Terrorism

Truck Used in Terror Attack in Nice, France, That Killed Dozens on Bastille Day [UPDATED]

|

A Bastille Day celebration in Nice, France, was attacked by someone in a truck deliberately driving through a crowd, reportedly killing at least 30 people, accelerating as he did so.

PHOTOPQR/NICE MATIN/MAXPPP/Newscom.com

The attack happened at "the Promenade des Anglais, a seaside walk in center of the city" according to a Washington Post report relying on French sources. 

An American witness told CNN that the truck was a tractor trailer and reported hearing gunfire as well, though it was uncertain whether that was coming from or at the truck.

UPDATE: CNN now reporting as many as 60 dead in its headlines, though not in body of story yet, and likely 100 injured, and a definite exchange of gunfire between occupants of the truck and police.

UPDATE II: Associated Press reports a singular driver, armed with guns and grenades, killed by police. Does not clarify the apparently still open question of whether there was anyone else in vehicle, which CNN indicated. The earlier eyewitness report indicated occupants plural has been changed by CNN; apparently just the one driver.

UPDATE III As is typical in the early heat of reporting about chaotic situations, the current CNN story post has the contradictory details that "The attack in Nice, France, began when an occupant of the truck shot into the crowd and then drove for 2 kilometers along the pavement…" and that "The individual, a male, was killed by police and it does not appear there was any gunfire from the truck, according to the official" (said official a U.S. official briefed by a French one).

UPDATE IV: Death toll currently at 73. 77. 84.

UPDATE V: That the driver shot first before killing dozens with his truck is being reported as fact according to regional President Christian Estrosi as reported by CNN. French President Francois Hollande has announced a national state of emergency in response to terror, that was scheduled to end later in July, will instead go on for another three months. No one has yet claimed responsibility as of around 7:45 p.m. pacific as this is written, and the I.D. of a 31-year-old French Tunisian resident of Nice was reported found in the truck, though authorities have not yet named the dead driver.

UPDATE VI: The driver has been identified, CNN reports, as Mohamad Lahouaiej Bouhel.

NEXT: Fear of a Fried Chicken

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. Parlez vous terrorism?

    1. I am so frustrated and saddened by this. I have had this conversation for years… What stops a dump truck or concrete truck from running into a crowd. I always use this very example as to why banning firearms would never work. Whats next banning crowds in public? I am seeing red. Why don’t the progressives understand this?

      1. To the “progressive” mind, guns in private hands represent an act of defiance, and the sort of power that shouldn’t be entrusted to someone who’s not employed by the state and serving the interests of the state. That’s why 10 people killed in a mass shooting will always draw their ire in a way that 100 killed by a truck, or 200 killed with a bomb, never will.

        1. Unfortunately, you’re right. This will get some attention for a couple days, then drop off.

          It won’t get the same attention as the Paris attacks because the weapon was a truck.

          1. Maybe I’m remembering it wrong, but it seems to me the Paris attacks didn’t get their ire up as much either, presumably because guns are already illegal there. See, they’re not all that interested in fewer deaths, and they know bad guys will always get whatever guns they want in order to commit whatever atrocities they please. They just want a blanket prohibition on private gun ownership because it comports with their vision of an orderly, dependent, and properly obedient society.

          2. Progressives seem to forget Oklahoma.

            A U-Haul and fertilizer.

            1. Lets just be frank, that was absolutely not an ANFO bomb that exploded in Oklahoma.

              1. What was it then? WD40 and cow poop?

        2. My working theory is that anti-gun progressives see self-defense – especially with firearms – as an inherently criminal act. They’re theoretically OK with hunting and “sporting purposes” but still want strict measures in place to keep those sporting firearms from being diverted to “criminal” self-defense use.

          Likewise when cops use guns to enforce the law (e.g. in an no-knock raid, or even shooting a fleeing suspect in the back), that’s OK. But if a cop shoots someone and claims self-defense as a “justification” – that’s a criminal abuse of power and a betrayal of the public’s trust in issuing the cop his firearm in the first place.

          As for the less horrified reactions to bombings and truck-killings, vs mass shootings, that’s partly a matter of “never let a crisis go to waste” with the mass shooting, and partly a need to counter the pro-gun talking points about how with-gun self-defense is an effective counter and basic human right rather than a criminal act of Treason Against Civilization Itself.

      2. banning crowds in public?

        There is some precedent for this solution.

        1. “Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.”

      3. Common-sense truck control.

        1. Common-sense crowd control.

          1. Common sense common sense control.

            1. Control

      4. That’s exactly right. Here’s an instance where one person killed something like 70 people without firing a shot. Reports are contradictory as to whether he subsequently opened fire on the crowd, but even if that’s true he did the most damage with a regular vehicle. No firearm necessary.

        1. But you know that you can kill like a bajillion people with a semi-automatic firearm in under a minute right? RIGHT?!

          *Shits pants

        2. Then ban gasoline! There’s nuthin’ in the Constitution about the right to gasoline!

      5. The same thing was perpetrated at South by Southwest in Austin. Some mindless idiot drove a car into a crowd, killing people. Later it surfaced the perp was a person of color with a goofy name whose life mattered and whose motives were doubtless altruistic, so the blame became collectivized. Austin and Nice are both nice, but the student body is brainwashed into brainlessness and the result is what you see.

        1. The SBSW idiot, Rashad Owens, got life in prison.

          The American-Statesman reported that police dash camera footage played during trial proceedings …
          [Arresting officer] Mitchell had taken Owens to a parking garage near the Austin Police Department’s headquarters to question Owens, according to the newspaper.

          “You are not going to kill me, are you?” Owens asked Mitchell from the back of the police cruiser. Mitchell responded, “No!”

          At another point, Owens said, “Sir, all I care about is me not killing nobody. I didn’t mean to hurt nobody. I was just scared. I didn’t mean to.”

          Owens’ attorney obviously didn’t know about the Hillary Defense. Owens might fantasize that the Hillary Defense gives him grounds for a retrial. Of course we all know that it doesn’t work for the little people.

      6. I’m making over 17k dollar a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do… http://www.trends88.com

  2. Squirrels must have not liked you peoples comments.

    1. The squirrels have converted to Islam.

      1. Well they do like being surrounded by nuts

  3. Did the comments get run over by a truck?

    1. Sorry all. Complicated issue with our backend required me to create a fresh post with the update, not our preferred style.

      1. Have you tried turning it off and on?

  4. What happened to the earlier post?

    1. Fed into a woodchipper.

    2. Doherty told me that you ruined them so he was starting over. Try not to fuck these ones up, too.

      1. How did your sexy times with the Brazilian chica go?

      2. I unfortunately have not had any sex times with any Brazilians. I hope there is someone else here who has of late.

        1. Fuck. I think it must have been another commenter starting with B, and I got mixed up.

          1. Wasn’t me. I’m not allowed hanging out with chicks. Especially Brazilian ones.

          2. He could atleast have had the decency to lie and say he got a reach around for the lulz of the commentariat!

    3. Removed for politicizing tragedy with pro and anti-gun arguments.

    4. Backend glitch too boring to explain made an un-ideal update via whole new post necessary. Apologies to commenters, hopefully won’t happen again.

      1. So the squirrels hit the H&R writers, too.

      2. You’re alright, Doherty. I don’t care what Robby says about those girls in your basement.

      3. Translator in the next office alerted me so I went to French press… nada. Reason, as usual, had the garbled scoop faster than the Vichy Frogs! If they weren’t so fast to surrender at the first opportunity–and if they’d not brutalized the Algerine mohammedans–these events would be rarer. Brexit was evidently right about collaborationist Europe.

  5. Obligatory – when is France going to learn? They need more gun control.

    1. Yeah, the place is just awash in AK-47’s. When will they get rid of their Second Amendment and allow for common sense gun safety?

      1. Actually, I have heard that Marseille IS awash with AK-47s, just not any owned legally by peaceful residents.

        1. Exactly.

  6. The NY Times had a picture of the truck in their article. The truck was full of bullet holes, definitely from outside trying to stop the driver.

      1. How did you find that?

        Private link, only 100 views

        1. I assume the nerdtastic power of Pokemon Go.

          1. You joke but Pok?mon Go is a great relief from the dismal news cycle.

            1. I tease the Pokemon Go folk.

        2. Reddit live feed, possibly censored. There are even more graphic videos but I don’t think anyone needs to see a bunch of innocent victims lying in pools of their own blood. It’s disgusting. I like this better.

          1. There’s one at the Daily Mail of a child covered with a blanket with a doll laying next to her. Unbelievable.

            1. I just saw that pic at Guardian’s website. My lizard brain took over momentarily and wished for Mecca to be nuked.

              1. That would be an interesting bet to post over at Paddypower. They are laying 40 to 1 odds Gary and whoever the Econazis are backing will lose. But some serious money could be made by being the closest to guess when the Holy Grail of Mystical Fundamentalism will turn into green glass.

                1. I remember the words of Col. Quaritch from Avatar:

                  “The hostiles believe that this mountain territory is protected by their… deity. And when we destroy it, we will blast a crater in their racial memory so deep, that they won’t come within 1,000 klicks of this place ever again. And that, too, is a fact.”

                  1. Then again, “Have a Nice Bastille Day” is now the French equivalent of China’s “May you live in interesting times.” When Germany imposed Nationalsocialism there, Libert?, Fraternit?, Egalit? changed to Travail, Patrie, Famille–typical religious conservative values, only without a ban on wine and beer. The French will do just as well under orders from the Prophet as from Der Fuehrer in 1940.

              2. We don’t do mind control, just sayin

          2. I saw just one wide, noisy picture of victims on the street, and that was enough for me.

    1. A video was posted of the scene. There was what sounded like many gunshots while the vehicle was driving towards the crowd.

    2. Got to ban these military style assault trucks.

      1. Also note that:

        1) commercial lorries are REGISTERED

        2) drivers of commercial vehicles require TESTING and special LICENSES

        Gun banners aren’t going to be able to explain this one away: if REGISTRATION and LICENSING failed to stop this terrorist’s assault truck, how exactly are they going to stop a terrorist from using a firearm?

        1. Banning them. No one wants to ban trucks. Just trucks that have no valid sporting purpose.

          1. And clearly these high capacity gas tanks are a part of the problem. No one needs to be able to drive more than five miles (or is it kilometers?) at a time.

        2. Don’t forget urinalysis drug testing. No Dixie cup pee, no workee!

  7. WTF Reason?

    Everyone else, go ahead and blame it on me. I’m the new guy!

    1. *Clint Eastwood stare*

    2. Goddamit, Tulpa

      1. That is just mean.

        1. Best get used to that:) And welcome OMAT II.

          1. I second JB’s post, OMATII.

            1. I don’t like new people. I don’t trust them.

              1. Everything is threatening to you.

              2. Nobody likes you, either.

                1. Also new people are gross and they think different.

                  1. Well gross and think differently is a step up from what I usually hear. Thanks Fist!

                  2. Well if you would stop sniffing everyone’s butt as soon as they walk in the door. That’s not the proper way to socialize.

                    1. Tell that to my dog.

                    2. They smell in dimensions that neither you nor I will ever understand.

              3. I don’t like new people. I don’t trust them.

                Perhaps time may change that, Fist.

                Personally, I’ve harbored a distrust of analog watches and clocks since my youth.
                I am not exactly sure why, although it may have something to do with their hands being different lengths.
                There they are, ticking away the time, with uneven appendages.

                And don’t get me started on the whole “second hand” nonsense. It’s a third hand.

                Cannot be trusted.

                1. When I was in elementary school back in the 70s, when we got to the part of 1st grade where they made certain everybody knew how to tell time by having us draw clocks, I always wanted to draw digital clocks. I remember my uncle had one of those newfangled digital watches where you had to press a button to get the time to display, in those lovely red LEDs.

                2. Cannot be trusted.

                  Charles, allow me to introduce you to a kindred spirit

                3. Personally, I’ve never trusted the question mark, even though I invented it.

              4. One of us, one of us

    3. I figured straffinrun posted another of his disturbing antisemitic rants and got the whole post nuked this time.

      1. I just woke up.

        *Slurps some shitty canned coffee*

    4. Sorry, I’m the new guy.
      Long time reader.
      Hello all

        1. More religion of peace apparently

          1. Bunch of savages in this town.

            1. +1 Clerks

              Did you hear that Smith is making a third Clerk movie?

              1. I was not aware!
                Also, that’s clearly supposed to be +38 clerks.

                1. A buddy of mine met Brian O’Halloran at a comic/gaming store and Brian said that Smith was working on the new movie.

              2. He has to – they won’t let him make any other movies anymore.

            2. You think the truck thing is bad, some kid got caught in the escalator!

              1. Fucking escalators.

      1. /narrows gaze. You Dew brah?

  8. We must rebuild the comments.

    France has surrendered!

    1. Brennt Paris? Blutet Nice? Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are circulating a cartoon of a bloody fireworks display.

  9. When I left there were 37 comments, now there are 8.

    Man, what did y’all say in the three minutes I was gone?

    1. We laughed. we cried, and maybe – just maybe – learned a little bit about ourselves.

      1. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF FUCKO

        1. *slinks off into corner, giving commoditous the evil eye*

    2. Something something terrorist assholes into a woodchipper.

    3. My firstie on that other post was epic, too. Too bad everyone missed it.

      1. Well since it was disappeared, I think it’s safe to assume that you’re lying. I’ve got my eye on you Mr. Fist.

        1. You know what happens when you assume.

          1. You know what happens when you assume.

            Sure. I get a piece of ass for U and Me.

            I’m willing to share.

  10. Very sad. I’ve spent a few days in Nice once — very beautiful town with excellent food and sights. This looks like it is Islam-related given that there are reports of gunfire and grenades found on the scene.

    1. Yeh same here. I have family in Nice. Horrific.

  11. If douchebag-in-chief starts yapping about how this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH A MAJOR MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION I am going to shoot myself in the face.

    1. Not if we take your guns from you, you won’t.

      1. Fine, I’ll run myself over.

        Fuck. Fuck these psychos. It makes me hope hell is real.

        1. Sure, Nigel: Run yourself over.

          1. To this you outraced me, Jimbo.

          2. “pulling a Chekov”, the kids are calling it.

            1. +1 Skid mark

            2. Too soon……too soon……

    2. But, can we ever really know the motive? He was probably just a sexually frustrated homosexual or something.

      1. Trump supporter, obviously.

        1. Another victim of the right-wing culture of hate.

        2. It was clearly a white middle aged man……..angry about the Affordable Care Act passing. Probably has ties to right wing hate groups………..

    3. The driver was Buddhist.

      1. Naw… wrong M.O. Aum-style cultists serenely puncture bags of sarin nerve gas in crowded subways.

      1. Was the driver yelling “GO FUCK YOUR DADDY, SHITPILE!”?

        1. No, I don’t believe the driver was a senile old coot who thinks the world is as obsessed with San Francisco as he is.

    4. It has nothing to do with a major monotheistic religion. Because Islam is more a political philosophy than a religion. Or something I’ve heard.

    5. Christians did it

  12. If the comments were deleted because of me, I apologize. I regretted typing that as soon as I hit submit. Won’t happen again.

    1. Fuck! I missed it.

      1. That’s what I was thinking.

    2. Are you talking about your suggestion of the starting line of the LA Marathon as a very large soft target? Hell, just go for the crowd outside the security line at any NFL game. “Security” means “creating better targets” apparently.

    3. I can’t tell if this is serious or not.

      1. I’m serious. I said something that might have given some bad people ideas.

        1. PM, please pick up the Preet courtesy phone.

        2. I’m sure they’d come up with them on their own.

          Remember, I had posted several times in the past that the huge crowd outside of airport security screening was a very logical target. I don’t think that anyone said, “Oh, the (((Jew))) is really on to something there, Abdul! They are such clever people, it’s a pity to kill them.”

          1. Clever? Come on. We all know Jews are the devil and secretly behind all Islamic terror.

            1. SHHHHH!!!!!!!

            2. *whispers*
              They didn’t show up to work that day.

          2. You remind me of a Jewish guy I used to drink with. Star of David tattooed on his forearm and loved getting plastered and telling jokes about Jews.

            1. The only thing tattooed on my forearm is some German numbers.

              1. At least they weren’t Arabic numerals.

              2. You were the old man in Monster Squad?!?!

            2. Wait, I just realized that may have been Tim Whatley.

              1. That offends me as a comedian.

                1. Howie Mandel offends me as a human being.

        3. Rest assured Playa, no one reads your comments.

          1. Likewise.

            Wait, are you trying to collapse the universe?

            1. Yes, yes I am! And get this thread wiped again!! Bwahahahahahaa!

        4. They can come out with bad ideas by themselves

    4. Honestly, I didn’t really think anyone crossed a line, but I guess I can see how the squirrels might have thought so.

    5. Would you care to rephrase your comment in such a fashion that it requires interpretation by a mind familiar with the types of comments regularly seen on H&R?

      You know, code words….

      1. I suggested what I thought was a very obvious way to kill a thousand people with a vehicle. Not so obvious, apparently.

        So.. probably better that it’s not out there anymore.

        1. There’s disgruntled Frenchies who are just as inventive as you are.

          1. And they’re unlikely to be reading Reason comments. Except for the SF stories, of course.

        2. Doherty says it’s just a technical problem and not because of any comments.

            1. He didn’t want to call you out by name.

            2. Well… technically you were the problem.

              1. lol.

        3. I see.

          A man named Paul Craig Roberts made similar observations in 2012

          Warning: He puts forth other observations in that article which are “fringy”, yet his take on the choice of targets, like I think yours was, is a logical one.

          1. Warning: He puts forth other observations in that article which are “fringy”, y

            That is the most generous appraisal of PCR i’ve yet seen. Normally you see “Batshit” being used as an adjective.

            1. My generosity is well known by everyone, well, excepting those who do know nothing of my generosity.

              1. Bra, can you let me hold a twenty?

        4. Well, there is always the way that Timothy McVeigh tried.

      2. He was bragging about his most recent brozillian wax. It was beyond disgusting.

        1. I’m getting my children prezillian waxes. Never will they have to worry about the humiliating discomforts of puberty.

          1. I had all of my kids lasered. We are a family of turtle shells.

            1. I had my boys laser scalpeled out of my scrote before they could even be drafted for the cause. Game and match.

              1. We’re they replaced with Teflon facsimiles ? la Chaz Bono?

              2. These euphemisms are getting so abstract that I can’t even tell if you’re a bunch of sickos.

                1. They post to H&R. What do you think?

      3. Are you telling us to phrase it in the form of a question?

    6. There’s freedom of speech, and then there’s “freedom of speech.”

      Even if you gave bad people ideas, you also informed good people that maybe in those situations they should be extra cautious.

    7. I doubt it was you. They probably would have just deleted the comment. Although if your thinking about it, someone else is so better for people to have warning.

      1. It was a combination of a mistake I made and something the backend was having issues with, had to start over with a fresh post update. It was not anything any of ya’all did or said. Sorry it happened.

        1. You made one person feel guilty, and for that we thank you.

          1. I have it upon good authority that it was probably your backend issues that dumped the comments, Crusty.

            1. I agree. Crusty has “trunk butt”.

            2. My pappy told not me to drink a lot of blended scotch after running seven miles in ninety-degree heat, and I guess I should have listened.

              1. The lead-lined cups you insist on using certainly don’t help.

    8. backs away from thread

    9. What did you say?

  13. I blame the Huguenots. We’re nothing but trouble.

  14. Nobody *needs* a high capacity assault truck!

    1. well played

  15. James Taylor is on his way!

    1. Oh, you.

  16. Western civilization is under attack from within and without. Don’t worry, GJ will legalize marijuana.

    *Trump paraphrased – “I told you. You assholes didn’t want to hear it, but I told you.”

    1. Also, republican senate votes to authorize unlimited visas for Afghanistan.

      1. According to this, it’s limited to folks that helped us during the the war over there.

        1. Sorry. Link.

        2. I am confident there won’t be any problems with Obumbles at the helm. He is a real straight shooter.

          1. Isn’t it a part of next year’s spending bill (that probably won’t pass anyway)?

        3. Folks like the pedophile warlord that has his boy sex slaves kill a marine for complaining about him?

    2. When was the last week the world didn’t see a major terror attack? If not in idyllic French locales than in rural mosques and bazaars.

    3. Im wlondering if The Hill Dog is going to throw light on her promise to continue Obama’s Syian resettlement program.

    4. “Western civilization is under attack from within and without.”

      Citation needed.

      1. Citation needed.

        Not sure if you’re just in denial or if you’re also delusional.

        1. Okay so you’ve got nothing.

          1. The news being generated every single day for no less than the last decade, indicates pretty clearly that western civilization itself is being attacked in more ways than one. Take off your blinders once and a while.

            1. “BUT MUH FOOD TRUCKS!”

        2. Cytotoxic is only Canadian. So it’s not like his opinion counts. Also, he apparently voted for Justin Trudeau. Who is an older, worse version of Justin Bieber (also Canadian).

      2. Seriously?? I’m not sure that anyone can honestly question that statement no matter their opinion or political viewpoint.

        1. If these terror attacks are ‘an attack on western civilization’, it’s the weakest attack ‘from within and without’ ever.

          1. They’re not actually trying to kill everyone. Nobody believes they are an existential threat in the physical sense. The idea is:
            -The actual attacker gets 72 turnips or something.
            -The attacked slowly convert to Islam out of fear or degrade their own social institutions to the point that their culture becomes a non-threat.

            We *typically* think of attacks as military assaults meant to cause physical damage. From that POV, these attacks are weak. That doesn’t mean that psychological warfare of this kind, extended for long periods, wouldn’t cause irreparable damage to the fabric of a culture. From that POV, these attacks are strong and you can easily see the evidence of it.

            1. “you can easily see the evidence of it.”

              Such as? The security theater? The TSA? Those are basically self-inflicted wounds. Just like immigration restrictions.

              There is a way to deal with terror: kill the terrorists and their state sponsors.

              1. How do you know who the terrorists are?

                Killing state sponsors involves either a) assignation or b) war. Both of those lead to a power vacuum – which leads to the rise of groups like ISIS.

                1. If there were no Muslims, there would be no terrorists………

              2. There is a way to deal with terror: kill the terrorists and their state sponsors.

                Is there any problem that the state can’t kill its way out of, in the magical land of Cyto-toxia?

              3. There is a way to deal with terror: kill the terrorists and their state sponsors

                And then import the bombed populations, aka the Obama/Hillary/Cytotoxic foreign policy plan.

              4. Eliminating Islamic immigration and revoking legal status of as many Muslims as possible will also help.

      3. “MOVE ALONG EVERYONE NOTHING TO SEE HERE JUST A CULTURALLY ENRICHING MUSLIM OUT FOR A PEACEFUL JOYRIDE”

  17. I bet $5 that the driver’s first name is Mohammad.

    1. You shouldn’t make bets around here, someone always loses.

      1. People don’t pay up, either

        1. I hear dirty progtards normally don;t pay their debts. Like the way AmSoc bailed on his mortgage.

        1. Hey now…

          1. Also, I paid up.

            1. You lost a bet? Was it as bad as the one with me and Buttplug?

              1. Plenty of us have the open bet about federal pot law by the end of Obama’s term.

                1. Is that still going? Did I start that?

                    1. What was my position? He won’t for a twenty dollar donation?

                    2. Originally it was 20 bucks if it’s made legal. Then we realized that was just so unlikely that we’d all just end up donating the 20 either way.

                    3. OK. The whiskey, the pot, and generally just not giving a shit makes my memory… unreliable.

                    4. I couldn’t tell you what I had for dinner on Sunday.

                    5. Any idea how many others have joined?

                    6. That’s where I get fuzzy. I know a few others threw their hats in the ring, but can’t remember handles. I could look up the original article, but I’m lazy. Honor system people, come on down.

                    7. So half a dozen? Right on! We just raised $120 American! for the cause!!! Libertarian Moment, here we come !

                    8. Stupid close tag

                    9. Rico needs hairspray.

              2. I bet Groovus that Obumbles would lose his bid for re-election, stupid me. A fifth of good scotch was on the line.

                Rather than collect his winnings he requested that I send it to Sloopy as he had just hatched a brand new libertarian.

                Of course I paid up.

                1. What’s good scotch in your opinion? I’ve been eyeing a bottle of Ardbeg 10 as a personal graduation present to myself. It’s not the best scotch in the world, but I’m not graduating either, so.

                  1. Good. Always walk away for Alcoholics Anonymous. Their degree is worthless.

                  2. Commoditous I had to lay off the scotch decades ago. It was killing my gut. Therefore I am not a scotch guy. I had to consult one. I was advised that price is no indicator of drinkability. I think what I ended up choosing was either 8 or 12 year Glenlivet. It rated 95+% on all of the ratings I saw. Not a great selection available in my area anyway.

                2. Sloppy gets really smart when he has liquor.

                  1. Autocorrect, but I prefer to leave it as is.

              3. Does Reason have an annual convention like Fark? If so, I will be happy to attend if for nothing else than to hold PB down while you extract your winnings from him. I would consider it an honor.

      2. Reason should find a way to factor bets here. It would generate income and raise the value of the entire ambience.

      1. Damn! I was way off base.

    2. Dread made an accurate prediction and backed it with cash. We really ought to be able to bet donations to Reason around here.
      I’m willing to offer a side bet of $5 that Mohammad will turn out to be of the Mohammedan faith, once Vichy French forensics finally makes it to the scene.

  18. Clearly, if France had more gun control, this never would have happened.

    Also -this is probably just blowback against France’s racist refusal to accept more immigrants.

  19. According to CNN, the driver first started shooting people, then drove into the crowd. That seems stupid to me. Just drive.

    Also, grenades, explosives, and firearms in the truck.

    1. According to CNN, the driver first started shooting people, then drove into the crowd. That seems stupid to me. Just drive.

      Everyone’s a critic.

      1. Armchair somethings.

        1. Bleeding from their whatever?

            1. What’s that, now?

    2. You can’t really claim these are lone wolf type attacks or the actions of crazy people when they are routinely carrying out coordinated efforts in teams with arms they acquired through networks in communities that protect them.

      For those who still refuse to acknowledge Islam is the problem.

      1. In Europe there is definitely that kind of coordination and organization. I’m not convinced that’s the case in any significant way in the US.

        1. For a few reasons. One is the price of getting here from there is much higher than from there to Europe, so you get a different demographic.
          The other, more important reason, is that there’s simply not enough of them here. But, I’ll bet that is we starting importing large numbers, we’d have similar problems.

          1. Democrats are hard at work on that problem right now. Their hatred of America knows no bounds.

      2. “For those who still refuse to acknowledge Islam is the problem.”

        The problem with the suggestion that Islam is the problem is that it also seems to suggest that violating people’s First Amendment rights is the solution.

        Or maybe you want us to commit ground troops in Syria?

        There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and about 3 million American citizens are Muslims.

        If Islam is the problem, what is your solution Brochettaward?

        1. “If Islam is the problem, what is your solution?”

          *crickets*

          The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind. The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

            1. Albedo of white roofs to reduce solar absorption… Have to whiten all the blacktop roads too.

        2. Recognizing a problem doesn’t mean there is a solution that anyone can personally enact. I would think libertarians would recognize this.

          I don’t have a solution. Saying that Islam has a lot of issues it needs to sort out somehow doesn’t obligate me to come up with a solution or to sign on to endorse policies that take away rights from innocent people.

          1. Exactly. The problem is that some people are very mean, & it takes only a few of them.

          2. At least getting away from the equivocating this administration does in the guise of being even-handed would be a start. No, Muslims generally are not the problem, and nobody of any serious distinction suggests they are. It’s certainly not a perception driving any policy, and the counter-violence Obama constantly worries about has been gratifyingly sedate. But hardline Islamism is a problem.

            1. Obama really does see his opposition as posing a greater threat than Muslim terrorists. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised. But it’s obvious how unserious he is about addressing the latter, and how spiteful he is toward the former, when he specifically crafts his responses to tragedies having nothing to do with American conservatives or gun owners or immigration skeptics to essentially lay the fault at the feet of all three.

          3. Unfortunately, I think pointing to Islam as the problem does suggest solutions, and those bad solutions typically involve either government discrimination against Muslims in the U.S. or the advocacy of wars abroad.

            . . . neither of which will do anything about the problem of terrorism and both of which are likely to exacerbate the problem.

            Personally, I believe the Muslim reformation we’ve all been hoping to see in the Muslim world is happening right before our eyes. It took decades of bloody civil wars for Christians to sort out their struggles with modernity through the Reformation, too.

            We ended up making some remarkable progress through those religious wars. One of the things we gained is separation of church and state. Another is that people should be free to practice their own religion regardless of the religion of their rulers.

            Those achievements mostly represented a triumph of Protestant theology over Catholic laws, which is to say that if the problem was Christianity and the solution was the Reformation, then the solution to Christianity was within Christianity.

            Guess what the solution to Islam is? I’ll give you a hint: it probably isn’t convincing them that their religion is incompatible with modernity. If Islam is the problem (or the problem is within Islam), then the solution probably needs to come from within Islam, as well.

            Unless you want to wipe out 1.2 billion people and 3 million American citizens.

            1. I don’t disagree that there isn’t much that we can do and that the “we need to do something” sentiment might be harmful (although I’d entertain immigration restrictions).

              But, do you have any evidence that Islam is reforming itself? It seems to be getting worse. And I think that a lot of their problems right now is that their religion is clashing with modern western values. That doesn’t mean they can’t or won’t change. But the fact that they’re taking (in your analogy) their civil war into other lands is enough for me to think that the historical analogy doesn’t really fit.

              If the radical Islamists believe they are winning the fight, that is a very attractive notion to potential Jihadists. And they don’t define “winning” the way we do. That has the potential to prolong the Jihad or potentially stall Islamic reformation indefinitely.

              1. “But, do you have any evidence that Islam is reforming itself? It seems to be getting worse.”

                People like to think of the Reformation as a series of theological debates.

                It was actually a series of wars that lasted from the 1520s to the 1650s.

                The most productive part of the Reformation was the Thirty Years War. It ended with the Peace of Westphalia, which is the immediate ancestor to freedom of religion as we understand it in our First Amendment.

                Here are the two of the three main tenets of the Peace of Westphalia:

                —-All parties would recognize the Peace of Augsburg of 1555, in which each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state, the options being Catholicism, Lutheranism, and now Calvinism (the principle of cuius regio, eius religio).[11][12]

                —-Christians living in principalities where their denomination was not the established church were guaranteed the right to practice their faith in public during allotted hours and in private at their will.[15]

                Americans should recognize the first tenet as Freedom from Establishment in our First Amendment, and we should recognize the second tenet as Freedom of Exercise in our First Amendment. Taken together, this is what we’re talking about when we talk about freedom of religion.

                http://tinyurl.com/h2nxfz8

                1. The Muslim world needs this freedom of religion stuff.

                  When Shia and Sunni are fighting each other, one of the reasons they’re fighting is because Sunni extremists like ISIS won’t live under or with Shia. It’s the same kind of thing in Shia dominated areas–where Hezbollah, for instance, represents an existential danger to every other religious group in Lebanon, Muslim or otherwise, and are actively seeking political power.

                  They desperately need freedom of religion, and just like we did, they’ll need to come to that conclusion on their own. I hope they come to the right conclusion sooner rather than later, but, like I said, the religious wars that accompanied the Christian Reformation lasted for a hundred and thirty years before we got to the Peace of Westphalia.

                  Between wars and disease, the Thirty Years War killed about one third of all German speaking people, and–the point is–I’m sure at the time, people thought things were getting worse rather than better.

                  Unfortunately, I think the Reformation is something we had to go through to get where we are with freedom of religion, and when I see what various Muslim groups are fighting over today, they seem to be in essence the kinds of things Christians fought over during the Reformation.

                  1. Understand that Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Mujahideen, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations were originally about overthrowing dictators. Those dictators were originally about taking over from colonial administrations established before and just after World War I. The Taliban, ISIS and other more recent organizations were more about reactions to modernity. On the one hand, women are going to the West and receiving educations, on the other hand, the Wahabis wants to put them all in burkas.

                    Did you know that all five major schools of Islamic jurisprudence have condemned both Al Qaeda and ISIS?

                    The Muslim Brotherhood rides a wave of popularity into power in Egypt–only to try to stack the new Egyptian constitution in their favor permanently. So the Egyptian army deposes them in a wildly popular coup. You have the forces of secularism doing things in Turkey like having gay pride parades–even as the newly neo-Islamist Party is voted into power.

                    1. I know there are people on the right who agree with ISIS that they represent moderate Islam. But if Islam is actually 1.2 billion people and what they do in practice, then it is a deeply conflicted religion that is undergoing massive transformation as all of them struggle with modernity and fundamentalist reactions to it. You want evidence for a reformation–well that’s what reformation looks like. Back before satellite television and the internet, Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia pretty much agreed. Sort of like Christians before the printing press.

                  2. This part I agree with. And I think what the Reformation did was break up a duopoly in Christendom between Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox. Particularly with Catholicism, as that was where most of the conflict was. Protestantism rose in mostly Catholic countries and never seemed to make much headway into Eastern Orthodox countries. Unfortunately, Islam already seems to subscribe to most Protestant principles. They certainly stick with their scripture and there is no official priesthood. The idea of man being guided by reason rather than revelation is also an idea common to both Protestantism and Islam.

                2. So the Puritans came to Massachusetts about 80 years later why?

                  1. Because they were not tolerated, since they criticized loudly and publicly the fact that the English Protestant church, wore too many of the trappings of Catholicism. Many times it was called Popery, and it was also one of the big forces behind the English Civil War.

                    1. So it didn’t all get sorted out with the Peace of Westphalia?

                3. Americans should recognize the first tenet as Freedom from Establishment in our First Amendment

                  Uh, you quoted the first tenet as saying that “each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state.” It’s been a long time since I took constitutional law, but I would think that having a state religion is kind of the opposite of Freedom from Establishment.

                  1. Seamus,

                    The idea was that, for instance, the German princes in the Holy Roman Empire didn’t need to have the same religion as the emperor. In other words, the central government didn’t establish the religion for all of its provinces, and it was unnecessary to fight a civil war over whether to have a Catholic emperor, a Calvinist emperor, or a Lutheran emperor anymore–if the emperor’s religion didn’t have any direct impact on what religion you could choose for yourself.

                    If Bavaria is Catholic, and Bonn is Calvinist, and the emperor is Lutheran, well that doesn’t matter one bit.

                    That’s huge progress! If only the Muslim world were more like that.

                    You’re right to point out that if the princes can pick the religion of their subjects, then that’s just kicking the problem down the street a ways–not resolving it. This is why, just like in the First Amendment, they had to marry the idea to what we call Free Exercise as well, which is the idea that individuals are not bound by the religion of the princes.

                    These religious freedoms became more pronounced over time. Notice the only three religions covered in the Peace of Westphalia were Catholicism, Calvinism, and Lutheranism. Point is that the basic principles of Freedom from Establishment and Free Exercise were there–and those were the solutions. If our religions rights are protected, we don’t fight wars over whether the President is a Catholic or a Protestant or a Mormon or a Jew anymore.

                4. Americans should recognize the first tenet as Freedom from Establishment in our First Amendment

                  Uh, you quoted the first tenet as saying that “each prince would have the right to determine the religion of his own state.” It’s been a long time since I took constitutional law, but I would think that having a state religion is kind of the opposite of Freedom from Establishment.

              2. When we say modern western values, we need to be clear that those values are those of the Enlightenment. If we are talking about Progressivism or the Reformation, they are right on target.

            2. “Unfortunately, I think pointing to Islam as the problem does suggest solutions”

              And other people don’t agree.

              Now what?

              1. You don’t have to agree with anything. But do you mind if I ask why?

                If Islam is the problem, can you point to a solution that doesn’t suggest either violating the First Amendment rights of American Muslims or going to war with Muslims all over the world because of their religion?

                I’d like to understand that.

                When you say that Islam is the problem, what are you trying to say?

                Are you just trying to say that Obama is blowing smoke up our rear ends? ’cause I’ll buy that. But once you get Obama to admit that Islamic terrorists are Muslims, then what?

                1. I think you’re making a whole bunch of assumptions based on my very short post.

                  However, the primary problem is this

                  “can you point to a solution”

                  Why do I have to?

                  I never said there was a solution. There may not be a solution. At all. Why does that prevent one from properly recognizing the issue, if they believe it involves Islam?

                  It doesn’t. You keep acting like it does.

                  And it just doesn’t. They’re two entirely separate things.

                  1. “I never said there was a solution. There may not be a solution. At all. Why does that prevent one from properly recognizing the issue, if they believe it involves Islam?”

                    How do you feel about people saying the problem is guns?

                    I’ve got a couple of responses to that.

                    One of them is that guns aren’t really the problem.

                    The other response is, “Are you advocating the violation of someone’s Second Amendment rights?”

                    Both of the those responses are perfectly valid.

                    If someone says that First Amendment religious rights are the problem, it’s perfectly reasonable for a libertarian to ask in response whether that person intends to violate someone’s First Amendment religious rights.

                2. We can do simple things, like eliminating Islamic immigration, and revoking VISAs and such for Muslims currently here. Obviously, citizens enjoy the full protection of the constitution, so nothing happens to them, but it would help put a cap on the presence of Muslims within our borders. So we don’t end up with shitloads of,them, like France.

            3. Ken, what is your evidence for Islamic reform? Because I sure don’t see it. This has been going on for 1400 years! This is the modus operandi of the violent wing of Islam. And, unfortunately, there are tens of millions of Muslims who have no qualms about violence or killing people. The reason d’etre of Islam is fighting outsiders (infidels). Yes, Muslims kill many Musllims. I believe this is one of the main reasons the peaceful Muslims remain silent or minimize their criticism. They are afraid of being murdered or having their family murdered or both. I just read that the Japanese translator of Salman Rushdie’s book “Satanic Verses” was murdered by violent Muslims soon after the Japanese translation was published. I knew that Rushdie was under a mortal fatwa, but hadn’t heard about the translator.

              There is nothing in the orthodoxy of Islam that restrains the violence. Many people say that ISIS is not following the Muslim religion. However, several reputable writers have shown that they are following the letter of the Quran. At least with the Christian religion you had the ten commandments and the New Testament teaching of non-violence and loving your neighbor. Islam does not.

              1. “Ken, what is your evidence for Islamic reform? Because I sure don’t see it. This has been going on for 1400 years!”

                I addressed this above, and I won’t repeat it all here. Suffice it to say, the Muslim reformation has not been going on for 1,400 years.

                Freed first from colonial rule that goes back to the 19th century in places, and then, after World War I, being subjected to either colonial rule or vicious dictatorships through the end of the Cold War, various revolutionary terrorist groups came together in recent decades.

                As the Muslim world became more connected to the rest of the world through globalization and the advent of mass media, the internet, etc., they began to struggle with modernity. That struggle comes in all sorts of forms–from highly educated middle eastern women to guys lusting over Indian Bollywood stars at the movies. Scratch a fundamentalist, and you’ll find someone scared to death that they’re not going to be able to keep their kids on the straight and narrow once they’ve seen the big city, the painted ladies, and the fast cars. We’re talking massive social transformation in a very short period of time.

                1. I’m old enough to remember in the early 1980s, when my parents and their friends after church used to have serious discussions about whether it should be a crime for a man to rape his wife. Much of the fundamentalism you see in the Muslim world is simply a reaction against modernity–just like the fundamentalist I saw as a kid in the ’80s. My grandmother was born before the 19th Amendment protected a woman’s right to vote. It wasn’t that long ago for us–and the Muslim world is being subjected to the same social transformation. Their kids are listening to American rap artists. That isn’t something that’s been happening for 1,400 years.

                  1. Islam can not be reformed. It much like Mormonism IS the reform. Christianity and Judaism according to muhamad were corrupted by people for their own ends, he comes along and gets the straight dope from some jinn, the Koran being a literal physical book in paradise writen in arabica, the language of Allah. There can be no reform. Only submission.

                2. Freed first from colonial rule that goes back to the 19th century in places

                  It’s so weird that you go to the 18th century. Why not go back further? What was Islam doing in, say, around 750 to 1500? Did they spend a huge chunk of that time as conquerors trying to take and hold a good chunk of the world? Why, yes. Yes they did.

                  And there was no ‘West’ at the time to have incited them.

                  The only ‘reformation’ Islam is interested in is the reformation of the Caliphate and none of your sweet talk is gonna change that.

              2. “There is nothing in the orthodoxy of Islam that restrains the violence. Many people say that ISIS is not following the Muslim religion. However, several reputable writers have shown that they are following the letter of the Quran.”

                There are five major schools of Sunni jurisprudence, and it is my understanding that all five of them have condemned ISIS, that is, they’ve issued fatwas against ISIS condemning them.

                http://tinyurl.com/zf32922

                That being said, the Bible isn’t the only measure of what constitutes Christianity. Protestant faiths often believe in sola scriptura, but when you say that the Bible is the ultimate authority, you’re really saying that you have to read the scripture and understand it for yourself. Then you’ve got the Catholics who don’t believe in sola scriptura at all. They have their own interpretations.

                Christianity isn’t a list of beliefs in the Bible that everyone agrees on. If there were anything like that, it would be the Sermon on the Mount, and yet ask ten different questions about what Jesus meant by “turn the other cheek”, and you may get ten different answers.

                Christianity is the conflicting mishmash of beliefs of more than two billion people around the world. Some of them are tolerant. Some of them much, much less so. Some Christians would ordain gays as priests and minsters. Other Christians would throw gays off of buildings.

                1. Islam isn’t a list of the most extreme verses you can find in the Quran either. It’s the collective and often conflicting beliefs of 1.2 billion people, many of whom make for great friends and neighbors. You should go to a mosque sometime. You’ll see a bunch of parents worried that their kids are watching crap on TV, listening to awful music, not obeying their parents, and hanging out with friends who are a bad influence on them. They’re like everybody else.

                  They’re not teaching people how to make bombs or sacrificing a chicken.

                2. But Christians ARE NOT throwing gays off buildings, Muslims are. There is zero equivalence.

            4. I disagree that there was any triumph of Protestant theology since Protestants are a minority of Christians. The vast majority are still Roman Catholic or some version of Eastern Orthodox. The non religious period known as the Enlightenment was responsible for the idea of human beings as individuals with moral worth and inalienable rights. Protestants held that individual human beings were depraved creatures stained with sin from birth, and without the grace of a savior, would be eternally damned to hell.

              “Modern” Islam is warped with Marxism as a philosophical underpinning. When they were guided by rational philosophy, such as the Aristotle influenced Averroes, they had a civilization on par or better than Europe’s.

              1. “I disagree that there was any triumph of Protestant theology since Protestants are a minority of Christians.”

                The Peace of Westphalia essentially institutionalized Protestant principles.

                The idea that Christians should be free to read the bible for themselves in the vernacular (sola scriptura), choose their own faith, and practice as they see fit (Priesthood of Believers), are all reflective of essential Protestant principles.

                http://tinyurl.com/j8fkuda

                Those principles are also in direct conflict with what the Catholic church wanted.

                The Reformation was certainly less successful in some places rather than others, but the Peace of Westphalia certainly represents the triumph of essential Protestant points of doctrine over the opposition of Catholic authorities that had ruled before.

        3. 50 years ago people were openly racist, but there’s a lot less racism now, and most of is in private places like the Breitbart comments section. 50 years ago gays were treated about as well as pedophiles, but now even many mainstream churches have toned down their rhetoric. If our political establishment was adamantly demanding that people who disagreed with churches and racists be rebuked and cast out into the darkness, the haters would have controlled the conversation and nothing would have changed.

          Muslims ought to be made to feel as ashamed of the constant, escalating evil done in the name of their faith as Christians are made to feel about the evil done either long long ago, or to a much smaller degree in the name of their faith. They ought to be shamed for their misogyny and homophobia as much as Republicans. Muslims should feel hated, not because who they are (which is unchangeable), but of because what they believe and say, how they act, and who they associate themselves with. It might be ugly, it might be mean, but it’s only way to reform. Otherwise, Muslims are going to continue doing these things (even here) at a rapidly escalating pace, and things are going to get bad enough that they’ll wish they were just being shamed; it already seems inevitable in Europe.

          1. This.

          2. Collectivism–superstitious or racial–is still collectivism just the same, and is not compatible with individual rights being a moral claim to freedom of action. Fortunately, the town of Los Alamos, run by Mayor Richard Feynman, came up with a solution to collectivist aggression, but not without some collateral damage.

            Say… doesn’t the Libertarian Candidate hail from that same state of New Mexico?

        4. My solution is prevention of the problem as much as possible.

          No more Syrian immigrants and severe restrivtion on immigrant Muslims.

          It’s akin to importing thousands of Nazis during WWII.
          There is a good article on the interweb about how Muslims act according to the percentage of the population in a country.

          I dont know how to post a link from a phone but its a good read and worth a google.

          1. “No more Syrian immigrants and severe restrivtion on immigrant Muslims.”

            Thanks, we’ll pass on your self-destructive statist fantasies.

            1. That reminds me, no fucking Canadians. Sorry, Rufus.

              1. Some of them, I assume, are nice.

                1. And if not all that Nice, I’m sure their intentions are good.

          2. There is a good article on the interweb about how Muslims act according to the percentage of the population in a country.

            Or rather as the total numbers rise, so to the number of potential adherents. Once the general population of Muslims reaches a critical mass, recruitment and incitement becomes a lot easier. Think of it along the lines of how the Yankees wouldn’t have the proficient players they do if not for access to suitably large and varied recruitment pool.

            1. Think of it along the lines of how the Yankees wouldn’t have the proficient players they do if not for access to suitably large and varied recruitment pool.

              Well, that, and money. Which also fits the metaphor.

              1. At least the Saudis don’t have any baseball teams……yet.

        5. Getting control of our borders, banning Islamic immigration in every possible way, and making politically correct behavior as socially unacceptable as possible are all great ways to start.

        6. The same solution we used on Fascism and Nazism.

        7. Clearly a case of wine intoxication. France needs common-sense alcohol prohibition–like America had before the damn Liberal Party ruined everything!

      3. No, radical Islam is the problem, and state funders of Islamic terror. If Islam was ‘the problem’ we wouldn’t be hear on H&R.

        1. Islam is radical. There is no non-radical version of Islam. It is also antithetical to a free society, because it does not recognize any separation between the church and the state.
          For you to continue the same arguments, after events prove you wrong time after time, is illogical.

          1. Oh Christ this is completely worthless. So stupid it’s not even wrong. More pseudo-scholar bullshit.

            There is nothing radical about Ishmaeli Islam. There are different sects with wildly different interpretations of the Koran. Sometimes they just ignore whole Hadiths.

            ” events prove you wrong time after time,”

            They have yet to prove me wrong even once.

          2. For you to continue the same arguments, after events prove you wrong time after time, is illogical.

            He makes arguments that were proved wrong before he made them. If I weren’t worried about the uninitiated reading his posts without the occasional rebuttal attached, I wouldn’t bother responding to such a prolific threadfucker.

            1. Pretty much the only reason that I respond to him, since I know that any argument I make will be met by me being called stupid.
              Cytoxic, we have had pleasant conversations before, and you often have insights. Why do you resort to attacking those that disagree with you? It is very off putting, and makes people instinctively dislike you. If your arguments are correct, make them. There is no reason (drink) to be so defensive.
              Also, you’re a poopy-head.

              1. You just bought yourself one relatively cordial future reply followed by a full resumption of inane hostilities.

                1. I don’t think he pays attention to handles, unless it’s John, so when I want to bypass the hostility, I throw in the reminder that we have had good interactions in the past.
                  It’s BS, of course. The default position should be civility until you are reminded that you had it out with somebody, not the opposite.

                  1. I really agree with that approach.

          3. Cyto’s a moslem brotherhood propagandist.

          4. What is truly amazing is that he also believes that these selfsame people–radical Islamists–automatically transform into productive members of society if they become ‘immigrants'(legal or illegal), ‘refugees'(any type), or ‘asylum seekers’ and that they have never done anything to ever hurt the countries they migrated to.

          5. Radical is just a cowardly euphemism for those who have integrity. If mysticism really is death worship, then radical mysticism makes the truth of the matter inconveniently difficult to blank out and ignore. Any child can see that mysticism is the worship of death, and even the most committed denier of inductive logic and pattern-recognition has to realize that “mysticism is death-worship” is as inevitably true as “all men are mortal”–especially those lately scraped up of the streets of Nice.

        2. Cytotoxic Isl isnt killing people.

          Muslims are.

          You and Merkle leep importing them in your countries and shut the fuck up about how other countries run their business.

          1. Islam isnt

      4. Oh right, blame religion why dontcha? The guy unselfishly sacrificed his life for a higher moral ideal in praise of Allah and His Prophets–not just for the 72 bound-and-gagged child-brides. So now the Monday-morning quarterbacks want to belittle his faith and the “free exercise” thereof just because of some infidel collateral damage? Harrumph!

    3. So they wasted their grenades and explosives too. Not the smartest terrorists.

      1. The explosives were probably for in case running people over didn’t work, because, you know, French super-powers. Or maybe to blow up the cops when they searched the vehicle.

      2. Maybe they thought the truck would break down? After all, with most cars, if you hit a deer or a person, the car is going to need some work, maybe they figured the truck would break down after they hit a few people.

    4. Has it been determined yet if the driver was Polish?

      1. He was clearly just another one of those deranged Asians.

        1. I’m going to predict Brie-addled, and his beret slipped and blocked his vision. It was an unfortunate accident.

        2. I’m going with Pollock if he stopped, started shooting, and then drove in to the crowd. Bad joke I know.

          1. I’m going with Pollock

            That seems fishy.

            1. I have a splitting Haddock, its the best I can do right now

              1. It seems to me, OMATII, that a majority of us are more concerned with posting snarky comments rather than posting any concern for the families and friends of those injured and killed, not t mentionthose who were injured and killed in this horrific attack.

                Very shellfish.

                1. Look dude, I know I’m just a shrimp around here but I have feelings. As an American sole I find this very offensive.

                  1. We are all prawns in the great game of chess that our political “leaders” seek to win.

                    1. I can agree with this. President Chubsucker is quite the Black Swallower and loves him some power over the people.

                    2. I really wish I could think up some of these plays on words, but I’m just not that creative. Perhaps if I mullet over a bit…

          2. Pretty sure Pollock would have just limited himself to throwing paint everywhere.

      2. No. It was a truck, not a submarine with a screen door.

      3. Probably a French citizen, FWIW.

    5. Use the gasoline as a firebomb starter.

    6. You know, eventually they killed the guy, but how fucking hard would be for a more technically literate terrorist to rig up something he could pilot remotely?

      1. Self-driving cars for the win!

  20. Shit, this could be any Saturday night in Monterey Park.

    1. Me so solly. Preese don’t carr insuwance!

      1. In Monterey Park, they drive so badly that even the Mexicans get insurance.

        1. Stay the fuck out of Westminster or Garden Grove too. I drive my beater truck when I’m up that way.

          1. But where else am I supposed to get pho?

  21. Liveleak has another truck video… and a truly horrific aftermath video. Don’t recommend either for family viewing.

    1. Saw some footage. Not recommended. Just too depressing.

  22. My guess? Disgruntled Rush Limbaugh listener striking a blow for Freedom Fries.

    Less flip: What a shitshow. I hope the families find peace, the injured find healing and the dead rest.

  23. How do these bastards keep getting full auto guns? People bitch and whine about all the guns in this country,yet,I can’t remember the last time someone used a full auto here.

    1. I doubt it’s that hard to sneak them in when they have cells stretching back into the Middle East.

      1. I know that,just being a smart ass,seeing that France has strict gun control.,well,except for a certain group.

    2. Fast n furious?

    3. Because guns are illegal there. If guns were illegal here, full auto would be much easier to get. Once you hand an industry over to the black market, the regulations all disappear. There’s not enough of a market just for full auto to be worth their while right now. But if guns were illegal there would be a huge opportunity for a black market arms operation and so they would just bring everything in because what the hell. And if you think the drug market is violent, imagine the arms market.

  24. We’re bringing 85,000 refugees to the United States this year.

    In 2017, we’ve pledged to bring 100,000 refugees to the United States.

    I’m not sure that’s a great idea, Mr. President.

    1. What the fuck does this have to do with refugees to the US?

      Oh, sorry, i forgot who I was dealing with.

      1. Huh?

    2. You and Mr. President have different premises.

      1. I’m looking at the cost/benefit analysis.

        I see risk. Don’t really see much up-side.

        I’m all for saving drowning people, that’s not really a cost/benefit thing, but maybe there are ways to help that don’t involve any possibility of a security threat.

        If I save a drowning man, does that mean I have to bring him home?

        1. Yes. And you owe him a reach-around. Maybe a few.

          1. What if I just, you know, give him a good meal and drop him off in a nice safe neighborhood–somewhere near his home instead?

            Or maybe Guam.

            1. RACIST AS EVER!1!!

        2. “I’m looking at the cost/benefit analysis.”

          That’s not how liberty works.

          “Don’t really see much up-side.”

          Then you’re economically illiterate. Immigration is the straight-shot to vast amounts of wealth creation.

          1. Nice utilitarian argument there.

            1. It’s not even an accurate utilitarian argument. It’s laden with tremendous and unqualified assumptions. Namely that immigration, in and of itself, leads inexorably to vast amounts of wealth creation.

              1. It does. Always

                1. Crossing an abstract border makes one shit pure wealth after how long exactly? I live near the county line, so if the interval is short enough I can drive back and forth between the two jurisdictions until I get rich.

                2. Immigration leading to vast amounts of wealth creation would not be possible to prove. But theoretically it should at least add to wealth, as long as most immigrants are productive (a good assumption). But wealth creation per se is meaningless. Wealth creation per capita is the important objective. And there is nothing in economic theory to suggest that immigrants add to per capita wealth, except when there is insufficient human capital to take advantage of highly productive natural resources. I don’t see that situation in the U.S. today.

                  1. Labor is a resource, and having more of a resource is better.

                    Bringing security threats across our border isn’t better, and I’m not convinced that the government can effectively tell the difference between innocent asylum seekers and terrorists who are bent on murdering American citizens because they’re Americans.

                    That isn’t a problem with immigrants from Argentina.

                    It is if they’re coming from Syria.

                    1. Are Christian Syrians okay?

                    2. Are Christian Syrians okay?

                    3. In that Syrian Christians don’t tend to go around killing large groups of people. There are some obvious problems with that. The first is the obvious religious test issue. The second is distinguishing between Muslims and Christians, and considering that the government can’t seem to figure why a guy who goes around screaming allahu akbar went around killing people.

                    4. In that Syrian Christians don’t tend to go around killing large groups of people.

                      Neither do the vast majority of Muslims.

                      Just wondering if Ken will be supporting the deportation of my wife and her family?

                    5. Labor is a COST. It is not a resource.

          2. That’s not how liberty works.

            Unfortunately property rights and it’s associated liberty is not a legally accepted means of practicing exclusion. We’re stuck with a system where those decisions are collectivized into these entities called “states”. It’s therefore preferable that these “state” thingies at least pretend to exclude those whom the collectivized property owners (i.e. “the people”) would want to exclude.

            It’s absolutely a cost-benefit analysis, unfortunately it’s one that statists get to dictate, but hopefully with a bit of input from the domestic population from whom that right has been seized.

            Then you’re economically illiterate. Immigration is the straight-shot to vast amounts of wealth creation.

            That’s a) not necessarily true and b) people are not economic robots that determine “good” and “bad” on that basis alone.

            1. “Unfortunately property rights and it’s associated liberty is not a legally accepted means of practicing exclusion. We’re stuck with a system where those decisions are collectivized into these entities called “states”. It’s therefore preferable that these “state” thingies at least pretend to exclude those whom the collectivized property owners (i.e. “the people”) would want to exclude.”

              “We have statism, so we need more statism” =/= liberty

              1. State owned roads with traffic laws =/= liberty either, but that’s entirely besides the point when you decide to stop at the stop sign.

                1. “We have government owned roads, and therefore you can’t have freedom of movement”

                  Nice fuckbrain you got there.

                  1. “We have government owned roads, and therefore you can’t have freedom of movement”

                    I clearly did not say that. And you know that either because you’re a dishonest cunt who just debates that way or you are absolutely terrible at understanding simple analogies. But I’ll pretend to grant you the benefit of the doubt and make it clearer for you:

                    You would have a state road with no enforceable traffic laws and yet also a rule in place that prevents people from putting up their own stop signs as needed. That’s not a situation conducive to survival, let alone liberty.

            2. In his world if you cross the border into your neighbors yard it’s a short cut to rich. I mean now he has twice the productive capacity duh.

          3. Yeah, actually, that’s exactly how liberty works. Individual liberty by its definition does not convey an obligation or responsibility for the welfare of others.

            Then you’re economically illiterate. Immigration is the straight-shot to vast amounts of wealth creation.

            This is, frankly, Pollyannaesque, and a wild oversimplification and generalization. Open borders do promote the creation of wealth provided the ensuing immigration doesn’t create its own costs in excess of its benefits. France, Germany, and the UK could tell you all about that.

            1. “Individual liberty by its definition does not convey an obligation or responsibility for the welfare of others.”

              Um. I never said it did, and that has nothing to do with the original point. Reading comprehension: try it.

              ” Open borders do promote the creation of wealth provided the ensuing immigration doesn’t create its own costs in excess of its benefits. ”

              It never does.

              1. Ceci- Open borders do promote the creation of wealth provided the ensuing immigration doesn’t create its own costs in excess of its benefits.

                Cyto- It never does.

                I’ll be saving this for the next time some is incredulous that Cytotoxic could make such an absolute claim that is also so logically and demonstrably false.

                1. Cytotoxic|6.25.16 @ 11:41AM|#

                  This kind of sophist mendacity is not going to work on me, or anyone with a brain.

                2. “so logically and demonstrably false.”

                  Well don’t leave us hanging. Demonstrate it already.

                  1. Can you not think of one instance of a mass immigration where it was at least less than marginally profitable for the host society? Ever?

                    1. Mass immigration of Europeans to the North America was a disaster for the Native Population. Mass immigration of Europeans to Australia was a disaster for the Native Population. Mass immigration of barbarians from the East was a disaster for the Roman Empire. And those are just the most obvious ones.

          4. Immigration is the straight-shot to vast amounts of wealth creation.

            And all immigrants are alike in all ways, from refugees to highly skilled and wealthy people, so generalizing like this is reasonable.

          5. “That’s not how liberty works.”

            Not sure liberty requires us to bring what may be security threats here to the United States.

            “Immigration is the straight-shot to vast amounts of wealth creation.”

            Immigration is great. I think we should have a treaty with Mexico that lets anybody come across the border–so long as we can verify they don’t have any felony convictions, have been immunized against certain communicable diseases, and aren’t actively carrying a communicable disease.

            That’s different from bringing people here from places where there are terrorists who hate us and want to kill us just because we’re Americans.

            You see the difference, right?

            1. Would you be willing to let politicians in? Personally, I think think that is a line I won’t cross.

          6. So liberty *does* require that Ken bring the drowning man to his house?

        3. The real cost-benefit question is this:

          You could help 10 times as many people if you kept them in the peaceful areas closer to where they’re originally from. Food and shelter is much cheaper in that area, so is travel. Old people won’t die from the stress of travelling so far from their homeland. Families won’t be split up. Repatriation will be much easier to organize once the unrest in their home country is over.

          What exactly is the excuse for taking a fraction of the people we could be helping with the same resources, and diffuse them throughout the world? It seems that helping them will be much harder this way.

          It’s not even about security at that point, but ethics and efficiency.

          1. I think the people fleeing those places you think are dandy for them know a little better than you.

          2. I think the people fleeing those places you think are dandy for them know a little better than you.

            1. I’m not saying keep them in Syria.

              There are plenty of much more inhabitable places around there, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia. They will be well protected in fairly stable environments, and resources currently used to transport people to northern Europe and America, and housing them there, will stretch to help many more families.

              Obviously if a Syrian family can afford to transport themselves to America and make a living here, no-one should stand in their way. But when American and European tax payers are footing the bill, why shouldn’t that money be spent to help as many people as possible?

              1. Yeah, I don’t see why saving a drowning man means we have to take him home and give him a room for the rest of his life.

                There are other ways to help drowning people rather than just bringing them here to the United States.

    3. No, we’re bringing foreigners to the United States. For them to be refugees, we would have to be offering refuge, and you can’t do that without keeping out the evils that they’re seeking refuge from. Since those evils are ideas carried in the minds and hearts of the people there, many of whom also want to migrate, it means a thorough vetting of immigrants and ruthless exclusion of those that support any form of Islamism, religious violence, or theocracy.

      1. fugio, fugere: “to flee” from the Latin.

        A refugee is someone who is fleeing away from something. If these people are fleeing from something, they’re refugees.

        I don’t mean to demean the refugees themselves, and I think we can avoid that.

        It’s just that, we don’t really have a dependable way of telling the difference between good guys and bad guys, and there are a lot of bad guys from your country who mean us harm. So we’re gonna help you; we’re just not going to . . . bring you home.

        1. Doesn’t everybody want to flee from Latin?

          1. Latin is a dead language
            as dead as dead can be
            First it killed the Romans
            and now it’s killing me

      2. “those evils are ideas carried in the minds and hearts of the people there”

        No they’re not. They’re fleeing maniacs with guns and bombs, not ‘ideas’.

        1. Sure, like in WW2 we defeated maniacs with a conventional army and facilities for the industrial slaughter of human beings, we didn’t defeat any particular set of ideas. Let’s not get all Naziphobic, now.

          1. No, America did not really defeat ‘ideas’. That’s not what armies are for. Nazism still exists.

            1. Funny, I thought I said “defeated”, not “eradicated”.

              1. Then ‘defeated’ is meaningless when talking about ideas. You can’t bomb an idea or shoot it. You can only meaningfully defeat opponents like AQ.

                1. Yes, the ideas went from completely, tragically dictating the course of society to being something hidden in away in the darkness, spoken of and believed by an ugly, powerless few. Practically didn’t change anything at all. Meaningless.

                  How is it possible to be so consistently wrong about literally everything?

    4. I am. America needs every immigrant it can get. That’s a fact.

      If there’s a problem with terrorists, bomb/shoot the terrorists.

      1. They can all live in your basement – in Canada.

        1. They’re going to be in your neighborhood. In your school. And there is nothing you can do about it.

          1. Yeah, and fucking up those schools and neighborhoods in the process.

            http://www.chalkbeat.org/posts…..4hRujUjo-3

          2. Sure there is.

      2. Cytotoxic seems to think that because he can’t tell the difference between anti-American terrorists from Syria and well-meaning asylum seekers from Syria, we should assume that all 185,000 of them that are coming here are well-meaning asylum seekers that don’t mean us harm.

        Just because you can’t tell a good guy from a bad guy is no reason to bring them all here to the United States. In fact, quite the opposite.

        It’s such an odd view of the world, so self-destructive, even, that it makes me think it isn’t really about the issue at hand at all. I think Cytotoxic is just trying to punish the phantom racist rednecks in his head. Obama operates that way, too, sometimes. He imagines Americans are racists, so he wants to unleash a slew of potential terrorists on us to teach us a lesson about racism or something.

    5. Obama thinks it is because he hates America and will do anything he can get away with to damage it.

  25. I bet the truck was encrypted. Feel good about yourself, Tim Cook?

  26. In the West, why exactly do we need terrorists? We’re going to destroy ourselves for them.

    Town makes misogyny crime

    1. Examples of incidents include:
      unwanted or uninvited sexual advances
      physical or verbal assault
      unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement
      use of mobile phones to send unwanted or uninvited messages
      or take photographs without consent.

      So, basically:
      -sexual assault
      -regular assault
      -regular assault or maybe battery
      -(?? digital sexual harassment may or may not already be a crime in Britain)
      -voyeurism

      Not only a crime, but a Hate Crime. Because sending dick picks should really get you locked up.

      1. And who determines that any of these things are because ‘misogyny’, and therefore worthy of an increased charge?

      2. “Uninvited sexual advances”? So, flirting is now a criminal offense?

    2. “take photographs without consent”

      Lady Di says a little late.

  27. Why is no-one asking the important question? Is this good or bad for the Jews?

    1. Good. That’s why they did it.

      1. Stop trying to get the thread deleted. Now to the important question. Is this good or bad for TrumpMarine Le Pen?

    2. Mossad strikes again?

  28. Associated Press reports a singular driver, armed with guns and grenades, killed by police.

    Well at least we have that good news. No way anybody needs a drawn-out trial, and a live prisoner who can be the object of terrorist hostage-taking for the sake of getting him released to his grateful comrades in Raqaa.

    1. Well at least we have that good news.

      How I hate any justice other than summary.

  29. This meme about sums it up for me:
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9udA…..G_6592.JPG

    1. Not sure how you plan to get an asteroid to hit mecca.

    2. I’m torn between this on the one hand, and on the other, sending the Marines to level the place with judicious application of C4, but not before cutting up that sacred black rock into pieces that can be shipped out to every museum in Europe and America, the way we did with moon rocks back in the 70s.

    3. I don’t know if we have the technology to steer meteors yet. Well, actually, I do, but it’s classified.

      1. Ok, fine. Maybe this is more plausible and to your liking: http://i.imgur.com/DuOSSGv.jpg

    4. ISIS themselves have called for the destruction of the Kaaba, as they believe it to be an example of Muslims led astray (essentially they think people worship the site itself, committing idolatry, which is forbidden)

    5. How the hell does this solve anything as opposed to indulging your violent fantasies?

      1. Well, a lot of Muslims would have to wonder how their God would allow something like that to happen, which could cause a global collapse in faith. Otherwise, it would trigger WW3. WW3: The Last Crusade seems inevitable, though, so we might as well start it while the forces of civilization have the upper hand.

        1. Your capacity for unhinged fantasy is clearly boundless.

          1. “the Canadian tween said, winking and flashing what he imagined to be a charming grin at the mirror in his mom’s basement.”

            1. You can stop projecting your immaturity onto me any day now.

            2. Cytotoxic needs something to do in between furiously masturbating to ‘Twilight’ marathon serial viewings.

          1. So, we need to follow up by salting the earth. That would probably stop palm trees from growing, right?

            Also, note that it says short legs, nothing about small hands, so I think we can get away with it.

  30. I blame French gun culture and lack of backgrounds checks.

    1. NRA and Trump to blame, news at 11.

  31. “I understand that this is a tragedy, and rest assured, we’ll have a piano and someone singing ‘Imagine’ on the roadway within the week.”

    1. + a million candlelight vigils and banal hashtags

    2. +1 Neo-Troubadour revival.

  32. I blame Brexit. England is now trying to assert its historical claim to France.

  33. Dozens Die as Truck Hits Crowd in France- Motivation Remains Unclear [NYT]

    How socialists frame unbearable terror.

    1. He was clearly angry about the storming of the Bastille. Just won’t let it go.

      1. Goddam right-wing monarchist legitimists! Probably still sore that Captain Dreyfus was let out, too.

        1. I’m guessing the driver wasn’t a big fan of any jews, let alone Dreyfus.

  34. Saw this warning that France is near civil war with the Muslims. Dead kids all over the street ought to do it if true.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07…..-civil-war

    1. The case he’s actually making is that the “Far Right” is likely to ‘over-react’ to terror attacks….

      ..and that *that* is the real reason to fear terror attacks. Not, you know – the actual terrorism itself.

      The REAL problem is that these attacks make “regular people” more Right-Wing. And that is a frightening and unacceptable possibility from the POV of the ruling party.

      He said that the situation in France is on such a knife edge that it could just take one more major Islamist terror attack to lead to a huge right-wing backlash.

      “There will be a confrontation between the far right and the Muslim world.”
      At one point, Mr Calvar said: “Europe is in great danger, extremism is growing everywhere””

      Mr Calvar’s comments have come as the former MI6 boss Richard Dearlove also said that Europe faced a “populist uprising” if Governments do not take control of the migrant crisis.

      And security experts in Germany have also warned Chancellor Angela Merkel that the middle class was becoming increasingly radicalised because of her open borders migrant policy.

      When he refers to “Civil War”, what he really seems to be suggesting is “loss of power for the liberal european establishment”.

      1. Is the French citizenry sufficiently armed for that kind of revolt?

        1. I don’t think they are even seriously referring to an “Actual” revolt, so much as a political backlash that could include some anti-immigrant violence, but is more likely going to produce a political upheaval.

          I mean, this should clearly come as a great shock and surprised to a leader who raised the taxes in his country to 75%, let in a million muslim refugees, and subsequently endured a rash of Islamic terror attacks, all while spending $11,000 a month on his haircuts.

          The only revolt these people fear is one where they lose their jobs. I don’t think anyone seriously expects “civil violence”. And i don’t think they’d care, as long as they thought their jobs were secure.

          1. And i don’t think they’d care, as long as they thought their jobs were secure.
            Case in point: tons of “civil violence” and the politicians absolutely do not give a shit. They actually adopt policies that will result in more of it.

        2. Maybe if they pretend to convert to Islam they can get the hookup.

        3. The French citizenry are revolting?

          1. You said it. They st… too soon?

        4. I doubt we’re going to see an armed uprising, but I wouldn’t exactly be shocked if young men in Europe suddenly took up baseball or cricket around New Year’s Eve. (Not including all the ones who suddenly had flat tires, of course. We can probably expect tons of flat tires.)

      2. “The REAL problem is that these attacks make “regular people” more Right-Wing. And that is a frightening and unacceptable possibility from the POV of the ruling party.”

        On the other hand, it’s exactly what the perpetrators want.

        1. The perpetrators want Mecca nuked?

          You fucking genius, you.

          1. Cali makes the point upthread that ISIS does indeed want the Kaaba destroyed.

          2. There is some merit to what he said. Basically, they want to stir shit up. It is what terrorists do. They know there is no chance in hell we’re going to “nuke Mecca”. FFS, they murdered 3,000 Americans not so long ago and whatever you think of our response to that, it didn’t put a stop to anything.

          3. I always find that logic curious. We can’t fight back because that is what they want us to do. Okay, they don’t seem too upset about us standing around and dying.

            1. Fighting back =/= nuking Kabaa

              1. No, but it sure would show the primitive, goat fucking, misogynistic, pedophiles that we’ve had enough of their anti social behavior.

              2. You will never fight back. The last thing that would go through your head before the Jihadists bullet would be how wonderful Muslims are.

                You really are too stupid to live.

                1. He’s one of them John.

    2. What fucking mirror universe am I living in where the “right wing” are the ones opposed to the people that follow a belief system commanding the subjugation of women, the elimination of undesirables like gays and Jews, and in general that they are entitled to rule the planet because they belong to a superior community?

      1. The one where the left wing dictates the definition of words.

        1. Bingo

      2. It’s true the right wing has always been trying to kill the Jews and gays and subjugate women. I read it in my Howard Zihn history book.

    3. I believe someone here, a few months ago, said that in 20 years France will look like Lebanon.

      1. 20 years? I bet he feels like a chump now.

    4. Maybe France will end up cleansing their country of their Muslims after all this.

  35. Foxnews: “….Nice’s public prosecutor told reporters early Friday that bodies of the victims were scattered for over a mile along the Promenade des Anglais….”

    Look, I’m sorry. But you really tell me that this f–er would have gotten 500 yards, let alone a mile, in a Buford and BillyBob town. I don’t live in the south, but I can’t imagine the well armed good ol’ boys in their pickups would be ducking from this bastard. I ain’t meanly generalizing about country brethren, I’m actually tipping a hat to them.

    1. Clearly bullshit- they don’t use miles in France.

      1. Errr, you really tell me that this f–er would have gotten 500 meters!

      2. So what do they call a Big Mac in France, anyway?

        1. Just realized I blew my own joke by talking about “Big Mac” rather than “Quarter Pounder.” Better just let Jules and Vince shoot me now.

          1. Look at the big brain on Seamus!

          2. You’d probably have taken care of the big man’s wife, too.

          3. Actually, since the PF dialogue is so well known (and expected), switching it up to Big Mac is in a way, funnier.

            1. Or one could go even older school with “Mon crayons eat jeune. Mon Crayone eat grande”.

  36. I blame Big Oil.

    1. Everybody wants to blame Oi!

      Fer goodness’ sake, it was 35 years ago. Let’s stop blaming Big Oi! for everything.

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

          1. Oops, belay that link. Try this, instead.

      1. Blitz was the tits. Also really liked Last Resort and Cock Sparrer.

  37. It’s time to enact common-sense tractor trailer control measures now.

    1. No one really needs anything larger than a Prius or a Leaf. /typical brain dead prog

      1. Those are pretty heavy. You could still take out quite a few people.

        1. True, but would those little clown car tires be able to roll over bodies like that bobtail truck smart guy?!?

      2. My brother-in-law is 6’8″.

        1. Well he could open the sun roof but if he’s in California make sure he wears his helmet.

  38. Update V, vertical film at 11 x 17.

  39. That’s some work place violence. /Obama.

  40. Meanwhile in French Media:

    Donald Trump d?voilera vendredi le nom de son colistier dans l’espoir de donner une nouvelle impulsion ? sa campagne – et de doper sa cote dans les sondages avant l’ouverture de la convention qui doit l’introniser pour la course ? la Maison-Blanche. L’homme d’affaires r?publicain s’est amus? toute la semaine ? faire monter le suspense, faisant passer des auditions presque en public aux quelques hommes qui tiennent la corde pour ce poste prestigieux – alors que les candidats pr?sidentiels redoublent traditionnellement de discr?tion pour rencontrer secr?tement les pr?tendants au poste de vice-pr?sident afin de m?nager l’effet de surprise. Par exemple, Hillary Clinton reste bouche cousue sur sa propre m?thode de recrutement.

    It sounds so much more classy in French

    1. Omelette du fromage

    2. ce poste prestigieux

      I don’t think so.

    3. Qu’est-ce qu’on colistier? My guesses would be either a hangman or a parurier.

      1. In context fr.wiktionary.org makes more sense with this. I was thinking col + iste + ier, but it’s co-list-ier.

        1. I parsed it as co-list-ier, simply because it seemed to make more sense.

    4. Hon hon hon!!!

  41. The White House officially says it appears to be a “terrorist attack” via Twitter.

    http://tinyurl.com/gv9song

    1. He’s a lot more willing to call it a terrorist attack when it isn’t in America and it’s campaigning season. Though I guess they didn’t link it to Islam yet, though everyone knows.

      1. His next statement will be, after it’s confirmed that the terrorist was yelling ‘Allah Akbar’ before the attack and has been posting on his facebook page about it for 2 years, and ISIS claims responsibility, ‘we still don’t know why the person did this, we’ll probably never know’.

        1. But we all know that’s bullshit, as it is obviously caused by the NRA, Christians, and republicans. Possibly workplace violence was a factor.

        2. Well, if they’re screaming ‘Admiral Akbar’ they are clearly Star Wars fans angry about Han Solo’s death in ‘The Force Awakens’.

          1. *Spoiler alert!!*

          2. I always thought his name was hysterical, considering he’s not that great of a captain. I mean, you are facing down a huge Empire with a massive fleet, and you don’t do the due diligence on scouting before you go after the 2nd Death Star. “It’s a Trap!” is hilarious, since it shows how damn little Lucas understands any kind of military strategy.

    2. Damn. Here I thought it was a Savoy nationalist demanding Nice be returned to Savoy.

      /snaps finger.

  42. I guess this attack makes the Democrat’s fart in seem a little silly and distasteful now.

    1. Distasteful, or leaving a bad taste in your mouth?

    2. Chemical warfare?

  43. OK, guys, I think we all need some good news.

    So I’m going to tell you about a magical town in Alaska. Instead of having a fireworks show on the 4th of July, they launch cars off of a cliff.

    AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

  44. This picture annoys me.

    1. Its a french thing. they were doing it long before BLM made it cool.

      1. Question: We talked about VIX right after Brexit. I can’t remember what you recommended, but I’m interested now. I shorted TVIX at the time, and just covered today. I’d like to do it again, but with much less risk.

        1. Shorting TVIX and UVXY on any pop is almost risk free. They’re designed to approach zero. Over the long run you can’t go wrong with it.

          1. Almost. But you never know when you’re gonna get called to cover. Rare, but if it’s at the wrong time, it’s very bad.

        2. The trade i was talking about was buying XIV after the Brexit VIX spike.

          The reversion to the mean usually yields a 30-40% gain in the aftermath of a spike above 20

          (sometimes it takes longer, sometimes its faster, but it always goes “back to normal” – which is why its a easy trade. the risk is that there are multiple peaks, and you end up holding on longer than needed and losing ~10% in the costs of holding it)

          Its up 35% since the Monday following (the 27th), which was when we added it.

          I don’t know what you’d do with it now. i’ve never messed with those short term leveraged ETNs like UVIX/TVIX, they’re not allowed in the accounts i work with anyway.

          1. Thanks. That’s exactly what I was looking for. The inverse.

          2. I shorted on the 27th, but I held back a bit. The potentially unlimited downside is…. not something I want to deal with. I’m looking at around 50% returns; I’d have to check and see what the borrowing and brokerage fees were.

  45. Common sense truck control, yadda yadda yadda

    Also I assume this is a current event, but if you’re only going to identify it as happening on Bastille a Day, then you’re necessarily making me guess

  46. Now they’re saying that the truck was full of explosives, which is to be expected, I guess.

    Kind of amazing that they didn’t set them off.

  47. Isn’t this cute. The wealthy liberals are so welcoming of all the immigrants and refugees, until they move to their neighborhood, then all of the sudden, they don’t want them.

    Refugees for thee, but not for me

    1. “Haha!” ?Nelson Muntz

  48. I’m calling it… Buddhist Extremists. Definitely the Buddhists.

    1. It’s the new teabagger/buddhist hybrid terrorists. They’re more scarier than all the rest.

  49. Truck means ‘gun’ in French, you dummies.

  50. I stand corrected. Thought it meant ‘extremely careless’ driving.

  51. Thank god the brave souls at the NSA put a stop to this before it happened. *wistful teardrops*

    1. They need another 100 billion or so for the next several years and then they will get this security thing down. Really, the next 100 billion will be different. Serious. Trust them.

  52. I knew we could rely on at least one NPR commenter to class up this tragedy:

    AKLady ? a few seconds ago
    Do you claim that America is a Christian nation? — Christian Sharia in the U.S.
    Not that long ago, businesses were required to close on Sunday — Christian Sharia in the U.S.
    Demands that same-sex marriage be illegal — Christian Sharia in the U.S.
    Legally deny service to same-sex couples –Christian Sharia in the U.S.
    Access to abortion restricted — Christian Sharia in the U.S..
    Objection to government funded birth control — Christian Sharia in the U.S.
    Demands that our laws agree with God’s law — U.S. Sharia.
    No abortion allowed for rape victims — Christian Sharia in the U.S.
    Interracial marriage ban — Christian Sharia in the U.S.

    1. Okay, you’re a bigot against Christians. Congratulations, welcome to the rest of self-aware humanity. Now fuck off.

      1. I’m converting to Christianity, or Judaism. I don’t care which. I’m still not going to believe in God but at least I won’t have to rub shoulders with these fuckin’ Atheism+ jamokes.

        1. Dude, just do what I do, and call yourself “agnostic”.

    2. Legally deny service to same-sex couples –Christian Sharia in the U.S.

      Because you were allowed to refuse to do business with people that you don’t like, it’s a Caliphate.

      Objection to government funded birth control — Christian Sharia in the U.S.

      *sigh*

      Interracial marriage ban — Christian Sharia in the U.S.

      Look, I’m an atheist, but I’m pretty sure there’s nothing about Christianity that says interracial marriage is wrong.

      1. Pretty sure it’s in that John 3:16 evangelicals are always spouting

      2. Banning interracial marriage is important. Do we really want half human/ half komodo dragons walking around?

        1. God schmod, I want my monkey man.

    3. Dimwit.

    4. Of all of the retarded shit in that comment the part is the part about funded birth control. Expecting people to pay for their own birth control is “Christian Sharia”. That is the most comically stupid thing I have read in a while.

  53. Heard it in passing, maybe from Iowahawk, but someone said of Mike Pence’s name recognition: He’s known by three out of five people in his household.

    1. And if polls are anything to go by, he’d only get a vote from one of them.

    2. I kinda get Trump picking him. I kinda don’t. He’s kind of a socon, so maybe appeal to the #NeverTrump crowd?

      Last time I was in Indiana, tons of people had “Pence Must Go” signs in their yards. That is almost certainly over the RFRA disaster there.

      But, by and large, he doesn’t have much name recognition. Maybe that’s the point. Blank slate with some “conservative credentials” and “executive experience.”

      1. He picked someone not connected with Washington, conventional and sane. It makes sense. It is a pick that everyone will forget about in a week and not hurt him.

        1. He was in the House for over a decade. He does have Washington connections, although most people that are aware of him think of him more as Governor than Representative.

      2. It won’t help him in Indiana. Lets just say it makes sense for Pence to leave Indiana judging from the poll numbers.

        1. Trump almost certainly has Indiana put away. He’s probably not worried about that.

          1. Trump doesn’t even have utah.

          2. Trump might now win a single state.

            1. Yeah. The polls that say otherwise are just evil right wing plot. Does it ever get old being willfully stupid?

              1. The only polls saying otherwise are Rasmussen, which is one of the shoddiest, and a Qunnipinaic poll with ridiculous voter ID proportions. Actually, even that one didn’t say he’d win, it was just a poll of a few states.

                The EC math favored Clinton from the start, and the GOP nominating the worst candidate in history certainly deepened that advantage.

                Oh John, even if I were capable of being stupid, I’d still be smarter than you could ever hope to be. You’ll never even approach my intellect.

                1. The Rasmussen is of likely voters and has a third party option. There have been four polls taken since the FBI recommended not to prosecute. One is Hillary +3, one is Hillary +2, one is a tie and one is Trump +7.

                  You are a delusional idiot. Facts bounce off your head like tennis balls off a rock

                  1. How many points was Hillary ahead by, a year ago? 40? That trend line’s not looking good for her, Cytotoxic.

                2. The only polls saying otherwise are Rasmussen, which is one of the shoddiest,

                  Now he’s echoing shriek’s talking points.

                3. Your flapping Canadian head precludes much cognition.

    3. 3/5ths, huh. Racist! I think?

  54. And:

    Fisherguy ? 2 minutes ago
    Teahadists and Jihadists, what’s the difference?

    1. A body count, for one.

      1. Oh!!! For the win!

  55. Fuck:

    Au moins 77 victimes. Selon un bilan ?tabli vers 2h35, 77 personnes ont ?t? tu?es et au moins 10 personnes ?taient toujours en urgence absolue.

    1. In American:

      At least 77 victims. As of 2:35 (8:35 PM EDT), there were 77 people killed and at least 10 people in extremely critical condition (“dire emergency”)

      (I think. High School French was a very long time ago.)

  56. Libertarian Moment

    specially trained “drug recognition experts” will conduct traditional field sobriety tests.

    1. “drug recognition experts”

      AKA, fellow users?

  57. Sometimes events happen that lead my baser natures to rationalize a policy of genocide. I know, however, it would be wrong and reprehensible… but sometimes it creeps back into my mind.

    1. I understand. I have stopped hiding my belief that Muslim and Western cultures are incompatible and should remain separate. Ferdinand had the right idea.

      1. And the crazy part is that Iberian culture infiltrated the crap out of the Moorish culture, and tended to moderate the extreme and bad tendencies of radical, strict, Islam. You actually had Jews, Muslims, and Christians living in relative peace for almost a century in Spain, until they got ground under the intrafaith conflict, and purity of hidalgo blood became the most important thing.

        1. Which century? They were there for almost 8.

          The Jews got turned on hard at the end because they had been the Mulsims’ bureaucrats and lawyers for so long. The equivalent of the IRS in a dictatorship.

        2. They all got wrapped up in safeguarding their precious bodily fluids?

  58. The guy clearly was a leveller.

  59. Well it took them long enough. But they’ve finally figured out that there’s more ways and more places to kill people than just airports and bombs.

  60. I can’t keep up, are thoughts prayers useful in this situation? Or do we only mock people for expressing religious sentiments when the perpetrator uses a gun in America?

  61. This shows the idiocy of thinking gun control will stop terrorism. It also shows the limits of an armed population. What is a hand gun going to do against a dump truck? Yeah enough armed people will stop it eventually and certainly won’t hurt but it won’t prevent it from being really bad.

    The dark truth is this; as long as you have a significant Muslim population in your county, this kind of shit is going to happen. And the more Muslims you have, the more often it is going to happen. That is just the shitty truth.

    1. “The dark truth is this; as long as you have a significant Muslim population in your county, this kind of shit is going to happen. And the more Muslims you have, the more often it is going to happen. That is just the shitty truth.”

      Actually that’s just a disgusting lie. Albania doesn’t seem to have this problem and it’s over half Muslim.

      Please go back to Stormfront or somewhere more appropriate for someone with your inclinations.

      1. Yes. It’s not aa simple as bigotry would lead you to believe.

      2. Not sure that’s an apples to apples. The people causing these issues worldwide are recent immigrants. The Albanian population is made up by and large by ethnic Albanians. It’s also a lightly populated and rural country with about 2 million citizens in total.

        1. That’s not true. Many of the French shooters last November were French citizens.

          Albania does not have these problems, Kazakhstan doesn’t have these problems, Guayna doesn’t, etc etc. Heck even Morocco seems pretty calm. Last major bombing there was in 2003. Morocco seems like a leading light in North Africa.

          1. I guess it is just bad luck. God you are a fucking moron. Why don’t you tell us more about how Muslim immigration is going to make Europe more free. How many bodies have to pile up before you admit The world has a Muslim problem?

            1. Is there any gun-control argument you won’t regurgitate with Muslims swapped in for guns? I guess that’s the fascist way.

              1. Guns are not people you idiot. Blaming people and ideology is not the same as blaming objects. You really do lack even crude reasoning skills.

                1. Gun owners are, and that’ beside the point. You’re still puking up the same fascist horseshit with bits swapped out.

                  1. Tell us how this happens on a regular basis without a sizeable Muslim population. Explain it because I don’t understand.

                    Fucking know-it-alls think everyone now and in the past are all racists. The Spanish didn’t expell all the Muslims after they took Cordoba in 1492 because they were racists. They tossed them out because they had been living with them for 770 years and knew it didn’t work.

                    1. Ah the Reconquests. And the Cave of Covadanga(?). My high school Spanish teacher would have orgasms talking about it. She was also a Franco supporter.

                    2. The Reconquista really was something. Almost a miracle. It started with Visigoths fighting the initial invades and ended almost 8 centuries later with Portuguese and Spanish fully developed into nationalities.

                2. John, Cytotoxic is not a rational person on this subject. Best to just ignore him. He’s also Canadian, and voted for Justin Trudeau, so who really gives a fuck what he thinks?

          2. French citizens, yes. But they were the first members of their family to actually be born in France. Same for the Orlando shooter and more.

            1. Okay, but they are still not recent immigrants.

              1. I don’t really see how first generation born in a new country doesn’t qualify as recent. They may not have done the immigrating themselves, but the point remains, their family history is that of another country. It seems fairly obvious that their allegiances lie with those countries as opposed to their new ones as well.

                1. Um. Because they’re not immigrants, ‘recent’ or otherwise. Words mean something.

                  1. Right, so you’re sticking on semantics.

                    I don’t see you making any kind of point refuting the idea that the people carrying out these attacks are not people with long histories in the countries they’re killing people in. I suppose that’s because you can’t seeing how there’s a definite pattern of it.

      3. It is not a lie. It is the truth. Albania is an entirely Muslim country. All over the world from the Philipines to Bangledesh to Africa to Europe to the US, where there are Muslims there is Muslim terrorism. Is every Muslima terrorist? No. But it is impossible to tell which ones are and some percentage of them will be.

        That is the truth. It does no good to lie about it. stop making excuses and pretending reality is something other than what it is.

        1. “where there are Muslims there is Muslim terrorism.”

          And where there are guns there is gun violence, and it’s impossible to pretend which gun owners go berserk.

          We’re never going to live out your violent anti-Muslim fantasies John. Best to start getting over it now.

          1. A gun is an inanimate object. Islam is an ideology an Muslims are moral actors. That means they can be responsible where objects can’t. God you are a half wit.

            1. Doesn’t matter. Muslims are not responsible for the behavior of some nutjob in Nice.

              1. The Islamic ideology can’t be held to account, then?

                1. Individuals are held to account, not ‘ideology’.

                  1. Individuals are held to account, not ‘ideology’.

                    No shit. Individuals can adhere to an ideology.

              2. I didn’t say they all were. But that doesn’t change the fact that the price of allowing Muslims into your country in significant numbers you are likely going. To get terrorism. Every year the price paid by Western countries for having Muslim population gets higher. And people like you act like it is just bad luck.

                1. “Every year the price paid by Western countries for having Muslim population gets higher.”

                  No it doesn’t. More lies.

                  1. “Every year the price paid by Western countries for having Muslim population gets higher.”

                    No it doesn’t. More lies.

                    I CAN’T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

    2. Talked to you about this before, but the single most effective way to limit Muslim immigration is to stop subsidizing it and enforce immigration laws. If you do this correctly, you won’t be singling out people based on their beliefs, but on the consequences of their beliefs. If you show a source of income and are banned from receiving any taxpayer money for, say, 5 years, you’re welcome in.

      1. It’s not being subsidized.

          1. What shitty music.

            1. Good. Do I have to explain simple insults?

        1. If the government is paying to relocate them and providing assistance for their living expenses, they’re subsidized.

      2. Talked to you about this before, but the single most effective way to limit Muslim immigration is to stop subsidizing it and enforce immigration laws.

        I agree. But the welfare state has enough of a hard time to distinguish between “worthy” and deadbeat dependents as is. All the socialists institutions and practices taken together, artificially reduce the qualifications to live in a first world country. And until we essentially defeat and abolish welfare statism, this colonization will persist. I think it’s quite possible that the welfare state will survive too long and end up taking western civilization down with it.

        We’re talking about unskilled, predominantly low IQ migrants moving to an advanced economy to which they have virtually no cultural ties or mutual intelligibility. Under non-socialist/statist/whatever conditions, such immigrants would have such an exceedingly hard time making their way that a huge portion of them would simply leave of their own accord and inhibit their attempt in the first place.

        The system as we have it is essentially an extortion racket that forces you to pay for being colonized, en masse, by those who could not otherwise make their indelible mark on that society.

        1. The choices then are to end the socialist policies that create the problem, discriminate based on beliefs or a combination. Which one you think Western societies are willing to adopt at this point? I’d say we’re screwed regardless.

          1. Exactly. Time and time again they hire the state to discriminate for them, instead of firing the state in the capacity in it’s capacity as sugar daddy. Owing to evermore universal suffrage, which is seemingly an inevitable outcome of large-scale democracy itself, the welfare state is basically locked in place like an inoperable brain tumor. Patients that refuse to address anything except the symptoms tend to die.

        2. The Arab Muslims world is the victim of generations of cousin marriage. For one generation cousin marriage has no real effect. Multiple generations of it and you end up with low IQs and all sorts of problems. Two words; Spanish Habsburgs. Low IQ is not the half of it.

          1. It’s quite interesting how culture can affect genetics. Casual atrocities and repeated trauma also don’t do any favors in the intelligence department, an r-selected environment can genetically alter the prospects of future generations.

    3. John, from the video I’ve seen, the people shooting were kind of… cowardly.

      The police motorcycle didn’t even pull up next to the window to shoot the driver. They were probably shooting at the tires.

      I’m not trying to armchair quarterback this, but hey, if you’re collecting hero pay and hero retirement, you should probably do hero things.

      1. True. But it is hard to stop a dump truck with anything short of a rocket launcher.

        1. Uhhh, a rocket launcher won’t stop a dump truck, but that’s irrelevant. The point is to kill the driver. He drove over victims for over a mile. That’s a lot of heroes not doing their jobs, if you ask me.

          1. Or bad shots. It is hard to hit a moving target. And the driver doesn’t really have to see where he is going so probably ducked down behind the dash. It’s a tough shot regardless.

            1. Clint had this covered in the Gauntlet.

              1. Good movie. +1.

          2. Agree with Playa.

        2. Batman did it with the Bat-cycle (which they called the Tumbler in the movie) and some cable.

      2. If I was there I would have jumped onto the truck, climbed onto the hood, kicked through the glass, and then taken out the driver. But that’s me.

        1. And then refused the key to the city?

          1. I’m the hero you need but don’t deserve.

          2. Then battled Humongous for the oil tanker. Or were you channeling Indiana Jones?

        2. If I was there I would have jumped onto the truck, climbed onto the hood, kicked through the glass, and then taken out the driver.

          Yeah, well i would have done those things, AND said, “Allah, You NUTbar!” right before impaling the drivers testicles with the gear lever, steering the truck into the fireworks factory, whereupon i jumped clear and the whole place exploded into a montage of the US and French flags giving each other a Hi-Five.

          Because that’s how *we* do.

        3. I could do that too, I just don’t wanna.

          1. I’m just too hungover. Maybe tomorrow.

    4. “This shows the idiocy of thinking gun control will stop terrorism. It also shows the limits of an armed population. What is a hand gun going to do against a dump truck? Yeah enough armed people will stop it eventually and certainly won’t hurt but it won’t prevent it from being really bad.”

      Gun control laws don’t stop any criminal bent on destruction. What are there something like 20,000 laws now? Maybe the next 20,000 laws will do the trick right?

      Anyway, I want the choice to carry that handgun and if it saves me or mine that is all I care about. Offing a criminal or terrorist would be icing on the cake.

    5. I wonder, if you look at what percentage of people in a population end up killing or trying to kill strangers, the relative rates would be between i) westerners in general, ii) westerners with, say, schizophrenia, and iii) Muslims.

      1. Pretty sure i and iii would be pretty much in the same in almost all the countries. Maybe even ii

        1. I didn’t say “western Muslims”. To the extent that the information relates to immigration — it would defy reason to think that the behavior of a recent Muslim immigrant would more closely resemble a native western Muslim than that of the Muslims in the country he very recently emigrated from and whose cultural norms he was taught.

          1. Okay, but they’re still not killing tons of people.

            1. In the West, maybe, but you seem to keep imagining qualifications that aren’t actually there (not surprising, given your generally delusional nature). Maybe you noticed a country that used to exist, called Syria? Had a little sectarian tiff?

              But what exactly can be done to prevent attacks like this without shutting the entire country down and turning it into a police state? And it’s like he was some one in a million psycho, where you can at least gamble that it isn’t likely to happen again because there aren’t enough people with the right mix of crazy and clever. There are a hundred thousand more people in the world just like him. They can do this as long as they want, for as long as people put up with their bullshit.

              We live in a world where one person can murder 80, where four can murder 150, where 19 can murder 3000, and where thousands are lining up to do just that. (Yes, statists have always been able to manage those numbers, but there is a large visible support network that can be targeted in that case, from taxes to factories to military infrastructure.) When everyone in the political establishment wants to pretend that the problem doesn’t even exist or refuses to acknowledge the elephant in the room that relates all these crimes, the first guy to come along and offer people a solution, even a final solution, is going to find himself sitting on a political goldmine.

              1. Just stop bringing them in, it’s really that simple. I know people think it’s an affront to truth, justice, and the American way but saying your free to go anywhere but here doesn’t strike me as nazi police state Armageddon.

      2. Random killing is not the same threat as terror. Terror is designed to terrorize people into bending to your will. That is a threat to your entire society and freedom. Someone murdering their wife is not the same thing

        1. I said “killing strangers”, not “killing randomly”. Because, as you suggest, there are different factors at play for the killings of friends, family, co-workers, etc. which are more personal.

          1. There is nothing you can do to stop it, except not have Muslims in your society.

            1. Soo.. how do *you* separate stink from shit?

              1. Just refuse entry to anyone who has been in Libya, Syria, Afghan, etc., except for US armed forces, govt diplomats, allied dignitaries, etc.

                Done.

    6. What is a hand gun going to do against a dump truck?

      I dunno, every time I hijack a dump truck or tractor trailer in GTAV, the police get shockingly accurate with their pistols.

      1. Just activate God mode. Maybe the guy in Nice used Allah mode.

  62. It’s long past time for common sense vehicle control.

    How can it be in a modern society it is easier to get a motor vehicle than a gun? Vehicles killed over 32,000 people in the US alone last year! There’s no constitutional right to own a car, so why do you need one? Statistics clearly show that people who own cars are hundreds of times more likely to be involved in car-related fatalities than people who don’t. Just look at these statistics of how many mass-vehicle-murders (defined as a car-related incident in which four or more people were killed) there were last year. If it weren’t for those demagogues in the AAA trying to give every baby their own Yugo maybe we would have fixed this already.

    We need to get vehicles off of our streets NOW!

    1. Dammit, don’t give them ideas.

      1. You think you’re joking, but you’re not…

        http://gizmodo.com/ban-cars-1737654991

    2. Also, what’s with the “automatic” trucks? You don’t need an automatic to hunt deer.

    3. Clearly we should also arbitrarily label some vehicles assault vehicles and ban them. I’m thinking anything that looks big or fast.

    4. You forgot the part about nobody needs an automatic transmission because it makes it easier for people to run over large crowds of people without having to think about changing gears.

  63. What the fuck is a kilometer?

    1. It’s about five furlongs.

      1. Ah, thanks

      2. How many hogsheads?

    2. A superior unit of measurement used in a superior, rational system of measurement.

      1. This is why we need Trump. To keep this sort of shit out of our schools and away from our chillerns.

        1. The metric system, or Cytotoxic?

          1. They’re both vital and awesome and you need them more than they need you.

            1. If twelve inches to a foot and 5280 feet to a mile and 1/8 mile is a hectares and therms and pennyweights and drams and scruples are good enough for God they’re good enough for the commonwealth.

            2. “They’re both vital and awesome and you need them more than they need you.”

              There are two kinds of countries: Those who use the metric system and those who have landed on the moon.

              https://goo.gl/aUIlXM

              😉

          2. I mean, I wouldn’t want him in my kids’ junior high*.

            *It will be a while before my kids are actually in junior high, but I don’t know how long they can hold retarded kids back in the same grade before they give up and kick them out.

            1. I’m sorry to hear that about your kids. Guess it’s hereditary.

            2. They should never mainstream him.

    3. What the fuck is a Lorrie and a Windscreen – fucking English

      1. Probably the same as a boot and headlamps.

    1. English motherfucker. Do you speak it?

      1. Tunisian guy, 31, got all jihadi for some reason.

        1. Another case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome?

          1. Funny Onionesque article (which would never be published there): death toll attributed to “unknown cause” continues to rise. It then goes on the list all of the terror attacks for which Obama or his proxies have opined “we just don’t know why” such violence exists.

        2. I’m surprised they didn’t cling to “French citizen” a bit longer.

          1. It has nothing to do with him being a Muslim. Curl of said so

            1. The Daily Mail article that was linked above quoted people who knew him as saying he wasn’t of any observable religion. Also, that he was despondent over his wife leaving him.

              1. “he was despondent over his wife leaving him”

                We need sensible woman control.

          2. I have no doubt that publications will be calling him “a Frenchman.”

    2. I thought they filmed Star Wars in Tunisia.

      1. That damn blue milk!

  64. Well, that’s a kick in les boules.

    What a horror.

  65. ITT, fascists pretending to fight for freedom.

  66. Graduated and did the eurorail backpack thing in the early 90’s. Ended up in Nice, took in the sights and headed to the train station for the next stop. I came to realize I had a group of three guys, who I would say were of Algerian decent b/c it seemed half of Nice was of Algerian decent, following me and ended up turning on them and asked – what’s up guys. One of them smiled and pulled a knife and I quickly high tailed it to another train without regard to my next destination. Nice is essentially Beriut so what’s the outrage

    1. Thank God you weren’t allowed to carry there. Someone might have gotten hurt.

    2. France is a fucking toilet. I got mugged in Paris after 1 day. Only time in my life – and I have lived in NYC for 20 years. Knock on wood.

    3. I bsckpacked in the late 70s.

      Coming back from the Running of the Bulls went through Nice also.

      I bought a chunk of hash for 5$ .

      I dont remember what else happened in Nice.

      1. You don’t remember what else happened in Nice. Typical man. You said you loved me, you bastard!!!!!!

        * Runs away sobbing *

  67. Yikes, Argentinian soccer has been missing from US cable for a couple years but I had no idea how much my Boca Juniors completely suck now.

    /OT

    1. These gay porn references are so abstract.

      1. Yeah it’s always such insider stuff.

    2. Brah, follow it on the internet!

  68. Tim Tebow is going to bless the Republican convention with his presence? Now Hillary has no chance to win.

    1. He says it’s a rumor and he encourages peace. She still has a chance
      http://www.cbssports.com/colle…..ges-peace/

      1. Aw, how adorkable.

  69. Speaking of horrorshows in France, I’m reading Yuval Levin’s The Great Debate, an exploration of the British statesman Edmund Burke’s philosophical tussles with Thomas Paine, who at the time is writing glowing defenses of the Revolution on the continent. Granted, Levin is an admitted conservative and as such he gives Burke’s writings the limelight, but I find Burke’s rationale very attractive: his central disagreement with Paine, as with Rousseau and Locke before him, is that natural law is an untenable basis for political philosophy. Man’s primal nature is not one of equality but of brutality, and redounding to natural law for one’s philosophical precepts works only inasmuch as they usually never see the light of day, something Paine will shortly come to regret vis-a-vis the plight of France and the rise of Napoleon. The worst thing attributed to Burke is his convenient justifications for the social order of his day, but I think his philosophy transcends vulgar utilitarianism. Society is a thing of constant evolution. In that sense, Burke too bases his philosophy in the natural order but much unlike Locke and Paine’s conceptions of natural law, Burke compares society with nature as evolving orders, gradually growing closer to perfection as the needs of the day imply. Thus, revolution is a thing to be eschewed in favor of arduous, moderate reformations, preserving the institutions that work well and improving those which need it.

    1. “Man’s primal nature is not one of equality but of brutality,”
      Cite missing.

      1. Several months between 1793-94 spring to mind.

        1. See also nearly any kindergarten on Earth.

          1. More like kindergarten through about 8th grade.

            1. Some of us grew up; the others remain Tony and Commie Kid.

        2. See, oh. people trading.
          Nope. There are those who remain savages, but I would say most would rather live in peace. If that isn’t true, you have a perfect argument for Top Men.

          1. That’s the crux of the question, isn’t it? Do you prefer the devils you know, creatures of the current regime, or entrust your fate to the mobs?

            1. I trust that most people would rather not deal with constant conflict, and I think the history of the world backs that very strongly.

            2. I guarantee you one is going to be Marxist at heart. The other is going to happily murder you and your family after being persuaded by the Marxists.

              1. commoditous|7.14.16 @ 11:13PM|#
                “I guarantee you one is going to be Marxist at heart. The other is going to happily murder you and your family after being persuaded by the Marxists.”

                Uh, yeah. OK. Fine.
                Let us know when you crawl out of the shelter.

                1. You don’t get a choice, friend. You get the cards you’re dealt. Or do you really think anarchism is a reasonably achievable goal without reducing humanity to the goatfuckers in primitive societies, but without the tribal civility they’ve managed to preserve ere these long millenia?

                  1. commoditous|7.14.16 @ 11:33PM|#
                    “You don’t get a choice, friend. You get the cards you’re dealt. Or do you really think anarchism is a reasonably achievable goal without reducing humanity to the goatfuckers in primitive societies, but without the tribal civility they’ve managed to preserve ere these long millenia?”

                    You’d be somewhat more intelligible if you learned there is space between perfection and disaster, but then the narrative would suffer.

                    1. We live in a world that plays host to both, and you want to argue there’s no room in between.

                      I used to think you’re a hardliner cynic, but it turns out you’re as vapid as the most triumphalist progressive.

                    2. commoditous|7.14.16 @ 11:48PM|#
                      “We live in a world that plays host to both, and you want to argue there’s no room in between.”

                      Your reading comprehension really sucks.

                    3. You’ve lost your right to rebuttal. You failed to address a single point I brought up. You self-congratulating wimp.

                    4. commoditous|7.14.16 @ 11:59PM|#
                      “You’ve lost your right to rebuttal. You failed to address a single point I brought up. You self-congratulating wimp.”
                      Since you can’t read, I won’t bother responding further.

                    1. Much more curious what you think of Burke.

                    2. We’ll have to table that for next time. It’s time to hit the hay here.

                    3. Lenin wasn’t a warlord. He was a dissident. And his several followers, whatever their differences, weren’t warlords, either. They were political actors. And the notion that there exists a natural man devoid of political influence is fantasy at best.

                    4. I’m arguing more from the demonstrated history of civilization.
                      If Commoditous were right, there would be no self-organized civilization; the world would be in a constant, universal state of savage violence.
                      Demonstrably, it’s not. The first sedentary populations found themselves pleased with trade rather than theft, and found ways of protecting themselves from those who would steal from them.
                      None of this claims there aren’t nasty, brutal people in the world and that does require some sort of organized protection.
                      But to claim mankind is generally nasty and brutal is to ignore history and the rise of self-organizing communities.

                    5. Christ almighty, you triumphalist. Society is built on the bones of previous eras.

                      I’m bookmarking this horseshit. I’m too drunk and you’re too old for a proper route. But tomorrow, you’d better believe. Make your peace with God. We’re coming back for seconds. And I pray to God you’ve got better than snark.

                    6. commoditous|7.15.16 @ 12:15AM|#
                      “I’m bookmarking this horseshit.”

                      Oh, I’m quaking!
                      Or not. Particularly not from claims by a drunkard who can read.

                    7. Sorry:
                      can’t read.

                    8. It’s especially threatening because I’m inviting an atheist to make his peace with God. As you’d better, because the smack down I have planned is going to be biblical.

  70. Certainly not discounting a certain religious motive, but you gotta remember the frogs under de Gaulle managed to piss off most everyone in Tunisia over the span of a couple of years. He made Obo look like a foreign policy genius.
    This assumes the guy was a French-Tunisian.

    1. According to Quincy’s link up top: ‘Un Ni?ois d’origine tunisienne au volant du camion’.

      It says he’s French of Tunisian origin.

      1. So his motive(s) may have been more complex than simply “OFF THE XIAN!”, but by now it’s gonna be kinda hard to find out.

    2. Really? Not saying you’re wrong but my impression was that Algeria was a real cluster-fuck and, for that reason, de Gaulle got out of Tunisia pretty quickly.

      1. I’d have to go back to some books, but as I recall, de Gaulle waffled between supporting the white French in the colonies and then, when public pressure got his attention, started backing the ‘natives’, which meant the white French (military) started a terror campaign, finally pissing off the entire population.
        No? I think most of my info comes from Judt’s “Post War”.

        1. Damn, Post War was brilliant. One of the few 800pp (?) books I would read again.

          De Gaulle was terrible on the colonies but my vague recollection was that he was waffling with Tunisia but, when Algeria started to blow up, he conceded to Tunisian demands to focus on Algeria. Not an expert so I may have things mixed up.

  71. So. Was there one Wile E. Coyote or many?

    I ask because this may hold the key to how the left deals with Muslim terrorists. They act like there’s but one or multiple lone wolf nut jobs.

    1. We need common sense Acme Company product reform.

      1. Nobody needs mail order anvils.

  72. MSNBC headline: “At Least 75 Dead as Truck Plows Into Crowd”

    Damn those vehicles! Damn them, I say! I have had it with those motherf—ing trucks plowing into those motherf—ing crowds!

    1. Guns cause many deaths!

  73. 31 means he came of age in the nineties. What are the odds he just did it because he thought headlines saying “Nice terror attack” would be, like, totally ironic?

  74. Maybe the “Hit & Run” blog wasn’t the best pick for this story?

    1. If we change the name the terrorists win

    2. Ironically, the original name for the blog was Flatten the French.

      1. I heard it was “la petite mort.”

      1. Unfortunately, he drove for a while.
        And armed citizen could have stopped that.

    3. Ah shit I’m triggered.

    4. Ugh:

      Peu apr?s 4 heures du matin, la police avait revu le bilan ? “au moins 80 morts”. Il y aurait ?galement une douzaine de personnes en ?tat d’urgence absolue dans les h?pitaux de la r?gion de Nice.

      1. What’s up with you and this gibberish?

        1. Sounds Canadian to me *squints suspiciously

      2. That’s a lot of morts. Way too many if you ask me. 🙁

  75. Seen on Twitter: via Fox @newtgingrich: “We should…test every person here who is of a Muslim background, & if they believe in shariah they should be deported.”

    1. Do you believe in Shariah?

      No.

      Well, okay then. Enjoy your stay!

      1. Do you forsake Shariah in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

        BLASPH, uh — why, certainly.

        Well, okay then. Enjoy your stay!

    2. Question #1:

      Ahmed feels slighted by a perceived insult to the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH), from some insensitive redneck yokel in somewhere in shitty, retrograde fly-over country. Ahmed should:__________________

      A) Throw acid in someones face.
      B) Detonate his high explosive belt.
      C) Post an rambling, yet compassionate blog about it on a social media outlet.
      D) Enact a hate-speech law barring this sort of bigotry.

      1. Question #2:

        Aisha suspects that Red Cross workers taking blood donations outside of her Mosque are actually CIA operatives building bioweapons against them. Aisha should:_______________

        A) Decapitate a child and parade the head
        B) Drive her car into a crowd
        C) Enter into a constructive dialog with the Red Cross personnel
        D) Paint hate-speech on the Mosque and upload it to social media

        1. B) Drive her car into a crowd

          Women drivers? Preposterous? That is haram!
          Now, whether to behead you in the public square.. or brand you a sodomite, and push you off of the roof of a tall building for such blasphemy. Hmm.. decisions..

      2. Question # 2:

        You’re in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. You reach down and flip the tortoise over on its back, Ahmed. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over. But it can’t. Not with out your help. But you’re not helping. Why aren’t you helping, Ahmed?

        1. I hadn’t thought of that. Does Ahmed fuck tortoises too????

          1. God damned towel headed tortoise fuckers

        2. Shouldn’t this be question #3?

          STOP CONFUSING ME.

      3. Question #2: how many jihadists can you fit on the head of a pin?

        1. One head per pike. No need to be fancy about it.

          1. Well played.

          2. Ouch. That’s a win

    3. Newt also just said on Hannity, that visiting certain web sites should be a felony and get you sent to jail.

      I can understand the impulse, but then I don’t understand why you wouldn’t stop and consider how that could be abused before you open your mouth and say it.

      1. “…I don’t understand why you wouldn’t stop and consider how that could be abused before you open your mouth and say it.”

        Consider the source.

      2. What an idiot. The way to combat the online terror presence is to hack and dismantle the networks, not limit my rights.

        1. Nope, freedom of speech. If I want to call for violently overthrowing the government and replacing it with X, well, what was Ben Franklin doing?
          The way to deal with those sites is to unleash the Reason Commentariat on their comments section.

          1. “The Streisand Postrel Effect”

    4. And it gets even better.

      1. OH GOD I HOPE TRUMP CHOOSES GINGRICH FOR VP AND GETS ELECTED AND THEY REINSTATE THE HOUSE UNAMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE AND HOLD TELEVISED HEARINGS TO ROOT OUT THE RADICALIZERS AND ISIS SYMPATHIZERS WITHIN OUR MIDSTS.

        1. It’s Palin’s Buttplug. Has to be.

    5. ‘Test’ them. like . . . a blood test? A written test? Question one: What is Jesus’ first name?

  76. In the past I may have lightly mocked those who open carried long-arms. While I support it ideologically and I liked the fact that it poked a finger into the eye of the antis I thought it was more ridiculous than useful.

    Now though, I’m reconsidering my position.

    1. Maybe they should start open-carrying box trucks…

      1. Or box truck cutters.

        1. That’s really hard unless you have a friend to open carry the air compressor.

          1. Mines on wheels!

    2. Reevaluating an opinion based on new evidence? WTF is wrong with you?

    3. Having open carried a rifle and pistol in Iraq , I am assure it is a pain in the ass and a bigger pain in the ass to live in an environment where doing so is necessary. Fuck these animals They are taking away our freedom. You are not free if walking the streets retires carrying a gun and fearing for your life.

      1. You got a pistol? I can’t trust you, you’re either a medic, an MP or worse an officer.

  77. Of course France is doubling down on restrictions on speech, religion and assembly. Because everyone knows those things are what cause terrorism and violence.

  78. I think we may have found what triggered the driver. How much do you spend on a haircut?

    1. “an error was enccountered”
      Really, that’s what it says. “It broke.” “Mistakes were made.” etc.

      1. Euro10K?! Does he pay for the guy (gal) to name each hair and record its length?!

        1. The Fat fuck thinks 10k a month will make him look better. Give Bernie credit for at least letting his locks flow crazily like a good socialist.

          1. Not just that it will make him look better, but that he’s needy enough to justify the nation footing the bill.

            And remember – its *from each according to need*, so its irrelevant how *valuable* he is to the nation, only how badly he *needs* it.

  79. I’ve heard there’s also a woman named “laurie” involved.

        1. No Who, Hugh.

          1. Don’t cry.

      1. We just crushed season five of “Veep” and he was excellent as always.

        1. We? You have a mouse in your pocket?

          1. We as in my fleshlights Jacqueline Bisset and Todd.

            1. You have a fleshlight named “Todd”?

  80. Helpful reminder from the anti gun crowd

    “More people die from gun violence than terrorism in America”

    Whew, now I don’t have to worry about ISIS. It’s not like they’re a pseudo nation state with far reaching recruiting pitch.

    Now pardon me as I shake in fear of car accidents, diabetes, and hunger, all of which has a better chance of killing me than terrorism.

    1. Now pardon me as I shake in fear of car accidents, diabetes, and hunger, all of which has a better chance of killing me than terrorism guns.

      Fixed it.

    2. Sooooo – while they’re probably not *wrong*, do they separate out gun violence caused by terrorist actions? Does that get marked in the ‘gun violence’ or ‘terrorism’ columns?

      1. Suicide is the blind spot. Accounts for nearly 2/3 of all gun violence.

    1. Something similar happened to this rugby player:

      http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/36763342

    2. I read that.

      Migraine sufferers get this too. I do although not to the extent he was mentioning to the point of blindness but enough to gloss over my eye.

  81. You know what we need in this world? Something like This. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ League_of_Militant_Atheists

    Say what you will about the Soviet Union, but they certainly knew how to treat these sick Islamic fucks. If this had happened there, the local mullahs would have found themselves on the next cattle car departing for Siberia. Religion of peace, my ass.

    1. Your death would certainly help the world, civilization, and the intelligence of your offspring. Please off yourself.

    2. Yes, comrade commissar, all of those filthy savages are politically deficient..

      1. And in the next thread, he’ll return to mount his high horse of rational pacifism against us “war-mongers”.

      2. And, those Muslims eventually brought vengeance upon the USSR.

    3. Yep. And they knew how to deal with those Christians and Jews too. And the atheists who got too lippy. And the Gypsies. And even the communists who were supporters of the communists that had fallen from the grace of the rich and powerful in the government.

      Fuck man – you sound like Trump.

      1. “…you sound like Trump.”

        Exactly!!!
        Worship of the state is the commonality between left and right, with force and murder as the means of compliance.

  82. And the Vegas odds that this has something to do with Islam are? Good thing France has hyper-regulated gun and transportation control and it has the largest population of Moslems in Western Europe…

  83. MSN site photo.
    Was he driving a RHD vehicle? Did the cops aim at his dog in the passenger seat?
    WTF?
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/…..ge=BBulsDK|4

    1. Not the vid; the still below…

  84. I feel like we’ll see another France attack by the end of the summer.

    Where are we at now, an attack every 2 months?

    1. In the military they call it “operational tempo”. In boxing it’s called “work rate” – basically how many punches can a boxer keep throwing per round (Rocky Marciano was the king of work rate),

      With all the new Muslim arrivals added to the rapidly growing homegrown population – they can sustain a very high optempo indefinitely in Europe.

  85. The headline should be “Religion of Peace Adherent Uses Truck to Disrupt Celebration of Terrorism, 84 Killed”.

  86. Was the terrorist a “refugee” or “home grown” (as if it really makes a fucking difference in that gutter cult)?

  87. Terr de France.

    Who wears the yellow suicide vest?

  88. Somewhat OT:

    So, if nobody’s allowed to draw a picture of Mohammed, and Mohammed’s been dead for some time now, and anyone who would’ve met Mohammed in person has been dead for some time, how would you know a picture of Mohammed is actually a genuine depiction of Mohammed? I could draw a picture of Geraldo Rivera with a beard and say it’s Mohammed, and who would be the wiser?

  89. my classmate’s aunt makes $80 an hour on the computer . She has been out of work for 6 months but last month her check was $18305 just working on the computer for a few hours.click for this website

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.55easyline.com

  90. Showbox Download, Showbox Apk Download, Showbox App Download: Nowadays technology has brought a lot of changes in our lives, especially in education and communication.

  91. I appreciate that you worked hard to make this information interesting and clear. I agree with you
    Bobtail Insurance Warren

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.