actually understand the issue I need to independently research it. That uh… that doesn’t seem to happen on Prog Social Media. For all their claims of intelligence, their standard of truth isn’t much higher than, “Heard it from a man in the pub.”

  28. All of the rich pensioners of the UK came together and voted “Leave” thereby forcing the youth of the UK into poverty and near financial slavery via increased taxation needed to fund old age.

  29. What’s the most overblown response you’ve heard about #Brexit?

    An “expert” (some foreign affairs journalist) on a radio show explaining that the results reflect a rise in the British equivalent of Trump voters: rural, unsophisticated, redneck ignoramuses who hate immigrants, hate global trade, and desperately want their long-gone blue collar jobs to come back. Basically, Bernie voters but without the cool cache.

    I was thinking, “Really?! I bet you never even heard of anything like a libertarian perspective.”

    It is so odd how everything can be reduced to a TEAM BLUE vs TEAM RED scenario for some people, even outside of the U.S.

    1. The biggest Bexiteers I’ve heard from were arguing that Britain needed to retain their soverignty and not hand it over to the Eurocrats.

      The only blue collar Brexiteers talking about jobs were the people who were barred from their profession by EU rules, ie the fishermen told they couldn’t fish just a few miles from the English coast anymore. Or the sugar refinery whose business bottomed out because of protectionary tarriffs on cane sugar to protect sugar beet growers on the continent.

    2. I was thinking, “Really?! I bet you never even heard of anything like a libertarian perspective.”

      Not necessarily even a libertarian perspective but their own perspective just 20-30 yrs. ago when Amercian Corporate Colonialism was inherently evil and taking over everything.

  30. I think we have some division brewing between the technocratic progs and the bernie sanders progs.

  31. The pound has dropped more than 10% since the vote, and stocks and every other financial instrument in the UK are following suit. Rachel Maddow is seldom right, but markets are never wrong, right?

    1. If the pound is dropping, that means that the dollar is gaining, doesn’t it?

      And if the prices of British securities are falling, doesn’t that mean that investors will seek investment opportunities that are perceived as more secure, such as American securities?

      So what possible reason would an American have to be upset about Rex it are falling, doesn’t that mean that investors will seek investment opportunities that are perceived as more secure, such as American securities?

      So what possible reason would an American have to be upset about Brexit?

      1. Damn voice function…

      2. Actually, if I had the spare money, I’d be buying into the now undervalued British markets to cash in on the rebound.

        1. And while you’d probably make a decent return over the next coupe years, you’d hardly make a killing.

          Which shows just how badly certain people are shitting the bed with all this talk of ‘panic.’

    2. Short-term volatility is driven by emotion, Anal. If anyone is throwing a temper tantrum over Brexit, its the City.

      Its in the long run that markets are superior to bureaucratic diktat, every single time.

      1. Also: investors trying to make money on short-term fluctuations are acting not on the basis of underlying economic fundamentals, but on the basis of their anticipation of how others will react to events. Thus, , the drop in the pound and in the prices of British securities should be viewed in this light.

    3. It has been two fucking trading days.

    4. markets are never wrong

      The market isn’t “wrong” (it just is), you however are an idiot.

    5. From the NYT:

      Prime Minister David Cameron and the former London mayor Boris Johnson … both signaled on Monday that they hoped Britain could, while leaving the European Union, somehow maintain access to its signature achievement: the world’s largest common market.

      But as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy met to discuss the fallout from the British referendum, there were no signs that the European Union would let Britain off the hook so easily.

      The few countries that have been given access to the European free-trade zone without joining the bloc … all contribute to the European Union’s budget and accept its bedrock principle of free movement of workers, the very issues that angered so many of the Britons who voted to leave in Thursday’s referendum.

      . . .

      George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer and effectively the No. 2 figure in the government, tried to calm the markets, citing Britain’s underlying economic strengths, the greater resilience of its financial system after the 2007-8 crisis, and the readiness of the Bank of England to step in. But the markets did not seem assuaged. British and American stocks fell, as did the pound, and S&P downgraded Britain’s credit rating.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06…..v=top-news

      Fasten your seatbelts, reasonettes. It’s going to be a bumpy flight.

      1. Bingo. This is the point where every EU nation begins to realize that they really do have some means for pushing back against Brussels, and that Article 50, or merely the threat of Article 50 will be a way for nations to carve out all manner of side deals.

        EU Mark I is over. Mark II soon to follow.

  32. I disregard the words of raving lunatics from cable news networks with low ratings.

    The Economist magazine, however, has been in full-on “end of the world as we know it” mode for days now. That is my candidate for favorite overreaction.

    A close second is WINS news radio in New York. This morning it offered a story about Adelle burping in front of a live microphone at the Glastonbury music festival. According to the news reader, the festival “was held as scheduled despite the Brexit vote.”

    1. 1010 WINS? You give us ten minutes, we’ll give you the world? That WINS?

      1. It’s 22 minutes. Traffic on the 1’s.

      2. Yes, that one. “You give us 30 minutes, we will give you a half hour.”

      3. They’re so old-school you can hear the typewriters in the background.

    2. And right on cue to prove my point comes this email today from the Economist:

      Daily Dispatch | Monday | June 27th 2016

      Brexit aftershocks: A country at sea
      At the top of British politics, the phones are ringing, but no one is picking up. The opposition Labour Party has imploded. The Leavers, who disagreed on what Brexit should look like, do not think it is their responsibility to set out a plan. The government seems to have done little to plan for this eventuality. This could go on for a while. The Conservative leadership contest could last until early October. It may be almost as long until Labour has a new chief, and even then he or she may be a caretaker. A new general election is possible. It might be 2017 before Britain has a leader capable of addressing the crises now engulfing it. The country does not have that kind of time. Britain is sailing into a storm. And no one is at the helm, writes our British politics columnist

      1. At the top of British politics, the phones are ringing, but no one is picking up.

        I wish we had it so good in the US.

  33. The stupidest thing I’ve heard is people insisting that it was important that Britain suffer as a result of Brexit (to deter others). And this was coming from a British source.

    1. I like the official statement that the Brexit needs to be simultaneously swift and painful. Swift to prevent protracted market uncertainty and painful to prevent other EU members from considering leaving.

      Which just shows the cognitive dissonance, IMO; “They opted out of a slow bloodletting, we need to make sure to give them a swift, hard kick in the groin!”

    2. You know who else thought it was important the people suffered for their lack of vision?

  34. BTW, did anyone see Aziz Ansari’s op-ed in the NY Times?

    I can’t copy paste it for some reason (Something with the Times site?) but it was a lot of, “Muslims don’t deserve blame for terrorism and being against Muslim is racist” (because Muslim now equals brown? I mean, I get to Trump it might, but there are people who realize it isn’t a race- but it sure as shit is a religion, a set of beliefs) and “White males commit mass shootings” and “We should keep guns out of people’s hands, with the terrorist watch list, and if that hoovers up extra white males good.”

    Firstly, he does realize that a terrorist watch list is going to hurt Muslims the most, right? That they are going to be most likely to be accidently stripped of a fundamental right? I get it- Aziz probably doesn’t think it’s a right. But then have the balls to admit that, dude.

    Secondly, I get so tired of celebrities doing this shit. I want to like Ansari- he’s funny in the stuff he does that doesn’t have shit to do with politics. Furthermore, I take improv classes in LA, I plan to keep at it- while slim, there is a nonzero chance that one day, maybe, my big break is sitting there, but to get it, I have to work with Lena Dunham or Ansair. And I would still do it, because you take the shots you get, but the more time goes by, the more celebrities get added to my mental, “Grind my teeth if I ever had to deal with them in real life”-list.

  35. My favorite so far? Rachel Maddow’s long monologue on her Friday show, where she effectively argues that the only thing standing athwart World War III is the European Union

    But remember, only people like Breitbart are insane.

  36. My favorite reaction so far comes from “Front Row Amy” Williams. Diehard baseball fans would recognize her as the woman who is often seen sitting by herself directly behind home plate at Milwaukee Brewers home games and enjoys showing off her big boobs to the TV audience:

    “I’ve gained more knowledge on #Brexit. Last night I was concerned. Today I’m terrified. #IgnoranceIsBliss”

    Honey, you really shouldn’t believe everything you read and hear in the media, it makes you sound ridiculous. Do us all a favor and opine less, however by all means please feel free to keep showing off those big boobs (if I were the commissioner, I’d sign you to a contract to tour ballparks nationally all year).

  37. Say what you will about the progressive Left, they do propaganda right.

    This was a particularly good specimen by Maddow. This sort of propaganda would be way more effective than the old Left’s and light-years ahead of anything by conservatives and libertarians. The only problem is that it was on MSNBC, so nobody was watching.

    1. Is anyone outside this commentariat paying attention to her?

  38. I heard with the Brexit that we’re all going to have to learn new zip codes.

  39. Idle rumination: in ten years, when it’s obvious that Brexit was an uber smart thing to do, will we be able to find anyone who voted to remain? I have the same question about finding any global warming alarmists in 20 years.

    1. You mean, like the people who insisted that the division of Europe between a capitalist West and Soviet-dominated East is permanent, and that Reagan would cause World War III by suggesting otherwise?

  40. For a collection of the stupidest Brexit hysteria, there’s no better place than the Guardian.

  41. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN GERMANY RETREATED FROM THE WORLD

    1. We got awesome “Downfall” videos?

    2. No Roman legion ever crossed the Rhine again?

  42. Further evidence of hysteria: the Wall Street Journal reports that Standard & Poor’s has downgraded Britain’s AAA rating due to Brexit.

    This, of course, being the same Standard & Poor’s that gave high ratings to all those banks that invested in subprime mortgages.

    1. I’ve downgraded my rating of Standard & Poor’s from “Meh” to “Fuck Off.”

  43. https://youtu.be/iRAU6hODSck

    This was humorous, it was sort of satirizing apocalyptic sentiment, but ultimately endorsing it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.